Abandoning Christianity

Martin Luther said, “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt.”^[1]

Bryan Wilson defines secularisation as, “the process whereby religious thinking, practises and institutions lose social significance”[2] This means that even if we claim to be a Christian in a secularised society that is all right so long as it stays out of social institutions. Those ideas are to be kept private.

First dentistry was painless

Then bicycles were chainless

Carriages were horseless

And many law were enforce- less

Next Cookery were fireless

Telegraphy was wireless

Cigars were nicotine-less

And coffee, caffeine- less

Soon oranges were seedless

The putting green was weed- less

The college boy was hapless, the proper diet fatless

New motor road are dustless, the latest steel is rust-less

Soon tennis courts soil less and our new religion godless[3]

To those that conform to the patterns of this world’s kingdom and standards will find themselves labouring for an imaginary kingdom. “A new theory has lately been started, which sets forth as its ideal a certain imaginary kingdom of God, unspiritual, unscriptural, and unreal. The old-fashioned way of seeking the lost sheep, one by one, is too slow: it takes too much time, and thought, and prayer, and it does not leave space enough for politics, gymnastics, and singsong. We are urged to rake in the nations wholesale into this imaginary kingdom by sanitary regulations, social arrangements, scientific accommodations, and legislative enactments. Please the people with the word “democratic”, and then amuse them into morality.”[4]

---

^[1]Luther, Martin. Statement. Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (Philadelphia: Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986), p. 127.

[2]Bryan Wilson (a prominent pro-secularisation theorist) (1966). http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/religion/sec.htm

[3] Poem -poet unknown

[4] Spurgeon C.H, An all round ministry, page 323, Banner of truth print 2000

Marriage – being re-defined!

Marriage involves a public undertaking to stay together for life, and as Jack Straw said, it is a union for the procreation of children. All around the world, across all religions and cultures, the successful societies have been those based upon marriage.[1] Marriage has enjoyed a privileged status in the Western legal tradition because of the unique social benefits it offers. Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an “honourable estate” based on the different, complementary nature of men and women – and how they refine, support, encourage, and complete one another. Marriage is a public commitment, not a private liaison. The married family is profoundly important for a stable society.

It is still true that the vast majority of children are raised by married couples.[2] Most cohabiting couples marry. It is only in a married family that the parents are publicly committed to stay together for life. Marriage creates new relationships uniting the families of husband and wife. Stable married families are a primary carrier of values. It is in married families that values are most effectively passed down through the generations. It is where children learn right from wrong and where they learn to get along with others.

The Western legal tradition is explicitly based on Christian teaching. The Genesis account in the Bible states: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”[3] Christ himself quoted this passage.[4] The Christian view is that marriage between one man and one woman for life is part of the natural moral order. English Law defines marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”[5] This definition was given in the leading case Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee.[6] Lord Penzance, the Judge in the case, sought to give a definition recognised throughout “Christendom.” Some cultures legally endorse polygamy.

In the west, with its Christian tradition, polygamy has been made a criminal offence, the offence of bigamy. Until recently, the word, “family” has meant the married family. In the last few decades, the definition has embraced lone parent households. It is still true to say that a large number of lone parent households (around half) are created through divorce, separation or the death of a spouse.[7] Those families were created through marriage, although the spouses are no longer together. But now gay rights advocates want to use the idea of civil partnerships to re-define the family.

---

[1] O R. Johnston, Who Needs the Family? A Survey and a Christian Assessment, (Hodder and Stoughton, 1979), 44

[2] Over 70 per cent of children live in household headed by a married couple. House of Commons, Hansard, 11 May 2001, col. 435 wa

[3] Genesis 2:24

[4] See for example Matthew 19:4-5

[5] Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee, [1866] LR 1 P & D 130

[6] Ibid

[7] Social Trends, 30, (Office for National Statistics, 2000), 37

The Blessing of Children

Children are a gift from God and are an expression of his blessing. Of the commandments found in the Law of Moses, the first is to “be fruitful and increase in number.” The psalmist celebrates the goodness of a man’s family by singing, Sons are a heritage from the Lord, and again, your sons will be like olive shoots around your table. Thus is the man blessed who fears the Lord. Contrary to a certain teaching within the Church, the first sin was not sexual intercourse. In God’s eyes, sex is neither sin nor salvation. However in the context of marriage, God pronounces it a blessed gift because it is tied to the birth of children, an occasion for rejoicing.

