Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

Property and Love for the Poor

Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog
September 23, 2014
I have written a great deal on how the framework provided by biblical ethics honors and preserves the institution of private property. The argument is not complex. Just as “thou shalt not commit adultery” presupposes and honors the institution of marriage, so also “thou shalt not steal” presupposes and honors the institution of private property.

The private property that is honored is that which comes to a man through the ordinary processes. “Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope” (1 Cor. 9:10). God is the one who gives us the power to get wealth (Dt. 8:18), and it comes up to us from the ground. It does not float down upon us from the state.

We learn the principle when learning to love the haves — but it applies even more to the have nots. When a people are being liberated from covetousness, envy, and the larceny resident in every socialist scheme, they need to learn to mortify this sin in the presence of a neighbor who has manicured lawns, a red convertible, and a beautiful wife (Ex. 20:17). Learning what love means in this instance means learning how to hate the covetousness that arises so easily under every human sternum. Love that is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:10) is a love that does no harm to its neighbor. Listed among the things that are harmful and destructive to our neighbor is covetousness (Rom. 13:9). This is why it is so necessary to elect men who fear God and hate covetousness (Ex. 18:21). And it should go without saying that you can’t hate covetousness if you don’t even know what it is.

But we must insist on something else. Mortifying covetousness is not just a blessing to the fat cats. In his magnificent book The Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto demonstrates how a societal refusal to recognize property rights by means of honoring and protecting clear title is one of the central reasons why poor people are locked in grinding poverty. Where property is not respected, property (whenever it is acquired) hides. And when property hides, it cannot come out into the daylight and do useful work. The useful work it could do is that of lifting the people involved out of poverty. But in order for property to be able to do this most beneficent thing, it has to be able to come out into public view and not be assaulted or confiscated. In short, property must be safe, and it cannot be safe whenever the people are envious and covetous.

This is why we must love liberty and hate every form of coercive theft. Making that coercive theft “legal” by sanctioning it society-wide only serves to make everything far worse. Legalizing activities prohibited by the Ten Commandments does not successfully whitewash the sin. If something is perfectly appalling, we do not fix it by nodding sagely and saying, “You know, the ways their laws are structured . . .”

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

Good things as well as bad, you know, are caught by a kind of infection. If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to be wet you must get into the water. If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them. They are not a sort of prize which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone. They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality. If you are close to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry. Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever?

From Mere Christianity
Compiled in Words to Live By

Mere Christianity. Copyright © 1952, C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. Copyright renewed © 1980, C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission of HarperCollins Publishers. Words to Live By: A Guide for the Merely Christian. Copyright © 2007 by C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission of HarperCollins Publishers. Sourced from BibleGateway.

The End is Nigh

Fashionable Nutters

The Climate Change Doomsday Cult has tossed up more than its fair share of nutters.  If you stupidly, but genuinely, believe that “the end is nigh” for the human race, let alone the planet, then such desperate times call for desperate measures.  We can understand the logic, just as we grasp the logic of those who have believed that the world will end at midnight on the 13th of June, 2001 (or whenever) and who have traipsed out into the desert to set up survivalist compounds, thereby avoiding the worst of Armageddon.

In each case, the logic is sound; it’s the premises that are false.  The Climate Change Doomsday Cult has  this one distinction from apocalyptic forbears, however.  It has managed to capture the fears and febrile imagination of the chattering classes and the Commentariat, normally too urbane and sophisticated to get taken in by Doomsday cults.  Here are a couple of examples of the elites having been suckered.  First, the Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, as reported in BreitbartNews

NEW YORK CITY — New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters on Sunday during the People’s Climate March that the city’s private sector buildings may be mandated to be retrofitted to adapt to the city’s green house gas emission reduction plan. “We are now the largest city on the earth to adopt the 80/50 standard. We are going to retrofit all of our public buildings. We are going to work with the public sector. We are going to work with the private sector to retrofit their buildings. I’ve said very clearly, I think the private sector is ready and willing. I think it’s in all of our interests,” he said. “It’s a matter of survival. We’ll work with them. We’ll incentivize. We’ll support. If that is not moving fast enough, we will move to mandates because we have to get there. This is a matter of survival.” 

Mayor de Blasio announced he was committed to an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, beginning with sweeping regulations among buildings in the city.

The cost impost upon New York City will be horrendous.  Unintended perverse effects will follow: businesses migrating out of the city, owners of buildings going bankrupt; buildings being abandoned, economic growth (also known as employment, wages, and the ability to provide for families) will lag.  The only growth industry will be the power, organs, officials, and rules and regulations of the city government.  De Blasio is going to command and control New York into becoming a giant survivalist compound.  Paradoxically this will bring upon the city the equivalent of a nuclear winter, albeit by other means.  His plan will cause the alleged disasters hectored abroad by the Climate Change Doomsday Cult to come into being. But it’s all OK, because New Yorkers’ very survival is at stake. 

And here are some examples of the Climate Change Doomsday Cult in action the UK:

Actress Emma Thompson, arguably best known for her Best Actress Oscar in Howards End and for her courage in naming her daughter Gaia, has declared that anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change is “bonkers”.  . . .

“Unless we’re carbon free by 2030 the world is buggered,” Ms Thompson claimed, apparently unaware that the trace gas carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of almost every industrial process and that if anyone took her prescription seriously then Western Civilisation would be brought grinding to a halt and the world would indeed be “buggered.”

Yup.  Doomsday is looming.  Here is another version of the Climate Change Doomsday Cult, this time from a fashion designer.

Emma Thompson and Gaia weren’t the only celebrities lending their expertise to the climate march. Also present was fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, who averred:

“A triad of [fossil fuel] monopolies, banks and politicians are ruining the planet. If runaway climate change kicks in then within a generation, there will be very little habitable on the planet and the suffering will be unimaginable.”

Could these icons of the Commentariat be wrong?   Yes.  Their passion may be compelling–but that’s always been true of Doomsday Cults.  Here is the “other side” of the argument, as summarised in the New York Post, soon to become the ex-New York Post (we confidently predict, if the madcap mayor has his way): 

Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
Consider:

  •  According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
  • Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
  •  Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
  •  A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” . . .The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.

Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.  Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.

Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”  Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries.

That is where the moral outrage should lie.

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.

Moral Bankruptcy of Utilitarian Calculus

Thank you, Professor Dawkins!



Who said nothing ever happens in August! Just as we were looking forward to a quiet bank holiday weekend, up pops Prof Dawkins with a disturbing tweet. Responding to another Twitter posting by a woman admitting she would face a ‘“real ethical dilemma”’ if she became pregnant and found she was carrying a baby with Down’s syndrome, he suggested she should simply abort and try again, and that it would be ‘“immoral”’ to bring into the world a child with Down’s syndrome if you had the choice. He attempted to justify himself further here.

So, there we have it. Knowingly giving life to a child with Down’s syndrome is immoral, terminating its life is commendable. On what grounds would an intelligent person say such a thing, you might ask?
To prevent the child’s suffering – the compassion argument?

Truth is, people with Down’s syndrome don’t ‘suffer’ from their condition, they live with it. And in general the lives they live are more joyous than most.

So might it be the struggles faced by the parents that the professor has in mind?

