Christians and Anti-Semitism

I have recently been studying the issue of how Israel and the Old Testament covenants relates to the New Covenant in Christ. The paper LINKED HERE is the focus of that study. This is for a discussion group I am part of. However I am not going to comment on the actual paper or the issues is raises, nor on my ‘current’ thinking on what the Bible says.

What I wanted to simply comment on was one point raised in the paper. That of the historical Churches partaking in what can only be described as vicious Anti-Semitism. The likes of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther having quite unbelievable views about Jews. Over the course of History the Church or individual believers have either directly or indirectly been responsible for all manner of persecution and suffering brought upon Jewish people.

Of course my knowledge of history is very limited and I do not know the cultural pressures and influences of the time but I simply cannot grasp or understand how a person who follows Christ can hold the entire Jewish nation as accountable for crucifying Him. My brain simply cannot get round the concept of that thinking. Even a cursory reading of Romans 9-11 demonstrates Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, the Jewish Messiah, that anyone who becomes a Christian has effectively become part of the ‘true Israel’.

For Christians to blame the Jews for killing Christ is ridiculous. If Christ had not died then we would all perish in the final Judgement. No one would be saved, period! Yes sin was committed by those that called for and carried out Jesus’ execution. Yes this was under God’s sovereign rule and plan. No I can’t explain how the two are true at the same time but they are! Those individual people who were responsible will either face righteous and just judgement or are covered by the sacrifice of Christ if they later repented and followed Him. You can’t blame an entire nation for the actions of a handful of people. It is like hating Germans or Austrians because one Evil Nutter called Hitler was responsible for killing millions.

So yes we should be ashamed of our fellow brothers and sisters throughout history who misguidedly treated the Jewish people the way they did. Distance oursleves massively from any hint of anti Jewish feeling.

We should humbly love, reach out to and be ready to die for serving and bringing the Gospel to the Jewish people as we should to any other nation of the earth. Now I know some would say it is anti-Semitic to evangelise Jews but I say surely it is anti-Semitic not to.

It is staggeringly unloving to refuse to share the Gospel with anyone because of any prejudice you have. A Christian has no excuse as one utterly under the Free Grace of God, saved by no merit, no work, nothing you could ever possibly do to earn your salvation. Grace, Grace, Grace and for those that think us Reformed types add Grace as an afterthought more Grace!!!!!!

What does Toleration Actually mean today?

I thought I would write this brief article on Toleration. Mainly I will quote something I read in a much bigger article that can be found here. The quote I want to look at is below.

The new toleration

The definition of "toleration" has been inverted in recent years. Historically, toleration implied disagreement. The powerful would tolerate ideas that they disagreed with or found unpleasant; they might argue against them or condemn them, but they did not suppress the ideas through violence or the courts.

Today, toleration means agreeing that selected categories—typically race, gender, and sexual orientation—are value-neutral, that is, that they have no significant bearing on human worth, moral standing, etc. To suggest otherwise is to commit the one unforgivable sin of being intolerant, judgmental or bigoted.

In other words, toleration has changed from referring to ideas to referring to people, and from learning to live with disagreement to agreeing that [specific] differences don't matter.

In my previous post on why we should vote in the election I mentioned the issue of ‘Toleration’ and quoted a book title by D.A Carson called The Intolerance of Tolerance. I think that title sums up the current view of what Toleration actually means. When you strictly narrow the categories by which you define what tolerance means it inherently becomes intolerant of anything outside of it. Now for those inside those categories this is not seen as an issue and seems entirely reasonable. However for those pushed to the boundaries or who are fully excluded this becomes a major concern and problem.

The outrageous witch hunt against the Conservative candidate for Sutton, Philippa Stroud, is a prime example of this inversion of what society defines as Toleration (click HERE for good article on Christians in the media spotlight and Adrian Warnock’s take on it). The recent court case for Gary McFarlane is another example that highlights the shift on the way society views what is in or out of that category. Excellent article by Former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali shows that Religious conviction is no longer viewed on a level playing field with such things as Sexual orientation or Gender identity. Therefore one set of beliefs/values subjugates another in the name of equality and tolerance in the law.