Why is life valued?

Human life is valued because it is God’s gift and secondly because man bears God’s image (Genesis 1:27; 9:6). Human life is thus the most precious and sacred thing in the world, and to end it, or direct it’s ending, is God’s prerogative alone. We honour God by respecting his image in each other, which means consistently preserving life and furthering each other’s welfare in all possible ways. There are several things, not always called murder, which the commandment rules out. First is malice, the desire to diminish someone or, as we say, to “see them dead.” Jesus underlined this. “Anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to judgment … if he sneers at him he will have to answer for it in the fires of hell” (Matthew 5:22,). Hate in the heart can be as much murder as violence against the person.

Media Bias: Media only reports only what it wishes

It was Karl Kraus who said, “The truth is that the newspaper is not a place for information to be given, rather it is just hollow content, or more than that, a provoker of content. If it prints lies about atrocities, real atrocities are the result.” There is no such thing as an objective point of view. No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place between individuals and groups who are situated in specific historical, political, economic, and social contexts. Politicians are certainly biased; they belong to parties and espouse policies and ideologies. So does the media.

Media bias

Media bias refers to the real or perceived tendency of journalists and news producers within the mass media to approach both the presentation of particular stories, and the selection of which stories to cover, with a perspective which is unbalanced due to political affiliation. In essence, the accusation of “media bias” generally refers to either censorship or propaganda as it may be carried out by particular news sources and media outlets. Proponents of media bias generally allege that such content is framed in the light of a preconceived political agenda, although it is equally true that accusations of media bias may often be employed for their rhetorical effect. In this case, journalists may be pressured to give equal weight to minority or unpopular views.[1]

Pros & Cons of bias in the Media

Distortion of Facts

On March 16, 2005, CNN interviewed John MacArthur about the book The Purpose-Driven Life. Macarthur’s criticisms about the book were brief but substantive. He highlighted some significant points where the book is at odds with the message of Scripture. He pointed out, for example, that the true gospel is a call to self-denial, not self-fulfilment. The gospel is a message about redemption, not about life’s purpose.

The gospel according to Scripture deals with God’s law, His grace, human depravity, and redemption from sin, justification, sanctification, holiness, the nature of saving faith, and the lordship of Christ. And the true gospel’s most essential features are the cross of Christ and the truth of the resurrection. None of those subjects is dealt with adequately or biblically in The Purpose-Driven Life.

CNN removed virtually all the substantive comments from their interview and had a voice-over by the CNN reporter introducing John MacArthur as someone who ‘preaches the gospel of a stern God’, and identifying him as a ’sceptic’. CNN also inserted remarks from secular media experts who seemed to think petty jealousy was the motive for the disagreement between the two pastors.

Personal Interests: For example, the secular news media does a poor job of reporting on the creation and evolution issue. In most cases, the reporting is overly biased in favour of evolution. Sometimes there is an attempt by a reporter or editor to be unbiased, but even in those situations; coverage is usually slanted in favour of evolution. In rare cases, the journalist tries to present the information in a fair and balanced manner.

Manipulation: The media can influence its subscribers to cause a predicted reaction, such example are of “spin-doctors” who “spin” a story and therefore intending the subscribers to react in a particular manner. This is deceitful and misleads others; although wrong this may be some Christians use these methods for evangelising non-believers.

Advertisement bias: Mass media organisations are also businesses – moneymaking businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product that will make a profit. Goods are defined in numbers and quality of readers or viewers. The news media will then bombard their readers or viewers with their goods offered.

We see celebrities endorsing goods that they themselves would not use. For a substantial sum of money they will say and do anything. However because of the media’s circulation, more advertisements for similar products allows greater variety of choice due to the competitive market. This allows people to select the product they want despite the bias.

Bad news bias: Good news is boring (and probably does not photograph well, either). This bias makes the world look more dangerous than it really is.

Glory bias: Journalists, especially television reporters, often insert themselves into the stories they cover. This happens most often in terms of proximity, i.e. to the locus of unfolding events or within the orbit of powerful political and civic actors. This helps journalists establish and maintain a cultural identity as knowledgeable insiders. The glory bias shows itself in particularly obnoxious ways in television journalism. News promos with stirring music and heroic pictures of individual reporters create the aura of omnipresence and omnipotence.