Well, let’s face it – parenting any child brings its challenges, and a child with additional needs and vulnerabilities will certainly present additional challenges. But personal accounts suggest that the particular contribution made to family life by children with Down’s syndrome, and in particular the love that they inspire in others, more than compensates for those added pressures.

No, Prof Dawkins opinion is based on a belief that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. Sometimes dubbed ‘functionalism’, it is an aspect of utilitarian philosophy that measures the worth of a life in terms of its potential contribution to society as a whole. It leads to certain people, for whom no remedies exist, being regarded as so much ‘excess baggage’.

This is not a new idea. Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, argued strongly that for societies to protect and preserve their weak and sickly members was to contravene natural selection. If they survived into reproductive years then they would be likely to pass on their genetic flaws to another generation, thus inhibiting the evolutionary progress of the human species. Eugenics was born, and the idea was readily accepted in both scientific and political circles, paving the philosophical way for the atrocities that eventually would follow in Nazi Germany.

With increasing distance from those dreadful days, the wish to create ‘desirable’ persons is fuelling a new and so-called ‘respectable’ eugenics. The economic costs of care and modern society’s reluctance to accept personal sacrifice have led to open hunting season on the disabled unborn as evidenced, for example, by the fact that in the UK, 92% of women who receive a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome have an abortion. And even those who do come to birth are not safe – there are ethicists who propose it should be legal to kill newly born babies with Down’s syndrome (1) .

So, thank you Prof Dawkins and Twitter for drawing to our attention the return of eugenics in a new guise – ‘abort, and try again’. Thank you for illustrating again the moral bankruptcy of utilitarian calculus. As for me, the bank holiday included the 20th birthday celebration of one of the liveliest, joy-dispensing and fulfilled people I know, who just happens to have Down’s syndrome. How much poorer the world would be without her!

 Reference
1. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

Daily Devotional

How to Fight Anxiety

Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you. (1 Peter 5:7)

John Piper

Psalm 56:3 says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in thee.”

Notice: it does not say, “I never struggle with fear.” Fear strikes, and the battle begins. So the Bible does not assume that true believers will have no anxieties. Instead the Bible tells us how to fight when they strike.
For example, 1 Peter 5:7 says, “Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you.” It does not say, you will never feel any anxieties. It says, when you have them, cast them on God. When the mud splatters your windshield and you temporarily lose sight of the road and start to swerve in anxiety, turn on your wipers and squirt your windshield washer.

So my response to the person who has to deal with feelings of anxiety every day is to say: that’s more or less normal. At least it is for me, ever since my teenage years. The issue is: How do we fight them?

The answer to that question is: we fight anxieties by fighting against unbelief and fighting for faith in future grace. And the way you fight this “good fight” is by meditating on God’s assurances of future grace and by asking for the help of his Spirit.

The windshield wipers are the promises of God that clear away the mud of unbelief, and the windshield washer fluid is the help of the Holy Spirit. The battle to be freed from sin is fought “by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

The work of the Spirit and the Word of truth. These are the great faith-builders. Without the softening work of the Holy Spirit, the wipers of the Word just scrape over the blinding clumps of unbelief.

Both are necessary — the Spirit and the Word. We read the promises of God and we pray for the help of his Spirit. And as the windshield clears so that we can see the welfare that God plans for us (Jeremiah 29:11), our faith grows stronger and the swerving of anxiety smooths out.

For more about John Piper’s ministry and writing, see DesiringGod.org.

Pederasty’s Easy Facilitation

Evil is Never Static

The Sydney Morning Herald has carried a piece about pederasty facilitated by misuse of the Internet.  The core of the piece reveals not just the extent of the crime, but the sophistication of its perpetrators. 

A special police taskforce has discovered the number of sex offenders who target children in in Australia has been wildly underestimated and local paedophiles have set up secure online sites to share intelligence on how to trap victims.  Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton says police are shocked at the number of active offenders operating in Victoria. “There are hundreds and hundreds. We have found some terrible stuff that would keep you awake at night,” he told Fairfax Media.

He said Taskforce Astraea is conducting 120 separate investigations and has rescued 40 children in Australia and offshore who had been targeted by paedophiles.   The taskforce began by using computer software to identify encrypted child pornography images but soon discovered many offenders move quickly from “passive” observers to aggressive molesters.
Astraea has found:

  • Pay-for-view sites where children are abused and in some cases tortured.
  • Teenage girls in Melbourne are being blackmailed for sex by adult offenders.
  • Secure chat rooms where offenders discuss methods to groom children and tips to avoid detection.
  • Elaborate internet stings designed to trap vulnerable teenagers.

Astraea investigations reveal offenders trawl sites until they find someone they feel can be exploited and make contact pretending to be a person around the same age.  They then introduce a second fake character who bullies the victim on line. The offender then steps in to “protect” the target to win affection. “They then share some images and the hooks are in,” Mr Ashton said.  “He says he will tell friends and parents unless we meet. We have had kids climbing out the window at 2am to meet a paedophile.”

He said most adults are unaware of the internet threat to their children. “Parents can be downstairs watching Family Feud while their teenage daughter is chatting to a notorious paedophile online in the bedroom upstairs.  They are sharing intelligence online and educating each other by saying, ‘This works, this doesn’t, don’t do this or you will be caught’.”

Depravity, whilst common to all, is never static in the human soul.  It is either growing or diminishing, waxing or waning.  When lust takes over, its servants will be found working industrially to satiate their slaked thirst.  More and more extreme perversions will be required to satisfy their spiritual, mental, and bodily cravings.

Some takeouts:

1. The dominant materialistic world-view and its hand-maiden evolutionism has no firm ground upon which to fight such evils–which is to say that modern Western society does not really believe in the existence of evil.  Evil is nothing more than an irritant to the machine  All if requires is the application of fragrant grease–other people’s money–and the evil will wane. The machine will run smoothly again.  Whenever modern society arises to combat an extreme form of wickedness, such as pederasty, it is compromised and dilatory from the outset.  Materialism and evolutionism do not believe in the existence of absolute evil.  It does not believe in the existence of Satan.  Worse, it ridicules the idea as primitive and superstitious.

2. Parents who allow their children unsupervised and unregulated access to the Internet and mobile phones are beyond irresponsible.  They are themselves complicit in immorality.  Might as well be completely permissive and allow their children liberty and license to wander the streets of red-light districts unaccompanied into the early morning hours. 

3.  Modern technology-besotted Western culture has worshipped at the feet of the great IT idol.  Parents have been repeatedly told that their children will not succeed in the coming generation unless they are utterly conversant with IT devices of every kind and their deployment and application.  Never has a generation of parents been so enervated and enfeebled; never has a generation of parents agreed that they are inadequate to prepare their children for effective adult like; never has a generation of parents been so emasculated in their own minds.

4.  Complicit in this mass stupidity is the statist educational establishment, which, having failed to teach children how to read and write in its academies of “learning”, has sought to deflect criticism by category revision: education no longer is about reading, writing, and maths and their derivatives.  All that is passée.  IT is the new real.  Children go to school to learn how to text and develop Facebook capabilities.  Any parent who subjects children to antediluvian pre-occupations with the 3-R’s is coming close to child abuse.  No classroom, unless it is replete with laptops, tablets, i-phones, and intranets, is worthy of the name.

