Welcome to the Christian Voice UK National Director's Blog. Find Press Releases, E-Alerts, and a Christian take on the news. See more at http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/

Make sure you right-click on links and open them in a new tab or window so as to keep this blog on-screen.

Over the next few weeks, the articles here both old and new will be copied on to www.christianvoice.org.uk and this blog will wind down. Thank you for following, and will followers now please kindly follow us to http://www.christianvoice.org.uk

Friday, 26 August 2011


Christian campaigners are praying for a large turn-out in St Austell on Wednesday 7th September for the hearing of a sex-shop application.

The meeting will be held in Restormel District Council Chamber, 39 Penwinnick Road, St Austell, PL25 5DR, at 10.00am. The sex-shop itself is in Little Castle Street, Truro, next to a shop selling school uniforms about 200 yards from the Cathedral.


PRAY: For a large number of Christians and concerned parents and residents to attend the licensing committee on 7th September. That the Licensing Committee will overturn its previous decision and refuse a license for the sex-shop. Pray for the fear of God, or at least some consideration of the welfare of children, to inform the committee

WRITE: The time for formal objections having passed, write or email the members of the Miscellaneous Licensing Committee being respectful but firm in urging them to reject the proposal for a sex shop in Truro as inapproriate for the City and locality (Each is addressed 'Dear Cllr SURNAME'):

Cllr Jim Flashman (Chairman) (Conservative: Kelly Bray)
West Prince Farm, Sevenstones, Callington, Cornwall, PL17 8HZ
Phone: 01579 350893, Mobile: 07976 253692
Email: jflashman@cornwall.gov.uk  

Cllr Lisa Dolley (Vice-Chairman) (Independent: Redruth North)
8 Plain-An-Gwarry, Redruth, Cornwall, TR15 1HU
Mobile: 07807 787280
Email: ldolley@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Russell Bartlett (Conservative: Gunnislake)
Bracken, 1 Myrtle Terrace, Drakewalls, Gunnislake, Cornwall, PL18 9ES
Phone: 01822 833681
Email: rbartlett@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Grenville Chappel (Independent: Falmouth Penwerris)
26 Grenville Road, Falmouth, Cornwall, TR11 2NW
Mobile: 07799 143588
Email: gchappel@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr George Edwards (Liberal Democrat: Newquay Treloggan)
Flat 18, Chymedden, Trebarwith Crescent, Newquay, Cornwall, TR7 1TG
Phone: 01637 852251
Email: gedwards@cornwall.gov.uk

Cllr Steve Eva (Independent: Falmouth Arwenack)
34 Trescobeas Road, Falmouth, Cornwall, TR11 2JG
Phone: 01326 311539, Mobile: 07974 812103
Email: seva@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Brian Hobbs (Liberal Democrat: Torpoint East)
41 Peacock Avenue, Torpoint, Cornwall, PL11 2EX
Phone: 01752 814575
Email: bhobbs@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Scott Mann (Conservative: Wadebridge West
3 Bethan Drive, Wadebridge, Cornwall, PL27 7RW
Phone: 01208 815561
Email: smann@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Mick Martin (Conservative: Lanivet)
Galorndon Core, Millpool, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL30 4HZ
Phone: 01208 821200
Email: mmartin@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Chris Pascoe (Liberal Democrat, Threemilestone and Gloweth)
Willow Green Farm, Threemilestone, Truro, Cornwall, TR4 9AL
Phone: 01872 263612, Mobile: 07971 573766
Email: chpascoe@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Liz Penhaligon (Conservative: Lelant and Carbis Bay)
Sovigo, 47 Upton Towans, Hayle, Cornwall, TR27 5BL
Phone: 01736 756939
Email: epenhaligon@cornwall.gov.uk 

Cllr Christopher Rowe (Liberal Democrat: Penwithick)
Sanfernando, 78 Treverbyn Road, Carclaze, St Austell, Cornwall, PL25 4EW
Phone: 01726 75835, Mobile: 07974 944683
Email: chrisrowe@sanfernando.fsnet.uk


A previous decision in August 2010 by Cornwall Council's Miscellaneous Licensing Committe, by seven votes to three, to grant a license to the sex-shop, 'Mrs Palm', was overturned on Judicial Review and the license quashed in June 2011 after an application from the Christian Institute on behalf of Truro resident and former County councillor Mrs Armorel Carlyon.

