Do the science, Mr President, to give peace a chance

In the still-unfolding, still-unfinished aftermath of the bitterly disputed US Presidential Election of 2020, it seems like only yesterday – because it was only yesterday – that the United States of America was reportedly teetering on the brink of turmoil on the streets.  Turmoil that would be at least a nuisance and, perhaps, far worse, internecine.   The nation had also seemed to be in peril of the state meting out repression upon those who manifested their heterodox belief in a theory opposed to the alternative theory in which believe those who now have the upper hand politically.

Today, President Biden spoke fine words of peace, unity and reconciliation in his Inauguration Speech.  This is welcome, but we’ve already seen how he is capable of that in one breath and saber-rattling in the next.  (In fact, he did it today.)  Biden’s sincerity will be tested.  Actions speak louder than words and sometimes contradict the actor’s words, or tell us which mutually contradictory sayings of the actor to believe and which to put down to empty, schmaltzy virtue-signaling.

It wasn’t a promising sign that Biden characterised his inauguration as a “victory for democracy”, knowing that tens of millions in the USA still consider it to have been a defeat for democracy and many more than that all around the world don’t know what to make of it.

A real victory for democracy would bring peace.  But that peace would be at a heavy price for a politician, an unfashionable curiosity as to the truth in a post-truth world.  For democracy to win and unanimously to be seen to have won, experts in probability and statistics must first do some data collection and analysis that the new Administration has ordered to be done.  Both Biden and Trump alike will have to agree to follow the science, whether it brings good news or bad for their political ambitions. 

No science, no peace.  Or at best precious little peace, because any peace will be founded on ignorance and fear, not truth and respect.

Why you must speak up

John Benton’s piece sets out an important principle. At this point in history, it has a potentially controversial application, so his raising of the matter is timely.

This year, the UK’s secular government forced the leaders of every church in the land to take prompt and draconian decisions, without consulting the rank-and-file congregants of their churches at any sort of meeting.  I am referring to the decision whether the church lockdown sought to be imposed fell within the God-given remit of “Caesar” set out in Romans 13 (and was therefore to be obeyed), or was akin to the prohibition placed upon Peter and John mentioned in Acts 4:18 (and therefore to be disobeyed, replying to the authorities in the same terms as Peter and John replied to the “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel” – verse 8 – in Acts 4:19).

Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 

 

Twenty-two clients of Christian Concern, predominantly in positions of church leadership, brought a test case in the state’s courts in June, challenging the secular legality of the government’s church lockdown. When I applied, a week ago, for the court’s permission to give evidence and to make representations in that case, I learned that the case had been disposed of by way of a consent order behind closed doors.  I have asked the court, the solicitor for the claimants and the Government Legal Department for a copy of that final outcome.  (The Christian Concern website continues to publish that this is still a “current” case.)

My evidence in support of my application to participate in the proceedings that, unbeknownst to me, had been closed with an outcome that the parties seem to want to keep secret, highlighted a difference between the interests of clergy and those of laity (so-to-speak). I feel that difference of interests feeds into the decision on how to apply the wisdom that John has rightly exhorted in this most timely meditation of his.

I wrote [sic]:

The Claimants are predominantly in positions of leadership, office and/or influence within particular churches of a particular type. They are so-to-speak a sample of the clergy, though not numerically representative of all clergy in the UK as regards their churchmanship.

During the lockdown, I searched high and low for a church that continued to meet, despite the regulations that I judged t the time were unlawful, for more-or-less the same reasons as are now pleaded by the Claimants. I sought out local churches all of which I had previously attended, including Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Brethren and Eastern Orthodox – types of churches I had attended locally in recent years.

I am a lay Christian, with a loyalty to Christ rather than to this or that church. I am a fairly good representative example of the Christian laity as a whole. The adverse affect of the impugned decision upon me and the rest of the laity isn’t identical with its adverse affect upon the Claimants. It would add value and save costs if separate counsel [to] represented me directly at the trial of the lawfulness of the regulations, and hence indirectly represented the separate interests of all lay Christians in the process.

 

The original legal papers are here.