5.  If we, as a culture, do not swallow our craven pride, turn from our evil ways, and repent of our sins, seeking the Lord’s mercy and forgiveness, it will get worse.  If it had been argued in the 1960’s that within fifty years, children would be being groomed and manipulated by adults into sexual perversion on an industrial scale, they would have been dismissed as an idiot.  If we do not humble ourselves, the next fifty years will see far, far worse.  Evil is never static.  It is either being itself eviscerated, or it will be growing in strength to where it will disembowel a society.  “We have had kids climbing out the window at 2am to meet a paedophile,” while their “parents are downstairs watching Family Feud,”  just about says it all.

Novels Every Christian Should Consider Reading, Part VIII

Russell Moore: A Novel Every Christian Should Consider Reading

Sep 17, 2014 

RDM-square

Russell D. Moore (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is President of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s official entity assigned to address social, moral, and ethical concerns.

He blogs frequently at his “Moore to the Point” website, and is the author or editor of five books, including Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ, Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches, and The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective.


ts

Imagine Left Behind if what were raptured were not persons but inhibitions. That still wouldn’t be this novel. You would have to further imagine the book showcasing zombies with nothing much left of their humanity but their appetites, combated by a physician with a tendency toward witty asides about culture, religion, and human psychology. And you’d have to further imagine the novel written by an Old Testament prophet with literary superpowers peering into the future set before us. Then you’d start approaching what Walker Percy’s The Thanatos Syndrome is like, and why you should read it.
 
Walker Percy (1916-1990) was the heir of one of Mississippi’s most powerful political and literary families. He was medical doctor in Covington, Louisiana (round about New Orleans) with expertise in philosophy and semiotics. He was also a keen observer of popular culture. When visiting with the literary genius Eudora Welty, it’s reported that they were overheard discussing not Faulkner or Chekhov but The Incredible Hulk.

He was a Christian deeply immersed in the thought of Augustine and Søren Kierkegaard. And he was estranged enough from American culture to be able to watch it, as though from afar.

The protagonist of this novel, Percy’s last, is an alcoholic physician who’s done some jail-time, and has now returned home to find that the cast of characters is the same as he left them, but they seem to be reading from a different script. He discovers that his neighbors are being pharmaceutically engineered in a way that removes their human troubles, their human fears, their human reluctances, but, with all of that, it seems, their humanity itself.

The story is brisk, and fun, in its own right, but embedded in the story is a jeremiad of what Percy saw bubbling beneath the surface of American culture. Taking aim at a kaleidoscope of targets, Percy gives us More, to the point. At the heart of his prophetic critique is the division of body from soul.

This starts with the book’s view of science, which divides body from soul by replacing the concept of soul altogether. Near the beginning of the novel, Dr. More complains that psychologists who actually believe in a psyche are near extinct, replaced by “brain engineers” who reduce everything to synapses and chemicals. “If one can prescribe a chemical and overnight turn a haunted soul into a bustling little body, why take on such a quixotic quest as pursing the secret of one’s very own self?”

This quest for engineered happiness, at the heart of the narrative, is what happens when abstract reason and data replace the mystery of human existence. The result of rationalism isn’t, ultimately cool detachment, but hedonism. He sums up the thought of B.F. Skinner this way: “The object of life is to gratify yourself without getting arrested.”

This wild coldness that starts with the dehumanization of the self continues toward the dehumanization of others. And that begins with words. “Neonates” are infants and “euthanates” are the elderly, both of whom are killed. In a cunning use of language, the Supreme Court does not deprive them of a right to life, but instead rules for them, with a “right to death.” The infants are lacking in a right to life because they are not conscious of themselves, and if self-consciousness is what it means to be human, well, then what are they?

The cruel experiments at the heart of this book are pictured not as self-consciously cruel, but as attempts at philanthropy, to “fix” what’s wrong with people. It turns out thought that if one doesn’t know, as Wendell Berry would put it, “what people are for,” this is awful. And if one no longer knows what humanity is, one can kill without ever feeling bloodthirsty. In fact, you can feel as though you are saving the world.

The body/soul division shows up not just in secularizing, utopian science but also in American religion. Percy was, I think, the keenest observer in our time of the almost-gospels of the Bible Belt. He talks here about “educated Episcopal-type unbelievers,” who need the social cache of religion but not much else. He mentions that Louisiana is more Christian than ever, “not Catholic Christian but Texas Christian.”

Even this enthusiastic evangelicalism, though, is often a matter of fitting into the culture. These Cajuns were converted, he notes “first by Texas oil bucks, then by Texas evangelists.”

These evangelicals are hard-working, dependable, quick to call one “brother” and to shout “Hallelujah” in conversation. More says, “I’ve nothing against them, but they give me the creeps.”

In the character of Ellen, he describes a woman who makes the trek from southern Presbyterianism to Pentecostalism, put off by the liberalism of mainline Protestantism. Her new birth, though, disconnected spirit from matter, in her mind. “She loves the Holy Spirit but says little about Jesus,” he reflects. This, like the move from psychology to psychopharmacology, has consequences.

“She is herself a little holy spirit hooked up to a lusty body,” he says. “In her case the spirit has nothing to do with the body. Each goes its own way.” This shows up in her attitude toward the Lord’s Supper, which she sees as “Catholic trafficking in bread, wine, oil, salt, water, body, blood, spit—things. What does the Holy Spirit need with things? Body does body things. Spirit does spirit things.”

As with science, this sort of disconnection of soul from body, doesn’t stop carnality; it just results in the worst sort of carnality, that without a soul or conscience.

Every Christian should read this novel because in it you will start to see why some of the ethical anarchy around us is happening. You’ll recognize a society that thinks it can medicate away the fear of death, a society that thinks human existence is the sum total of neurons firing. You’ll recognize why, for instance, the advocates of abortion rights increasingly no longer bother to argue that unborn life isn’t human. One need only argue that it isn’t happy, and there are always those who can “fix” unhappiness with a pill or a scalpel.

But, at the same time, Percy’s novel isn’t a politicized caricature of why the other side must be stopped. There are not villains of all-encompassing wickedness and heroes of imitable virtue. The culture of death, in this book, isn’t just a political issue or a cultural force or a “worldview.” It’s a spirit of the age that is cunning enough not to stay on just one side of culture war fence. In this book, Percy shows us the culture of death—and shows us our own faces there. Like all prophets worth the name, he recognizes that judgment starts with the household of God.

Daily Devotional

The Goal of Christ’s Love

“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory.” (John 17:24)

John Piper

Believers in Jesus are precious to God (we’re his bride!). And he loves us so much that he will not allow our preciousness to become our god.  God does indeed make much of us (adoption!), but he does so in a way that draws us out of ourselves to enjoy his greatness.

Test yourself. If Jesus came to spend the day with you, sat down beside you on the couch, and said, “I really love you,” what would you focus on the rest of the day that you spend together?  It seems to me that too many songs and sermons leave us with the wrong answer. They leave the impression that the heights of our joy would be in the recurrent feeling of being loved. “He loves me!” “He loves me!” This is joy indeed. But not the heights and not the focus.

What are we saying with the words “I am loved”? What do we mean? What is this “being loved”?  Would not the greatest, most Christ-exalting joy be found in watching Jesus all day and bursting with, “You’re amazing!” “You are amazing!”