However, the owners of the sex-shop immediately applied for a 'waiver' to trade without a license in the interim and that was granted by the Council's Miscellaneous Licensing Committee. An attempt by the Christian Institute to challenge the grant of the waiver by Judicial Review was refused by the High Court on Monday 22nd August 2011.

The result is that the 'Mrs Palm' sex-shop is open and trading already on the waiver in advance of the license re-hearing.


The objectors say that the sex-shop is inappropriate in Truro, which is a Cathedral city popular with tourists and families and which already has an unlicensed 'Ann Summers' shop which sells mainly lingerie. They observe that Cornwall Council can lawfully set the 'appropriate number' of sex-shops in Truro at 'Nil' under the relevant Act of Parliament.

In any case, they say that right next-door to a school uniform outfitters is not an appropriate location for a sex-shop. Campaigners say that if a sex-shop can open in a Cathedral city next-door to a shop whose business depends on a regular traffic of school-children, such an establishment can open anywhere.

They have noted that Northamptonshire Council recently rejected a plan to convert a disused corner shop into a takeaway fish and chip shop, on the grounds that its location, in the vicinity of two schools, could undermine health policies. While health appears to a factor local authorities can take into consideration, moral issues are not listed among those which a council can take into account when deciding upon an application for a sex-shop.


A 700-strong petition against the sex-shop was presented to the Council after being gathered by the owners of Trevails, the school outfitters shop. Many of their customers have expressed disquiet at having to walk past 'Mrs Palm' to buy school uniforms. 99 letters of objection were sent in.

Cornwall Council is Conservative-controlled with the support of the Independent Group (Cons 48 seats, LibDem 40, Ind 32) and the Chairman of the Council's Miscellaneous Licensing Committee, Jim Flashman, is a Conservative. Elections to the Council will be held again in May 2013.

Thursday, 18 August 2011


With full attribution to World Net Daily:


In Article:
Brace for another U.S.-Mideast war
First Libya, now sources say next country warned of NATO attack

. . .

George Soros-funded doctrine with White House ties

The Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of a military doctrine called Responsibility to Protect.

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.

As WND reported, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on boards with Soros.

WND reported the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Also the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect.

The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "responsibility to protect" while defining its guidelines.
The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr's founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power's center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.

Two of the global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "responsibility to protect."

As WND reported, Soros' Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. Also, Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

(Note: Ask your MP - Email address HERE - to ask the appropriate Secretary of State how much money the UK has given to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, from which budget is has come, what the grant(s) is intended to achieve and how this will be monitored.
There is an in-depth study on the funding of Responsibility to Protect HERE and more on how Soros switched from being pro- to anti-Gadaffi  and the implications of R2P on Israel HERE)

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

More George Soros ties

"Responsibility" founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairmen with Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corp. charitable foundation, on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "responsibility to protect."

In his capacity as co-chairman, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."

Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

'One World Order'

WND reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

Tuesday, 16 August 2011


It was with a mixture of disbelief and amusement that I heard atheist historian David Starkey tell Newsnight's Emily Maitlis on 12th August that the main cause of the riots in England last week was the spread of black culture.  'The whites have become black', he said. 

He gave examples of Jamaican patois ('innit', 'dat', 'dem') 'which has intruded in England' to illustrate his point of 'profound cultural change'.

Starkey went on to voice a silly assertion that David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, whose parents are from Guyana, was 'an architypical successful black man' but if you heard him speak 'you would think he was white'.

Starkey was challenged by author Dreda Say Mitchell, who also has Caribbean parentage and also speaks with received pronunciation, and by the author of 'Chavs', Oxford educated, white, well-spoken Owen Jones.

Starkey has a mini-point, which probably did not warrant a full airing on Newsnight, but it was clumsily and ignorantly made.  And as a militant atheist he would be unable to provide an objective source of the very concepts of right and wrong on which his argument depended.