My application to give evidence and to make representations is here.

As things stand, my application isn’t being processed at the court, because the court had already “closed” the case before I applied, although the public and the media had not been told this.  However, the subject matter is far from closed as far as I am concerned. When I have more to tell, I’ll post an update on this blog.

In the words of the barrister who spoke for me at the Birmingham trial of Birmingham City Council v Afsar et al (a case about RSE in which we and the public won, although the three named Muslim defendants lost), “losing is winning”. When a secular judge hears a righteous cause pleaded, the secular law is on trial, against the criteria of Romans 13, and God’s holy purposes are served, even if the secular judgment goes against the righteous cause.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.   Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.  Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

Evangelicals Now

Abuse of power is a hot topic these days. And church leaders are able to misuse their authority just as much as anyone else. We believe ‘all have sinned and fall short…’.

In the congregational form of church government (see Matthew 18.15-20), the church meeting acts as the final court of appeal. The elders, or leaders, have a certain authority in the church (Heb. 13.17), but it is an authority subject to the word of God and to the church. Hence it is the gathered church which appoints elders and to whom they must answer if they go astray (1 Tim. 5.19, 20). So the church meeting provides a mechanism for checking and balancing the leadership’s power. It is, I suppose, similar to the House of Lords, which can return Parliamentary Bills to the Commons with the message to ‘think again’.

In a climate which is now extremely sensitive to…

View original post 577 more words

Defending the Christian opposition to “same-sex marriage”

A respectful reblog of DEFENDING THE FAITH by Campbell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEFENDING THE FAITH

A Grain of Sand

We have all been there. We have had a discussion with an unbelieving friend or relative on some aspect of the faith and come away thinking that we really screwed it up and utterly failed to present a coherent Christian position.

When reflecting on the discussion later, we come up with all the sharp answers, all the convincing responses. Every discussion I have ever had about the Christian faith I have won brilliantly, but only in hindsight. Unfortunately the reality is different. But there is groundwork we can do to become more effective.

View original post 893 more words

Boris Johnson “acted unlawfully”. ~ Does that make him a criminal?

Star post

“Mummy-eee … it said on the news that Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully.  Does that mean he’s a crook and will have to go to prison?”

“I don’t know, darling.  Mr Corbyn and his party will have to decide that.  Let’s wait and see what they say.”

 

^ click to watch Lady Hale reading the official summary of the judgment ^

Read the official summary of the judgment yourself

Read the official judgment in PDF or HTML format

Comprehension questions

1. Has Boris been “found guilty”, of “breaking the law”?
2. Is Boris now officially a “criminal”?
3. Should Boris be impeached?

Trump lied!

Follow Chuck Baldwin: 

 

It is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of politicians are liars. Some, however, are more prolific liars than others. And any honest, objective, even semi-intelligent person knows that Donald Trump takes the blue ribbon in the lying game. He lies so much, he can’t even play a game of golf without cheating.

In a column dated August 10, 2017, I wrote a piece entitled The Truth About Donald Trump. In the column I documented the truth about Trump’s lifetime conduct.

Police Scotland tries to wriggle out of hate crime bust

I reported Police Scotland’s hate crime a week ago.

This post brings you up-to-date with the correspondence I’ve had with the police since reporting the hate crime.

The hate crime I reported was the display of this poster :-

An SRA complaint against ME?

I am neither a solicitor nor a barrister.  I have never been, or claimed to be, either.

This morning, I received notice of a complaint made against me to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Should Christians attend Pride marches?

It is argued by some who identify as Christians, that Christians should “apologise” to “LGBT people”, and march with them on their Pride marches, using this as an opportunity to share the gospel of Christ with them.

There appears to some biblical support for this new doctrine in the following passage from the recently-discovered Gospel according to St Judas.

An eye for an eye and a cake for a cake

Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery

The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict.

Abolish rape!

Star post

Trigger warning: This post is about a piece of British legislation called The Sexual Offences Act 2003.  It is absolutely not the rant of a “rape apologist”.  If you might find this post triggering, please read it only on understanding that you read it at your own risk.