That effective inequality is the main problem with all this legislation that the Labour government and lobby groups have pushed through. In the attempt to stop discrimination against people on the grounds of Gender, Race, Sexual Orientation, Age and Religion they have inadvertently (or purposefully if you want to be cynical) created a clash between those categories. In this post-modern, post-Christian, secular, humanistic society we call Britain, Religious conviction is trumped by all the other categories.

I had a debate with someone on Twitter around if Philippa Stroud was a bigot and what that actually meant. The tactic most anti-Christian or Atheist people use is to simply dismiss the Bible completely and thus to try and prevent a Christian from arguing from that point of view. A Christians whole frame of reference is Biblical so it can be effective, especially over such things as Social Media as there is so little space to actually engage and debate a person.

The main contention I have is that by a person saying ‘your view is bigoted or Intolerant’ they are effectively saying my belief trumps your belief. I am right and you are wrong. So by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Bigot are in fact being exactly that and are being Intolerant themselves.

Bigot: a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others

We all bring our beliefs and world view to the table and to say one person is being Intolerant is simply to impose your worldview as the correct one and exclude another's. The very definition of Intolerance in the old definition above.

However generally the person is unwilling or unable to see or accept this. To do so would open debate and allow alternative viewpoints. As far as the person I debated with on twitter was concerned I was a homophobic hateful bigot simply because I was a Christian and held to Biblical authority and they could not accept they were being Intolerant or bigoted themselves. Because of the difference of interpretation of what it means to Tolerate or be Intolerant of something.

I truly believe this will only get worse in Britain in the coming years. It has already happened on more than one occasion that a person has been arrested under hate laws or breach of peace laws for simply repeating what the Bible says, specifically on the subject of Homosexuality. In a recent incident because the Police officer was themselves gay. It can be seen that Christians in public are targeted specifically on this subject because it will get them in trouble in Britain. Even if the laws were not instigated to do this the end result is that they are being used to suppress free speech by those that will not tolerate a moral world view that differs or clashes with their own.

Sadly these stories tend to misrepresent the Biblical world view and focus them solely on the Homosexuality issue making it more of a focus than the Bible actually places on it. Making Christians ‘sound’ like homophobes when in fact a true Christian is nothing of the sort in reality, though may be seen as one by the new definitions.

In my view Bigot, Intolerance or phobe has fear and hate fuelling it. Religious, self righteous types can be bigots and intolerant as much as Atheist humanistic types can be. A true Christian however will not, as they recognise that every one of us on this planet is justly heading for an eternity in hell unless God plucks them from the precipice. Thanks to Jesus Christ's supreme act Love and sacrifice the way is open for just that to happen. A Christian knows that it is only by Grace they are saved through no merit in them at all. Therefore they have no grounds to be self righteous towards anyone and are free to Love and serve others. Christianity defines what it is to have true equality and treat all people with love and respect.

But this does not mean it will agree with your world view. If you are not a Christian I cannot tell you that you are living in immoral life and expect you to change. I can only point you to Christ and if you give your life to Him then change will inevitably be the result as he changes your heart from the inside. But I can tell you that God has a better way to live, that if you live outside of that framework then things will not be as good as they could be and may in fact cause you harm. I cannot expect you to change or agree but I can point the way and this is not Bigoted or Intolerant or hateful because it disagrees with how you currently choose to live. A Christian is motivated by the Love of God for them which naturally wants the best for you.

But don’t expect Christians to be perfect and get it right all the time. We don’t and are on a journey ourselves of being changed. Take the time to understand who it is you are labelling and what they actually stand for before you judge them, you may be surprised by what you find.

Teddy Bears, Muhammad and common sense out the window!

So Gillian Gibbons has been charged in Sudan for 'insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs' according to the BBC Website. Her crime, allowing her school children to call a class teddy bear Muhammad. I am sorry to cast judgment and all that but this is the most pathetic thing I have heard in a long time. Believe me I get the whole, not making images of 'the Prophet Muhammad' viewpoint since as a Christian I believe images should not really be made of Jesus Christ lest we fall into revering/idolising an image as opposed to worshiping Christ Himself. No image will ever be accurate of Christ's incarnated body since we don't know what He looked like and the bible is quite clear on creating images and idols etc...