Visual bias: Television (and, increasingly, newspapers) is biased toward visual depictions of news. Television is nothing without pictures. Legitimate news that has no visual angle is likely to get little attention. Much of what is important in politics, such as policies, cannot be photographed. However because the media realises that things that are visual get a higher ratings the viewers cannot just hear about events in foreign countries, they must also be able to ‘see’ them.

Expediency bias: Journalism is a competitive, deadline-driven profession. Reporters compete amongst themselves for prime space or airtime. News organizations compete for market share and reader/viewer attention. And the 24-hour news cycle driven by the immediacy of television and the Internet creates a situation in which the competition never ends. Add financial pressures to this mix – the general desire of media groups for profit margins that exceed what’s “normal” in many other industries – and you create a bias toward information that can be obtained quickly, easily, and inexpensively.

Political Correctness

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to remove the labelling of perpetrators as “terrorists”, it was disclosed. Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC’s website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as “bombers”. The BBC’s guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments”.

Consequently, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding” and its use should be “avoided”, the guidelines say. Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, accused the BBC of “institutionalised political correctness” in its coverage of British Muslims. A BBC spokesman said last night: “The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC”.[2] The media can create a culture where we are afraid to say things the way we see them, for fear of offending others.

Christian bias

Christian entertainment programmes need not succumb to the secular ideology of the day. A Christian channel can, and should, challenge the tacit assumptions and hidden values underlying much of the national daily programming. It can pose this challenge by raising questions and by offering high-quality and wholesome alternatives. Take, for example, the treatment of religion. Religion is a part of life and should naturally occur in stories that reflect life. But if the religious aspect is totally omitted, or consistently presented as ridiculous or antiquated, this hostile approach will erode the audience’s sense of religion. A Christian channel can provide excellent entertainment that is at the same time in harmony with Christian values. [3] Not watered down Christianity and conformity to secular methods instead we should see Christians methods for a Christian audience without any intimidation from secular broadcasters.

Lack of Trust

Bias reduces the demand for news because individuals are more sceptical of reports from news organisations that mislead their subscribers

Religion is underreported.

A study of weekday prime time news broadcasts on all the major stations in the USA (ABC, CBC, CNN, NBC and PBS) during 1993 found only 212 segments on religion out of a total of 18,000 story segments broadcast. Similar statistics were found in an analysis of morning and weekend news and magazine programmes.[4] No similar study has been done on reporting in the United Kingdom. Some reporting on religion is presented in programmes such as “Songs of Praise.”

Defective picture of society

In general news coverage, religion does not receive the attention it deserves. A study on quality television in five countries including Britain showed that religion, as a category, was almost totally neglected in all-day programming and totally neglected in prime time programming in all five countries.[5] It has been pointed out that by leaving out religion, the media present their audiences with a defective picture of society.

The media’s defective view includes the assumption that spirituality is declining in modern society. Yet audience members who see spirituality as an important part of their lives probably feel confused by the absence of coverage. The unease is increased by the fact that few self-described religious people subscribe to religious magazines or watch religious television. The sources for news about their religion must be the secular media.[6]

Religion is presented with a secular bias

Top communicators, who set the national media agenda, are often prejudiced against religion. A study of 240 journalists in the elite American media revealed that most are not practising Christians: “A distinctive characteristic of the media elite is its secular outlook. Exactly half eschew any religious affiliation. Only one in five identify as Protestant, and one in eight as Catholic. Very few are regular churchgoers. Only 8 percent go to church or synagogue weekly, and 86 percent seldom or ever attend religious services.”[7]

The same study illustrated that this lack of involvement influenced the way religion was presented in reports. “The most straightforward news report is the outcome of unavoidable choices that reflect the journalist’s sensibilities in weaving together fact and interpretation. A separate case study concerned the presence of sustained anti-Church bias in media reporting, referring especially to the Catholic Church in the USA. Christian churches, like other public bodies, are subject to public scrutiny and to just criticism of course, but they may rightly expect to be treated fairly and to be given a proper hearing. The facts speak differently.

Although the news on some issues was either favourable to the Church’s position or straight reporting of Church statements, the negatives outweigh the positives in the overall study. Coverage was structured to stress conflict typically between the hierarchy and dissidents among clergy, religious or laity. Descriptive terms applied to the Church emphasized its conservative ideology, authoritarian forms of control, and anachronistic approach to contemporary society. The language used carried connotations of conservatism, oppression and irrelevance.[8]

Stewart Hoover, who has conducted much research on the media, concludes that religion is covered, as is the case with all-journalistic ‘beats’, according to a set of received definitions and conventions. Because reporters take the theory of secularisation as a fact, they tend to treat religion as a residual category of life at the margins of public discourse.

