Its produced by good old Jesmond Parish Church and looks to be full of excellent stuff.

Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Possibly the most helpful book I have had the pleasure of reading in the last 12 months. Sane and clear exposition of the great doctrines of the reformed faith. And less than 200 pages
Get it. Read it. Re-read it. Give it to your friends…

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.

Remembering Gospel realities can be a good way of restoring correct perspective in the face of difficulties (or blessings) and can help to re-cast your response to a situation, and gradually re-form your character, in the likeness of Christ.

Fieldy mentioned 5 Gospel Filters which were a great starting point for seeing the world correctly. So if you are a Christian, and have at least one hand, why not use it to remind you of these great truths…

(as I was searching for a suitable image to use to create this, I came across the following which is a similar idea with respect to the Word of God - another great resource from the Navigators - The Word Hand.)

“I Asked the Lord That I Might Grow”

I asked the Lord that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace;
Might more of His salvation know,
And seek, more earnestly, His face.

’Twas He who taught me thus to pray,
And He, I trust, has answered prayer!
But it has been in such a way,
As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour,
At once He’d answer my request;
And by His love’s constraining pow’r,
Subdue my sins, and give me rest.

Instead of this, He made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart;
And let the angry pow’rs of hell
Assault my soul in every part.

Yea more, with His own hand He seemed
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,
Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

Lord, why is this, I trembling cried,
Wilt thou pursue thy worm to death?
“’Tis in this way, the Lord replied,
I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials I employ,
From self, and pride, to set thee free;
And break thy schemes of earthly joy,
That thou may’st find thy all in Me.”

John Newton, 1725-1807

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.

No comments from me, but a pointer to the actual text - What He Said since in all the reporting, that often seem quite hard to get to.

A very helpful analysis by David Field - Meet your new god - who argues that this is just an explicit (in the dense and slightly opaque sense of the word) example of ‘principled pluralism.’ Christians beware. Jesus is Lord!

I will side-step the question of whether such ‘consent’ is genuine or not because a different question bothers me.

I am amazed by the number of people who are prepared to stand up for the right for people’s wishes to be upheld after they are dead when contrasted with how few people seem to be bothered with the right’s of human beings while they are still alive.

Apparently in the UK over 1,000 people a year die for lack of organ donation. Compare this with (in 2006) almost 200,000 lives terminated via abortion.

And this latter number is only likely to rise. Thus only a month ago there was discussion about the possibility of GP surgery abortions.

The irony seems to lie in the fact that although people will always debate about when life starts, there seems to be much greater unanimity about when it ends. And when your life has ended, it seems fairly clear that you have no use for your organs. Unlike the person who is still alive…