  • He answers the hardest question, and his wisdom is amazing.
  • He touches a filthy, oozing sore, and his compassion is amazing.
  • He raises a dead lady at the medical examiner’s office, and his power is amazing.
  • He predicts the afternoon’s events, and his foreknowledge is amazing.
  • He sleeps during an earthquake, and his fearlessness is amazing.
  • He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” and his words are amazing.

We walk around with him utterly amazed at what we are seeing.

Is not his love for us his eagerness to do for us all he must do (including die for us) so that we can marvel at him and not be incinerated by him? Redemption, propitiation, forgiveness, justification, reconciliation — all these have to happen. They are the act of love.  But the goal of love that makes those acts loving is that we be with him and see his jaw-dropping glory and be astounded. In those moments we forget ourselves and see and feel him.

So I am urging pastors and teachers: Push people through the acts of Christ’s love to the goal of his love. If redemption and propitiation and forgiveness and justification and reconciliation are not taking us to the enjoyment of Jesus himself, they are not love.  Press on this. It’s what Jesus prayed for.

For more about John Piper’s ministry and writing, see DesiringGod.org.

Following An Inglorious Example

Not a Slow Learner

We confess we could not resist the belly-laughter when we came across a piece in the NZ Herald about Australia’s version of the Gunpowder Plot.  Islamic cadres have apparently been plotting to attack the heart of Australia, which, as every Australian knows, is Canberra, the home of the federal gummint. 

Congratulations and thanks need to go to the Australian authorities, the espionage agencies, and the police for sniffing out the plots in advance and being able to take preventative action.  It must be a relief to every Aussie–Australian Islamists excepted.

Security at Parliament House in Canberra is being ramped up amid reports of a planned terrorist attack.  Senior intelligence sources confirmed to News Corp Australia that spy, police and counter-terrorism agencies had intercepted information regarding a possible attack on Parliament House, and there are concerns the prime minister and other senior officials could be targeted.  The news report said there were fears the building had been “scoped out” for a “Mumbai-style” attack using automatic weapons.

But the article went on to consider more general issues.  Apparently, Western governments are perplexed that they can no-longer effectively curtail the ability of ISIS to raise money to fund its operations.  Al Qaeda relied upon donations.  Once donors had been identified, it was relatively easy for Western governments to target them and neutralise them.  But ISIS represents a very different fund-raising strategy.

Western governments are facing an uphill battle trying to squeeze the finances of Islamic State jihadists, as the extremists operate like a “mafia” in territory under their control in Syria and Iraq, experts say.  Unlike the al-Qaeda network, which has relied almost exclusively on private donations, Isis holds a large area in Syria and Iraq that allows it to generate cash from extortion, kidnapping and smuggling of both oil and antiquities, analysts say. As a result, the group’s funding presents a much more difficult target for Western sanctions compared to al-Qaeda’s finances, said Evan Jendruck, an analyst at IHS Jane’s consultancy.

Even conservative estimates portray Isis as the world’s richest extremist organisation, raking in at least a million dollars a day.  The group is “merciless in shaking down local businesses for cash and routinely forces drivers on roads under its control to pay a tax”, a US intelligence official said. “Its cash-raising activities resemble those of a mafia-like organisation.”

Sounds remarkably like the activities of a modern, rapacious Western government, taxing the life-blood out of its citizens to fund its nefarious predatory activities.  Whatever ISIS might be, it is certainly not a slow learner.  Doubtless many in the West will see the more sophisticated fiscal activities of ISIS as a sign it is becoming more Westernised in its ideology and outlook.

Deconstructing an Elitist Liberal Green

Naomi Klein On A Good Day

James Delingpole
Breitbart London
16 September, 2014

Green activist Naomi Klein has a new book out today. If past form is anything to go by – No Logo; The Shock Doctrine – it will become an instant bestseller and will be informing liberal arguments for months and years to come. Here’s what you need to know about her latest, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

1. It’s all about Naomi.

“At some point about seven years ago I realised I had become so convinced we were headed towards a grim ecological collapse that I was losing my capacity to enjoy my time in nature.”

Bomb the global economy back to the Dark Ages right now! We cannot, under any circumstances, allow Naomi’s feelings, mental health or picnics to be jeopardised by prosperity!
 
2. Even the BP spill is really about Naomi.

“After more tests, my doctor told me my hormone levels were much too low and I’d probably miscarry for the third time. My mind raced back to the Gulf – the toxic fumes I had breathed in for days and the contaminated water I had waded in. I searched on the chemicals BP was using in huge quantities and found reams of online chatter linking them to miscarriages. I had no doubt that it was my doing.”

(Though a bit later Naomi is forced to admit that, no, it was just an ectopic pregnancy which had nothing to do with the sins of Big Oil).

3. Naomi is a watermelon – green on the outside, red on the inside

“What the climate needs now is a contraction in humanity’s use of resources; what our economic model demands is unfettered expansion. Only one of these sets of rules can be changed, and it’s not the laws of nature.”

and [from an interview in the Guardian]

 “We need an ideological battle. It is still considered politically unthinkable just to introduce straight-up, polluter-pays punitive measures – particularly in the US.” To Klein, environmentalists should have just gone to war on business, and on the whole concept of capitalism.

and [from an interview in Macleans]

“…we must confront the reigning, unquestioned ideology that sees privatization as always good, and doesn’t question the logic of austerity, doesn’t question the logic of pro-corporate, free trade deals that have stood in the way of progress on climate.”


4. Naomi has been watching the way Jay Z and Beyonce use Blue and learned a useful lesson.

“What gets me most are not the scary studies about melting glaciers, the ones I used to avoid. It’s the books I read to my two-year old. Looking For A Moose is one of his favourites. It’s about a bunch of kids who really want to see a moose. They search high and low – through a forest, a swamp, in brambly bushes and up a mountain. (The joke is that there are moose hiding on each page). In the end, the animals come out and the ecstatic kids proclaim: “We’ve never ever seen so many moose!” On about the 75th reading, it suddenly hit me: he might never see a moose.”

Naomi, you and your son live in Canada. The world’s moose population is currently over a million, half of it in Canada. You are more than rich enough to take a long vacation with your family to gaze wistfully at whatever species you want be it the marine iguanas of the Galapagos or the Siberian Tiger. So by what tortured logic do you imagine it is probable or even possible that your son might “never see a moose”?

5. Naomi makes Jeremiah sound like Polyanna

“If we continue on our current path of allowing emissions to rise year after year, major cities will drown, ancient cultures will be swallowed by the seas; our children will spend much of their lives fleeing and recovering from vicious storms and extreme droughts.”

Sources needed.

6. Naomi is probably now off entrepreneur Richard Branson’s Christmas card list
Naomi notes that in 2006, at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York, the bearded self-publicist who created the Virgin empire pledged to spend $3 billion over the next decade “to develop biofuels as an alternative to oil and gas, and on other technologies to battle climate change.” But she is disappointed to note that only a fraction of the promised sum has yet materialised  – and that Branson is now a bit cagey when talking about it.

“It can be argued – and some do – that Branson’s planet-saviour persona is an elaborate attempt to avoid the kind of tough regulatory action that was on the horizon when he had his green conversion.”

No shit, Sherlock!
 
