The Intolerance of the Promoters of Tolerance
The homosexual lobby not only insists on tolerance for its constituency but also projects itself as the champion of tolerance. A recent incident in the USA shows otherwise. It concerns Brendan Eich, a brilliant software engineer, the creator of JavaScript, a computing language, and co-founder of Mozilla, the company that owns the internet browser, Firefox.
Eich was recently appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Mozilla Corporation, but the news of his appointment outraged many members of the so-called gay community. His crime in their eyes was that six years ago he privately donated $1000 to the campaign for California Proposition 8, which stated, and aimed to protect, the orthodox Christian position on marriage, and thus was in opposition to same-sex marriage.
So great was the outcry at his appointment, some of it from Mozilla executives who had been angered by his support of Proposition 8, that he was forced to resign after less than two weeks as CEO. Despite endeavours to conciliate those who objected to his appointment by reminding them that he did not bring his views on same-sex marriage into the workplace and had never discriminated against homosexual employees, the clamour increased and he was forced to step down.
So much for the tolerance of the champions of tolerance. Tolerance of diversity, sexual orientation and even religion is increasingly required of employees in business corporations, universities, health services and government departments but, on the other hand, the Christian worldview is tolerated less and less. Righteous Lot reasoned with those who wanted toleration for their sinful lust, but they intolerantly threatened him: “Stand back. . . . This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.” Christians cannot but expect to face bigoted attitudes when the advocates of sin are in the ascendancy. NMR
Chinese Christians Defend their Church
An extraordinary event has occurred among Protestant Christians in Wenzhou, a city in south east China. Thousands of them have gathered to protect a church from being demolished by government authorities, who have painted on it the words: “Illegal construction”, and, “Demolish”.
The building belongs to Sanjiang Christian Church, which is registered with the authorities but not affiliated with the “Three-Self Patriotic Movement” of Protestant churches, controlled by the Communist Party. The people of the huge congregation, joined by Christians from other congregations in the city, have camped in and around the church to guard it. The basic reason for the demolition order is evidently the displeasure of Party officials at the speedy growth of Christianity in the city, which is known as “The Jerusalem of the East”.
Some members of the congregation have told the press that the construction of the church was not against the law but that it came under the scrutiny of officials because Xia Baolong, the provincial Party chief, objected to a church which could house thousands of worshippers. One Christian protester told the South China Morning Post: “We are not seeking a violent confrontation. We are holding a peaceful sit-in, praying to God for help.” May He be their shield and cause the light of the knowledge of His glory to spread throughout that great nation of almost 1.4 billion souls – nearly a fifth of the world’s population. NMR
The Big Bang
An article in Time magazine boasts that a recent scientific discovery – of “ripples” in the “microwave radiation that pervades the cosmos” – has, if it is correct, “nailed down the Big Bang, eliminating the few other remaining scientific theories about how the universe began”. We very much doubt that the claim is true, even on its own terms. Probably the proponents of these other theories will do just what the proponents of the Big Bang do with every difficulty that they encounter: jiggle their equations a bit to fit the new data, and carry on.
But there is another “theory” that is not eliminated by the new discovery, namely that of special Creation in the recent past by an Almighty God: “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. God created the universe either with this ripple or in such a way that this ripple would be apparent at this present time. Such a “theory” is not easy to eliminate. Indeed the useful “test” theory that the universe was created one second ago is not easy to eliminate either, and it shows the limitations of science in establishing what happened in the past.
The fact is that what happened in the past is strictly history rather than science, and while scientific methods may be useful in limiting possibilities and in suggesting areas of research, they will seldom establish with certainty the occurrence of any complex event. The course of the missing Malaysian passenger plane was not deduced purely from currently repeatable observations but required also the knowledge of historical “pings” which had been recorded by a satellite during its flight. Scientific methods were applied to these “pings” but the “pings” themselves could not be reproduced.