Perhaps Starkey doesn't mix with people enough, for his line of thinking, that a small minority of Jamaican gangsters define 'black culture', is as absurd as saying that the South and East London gangsters of the fifties and sixties or for that matter the punk rockers of the eighties defined 'white culture'.  There are and were different white cultures and different black cultures.

However, leaving aside the criminals who exist in every place, the most significant aspects of black culture as a whole, in Africa and in the Caribbean, are those of a Christian respect for God and for elders and a defense of Christian values in the family.  While it is true that some young men of Caribbean origin in the UK have embraced rather too enthusiastically the decadent sixties culture of Britain, their underlying culture, and overwhelmingly that of black Africans, is rooted in a strong defence of Christian morality, of sexual fidelity and modesty.

Because of their God-fearing base, Caribbean and African cultures are also strongly opposed to homosexuality, something which the homosexual Starkey, an 'Honorary Associate' (if there can be such a thing) of the National Secular Society, and a supporter of the late Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality (they don't need one these days), who has described himself as an "excessively enthusiastic advocate of promiscuity", will also find less than appealing.

In fairness, Starkey has also warned of a tyrannous new morality based on aggressive promotion of gay rights in which Christians are persecuted.   But he is a fool in the Biblical sense, and if he were informed by Christian theology on the unity of the human race he would not have made such a fool of himself on Newsnight.

PRAY: Sometimes there are people who we think 'ought' to be saved and others who are so repulsive we find it hard to love them enough to want their salvation.

David Starkey may well fall into the latter category but he is still made in the image of God and he still needs the intrusion of the Holy Spirit and the saving grace of Jesus Christ to reveal to him his sin and his need of forgiveness and acceptance as an adopted son of the Father.  From that he will find that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7) and move from ever learning to the knowledge of the truth (2Tim 3:7). 

If you can find sufficient charity in your heart (and you should) please pray for him.

Monday, 15 August 2011


Please view our VIDEO and sign our PETITION to Save Africa from Sodomy!

A 300,000 Euro grant for the promotion of gay rights in Cameroon has led to a diplomatic rift, Christian Voice has discovered.  It predates David Cameron's declaration, exposed on this blog, that he will use British aid to promote homosexuality in Africa and the Caribbean.

The European Union gave the grant in January to a group of pro-gay organisations led by Cameroon's Association to Defend Homosexuals (ADEFHO).

But Cameroon's Foreign Minister Henri Eyebe Ayissi immediately summoned the head of the EU delegation in Cameroon, Raoul Mateus Paula, for a ten minute meeting to protest against the funding of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) groups that "violate the laws of Cameroon."

The award of the grant has also prompted calls for the arrest of lawyer Alice Nkom who founded ADEFHO.  However, it appears the Cameroon Government may itself have recognised ADEFHO as long ago as 2003.

The grant award will no doubt make Alice Nkom wealthy and increase her visibility but if anything it has created a more hostile environment for homosexuals in Cameroon.  In January, three men were arrested in Cameroon and charged with committing homosexual acts.

In August 2011, another three were arrested for acts of gross indecency in a car.

PRAY that Almighty God will reveal the extent of the European Union's attempts to undermine Christian morality in Africa.  Ask your MEP (Find him/her here with email address) how much money the EU has given to Africa for sexual rights and reproductive rights over the last ten years.


Matthew 6:24  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Last months's Christian Voice newsletter carried an article about David Cameron's party for gay activists in 10 Downing Street.  We also reproduced the full text of his speech.

Mr Cameron's determination to force sodomy on Africa was also printed in Pink News, which was understandably delighted, and in the London Evening Standard.  The Press Association syndicated the story world-wide, so it hardly suffered from inadequate or biased reporting.

Whatever one's view on the rights and wrongs of using foreign aid to co-erce the governments of poorer nations to legalise vice, or indeed to change policy in any direction, the bare facts were undeniable. 

Mr Cameron's declaration of intent has led us to call a meeting next month, to record a VIDEO and post a PETITION, all with a hope that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at the end of October will tell Mr Cameron that the white man does not know best and that his neo-colonialism is not acceptable in the modern world.