The perceived view of media coverage or religion is that it is a private matter, receding in influence, that its adherents are large concerned with their own particular faith and that they construct that faith within rather rigid historical and institutional boundaries.[9]

Brian Healy, senior political producer for CBS News, testifies from his own experience to the dominance of secular ideology. There is rarely any debate in most television newsrooms on abortion, birth control, celibacy, curriculum oversight, and gays in the military, premarital chastity or condom distribution in high schools. Most reporters are prejudiced in favour of liberal positions, so their minds are already made up.[10]

Public perception of the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, measured in studies commissioned by the broadcasting authorities, do not support the view that on the whole television is against religion. However, even among the general audience a majority (56%) believe that all too often television portrays negative stereotypes about religious groups. Only very few (less than 20%) feel that religion should not be discussed on TV.[11]

BBC and ITV produce some religious programmes of high integrity. The programmers have religious advisers, listen to the Broadcasting Standards Council and periodically hold consultations on religious broadcasting. On the other hand, the media elite in Britain and Ireland is not less secularised than their counterparts in the USA. To ensure full and fair representation of the Christian point of view, there is a need of a Christian Channel that can arrange for in-depth discussion of topics neglected on national channels. This could include lively debates, talk shows, and well-researched documentaries.

Journalists are subjective

Weaver and Wilhoit discovered that journalists and the public differ on the importance of religion: “The percentage of journalists rating religion or religious beliefs as “very important” is substantially lower (38%) than the percentages in public 68%. They are far more pro-abortion than the public and elite journalists are much more pro-gay than the public.”

This means that when you turn on the television or pick up a major metropolitan newspaper, you may think you are getting news or entertainment; but instead you are getting deliberate brainwashing by people who think they know better than you what’s good for you to know and who are determined to “protect” you from any information they regard as “dangerous” such as the Christian standards of right and wrong on which this nation was built.

Authentic Christianity was the basis for the end of slavery, for the elevation of the status of women wherever the faith has been introduced, for the establishment of universities and hospitals and countless charities throughout the world. So what does Christianity “threaten”? However in the minds of the self-appointed elites, that’s enough to make us “dangerous” and that makes them dangerous to us, and to the survival of western civilisation which these self-appointed “elites” also hate.

Matthew 5:13 says, “You are the salt of the earth. But if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden underfoot.” Christians are to live differently than those who are not Christian; they should be people of integrity, so that those that are not saved will see our fruits and will find no fault with our integrity.

Secular Media’s Assault on Biblical Truths

Reports, editors, authors and media owners are participating in spreading anti-Biblical messages. Here are a few of the more common examples of the issues the secular media addresses:

• Promoting evolutionism in its various forms
• promoting homosexuality
• attacking Biblical corporal punishment
• promoting abortion

Media only reports only what it wishes

This results in a great loss of detail, and that’s where the TV producer’s personal bias comes into play:  he or she decides what parts of a story to include or omit. As many people have pointed out, broadcast news is dangerous, not because of what’s reported, but because of what is not reported.  This applies equally to both television and radio.

The kind of hatred being expressed by the media towards Christians and Jews today is a form of persecution where there is no martyr’s blood, only their frustration for us to conform to their philosophy. When over 200 million Christians in Communist and Muslim dictatorships live under severe persecution, they will not know that about 160,000 Christians are murdered for their faith every day. Those facts don’t make the news, because they are not “politically correct”.

On issues such as abortion, most journalists say they believe women should have a legal right to an abortion at any time; however most of the general public believe there should be a legal restriction on abortion. Also, a survey recently conducted by Lichter’s research found that 75% of media do not agree that homosexuality is wrong, and even a larger proportion, 85%, said that it’s OK for homosexuals to teach in public schools. This is a result of a decade of relentless pro-gay m

---

[1] Kuypers J. A. Press Bias and politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. Westport, Conn. Praeger Publishers 2002. Pg 272

[2] BBC edits out the word terrorist. By Tom Leonard. 12/07/2005

[3] W.E.BIERNATZKI, ‘Quality in Television Programming ‘, Communication Research Trends 15 (1955) pp.1- 39;here pp. 23-24.