7. Naomi may possibly be under the illusion that she is Gaia

“And I suppose part of me is still in that oiled Louisiana marsh, floating in a sea of poisoned larvae and embryos with my own ill-fated embryo inside me. It’s not self-pity that keeps me returning to that sad place. It’s the conviction that there is something valuable in the body-memory of slamming up against a biological limit – of running out of chances – something we all need to learn.”

8. Naomi needs to pay her fact-checkers more

“In Germany, you see a very rapid rise of renewables. That gives me a lot of hope. Germany is a country Canadians can relate to: the economy is not that different from ours. They have managed a dramatic energy transition, starting from six per cent of their energy from renewables. Now they’re at 25 per cent with a goal of 60 per cent.” [from her interview in Macleans]

It may give you a lot of hope, Naomi, but for the people who have to suffer the consequences of these wonderful green policies you extol it is hell. German industry has been hamstrung; German taxpayers must pay around Euros 24 billion per year in green subsidies; electricity prices have risen by 80 per cent since 2000; nearly 7 million German households now live in energy poverty; economic growth is almost non-existent…
No but wait. I’ve just remembered: this is the whole point of your book. All of that bad stuff I’ve just described is actually good and desirable because….because…because Naomi Klein says so. Right?

9. Naomi Klein is a one percenter – and therefore happily cushioned from all the economy-destroying measures she proposes

Klein does not easily fit into most people’s view of a committed environmentalist. She drives a car (it is a hybrid). She flies, already a lot more than most people, and is set to rack up air miles that would make her, by her own admission, “a climate criminal”. There is a brightly coloured plastic playhouse in the garden that was probably made in China. [from a profile in the Guardian]

Oh, and No Logo sold over a million.
10. The interview she gave to (a clearly infatuated, slavering) Vogue is both depressing and unintentionally hilarious
On her two-year old son:

“My one triumph,” she jokes, “is that when Toma sees a coal train, he calls it a ‘pollution train.’

On her social circle:

We’ve convened at Soos Resto/Bar, a newfangled Malaysian café, for dinner with a group of friends including her lanky, droll Random House editor, Louise Dennys (the niece of Graham Greene), avant-garde filmmaker John Greyson, fiction writer Kyo Maclear and her composer husband, David Wall, a onetime member of the almost-famous alt-rock band Bourbon Tabernacle Choir. As the wine and conversation flow, we all devour plates of nasi lemak ordered by Klein’s husband, Avi Lewis, a TV host and documentary filmmaker who exudes graciousness and transparently adores his wife.

and

Her acolytes include everyone from prominent activists—“Naomi’s work has sharpened and modernized what you could broadly categorize as ‘the Left,’ ” Arundhati Roy tells me by email from Delhi—to celebrity chefs like Noma’s René Redzepi, who recently invited her to Copenhagen to address the MAD food conference. The book trailer for The Shock Doctrine was made by no less than director Alfonso Cuarón, who volunteered to do it because, he tells me by phone from Mexico, “Naomi is like a great doctor—she can diagnose problems nobody else sees.” Designer Vivienne Westwood is a co–executive producer on Klein and Lewis’s upcoming screen version of This Changes Everything. (She recently sent baby Toma a onesie with the slogan I Love Crap.)

Wow! Don’t you just WISH you too could dine on nasi lemak and climate justice with Naomi’s groovy hipster set?

Daily Devotional

Turning the Other Cheek

C. S. Lewis

There are three ways of taking the command to turn the other cheek. One is the Pacifist interpretation; it means what it says and imposes a duty of nonresistance on all men in all circumstances. Another is the minimising interpretation; it does not mean what it says but is merely an orientally hyperbolical way of saying that you should put up with a lot and be placable. Both you and I agree in rejecting this view. The conflict is therefore between the Pacifist interpretation and a third one which I am now going to propound. I think the text means exactly what it says, but with an understood reservation in favour of those obviously exceptional cases which every hearer would naturally assume to be exceptions without being told. . . . . That is, insofar as the only relevant factors in the case are an injury to me by my neighbour and a desire on my part to retaliate, then I hold that Christianity commands the absolute mortification of that desire. No quarter whatever is given to the voice within us which says, “He’s done it to me, so I’ll do the same to him.”

From The Weight of Glory
Compiled in A Year with C.S. Lewis

The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses. Copyright © 1949, C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. Copyright renewed © 1976, revised 1980 C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission of HarperCollins Publishers. A Year With C.S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works. Copyright © 2003 by C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission of HarperCollins Publishers. Sourced from BibleGateway.

Life in the Beeb-Hive

Islamophobia: the Greatest of All Evils

We have been following the scandal of Rotherham in the UK.  Thousands of young girls were preyed upon by predatory Pakistani men.  They did it not only to feed and satiate their own lusts, but because their religion, Islam both condones and commends such acts.  Virtually any depravity is permissible in the conduct of jihad, or holy war.  And jihad against infidels is a perpetual state of Islam.  But the scandal has been exacerbated by the authorities having a very bad case of Nelson’s eye.  They saw no evil.  Why, one asks?  Were the police and welfare authorities in the pay of the Pakistani/Islamic gangs?  No.  Were they too busy elsewhere?  Only by their own design.  Were they understaffed?  Not at all.

Why did the authorities turn a blind eye?  And, why did the media hush the whole thing up by a “hear no evil, see no evil” editorial stance?  It turns out that the ideologies of multi-culturalism and political correctness saw a greater minatory evil threatening to consume all.  The evil of a right-wing fanatical reaction.  Therefore, it was better to ignore the plight of the young girls, the rape, and the murders, lest the right-wing hear of it and be provoked to the most horrible of all evils–Islamophobic discrimination and intolerance, which, it turns out, are cardinal, blasphemous violations of the cult of multi-culturalism.

James Delingpole, writing in Breitbart News, provides a case study of an actual evil stalking the land, an evil which matches that of predatory Islam, as manifested by the Beeb.

Memo to the BBC: The ‘Far Right’ Did Not Decapitate David Haines nor Rape 1400 Girls in Rotherham

18 Sep 2014

Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John – and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.

Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, “Islamophobia” and “the spectre of a far right” backlash.

Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed “far right” thug who revealed – presumably to no listener’s especial surprise – that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.

Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama – the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of “anti-Muslim” hate crimes.   When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.

And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn’t been given credit for it.

Phew. So that’s all right then.  Except, of course, it’s really not all right.

If the “Far Right” really is the pre-eminent menace in Britain today, though, it has a funny way of showing it. How many schoolgirls has it raped, recently? How many people has it killed or maimed? How many bombs has it exploded? The grand total for all the above, I believe, is as near as makes no difference to zero.

Perhaps it wouldn’t matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it’s not. It’s long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC’s reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern – not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by “the far right.” It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby – complete, of course, with an interview about the “cycle of violence against Muslims” and the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.

It’s not just the BBC which plays this game. Earlier this week Sky News afforded a similar indulgence to convicted terrorist Shahid Butt, allowing him to justify the atrocities being committed by Islamic State by blaming them on the alleged culture of violence created by video games.  The left wing Daily Mirror meanwhile decided to hail the northern Muslim stronghold of Bradford the “second-most peaceful of Britain’s top ten cities” – in contradiction of a survey which suggested quite the opposite.  