We circulated details of the video, petition and meeting by e-mail to our members and supporters and wider afield, in the hope that there would be an international reaction against what we see as David Cameron's cultural imperialism.

One e-mail recipient, a member indeed of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, decided to complain closer to home, and e-mailed its leadership, hoping to elicit their support in bringing some prophetic witness to bear inside the Conservative Party itself.  He received the most extraordinary response.

A spokesman from the Conservative Christian Fellowship replied:

'Sadly the report you refer to is both sensational and unhelpful.  As I understand it the British Government's approach to supporting Human Rights in Africa hasn't changed since the 1948 UN Declaration Human Rights. Something I am sure all Christians can comfortably sign up to.'

Our correspondent, taking this plain if ungrammatical denial on trust, then understandably berated Christian Voice:

'Where did you get your information?' he fumed.  'If it was from the homosexuals, I would beware of listening to people who are against both the Gospel and the Conservative party.'

I dislike having to criticise fellow Christians in public, and would not do it at all without first having e-mailed the CCF myself (and received no reply).  Nevertheless, an organisation which its Patron, Gary Streeter MP, says has 'made an impact' and 'stood up for Christian values' and which claims to be 'a vibrant Christian witness within the Conservative Party', turns out to be less committed to Christian values and the cause of the Gospel than to the Conservative Party in whose headquarters it is based.
In point of fact, it is so dedicated to putting a brave face on the less-than-Christian antics of the Coalition Government that it is prepared to twist the truth.  Fair enough, to describe a report as 'sensational and unhelpful' is not to say it is untrue, although that was what they intended and it was the impression taken away by their member.  But to go on to say that British Government policy towards homosexuality has not changed in sixty-three years and that the Government is doing only that which Christians cannot fail to support is a barefaced, risible, outright lie.
True enough, we do not know what the leaders of the CCF have been saying privately to Mr Cameron.  They may, for all we know, have been protesting with all their strength.  But their public response hardly gives an inkling that they have any misgivings about his pro-gay foreign aid policy whatsoever.  Denying it actually exists, following a well- publicised and undisputed speech from the Prime Minister himself is certainly not a promising start.
It may be that some aspiring young things see their membership of the CCF coupled with enthusiastic support of their party as a stepping-stone to eventual membership of the House of Commons.  'When I get there, or when I become a minister, or when I become Prime Minister, then I'll speak out and make a real difference,' they might think.
But it doesn't work like that:

Luke 16:10  He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
We are tested on our faith at every stage.  By working hard to advance our employer's or the party's cause by honest means, by making ourselves useful, being diligent at every turn, we can certainly earn the right to be listened to.  That is how we advance, not by defending the indefensible.

Matt 6:33  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
When we put the demands of God, his kingdom and righteousness second, the problems start.  Not only can we not serve God and another master at the same time, but the Apostle James points out:

Jas 1:8  A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Jas 4:8  Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye
sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
And indeed, as James suggests, that kind of thinking, 'Just wait till I get into power then I'll show them,' leaves out the power of God to raise up one and pull down another.  It forgets his power to bestow favour in the eyes of men.
Joseph in Egypt certainly did not think like the CCF appear to.  He did not flinch from acting properly when his boss's wife tried to seduce him.  Today that would be seen as a forgivable bit-on-the-side but the Godly men of old viewed adultery as a betrayal.  For resisting wickedness Joseph was thrown into prison, and that might have been the end of him, had not the Lord granted him favour because of his faithfulness first with the prison governor and then with Pharaoh himself:

Gen 39:21  But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison.
Acts 7:10  And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.
Joseph was not the last to be granted favour by God for his faithfulness to the Law of the Lord.  Samuel was not afraid to tell Eli that the Lord's judgment was to fall on his house.  Despite this, or because the Lord knew what kind of fearless young man Samuel was to be, in the previous chapter we read:

1Sam 2:26  And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men.
Daniel stood up for righteousness, refusing to eat meat dedicated to idols.  He managed by diligence and study and by his willingness to learn to make himself useful in the service of the king, but without compromising his beliefs.  So we read:

Dan 1:9  Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
God bestows favour on the faithful.  Proverbs says:

Prov 12:2  A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.
And in the Gospels we read:

Luke 2:52  And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Peter risked unpopularity by standing up on the Day of Pentecost and giving his great sermon with all its condemnation of those who crucified Jesus and encouragement to turn to the risen Jesus and be saved.  It was straight-down-the-line no-holds-barred full-on evangelism.  And it was honoured by God, in the numbers saved and bestowing of favour with men.  The believers, we read, were:

Acts 2:47  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

When we look at the example of the prophets we see men, even men in the Court, who risked their lives by telling kings things they did not want to hear.