However, to arrest and charge a woman with the above charges on account of calling a teddy bear after a name some school children voted for on account of some of them actually being called Muhammad is just a religion 100% losing sight of its heart. Christians have been as guilty of this as any Islamic fundamental here. I can't speak for Islam that much since I only have a basic grasp of its beliefs but for Christians when works and the trappings of religion become more important than God Himself then you lose sight of the most important aspect. Surely at its heart, Islam is about service, sacrifice of self for others and worship of Allah, not persecuting an innocent woman on grounds of a teddy bears name.

If I heard similar from Christians I would be astonished and ashamed of them. When telling others what they should and shouldn't do, see or say becomes more important than loving God first and foremost, personal holiness then sacrificially loving others, serving others and by doing so bringing them to the foot of the cross to the reality of sin and the need for repentance, then we have totally lost the point of our faith.

Sudanese Government, please see common sense and release this woman and stop this insanity!

Lydia Playfoot 'Purity Ring' Case in High Court and The State of Modern Britain

So Lydia Playfoot is finally getting the opportunity to have her case heard. This is very high profile and is headline news on the BBC (A Video here). Should she be allowed to wear a ring symbolising her commitment to chastity until marriage? Is the school discriminating against her when other faiths are allowed to wear expressions of their beliefs that involve jewelry?

This is difficult subject for me to comment on though I do feel passionately about Christians being discriminated against and applaud anyone who stand up and fights the madness that is Political Correctness. I go to the same church as Lydia and her family. Phil, her father, is Kings Church's main leader. The church is the first in the UK to run the Silver Ring Thing (SRT). Andy Robinson, the youth leader of my church heads up SRT in the UK. Therefore it is something I am very aware of and connected to.

I think this is really two issues:

• Should Millais School ban or allow the wearing of jewelry by it pupils?
• Is the ring that the SRT encourages the youth to wear a Christian religious symbol on a par with what is required by other religions.

The first point is I think what this case should be about and is the point worth fighting for. Personally I think the school should either completely ban any jewelry or item that does not conform to standard uniform policy. Or allow, within reason, the wearing of such items. The whole health and safety argument is nullified if exceptions are made. I cannot see how allowing some exceptions and not others is either fair or workable as this case highlights. The slope is simply too slippery to start down. I have every sympathy for those of other faiths that have a requirement for specific items to be worn. But sooner or later if you make exceptions everyone is going to pipe up and say their beliefs require them to wear a certain item. Where do you stop before alienating and discriminating against genuine beliefs and the loony fringe? As much as it flies in the face of the PC brigade I think there is no middle ground.

As for if the ring in question is a required item of the Christian faith then I have to say no, it is not. There are no symbolic items required by Christianity. The Bible does require a modest dress code for women. But there is no 'requirement' for a Christian to wear any symbolic items representing a part of the faith. The SRT ring is a small unobtrusive ring worn on the wedding finger to symbolise the persons commitment to chastity until marriage. It is a good talking point to use, it is not required though. It is a personal choice to wear it as a reminder of your vow of chastity before God as is a wedding ring a vow of commitment to your spouse before God.

I hope regardless of the outcome that Lydia continues to stand up and be counted for her belief and that it impacts her friends to think about their sexual activities and that there is an alternative that is 100% safe and is by far the best approach to dealing with this countries massive problem with STD's, underage sex and unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion.

I am sure God is saying well done good and faithful servant, whatever the outcome!

The State of Modern Britain

If you follow the BBC link and look at the 'Have your Say' views once again we should be proud of our lovely tolerant views in the UK..........Not! So many of the comments are just plain ignorant and the arguments put forward are weaker than a wet paper bag. This shows the state of modern Britain and the utter hypocritical intolerance embedded in our secular humanistic society. People making judgments when they simply do not know the facts, know the people involved or have any understanding of the issue at all. It makes me so sad reading these comments and thinking that things will only get worse I fear.

Persecution in one of the Oldest Churches in Turkey!

Please read this link as it highlights more persecution of the Christian Church by Islamic Fundamentals in Turkey. I doubt I could be so forgiving faced with such savagery. What a witness and example these brothers and sisters in Christ are.

This church in Smyrna is mentioned in the book of Revelation and is one of the oldest churches in existence. What I find amazing is the reported fact that Evangelical Christianity is labeled as a terrorist organisation by the Turkish Security Directorate.

Another reason Turkey should not be allowed membership of the EU until it cleans up its human rights record.