Starting Small

Catch us the foxes, The little foxes that spoil the vines, For our vines have tender grapes. Song of Solomon 2:15

It always starts in a small way. Perhaps unnoticed at the beginning, but slowly grows until it becomes too big to stop. So it is with church, its doctrines and practices.

We have seen the reports of some of the world’s biggest churches, bow to the practice of accepting gay marriage, including blessing them, and officiating in the god-less unions. The Church of Scotland, United Methodists and Episcopalians are just some who have already given in to secular pressure, and reinterpreted Scripture to suit their own political ends.

It started small, with the academics leading the way by suggesting that we need to accept and be an inclusive church. That means not demonising the gay community, and making them feel loved and accepted. It takes just a few small steps for that to grow into full integration and membership of their church congregations. From there, it is another short step to inclusion into the leadership, ministerial and pastoral. At this point it follows that anyone in the gay community can be ‘married’.

The little foxes spoiled the vines, or to put it another way, the little concessions and compromises inevitably led to the end result. The Bible is not up for negotiation to suit our requirements. Yes, we must love everybody. We are all sinners, and stay that way until saved by grace. Wouldn’t it have been better if the first ‘little foxes’ were confronted and discounted before any harm was done? Maybe that’s all too simple for the top minds in our churches, who have one eye on the political situation, and think they will be left behind if they don’t go with the flow.

It comes down to this: As Christians do we accept the Bible as The Word of God, or a book of recommendations and suggestions? The answer determines if you turn a blind eye to the ‘little foxes’, or let them run riot in the chicken coop. That question is equally valid for the Christian in the pew, as it is for our church leaders.

Inconsistency

“The SNP’s Bill to redefine marriage is to be “fast-tracked” through the Scottish Parliament, with March pencilled-in as the date for Royal Assent. According to the Herald newspaper, MSPs will hold double evidence sessions on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill, with early start times.” - News Report

At the same time as this rush to legislate for homosexual marriage in Scotland, there seems to be a lack of real help for the victims of the horrific gas attack on innocents in Syria. Yes, I do know about money being sent to help refugees, but welcome as it might be, it is like placing a band aid over the already festering sore? Would it not be a better idea to tackle the root of the problem, and not the symptom?

I bring these two newsworthy items together to show the inconsistency of government to show leadership, and to demonstrate the disrespect it has for the wishes of the electorate. I would suggest that there are times when government must show leadership to take the nation in a direction which the ordinary people would not ask for. Take military action as an example. If you ask the man or woman in the street if they want to use our service men and women in a war zone, they would naturally say no, because we are careful about putting our young men and women in harms way. However, there must be times when military action is the right thing to do. Of course, the major party in Scotland is calling for the removal of the Trident deterrent from Scottish soil, so by definition we diminish any argument for the use of military force of any nature, and at any time especially the use by rogue states of other weapons of mass destruction. We are good at showing off our forces at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, though.  

The other aspect of leadership which is lacking is on same sex marriage in Scotland. The largest consultation response in the life of the UK and Scottish Governments were received on this matter, but set aside. There were various reasons given for this, eg: some churches and organisations used postcards with tick boxes, and when those results are taken out of the overall response, the result flips to the desired political outcome. Another example of a lack of leadership in Scottish politics. To compound the issue, as the press release above says, the SNP is fast-tracking the same sex bill, and holding double evidence sessions to make sure it passes all political hurdles, as it surely will. I suggest there is an unholy rush, and we will get the Independent Scotland we deserve if both the bill, and the Independence Referendum succeed.

I smell inconsistency in the corridors of Scottish power.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8

Blogging

You can make friends and enemies when you put your thoughts down in a blog. That is understandable, because all bloggers have opinions, which they freely express, but the reverse is also true because readers have opinions too. Sometimes differing views on the same topic, and sometimes the lines cross, and we end up having a better understanding, even when not in agreement, than when we stood alone in our thinking.

As you may know, this particular website will cease in August, and be replaced by a new and hopefully better signpost to our local church at: http://portnazarene.wix.com/portglasgownazarenes and we hope you will join us there. It is impossible to know how many people read the blogs, but we can say with certainty how many respond with their own comments. Sadly, there can be little interaction so it is  impossible to gauge any general thinking on any subject whether inside or outside the local church. The new website already has links to the blogger within its pages, so you can still read, and either ignore or reply on the blogger’s original website:  http://pics-mphoto.blogspot.co.uk/. I do not expect the traffic to increase just because there is a new website, but I hope you will continue to pop in occasionally to see what’s going on in our local church and community.