Nathan admonished David for his adultery and murder of Uriah: 'Thou art the man', he told him, chillingly (2Sam 12:7), in what I believe was a public rebuke, in the light of the public consequences which Nathan said would follow.  It is certain that David's sin was public knowledge and Nathan's condemnation of it was more than a quiet word in private.
The prophet Isaiah did not shrink from public condemnation of national sins.  Even as a young man, he was denouncing the princes in king Uzziah's administration for taking bribes and perverting judgment (Isa 1:23).  And despite this (or because of it once again!) we see the Lord giving Isaiah a glittering career in the heart of government even under unrighteous king Ahaz (2Chr 28:1) and being unafraid to pronounce judgement on king Hezekiah for his stupidity in showing the Babylonian ambassador all his wealth (Isa 39:6).
Not all the prophets were as high up as Nathan and Isaiah, but not one of them flinched from his duty to tell it as God saw it.  They were well-versed in the scriptures, meditating in the law of God (Josh 1:8, Psa 1:2, 119:15 &c) and through that knowing the mind of God.  They were not men-pleasers but devoted to God.  They and the Apostles set their sights, not on climbing the greasy pole of earthly preferment, but on what the Epistle to the Hebrews describes as 'a better resurrection' (Heb 11:35) and Paul portrays as a 'crown of righteousness' (2Tim 4:8).
We cannot serve both two masters, and these events sadly show that when we try, truth falls alongside faithful witness.  That ought to be a lesson to us all.

Let us pray that Christians in political parties put Jesus Christ and His kingdom before their party and their miniature earthly empire.  We cannot serve two masters.

Friday, 12 August 2011


The SNP is possibly the least 'gay-friendly' political outfit north of the border but a row has blown up in it after a group of SNP MSPs stepped out to protect freedom of conscience over same-sex 'marriage'.

SNP MSP John Mason took the lead, tabling a motion at Holyrood stating that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved or to approve of same-sex marriage.

That seems resaonable, but a homosexual SNP MEP has insulted his party colleagues calling them 'bigots' (of course)

The Daily Express reports: 'Nationalist MEP Alyn Smith joined opposition leaders in berating four SNP MSPs for their “mean” and “angry” stance on gay weddings.'

The ill-tempered outburst comes just ten weeks after the Church of Scotland voted to allow homosexual men and women to become ministers.
Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of what the Lord Jesus Christ said about human sexuality: 

Mark 10:6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 10:7  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;  10:8  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

And becoming one flesh, in all the beauty and mystery of sexual intercourse, is something a pair of gays or a couple of lesbians can never do.  In the words of Dr David Reuben, they are 'trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces'.

What a pity the Church of Scotland did not vote to minister the saving and healing power of Jesus Christ to people suffering from same-sex attraction.

Perhaps there are a few names even in the Kirk which have not defiled their garments; the  Lord Jesus would say 'they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.' (Rev 3:4)  They may also need a law passed a little like that which John Mason proposes. 

Thursday, 11 August 2011


David Cameron has identified the causes of the riots and looting this week in Britain.  It is a lack of responsibility, which comes from a lack of proper parenting, a lack of proper upbringing, a lack of proper ethics, a lack of proper morals.  It is as much a moral problem as a political problem, he has said.  (Also see below for that section of his comments.)

We must give him full marks for stating the blindingly obvious.  People behave well for one of two reasons; either they have the fear of God before their eyes, or the fear of the long arm of the law.  In other words, either an internal or an external moral compass is necessary for good behaviour.