The Time article says that scientists at other research centres will now try to replicate the observations which led to the discovery of these microwave ripples. By so doing they may verify the existence of the ripples, but they will not establish that the Big Bang happened. To do that would probably require replicating the beginning of the universe! Meanwhile we have an accurate historical account of its beginning in Genesis 1, and we know from it that the physicists are wrong. Their new discovery may well be useful for some other purpose but not for determining the origin of the universe. DWBS
Abortion Liberalisation
Disturbing reports have trickled down through the media on increasingly-liberal abortion practices being implemented in the UK. Since the notorious 1967 Abortion Act was introduced, the floodgates have opened, resulting in more than 8 million unborn babies being killed. However, safeguards were built into the Act inception there and terminations were supposed to be carried out only in certain extreme situations. The Act required cases to be certified by two registered practitioners, after consultation with the mother. These doctors were meant to assess the medical risks to her “in good faith” to ensure that certain conditions were met.
The Labour government of 1999 made the position very clear by stating: “Under the Abortion Act of 1967, pregnancies are terminated to protect health. Other than in an emergency to save a woman’s life, medical practitioners must give their opinions on the reasons under the Act for the termination, following consultation with the woman.” While these conditions were sometimes flouted and several hospital doctors were found guilty of signing off abortions illegally, without seeing the mother, the legal position remained the same.
However, we now hear of an attempt by a Government minister, apparently by the back door, to dilute these conditions. In July 2012 Andrew Lansley, the then Health Secretary, is said to have issued guidance to abortion providers, that it was not necessary for two doctors to assess the mother in order to proceed to termination. This was done without informing or consulting parliament. Four years earlier, Mr Lansley, as Shadow Health Secretary had proposed, unsuccessfully, an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have abolished the “two doctors rule”. And in government he took the opportunity to promote his liberal views.
It was not until January 2013 that these “interim procedures” were put onto the Government website under the new Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. By then it became clear that Mr Lansley did not require the mother to consult even one doctor, as the following quotation from these procedures shows: “We consider it good practice that one of the two certifying doctors has seen the woman, though this is not a legal requirement”. The interim procedures eventually came up for consultation in November 2013 with the additional proviso, “Members of a multidisciplinary team can play a role in seeking information from the woman”. This would imply that it would suffice for a nurse, or even someone with little or no medical experience, to talk with the mother. Doctors would merely sign the consent forms, having had no contact with the patient.
This consultation has now ended and the guidelines are about to be published by the Department of Health. Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship states, “At that point Lansley’s new interpretation of the Abortion Act – that no doctor need see a woman before authorising an abortion – will be set in stone without Parliament ever having debated it and with most government MPs not even being aware that it has happened right under their noses”. Abortion is abhorrent, except when the mother’s life is in danger, and it is an abomination in the eyes of God – whoever sanctions it. Yet having some safeguards, and the requirement of two doctors to discuss the matter with the mother, just may save the lives of a few unborn children. Now even these safeguards are set to be taken away if the new procedures are officially legalised.
The further demeaning of life, at its most vulnerable, in the womb, shows the degree of cruelty in our society and is bringing further guilt on our nation. Truly “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Prov 12:10). KHM
“The Right Thing to Do”
Maria Miller, Culture Secretary in the UK Government, was responsible for piloting the Bill legalising same-sex marriage through the House of Commons. This legislation, she then claimed, was “the right thing to do”, though she was, in fact, trampling on the divine institution of marriage. More recently, discrepancies in her claims for housing expenses have come to light. She made an apology, widely perceived to be somewhat perfunctory, to the House and has repaid an agreed amount of what she had claimed as expenses. Clearly, to put it mildly, she did not have God’s blessing on her parliamentary work. She has now resigned from her ministerial position, remarking that this was “the right thing to do”. God in His providence has shown that He still reigns. May He so work that all ungodly legislation will be repealed and multitudes brought to live in His fear. He is able to do so.