A scandal like this on so epic a scale ought to be meat and drink to any half-way decent reporter, even in an organisation as ideologically-blinkered as the BBC. How can it not be a major story that over a period of 25 years communities across the country have been terrorised by gangs operating with near impunity, for all the world as if they were bandits on the lawless North West Frontier, not citizens of a liberal democracy?

But the BBC is the worst. For as long as I can remember, it has been talking up the “Far Right” threat, not just in its news bulletins but even in its dramas with neo-Nazis and their ilk often being invoked as the sinister bad guys in thriller series from The Professionals to Bonekickers and Spooks.

If the “Far Right” really is the pre-eminent menace in Britain today, though, it has a funny way of showing it. How many schoolgirls has it raped, recently? How many people has it killed or maimed? How many bombs has it exploded?  The grand total for all the above, I believe, is as near as makes no difference to zero.

Now this isn’t to say that the boot-boys who join these fascistic organisations are the loveliest of people nor that they don’t hold racist views. But it seems to me that if we are to use our limited resources to address the most pressing problems of our time, we ought to bend our attentions to those dangers which are most clear and present rather than to politically correct chimeras like “Islamophobia” and the “spectre of the Far Right”. (The clue for the latter is in the name: a spectre is, by nature, ghostly, insubstantial).

Otherwise what will happen is what is already happening now: you get the police turning a blind eye to antisocial behaviour by the Muslim “community”, the better to concentrate on arresting louts from the English Defence League or dads (both white and Sikh) who have had the temerity to try to take action against the gangs which have been raping their daughters. And you get a media culture which fails in its duty to expose, without fear or favour, corruption and wrongdoing wherever they are found.

As we have reported before, those 1400 victims of the Rotherham rape gangs are just the tip of the iceberg. The first case involved girls trafficked and raped by Muslim gangs dates as far back as 1989. We also know that this has been going on in towns and cities across Britain, from genteel Henley-on-Thames to Telford to parts of Norfolk.

A scandal like this on so epic a scale ought to be meat and drink to any half-way decent reporter, even in an organisation as ideologically-blinkered as the BBC. How can it not be a major story that over a period of 25 years communities across the country have been terrorised by gangs operating with near impunity, for all the world as if they were bandits on the lawless North West Frontier, not citizens of a liberal democracy? Why is not the BBC devoting its still fairly lavish resources to harrying all the bent councillors and police chiefs who have turned a blind eye to the problem and who have yet refused to resign?

And how, in all conscience, can it be so insensitive as to insult its licence-fee-paying listeners by preaching to them a gospel which most of them know not to be true: that a “far right backlash” that might happen is more worthy of our attention than a spate of rapes, bombings and murders that actually has happened, is continuing to happen, and will go on happening for as long as our politically correct establishment (of which the BBC is chief Cultural Commissar) goes on ducking the issue for fear of sounding “Islamophobic”?

 

 

Islam and Sexual Predation

Muslims Sexually Enslaving Children: A Global Phenomenon

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPage Magazine
September 3, 2014

As shocking as the Muslim-run sex ring in Rotherham, England may seem to some—1,400 British children as young as 11 plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops—the fact is that this phenomenon is immensely widespread. In the United Kingdom alone, it’s the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered.

Some years back in Australia, a group of “Lebanese Muslim youths” were responsible for a “series of brutal gang rapes” of “Anglo-Celtic teenage girls.” A few years later in the same country, four Muslim Pakistani brothers raped at least 18 Australian women, some as young as 13. Even in the United States, a gang of Somalis—Somalia being a Muslim nation where non-Muslims, primarily Christians, are ruthlessly persecuted—was responsible for abducting, buying, selling, raping and torturing young American girls as young as 12.

. . . we must call it Muslim rape since Islam is the common denominator in all these cases from otherwise diverse nations that have little in common except for large numbers of Muslims.

The question begs itself: If Muslim minorities have no fear of exploiting “infidel” women and children in non-Muslim countries—that is, where Muslims themselves are potentially vulnerable minorities—how are Muslims throughout the Islamic world, where they are dominant, treating their vulnerable, non-Muslim minorities?

The answer is a centuries-long, continents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation. Boko Haram’s recent abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg.

The difference between what happens in Nigeria and what happens in Western nations is based on what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers.” Wherever Muslims grow in numbers, Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, the sexual abuse of “infidel” children and teenagers—comes along with them.
Thus in the United Kingdom, where Muslims make for a sizeable—and notable—minority, the systematic rape of “subhuman infidels” naturally takes place. But when caught, Muslim minorities, being under “infidel” authority, cry “Islamophobia” and feign innocence.

In Nigeria, however, which is roughly 50 percent Islamic, such “apologetics” are unnecessary. After seizing the nearly 300 schoolgirls, the leader of Boko Haram appeared on videotape boasting that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…. There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”

It’s the same in Pakistan—the nation where many of the United Kingdom’s Muslims, including the majority involved in the Rotherham sex ring, come from. See this article for a long list of Christian children—as young as 2-years-old—who were targeted by Muslim men for abduction, enslavement, and rape. In every single case, police do nothing except sometimes side with the Muslim rapists against their “infidel” victims.

For example, last Easter Sunday, four Muslim men gang-raped a 7-year-old Christian girl named Sara, leaving her in “critical condition.” According to Asia News, “the police, instead of arresting the culprits, helped the local clan to kidnap the girl’s father… to ‘force the family not to report the story, to reach an agreement with the criminals and to avoid a dispute of a religious background.'”

As for systematic child grooming, in 2010, Kiran George, a Christian girl who was “enslaved by a woman, Sama, a dealer of youth to be sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families,” was doused with gasoline by a police officer involved in the sex ring, set on fire, and burned to death.

And a recent report confirms that “an estimated 700 cases [of abduction, enslavement, and/or rape in Pakistan] per year involve Christian women, 300 Hindu girls”—very large numbers when one considers that Christians and Hindus each make for one percent of the population of Pakistan, which is about 97 percent Muslim.

One can go on and on. In 2011 a Christian group in Muslim-majority Egypt

exposed a highly organized Muslim ring centered in the Fatah Mosque in Alexandria. The investigation also uncovered a systematic “religious call” plan, where young Muslim males in high school and university are urged to approach Coptic girls in the 9-15 age group and manipulate them through sexual exploitation and blackmail. The plan … aims at sexually compromising Christian girls, defiling them and humiliating them in front of their parents, thereby forcing them to flee their homes, and use conversion to Islam as a “solution” for their problems.

Approximately 550 Coptic Christian girls have been abducted and sexually abused by Muslim men during the last three years—especially under the Muslim Brotherhood’s aegis, when sexual crimes were particularly widespread.

Even Dr. Taj Hargey, a British imam, just confirmed that the majority of the UK’s “imams promote grooming rings.” He said Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt.”

So what animates this phenomenon of Muslim on non-Muslim rape? And we must call it Muslim rape since Islam is the common denominator in all these cases from otherwise diverse nations that have little in common except for large numbers of Muslims.

As for the pedophilia aspect, Muhammad—the prophet of Islam whom the Koran exhorts Muslims to emulate in every possible way—was “betrothed” to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, “consummating” their marriage when she was nine-years-old. Accordingly, Islam’s clerics routinely defend child “marriage”—sometimes even if the girl is still in the cradle—based on the example of the prophet.