But who defines 'good behaviour'?  Can we all agree that looting shops is wrong?  Someone is bound to say that by profiteering on dairy products the supermarkets are stealing from us.  Someone else will point to the way Members of Parliament milked the expenses system.  If something was within the rules, was it morally right?  David Cameron thinks forcing African countries to legalise sodomy is morally right.  He believes the deliberate killing of a helpless infant in its mother's womb is morally acceptable, but agrees with Canon Giles Fraser (who also thinks sodomy is morally right) that robbing a Malaysian student, Mohammed Ashraf Haziq, caught up in the riots by pretending to help him is morally wrong.

Were those who did such a thing convinced they were right, or wrong?  Do they know the difference between right and wrong, and who defines it for them?  Years ago, an advert for Pepe Jeans carried the line: 'I know the difference between right and wrong; I prefer wrong.'  But we may have moved on even from that amoral outburst.  For someone, what is held to be wrong by a majority may be thought right for them.  Such is moral relativism, or post-modern thinking, and we can now see where it leads.  In a sense, the lawlessness which has so shocked us in recent days has been brewing for a decade - or for even longer.

David Cameron blames the parents ('a lack of proper parenting, a lack of proper upbringing'), but does he realise that 50% of children are growing up in Britain without their natural father?

Who is responsible for that if it isn't the politicians who legalised no-fault divorce on demand in the 1960s, legalised sodomy and pornography, brought in moral-free sex education around the same time and pushed condoms at teenagers just because they hated Christian morality? 

And who is equally responsible if not the present Coalition Government which allows all of that to continue on its life-destroying way, not seeing any of it as an offence against 'proper morals'?

What does David Cameron expect single mums to do when confronted by an aggressive teenager or a younger child who threatens to call childline or social services if she so much as lays a finger on him?  Instead of trying to undermine African morality he should be learning from those societies where respect for elders, in keeping with the Biblical model, still exists.

Our society needs proper morals, but where are these found if not in the pages of Holy Scripture?  Who defines proper morality if not Almighty God?  Atheist activists have forced God out of public life to the extent that to express a Christian viewpoint is to run the risk of dismissal from a public sector job - or the Conservative Party.

Without God, there can be no objective right or wrong.  Atheist relativism means the rioter has as much right to his morality as Cameron has to his or me to mine.  Without God, there is no solid rock from which any politician can criticise anyone else.

Yes, we suffer from a lack of proper morals, but David Cameron shows no evidence of diagnosing that he and his political pals are as much in need of it as the robbers of poor Mohammed Ashraf Haziq.  Nor that he and his moral relativism is a huge part of what he describes as the sickness of Britain.

PRAY: The Bible says:

1Tim 2:1  I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2  For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  3  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;  4  Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

And yet the prophets of old were vehement in their criticism of kings and their policies in days of old.  How do we balance these two?  By realising that if we pray for those in authority God may want us to do something for him and witness to them.

So please pray for David Cameron and write to your MP (names and emails here) of the need for the UK to return to the Biblical word of God and ask him/her to convey your thoughts to the Prime Minister.

From the No10 website (same link as above):
Prime Minister, you have said that parts of Britain are sick.  What is the cure in your view, and what do you say to people who say that part of the cure is more police, not fewer, more prison places, not fewer?

Prime Minister
When I say parts of Britain are sick, the one word I would use to sum that up is irresponsibility.  The sight of those young people running down streets, smashing windows, taking property, looting, laughing as they go, the problem of that is a complete lack of responsibility, a lack of proper parenting, a lack of proper upbringing, a lack of proper ethics, a lack of proper morals.  That is what we need to change.  There is no one trigger that can change these things.  It’s about parenting, it’s about discipline in schools, it’s about making sure we have a welfare system that does not reward idleness.  It is all of those things.

Now, of course we want to get the maximum out of the police budget to put the most police we have on the streets.  Of course we want to get value for money out of everything that we do.  But let’s not ignore the fact that what we’re seeing on our streets is actually a lack of responsibility.  It is as much a moral problem as a political problem.  That’s what we’re seeing, that’s what we need to deal with, and I think the whole country feels that way and recognises this is a problem for our society and one we have to cure and deal with.