[4] Th. JOHNSON et al., Faith in a Box: Television and Religion, Alexandria VA 1995.

[5] Quality Assessment of Broadcast Programming, Broadcasting Culture Research Institute, Tokyo 1991, pp. 160-164.

[6] S.HOOVER, Religion and the News, New York 1994, pp. 14-15.

[7] S.R.LICHTER et al., The Media Elite, New York 1986, p. 22.

[8] S.R.LICHTER et al., Media Coverage of the Catholic Church, New Haven PA 1991, pp. 74-75

[9] S.HOOVER et al., Religion in Public Discourse, University of Colorado 1994, pp. 9 – 15

[10] B.HEALY in Religion and the News, New York 1994, p. 3.

[11] M.SVENNEVIG et al., God watching: Viewers, Religion and Television, London 1988; B.GUNTER and R.VINNEY, Seeing is Believing: Religion and Television in the 1990s, London 1994

A Law for All: Britain Adopts Islamic Law

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.[1]

 

Should other faith groups be given similar privileges?

---

[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece - September 16, 2008

The Christian marriage is a covenant and not a contract!

Marriage and sex are from God and are therefore good. Our ability to establish a relationship with one of the opposite sex is directly tied to our creation in the image of God: so God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them. Everything that God made was “very good. ” Scripture teaches,

 “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favour from the Lord.”

 But human beings distorted marriage, this gracious gift given by the Creator and pronounced “good,” by sin. Maleness and femaleness are at the heart of human relationships; they are good gifts from a loving God. Marriage is God’s idea. It is neither man nor society’s idea. In order for our marriages to glorify God, we have to do it God’s way according to God’s blueprint.  We have to completely reject and toss out most of the pre-conceived ideas we have learnt from the world around us about marriage and take on God’s idea of marriage. Before you can erect a building that will weather the hurricanes and tornadoes of life, you have to make sure that the foundation you lay is strong enough to hold the building up.

 Since the Christian marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God, the couple has to use the Word of God as the building blocks of their marriage. They must be willing to allow the Word to change their whole outlook on life to God’s outlook.  Only then can they begin the process of building a strong solid marriage.

Democracy at work in the Great Britain

In recent years there has been a crisis in democracy in Britain. Political analyses believe that there has been an erosion of confidence in the institutions of representative democracy. They say that the reason for this attitude and also the growing cynicism is due to the decline in conventional participation: which has discouraged electoral turnout. In 1998, the House of Commons Affairs Committee investigated electoral law and administration, argued that the participation rates in British elections have been low and effects should be made to increase them. Increasing turnout levels are important because it is healthy for a democratic and political system that participation in the electoral process should be as high as possible. The major factors affecting turnout relates to the voters’ general perceptions of the importance of their own vote and the views of the particular candidates standing for elections. One of the problems Britain face today are a lack of good, honest candidates with traditional morals and values. Voters’ once could clearly distinguish each party’s manifesto but in recent elections, this has been unclear.

Another reason why people are losing confidence in the democratic system is because they feel that the have been ignored and it seems no matter what the majority has to say the government does its own will. Take for example, in 1999 the Labour government announced that it intended to abolish Section 28, introduced under the Conservative administration of Margaret Thatcher to prevent local government providing funding for gay and lesbian groups and discussing homosexual relations in sex education classes in schools. A campaign to keep “Section 28″, accompanied by much public debate, was funded by a rich businessman, a Free Church member, who formed an alliance with certain religious groups and conservatives. Allegedly four million ballot papers were distributed, and about forty percent returned. Not surprisingly, those against teaching about homosexuality were more likely to take part and 80% voted to keep the bill. A poll of this type has no legal effect and parliament had announced in advance that the result would be ignored.[1]

Every elections in Britain people are free and without victimisation to vote for a party of their choice. The reason we all vote is because we either believe the promises that the political party’s make or we vote for the one with the philosophies we agree to. For we all want to make Britain a better place. However some governments abuse their position and become a “democratic dictator”. They have been elected by the people and for the people yet in office they represent no one but the longevity of their party in power. Such examples are of Zimbabwe and the tyranny of Robert Mugabe who during election after election forces the masses to vote for him or face the consequences. Britain is not that extreme however they are as controlling, for example:

In Britain we have lost our privacy and we slowly coming into the days when we lose our freedom. Our Government has given itself unbelievable new powers to listen to, read and monitor all our communications and transactions. Personal privacy, the essence of true liberty, no longer exists. And the worst is yet to come. Our ruthless and abusive Government clearly intends to extend its powers still further and to continue to take away what few rights we have left and what little privacy remains. It seems that every new piece of legislation is now introduced in the name of terrorism.  Surveillance cameras are everywhere. The Government is bringing in ID cards. New legislation reducing our civil liberties is being introduced so quickly that civil liberties groups hardly have time to express outrage at one new piece of fascist legislation before another ism being prepared.
The Government keeps detailed records of every move we make. They have introduced new legislation, which has so damaged our personal security that identity theft is now one of the fastest growing types of crime. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens is now just a memory. The law enforcement agencies have given up protecting the public (the task for which they are paid) and now spend most of their time persecuting motorists (an easy target and a ready source of income).

“The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that “Parliament” has “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”[2]

 

---

[1] Sources: www.eurogay.co.uk, World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

[2] Chap. I. p. 3, post. Parliament may itself by Act of Parliament either expressly or impliedly give to some subordinate legislature or other body the power to modify or add to INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION by A. V. Dicey, All Souls College, Oxford, 1885

Anti-Christian attacks in India

Thousands of Christians are hiding in jungles in the impoverished Indian state of Orissa to escape a wave of anti-Christian violence. Christian groups claim 400 churches and other buildings have been damaged or destroyed and about 1200 homes torched by Hindu mobs supporting the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) or World Hindu Council. Officials say 20 people, mostly Christians, have been killed in 10 days of sectarian violence, although Delhi-based human rights watchdog, the Asian Centre for Human Rights, puts the number of dead at 50. Sajan George, convener of the Global Council of the Indian Christians, and Richard Howell, general secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India, said at least 50,000 Christians had fled into the relative safety of remote jungle areas. At least 10,000 more had moved into guarded refugee camps.

The violence in Orissa erupted after an anti-missionary Hindu leader, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, was shot dead in the Kandhamal district on the night of August 24. The VHP blamed “Christian militants” for the killing and revenge attacks began. Maoist rebels operating in Orissa have since claimed responsibility for the swami’s death but that did not put an end to the attacks. A hard-line Hindu leader in Orissa, Subhash Chauhan, said that Christians were behind the murder of the Swami and demanded they apologise for the brutal killing. “If they do not, the reaction of Hindus to the swami’s murder will continue,” he said. The violence against Christians has spread to many districts in Orissa and at least two other states.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has labeled the violence a “national shame” and a “rapid action force” has been deployed in Orissa’s worst affected districts to bolster local police resources. But Indian church leaders say not enough is being done to protect Christians who make up only 2 to 3% of Orissa’s population.[1]

 

 

---

[1] http://www.theage.com.au/world/indians-flee-from-antichristian-attacks-20080903-48y0.html

The Condition of Humanity

What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water? (Job 15:14-16)

 

In Ephesians 2:1, Paul writes, “and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” So, Job says that we are filthy and Paul says that we are dead. I John 3:8 tells us that we belong to the devil: “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” We can see from this that man is in desperate need of help. He is filthy, dead, and has the devil. To be spiritually dead refers to separation from God; it does not mean to be physically dead. At this point, there is no fellowship between man and God. Therefore, we need life, and the doctrine of regeneration explains how we obtain life. You are spiritually dead until you become a believer in Jesus Christ, and there is no relationship between you and God. You will find that when you speak to certain people about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they do not respond, for they are dead.  They cannot respond to your words in a spiritual realm any more than a body in a grave can respond to words spoken in the natural realm.

For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them. (Isaiah 59:12)

 Holiness is a characteristic that God alone possesses. To be holy is to be set apart because when we say that God is holy, we mean that He is entirely different from men. He is set apart from us. He cannot enter into fellowship with us because of our sin-there is a separation. The nature of God’s holiness means that it is necessary for a change to take place in us if we are to enter into His presence. We do not need to be altered, influenced, re-invigorated, or reformed; neither do we need a good case of religion. We need to have a work of God within us. He only receives unto Himself those who have perfect righteousness or those who possess divine life. Another reason for regeneration is the character of Heaven itself:

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Revelation 21:27)

Heaven is a place where absolute purity prevails. New Jerusalem is a Holy City (a glorified City) and only those who are holy and pure shall enter that City.