As for the subhuman treatment of “infidel” children, this is seen as a right by supremacist Muslims. Discussing the 2010 rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl, local sources in Pakistan put it well: “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right.

According to the [Muslim] community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”
“Spoils of war” is quite correct. Here is how the late Majid Khadduri, “internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on Islamic law and jurisprudence,” explained the idea of “spoils” in his War and Peace in the Law of Islam:

The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity of asra (prisoners of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine.

Nor is this limited to academic talk. Last year, Jordanian Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni said Muslims fighting to topple “infidel” president Bashar Assad in Syria are permitted to “capture and have sex with” all non-Sunni women, including Shia Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Yazidis.

Before him, Egyptian Sheikh Ishaq Huwaini lamented how during the heydays of Islam, “You [could] go to the market and buy her [enslaved, infidel concubines for sale]…. In other words, when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”

In order to eliminate sexual immorality from among male Muslim youth, Kuwaiti political activist Salwa al-Mutairi suggested the formal reinstitution of sex-slavery—not unlike what was recently exposed in Rotherham. She said on video that Islam’s greatest authorities from Mecca, the city of Islam, all confirmed the legality of sex-slavery to her. According to the Kuwaiti woman:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that…. For example, in the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.

What happened in Rotherham is hardly an aberration. Rather, it is Islam coming to town, Muslims growing in numbers. Even Dr. Taj Hargey, a British imam, just confirmed that the majority of the UK’s “imams promote grooming rings.” He said Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt.”

Change “whites” to “non-Muslims”—this is not about race but religion—and the experiences of those 1,400 children in Rotherham is one with the experiences of countless non-Muslim minorities throughout the Islamic world.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

Daily Devotional

Daily Devotional

Charles Spurgeon

“Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have.”
Leviticus 19:36

Weights, and scales, and measures were to be all according to the standard of justice. Surely no Christian man will need to be reminded of this in his business, for if righteousness were banished from all the world beside, it should find a shelter in believing hearts. There are, however, other balances which weigh moral and spiritual things, and these often need examining. We will call in the officer tonight.

The balances in which we weigh our own and other men’s characters, are they quite accurate? Do we not turn our own ounces of goodness into pounds, and other persons’ bushels of excellence into pecks? See to weights and measures here, Christian.

The scales in which we measure our trials and troubles, are they according to standard?
Paul, who had more to suffer than we have, called his afflictions light, and yet we often consider ours to be heavy–surely something must be amiss with the weights! We must see to this matter, lest we get reported to the court above for unjust dealing.

Those weights with which we measure our doctrinal belief, are they quite fair? The doctrines of grace should have the same weight with us as the precepts of the word, no more and no less; but it is to be feared that with many one scale or the other is unfairly weighted. It is a grand matter to give just measure in truth. Christian, be careful here.

Those measures in which we estimate our obligations and responsibilities look rather small. When a rich man gives no more to the cause of God than the poor contribute, is that a just ephah and a just hin? When ministers are half starved, is that honest dealing? When the poor are despised, while ungodly rich men are held in admiration, is that a just balance?

Reader, we might lengthen the list, but we prefer to leave it as your evening’s work to find out and destroy all unrighteous balances, weights, and measures.

Sourced from BibleGateway

The Ground of Civilisation

Hell Hole of the South Pacific Waits in the Wings

Human civilisation is skin deep.  It can only be sustained in a society by a majority of families who live, believe, and practise the values of a civilised society in their homes and communities. This reality was caught most powerfully by William Golding’s Lord of the Flies.

The law, its enforcement agencies, the rules and institutions of state, the courts, the schools, and the institutions of trade and commerce–all these can only continue to exist in any society by warrant of a majority of civilised families. After all, the law and justice are intangibles, grounded in ideas and concepts believed and respected in the heart of a community.  

We have had yet another illustration of these truths.
  In Northcote, a teenage miscreant preyed upon a single older woman outside a supermarket, attempting to snatch her bag.  Such crimes had been systemic in the area over recent days.  A mother of six, who was accompanied by two of her younger children, went to the aid of the attacked woman.  Lucy Knight (pictured below) was, in turn, struck by the criminal, fell to the pavement, and fractured her skull.  The criminal ran off to a waiting car and was driven away.

Police released CCTV images of the bag-snatching suspect near Northcote's Countdown Supermarket. Inset, Lucy Knight.
Police released CCTV images of the bag-snatching suspect near Northcote’s Countdown Supermarket. Inset, Lucy Knight.

Mrs Knight has undergone emergency surgery and is now in a stable condition.

Michael Dudley, 21, works at a takeaway shop nearby and was there when the drama unfolded.  “I was coming out of Countdown and I heard a struggle behind me,” he told the Herald last night.  “I turned around to see a swinging arm. Then the lady fell, she went down really fast and hit her head on the concrete. I saw the young kid take off down the carpark and I started to chase him.”  The youth got into a car that Mr Dudley said was waiting for him. He saw a woman in the driver’s seat. [NZ Herald]

Now this may be a small, insignificant incident in the “grand scheme of things”.  But it is not.  Society and civilisation are made up of, and sustained by, thousands upon thousands of such deeds of goodness and courage.   Reactions to evil like Mrs Knight’s are instinctive and spontaneous.  As a mother of six children she no doubt has devoted her life to the care of others who by nature are vulnerable.  Others.  We are reminded of how William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, sent out a telegram asking for donations to support the work of the Army.  The telegram has only one word: “Others”. Upon such values, civilisation is built and sustained.

No doubt Mrs Knight reacted instinctively and courageously because these values are engraved upon her heart and mind.  She responded without thinking.  She is a truly civilised person.  She represents the essence of the only way a society can maintain justice, truth, respect, honesty, gentleness, generosity, and thoughtfulness.  Without such values of the heart being inculcated in families, society disintegrates into a hell-hole. 

Novels Every Christian Should Consider Reading, Part VII

As I Lay Dying
Sep 11, 2014 

fant
Gene C. Fant Jr

I am doing a blog series on Novels Every Christian Should Consider Reading.

Gene C. Fant Jr. (PhD, University of Southern Mississippi) serves as provost and professor of English at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Florida.

He is the author of The Liberal Arts: A Student’s Guide and God as Author: A Biblical Approach to Narrative.


faulkner

Occasionally American literature students are assigned William Faulkner’s 1930 novel As I Lay Dying. The choice is somewhat pragmatic, as Faulkner is one of the 20th Century’s great fiction writers but his masterwork, The Sound and the Fury, is incredibly difficult to read.

As I Lay Dying is brief and the plot is intriguing (a backwoods family’s preparations for the matriarch’s burial, stymied by a difficult journey to the family plot). One chapter is composed entirely of one sentence (“My mother is a fish”), which has led to many a perplexed and exasperated student. At least there is now a film adaptation directed by uber-cool James Franco.

For Christians, As I Lay Dying offers a bonanza of theological discovery, not in terms of devotional affirmation of orthodoxy but in terms of its sober reminders of the necessity of faith. Faulkner adored the Old Testament but was less enamored of the New, believing that the stories of the Hebrew Scriptures were more compelling. My sense is that he was a crypto-Calvinist who believed the atonement to be so limited (and God to be either so holy or so cruel) that no one is elect. God is a just Judge who rightly sentences everyone to death. Each of us, then, lives on a constant trajectory toward death; vultures circle each of our corpses, at least metaphorically.