I mentioned responses, and at this point, I feel I must thank Anon for his contributions over a period of time on same sex marriage in Scotland and the UK. We do not always agree. In fact we seldom do, but I recognise the depth of feeling he expresses, and the frustration that the law is not changing as fast as he would like. On this subject, I reckon we will always be in opposite corners of the debate, but I am getting to know Anon a little better each time there is a contact. It may come as a surprise, but I prefer it when someone is open and says what they think (even when anonymous), to silence when guesswork is needed. This is a church website and blog, and so I think the vast majority of readers will be mainstream Christian. So, the question I have to ask myself is, why are there no other responses? I think Anon’s opinions would represent the minority of readers, and yet he expresses himself for us all to read, but there is no alternate view to act as a balance. It is no longer an argument/debate between Anon and me, it is more like a conversation where we know what we each think, and allow our opinions to be aired, and in the process get to understand our belief systems. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so, after all we are told not to judge, even when we disagree. Now that the UK law is being altered to allow for same sex marriage, I don’t think I will hear from Anon again, because it seemed to be a one story comment response. I hope I am wrong.

So, all that to say thanks to Anon (whoever you are, and wherever you live) for your openness, and even your frustration with my own opposing opinions. I do not see you as an enemy, but just like me, a sinner in need of God’s grace! In that respect, we stand on level ground at the foot of the cross, and as individuals before the judgement throne!

The Camel

“A camel is a horse, designed by committee” so the old saying goes.

The past week in the UK has seen some groundbreaking changes and decisions made by committee. If you live outwith Scotland/UK, I will try to help you understand. Those who live in our country, need no explanation.

Two important, but very separate and different committees convened on 20/21 May to discuss and decide on the same general issue which has plagued our church and nation over the past few years. In both cases the horse went in and came out as a camel. Let me explain.

The UK government of elected representatives met over two days to decide if the institution of marriage which up until now has meant the union of a man and a woman only, can be redefined to include any combination of man/woman. All in the name of equality, or at least one definition of equality. In their ‘wisdom’ they decided by a large majority to change marriage as soon as possible and redefine it. A camel emerged. Of course the UK is not alone, at the last count many other European countries have done the same, as have some US States.

At the same time as the UK government were discussing, debating and voting, so too was the national Church of Scotland. They convened their annual General Assembly to decide if a homosexual man or woman can be accepted as a minister in a church which calls them, and that was carried. At the same time, they say they hold to the Biblical truth that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. It should be remembered that this church already had a number of homosexual ministers in churches around the country. I have to confess that I feel for members of the church who, in good conscience, stayed with the church as it deliberated over the past few years while the committee sat. Another camel emerged.

There is a groundswell of change happening very quickly, and before our eyes. If you happen to be in the minority of any significant faith group (Jewish, Muslim or Christian) your views have been listened to politely (but ignored) while the views of a minority have succeeded. This is democracy at work I suppose. The only thing that might give us hope is that when these same significant faith groups become a minority themselves, and they will, maybe then the governments and churches will take notice of their own people and do the right thing. In the meantime, if we ever needed it, we who live in the UK are confirmed as not only secular humanist, but with no moral compass, and God-less. I wonder how many more committees will make camels from horses in the future?

Powers

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12 NIV

The UK government has two big ticket items that have hit the news in the recent past, namely: Minimum Pricing for alcohol, and the Redefinition of Marriage. In the beginning (now there’s a place to start) the government decided that they should support traditional marriage and families who try to work and do their best in difficult circumstances, and they also recognised the problems caused by the abusive use of alcohol, and the policy of minimum pricing was conceived.

For one reason or another, the protection of traditional marriage was sacrificed for the policy of redefining marriage, and the policy of minimum pricing of alcohol has been dropped. There is a very obvious common factor here. Both of these principles have large and powerful lobbies at work to get their own way. The alcohol industry does not want to have any limit placed on their ability to sell alcohol to whoever they want, including those, usually young, vulnerable binge abusers of alcohol, and they dismiss all and any evidence from the medical groups who see the effects on a daily basis. Then there is the Stonewall group, who have a very vested interest in pushing the self interests of the very small homosexual community, which was less than 2% in the 2011 surveys.

So, one group controls their profits, and the other, a minority (not even a large minority) push their agenda at every opportunity, but (and a big but), both have powerful friends in government. What chance does the ordinary, normal, rational, thinking person of any moral standing have against such a heavy and organised opposition? Paul tells us how we should respond in the next few verses which follow:

Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled round your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

Seems Right

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. Proverbs 16:25 NKJV, or as it says in the Message translation: There's a way that looks harmless enough; look again—it leads straight to hell.

So, it has now started and it’s official. The Scottish Government announced its intention to bring forward a bill to legalise same sex marriage in the forthcoming parliament year. So by this time next year, same sex marriage will become a ‘normal’ part of Scottish life, that is unless something very unusual and supernatural happens. All of the political parties are in favour, so it is a ‘dead cert’, and I make no apology for the phrase used. Having watched the American election conventions, the same thing will happen if President Obama is re elected, so this is not just a Scottish/UK thing. The biggest difference is that the people in the USA still have a choice, whereas in the UK, all (and that’s ALL) major political leaders/parties support same sex marriage. there is no choice left.

