It also calls into question the wisdom of seeking to ‘buy peace’ with the Taliban. President Karzai appears to be pursuing a policy designed to produce a ‘Taliban-friendly’ society. When International forces withdraw, what kind of state will be left? Why does this aspect of the situation in Afghanistan never make the headlines?

Please pray for persecuted Christians in Afghanistan – and for those Afghan Christians who have been forced to flee the country due to the threats against them. And pray against such an oppressive regime establishing itself more firmly.

How wonderful, on Easter Sunday, to celebrate the Christian hope – that death is not the end, and that we will be raised with Christ. Here are a few words from Mark, recorded about 8 months ago, which show how that hope has transformed his life.

At the risk of sounding unduly cynical, our current crop of politicians seem more motivated by what people want to hear, rather than what they actually believe/stand for. Perhaps this is the real reason for the increasing apathy amongst young voters.

It strikes me that the same tendency can easily slip into our pulpits today – the desire to say what people want to hear rather than what we actually believe. Ironically when we say what “itching ears” want to hear (cf. 2 Tim 4:3), we may reach a wider audience, but all power and authenticity is lost. Hence the historical decline in the liberal churches. This may parallel the disenfranchisement of many voters in the UK today.

There is a difference between disagreeing with someone’s views and actively hating that person. It is possible to criticise someone’s views or actions without the aim of arousing hatred against them.

Intolerance is all about failing to respect the beliefs of someone who holds a different view from you. It does not mean we must all hold the same views. Nor should ‘respecting’ someone else’s view mean you can’t express a different view or criticise it. Otherwise our very parliamentary process would fall apart since Labour MPs would be guilty of intolerance to their Conservative colleagues and vice versa.

I am all for tolerance. But as I believe I have argued before, for tolerance to have any content more than one point of view must be on the table. I cannot have a tolerant attitude towards you if I hold the same views as you – that is simply agreement. Only if I hold a different view from you can I have a tolerant attitude towards you. Tolerance means I respect you and the fact that you hold a different view, but it also means I have a right to air a different view.

I have no wish to see a rise in the number of ‘hate crimes’ and would certainly not condone violence in the presentation of any view. But nor do I want to see any further examples of heavy-handed policing in situations where Christians are simply expressing their views.

So for the time being, this does indeed seem to be a victory for both Free Speech and Common Sense. But I respect your right to disagree with me…

Two interesting articles in The Times in the last few days.

On Saturday we heard that Ned Flanders and his evangelical buddies have ‘won the evangelical crusade.’ Whilst I wouldn’t agree with everything in the article, it is encouraging that there is the recognition that the myth of modernity (that we would all rationalise away God) is being recognised for what it is – a myth – in the national press. Read more here.

The (inevitable?) backlash came today when we learned that Rumours of God’s return are greatly exaggerated. A slightly more annoying article, this one, returning to the usual cheap jibes.

Questioning the statistics is fine; even suggesting that pet-ownership is better for you than religion is an interesting claim. But the unjustified assumption that religion is something that should be private not public (why? says who? on what basis?) cannot just be stated.

And the implicit criticism of ‘religious conservatism’ being a danger when it affects the sexual education of our children is an another example of the double standards of the secularists. Where is the evidence that this early sexual education is helpful in reducing teenage pregnancies etc.? There isn’t any. It is assumed without any evidence in support of it, and in spite of the tangible evidence of the lack of effectiveness of this policy in our own country.

It will be happening in Eastbourne (on the South Coast) on May 1-4th 2009 and would be a great opportunity to have a little weekend away, maybe with friends or as a church.

The cost is £50, £1 for kids so it represents great value. There’ll be main sessions, seminar streams and a full youth and children’s programme.

The people involved this year include – Wallace Benn, Terry Virgo, Kent and Barbara Hughes, Paul Williams, Mike Ovey, Ben Kwashi, Andrew Baughen, Phil Moon, Simon Vibert, Stef Liston, as well as Stuart Townend, Phatfish and Simon Brading. As you can see the event offers a great selection of speakers, from a good range of churchmanship – plans are already in place for an equally strong lineup in 2010.

Find out more at  www.biblebythebeach.org

We were therefore delighted to have our attention drawn to a piece by Matthew Parris from The Times a couple of days ago. In it, confirmed atheist Matthew Parris states that, “Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem – the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset.”

He is arguing that the individualism of post-reformation Christianity is a much needed antidote to the problems caused by the “crushing tribal groupthink” that characterises the rural African mind.

Whilst we might see an over-emphasis on individualism in many protestant forms of Christianity as a distortion of the New Testament teaching on the inter-connectedness of all believers in Christ, it is wonderfully refreshing to see an atheist with the intellectual honesty to affirm the life-changing nature of the gospel, and to speak of its benefits. Congratulations Mr Parris!

We would like to wish you all a Happy New Year, and one in which you know more of the life-changing work of the Triune God.

However, the ethical questions aside, as so often I am most disappointed by the level at which the argumentation seems to take place. Consider the example of ‘the need for a father.’

I understand that there is plenty of evidence that the absence of a father has a significant impact on children in terms of health, education and employment. That is emphatically not the same as saying ‘lesbians will make bad parents’ (the rather obvious, rhetorically effective and yet entirely false spin which oponents would put to those making this claim. Take the following less emotive example to make the point. If I say ‘I think Apples are very good for you’ that does not mean that I therefore think ‘Oranges are bad for you.’).

But, regardless of this, the primary argument against retaining this factor for consideration in the ‘welfare’ test for IVF seemed to be the possibility of discrimination against lesbian couples and against single women.

Although the surface argument (and so most of the media noise) concerns the ‘welfare of the child’ – the reality is this argument boils down to declaring some kind of right to have a child. And this seems argument seems to be absurd. Where do we get the notion of ‘the right to have a child?’

If a woman is physically unable to have a child (due to some medical condition) does ‘the right to have a child’ mean that she can press-gang some kind of surrogate mother into bearing a child for her? If it is an absolute right, then can a 10 year old boy demand ‘the right to have a child’?

A child is not some kind of status symbol or accessory but is a person. In focusing on the ‘rights’ of some person to have a child, and especially in that positive-sounding (but in reality deeply misleading) phrase ‘the right to choose what happens to your body’ we have completely missed this point.

May God have mercy on our nation.

For some well-researched arguments about the science and the ethics of these issues may I recommend the Christian Medical Fellowship site.

This may well be a very positive thing – particularly in relation to the rights and treatment of women in that society.

Although, as a Bible-believing Christian, I would deny the truth of the Islamic texts, two of the approaches which the article suggests are involved in the process are very similar to what we seek to do in understanding the Bible:

1. Trying to interpret individual verses in the light of the whole text
2. Trying, as far as possible, to return to the ‘text as given’ and so to remove ‘later interpolations’

However, the overall process sounds to be an extremely subjective one in which the aim is really to produce a new version of Islam which suits the needs of the state and the mores of the day.

It is in the light of this that some of the comments by Fadi Hakura (“an expert on Turkey”) seemed particularly inaccurate:

“This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation,” he says.
“Not exactly the same, but if you think, it’s changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. ”

It seems that Mr Hakura hasn’t really grasped anything of the Essence of the Reformation. It wasn’t a revision of the text in the light of current social ideals, it was a return to the text which was used to challenge current social (and particularly religious) practises. The entire basis of the reformation was a submission to the texts themselves – not the subjective revision of the texts.