The arguments centre around words like ‘equality’ and ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘impartiality’ and sound good. The words seem to be right, but the words of Proverbs 16:25 should make us, as a people of faith, sit up and take notice. The first translation is the way we tend to think of the text, but the second translation says it in today’s language, and is clearer. This looks harmless enough, but leads straight to hell. These are not my words, but the inspired words from Scripture.

The coming year will be interesting as politicians run rings round any faith group who tries to disagree with their equality argument, and these churches and religious representatives will run the gauntlet of catcalls and intolerance. The very things that these same sex groups have always accused the church of! Quite a double standard, but that will be missed in the verbal scuffles that we will hear on TV and radio. The coming year will be significant in our nation’s once proud Christian history, but I can’t help but dread what society will be like in say 20 or 50 years time. I am glad I will not be here to witness the outcome on what becomes acceptable to our children and grandchildren. We have ditched God and morality for something that leads to hell, but seems right meantime.

Scotland is now a secular society, which by definition is: “Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.” So our future as a nation again by definition, independent or not, will be governed by a Godless set of people and laws. I see the problem very simply. We no longer hold the Bible in any respect or honour, and therefore we do not need to obey the God as described in that book. We hardly even carry it to church anymore. The result is that we, as a nation, have no morality or ethical set of beliefs to guide us. We have opted for the choice of living in a nation where we make up the ‘new morality’ as we go along. All driven by those who shout loudest, and not necessarily the moral, or the majority. The fundamental question I am left with, is this: Do we accept the Bible as Holy and the complete truth, or do we trim it down to suit ourselves? Just asking.

Tough Call

Question: Should I attend a same-sex wedding/civil ceremony of a relative/friend?

I said it was a tough call. So what would you do? Would you not attend out of embarrassment, or conviction (Christian or otherwise), or attend because you agree with the principle of same sex union, or don't have the 'nerve' to say no? This question originated in a recent Christian periodical, and not from someone making mischief. This comes from a heart that wants to do the right thing in this secular world, but also in the sight of a Holy God. Yes, it's a tough call!

The UK and Scottish governments are in the process of a consultation which will probably result in the definition of marriage as we know it, being changed to include homosexual marriage. It has already happened in other countries, so the same question is relevant to many.

Due to the topical significance of the question, I am interested in your thoughts, but not just your thoughts, your reasons too. That can be in support, or not. One thing is sure, we will be faced with making the decision sooner rather than later. 

Marriage it is NOT!

mar·riage (Dictionary Definition)

  –noun

The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Quote: The Tories will consider the case for renaming same-sex civil partnerships as ‘marriages’. Yesterday Tory equalities spokeswoman Theresa May launched a document that stated a Conservative-led government would “consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.”

Ok, so now we know that the door is open. Not just ajar, but open. There was no shouting, no debate, no discussion, the minority has spoken, we bowed, and we have fallen like a house of cards. Like a domino rally, all in a row, one moral standard after another. I remember being told by those who advocated civil partnerships, that this could never be thought of as a marriage, all that was wanted was civil equality in matters of state. Well, well, it hasn't worked has it? What happened while we slept on our watch? The enemy has got in, and we will reap the results and regret in leisure.  


I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of tip-toeing around the PC culture we have created, which we all thought was going to protect us. Instead this one way tolerance has brought us to see changes which would have been unthought of a mere 30 years ago. And all the while the clock ticks, time passes, more bad law is introduced, and we tut-tut and moan about them.


We have now successfully reduced the sanctity of marriage to a mere joining of two people, and it doesn't have to be a man and woman. It might as well be a man and a chicken (or a woman and a turkey) for all it means now! To cap it all, this is being considered by the political party who is supposed to be the guardian of family values. Who are we kidding? 

I started to blog about the moral position of the politicians, as we head towards the General Election. Now this eleventh hour statement which will tickle the ears of the 'social progressives', but make the other normal voters wonder, what comes next. The polls seem to show that the Conservatives will win this election, so now we must... watch this space!! 

Marriage and Commitment

Labour and Lib Dem election chiefs have attacked Tory plans to give low-income married couples a tax break of £150.

There are many sides to this argument, and depending on your own circumstances, will like the plan or hate it! I find the responses from the opposing parties, say more about their 'moral politics' than the announcement of the tax break!

Labour says,"If you're a widow you get this money taken away from you and if a woman's husband beats her up and she leaves him, she loses out as well." This says nothing about the commitment of a couple who are in it for the long haul, and show a moral conviction.

Lib Dem says, "The proposal from the Conservatives for tax breaks for marriage are patronising drivel that belong in the Edwardian age".

Why is it that the opposition parties are only good at that? Opposing? How about tackling the long term family neglect that this country has suffered over the past number of years? How about supporting the single most important institution in any society, marriage?

I would say on this one point, two parties have shot themselves in the foot. I know the election outcome will depend on more than one issue, but it is one of the moral points where they all speak clearly, and are counted!