I have heard it said that Western culture, American culture in particular, is enamored with the Gospel’s fruit even as it dismisses its roots in Christ’s sacrificial, grace-filled ministry that calls us to humble repentance. As I Lay Dying depicts a dreadful world that has neither the Gospel’s root nor its fruit.

The novel ponders the nature of manhood and femininity.

It confronts us with the desperation that accompanies abortion.

It provides us with an fictive incarnation of the Darwin Awards‘ most thick-skulled stupidity.

For those of us who become Christ-followers at a young age, there is a constant risk of forgetfulness about what life is like without the hope of the Gospel. We simply cannot remember what it feels like to live without hope, which is the state of our friends and neighbors apart from Christ. As I Lay Dying is a way to empathize afresh with this hopelessness. When we get to the closing pages, we are overcome: Oh! Would that the world did not have to be like this! Would that we were more than dying animals trapped in a dying world! Would that there were a Savior who could rescue us from our stupidity and mortality!

Ah, there is the lesson. Salvation comes from outside of this sphere. Until we humble our hearts and lift up our eyes, we cannot see what is transcendently present: Christ’s offer of grace.

Daily Devotional

Charles Spurgeon

“Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.”
John 4:48

A craving after marvels was a symptom of the sickly state of men’s minds in our Lord’s day; they refused solid nourishment, and pined after mere wonder. The gospel which they so greatly needed they would not have; the miracles which Jesus did not always choose to give they eagerly demanded.

Many nowadays must see signs and wonders, or they will not believe. Some have said in their heart, “I must feel deep horror of soul, or I never will believe in Jesus.” But what if you never should feel it, as probably you never may? Will you go to hell out of spite against God, because he will not treat you like another? One has said to himself, “If I had a dream, or if I could feel a sudden shock of I know not what, then I would believe.”

Thus you undeserving mortals dream that my Lord is to be dictated to by you! You are beggars at his gate, asking for mercy, and you must needs draw up rules and regulations as to how he shall give that mercy. Think you that he will submit to this? My Master is of a generous spirit, but he has a right royal heart, he spurns all dictation, and maintains his sovereignty of action.

Why, dear reader, if such be your case, do you crave for signs and wonders? Is not the gospel its own sign and wonder? Is not this a miracle of miracles, that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish”?

Surely that precious word, “Whosoever will, let him come and take the water of life freely” and that solemn promise, “Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out,” are better than signs and wonders! A truthful Saviour ought to be believed. He is truth itself. Why will you ask proof of the veracity of One who cannot lie? The devils themselves declared him to be the Son of God; will you mistrust him?

Sourced from BibleGateway

Wabbling Back to the Fire

Western Hollow Men

It is quite a while since the West was racked with self-doubt.  It is now.  Jimmy Carter’s presidency was probably the last previous occurrence.  But periods of self-doubt are likely to become more frequent.  The West has tossed away its Christian foundations.  Secularism reigns.  Atheism is its established religion.  There is no dominant ideological narrative to give direction and the appearance of certainty.

The last fading hope has been represented by the ante-diluvian “hawks” who believe that if people are freed from oppressors, democracy–with an attendant rule of law, respect for liberty of conscience, freedom, and inalienable human rights guaranteed by the Creator–will magically break out everywhere.  Drop a few bombs in Libya.  Arm a few rebels in Syria.  Strafe a few jihadis in Iraq, and overnight everyone will transmogrify into effete Western liberals.  Take a bow John McCain and Hillary Clinton.  They are a dying breed.  Nothing is there to fill the vacuum.  Consequently, self-doubt rises like panic up the throat.

Roger Cohen has caught this emerging new reality in an OpEd for the New York Times:

The Great Unravelling

It was the time of unravelling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?
It was a time of beheadings. With a left-handed sawing motion, against a desert backdrop, in bright sunlight, a Muslim with a British accent cut off the heads of two American journalists and a British aid worker. The jihadi seemed comfortable in his work, unhurried. His victims were broken. Terror is theater. Burning skyscrapers, severed heads: The terrorist takes movie images of unbearable lightness and gives them weight enough to embed themselves in the psyche.
It was a time of aggression. The leader of the largest nation on earth pronounced his country encircled, even humiliated. He annexed part of a neighboring country, the first such act in Europe since 1945, and stirred up a war on further land he coveted. His surrogates shot down a civilian passenger plane. The victims, many of them Europeans, were left to rot in the sun for days. He denied any part in the violence, like a puppeteer denying that his puppets’ movements have any connection to his. He invoked the law the better to trample on it. He invoked history the better to turn it into farce. He reminded humankind that the idiom fascism knows best is untruth so grotesque it begets unreason.
It was a time of breakup. The most successful union in history, forged on an island in the North Sea in 1707, headed toward possible dissolution — not because it had failed (refugees from across the seas still clamored to get into it), nor even because of new hatreds between its peoples. The northernmost citizens were bored. They were disgruntled. They were irked, in some insidious way, by the south and its moneyed capital, an emblem to them of globalization and inequality. They imagined they had to control their National Health Service in order to save it even though they already controlled it through devolution and might well have less money for its preservation (not that it was threatened in the first place) as an independent state. The fact that the currency, the debt, the revenue, the defense, the solvency and the European Union membership of such a newborn state were all in doubt did not appear to weigh much on a decision driven by emotion, by urges, by a longing to be heard in the modern cacophony — and to heck with the day after. If all else failed, oil would come to the rescue (unless somebody else owned it or it just ran out).
It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. 
He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.
It was a time of hatred. Anti-Semitic slogans were heard in the land that invented industrialized mass murder for Europe’s Jews. Frightened European Jews removed mezuzahs from their homes. Europe’s Muslims felt the ugly backlash from the depravity of the decapitators, who were adept at Facebooking their message. The fabric of society frayed. Democracy looked quaint or outmoded beside new authoritarianisms. Politicians, haunted by their incapacity, played on the fears of their populations, who were device-distracted or under device-driven stress. Dystopia was a vogue word, like utopia in the 20th century. The great rising nations of vast populations held the fate of the world in their hands but hardly seemed to care.

It was a time of fever. People in West Africa bled from the eyes.
It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”
Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unravelling for what it was and what it had wrought.

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

Stuff Inviolate

Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog
Sept 13, 2014
I have been arguing that property rights are human rights. I have been insisting that it is not possible to love your neighbor without respecting his stuff. I have been saying that the commandment thou shalt not steal presupposes the institution of private property in just the same way that the prohibition of adultery presupposes marriage. And in the same way, I cannot honor the command not to covet my neighbor’s wife if I cannot come up with a definition of “wife.”

But there has been some surprising pushback on this simple idea, so let us dig a little deeper.

So what do I mean by property? Within the boundaries of the law of God, property entails the authority to retain or dispose of material goods without the permission of another. If you are renting something, or leasing it, you do not have the right to dispose of it in the same way you would if you owned it. When you rent a car, you are answerable to someone else for the use. When you own a car, you can paint the passenger door turquoise if you wish.

This means that all property is ultimately God’s. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10), and the earth is the Lord’s and all that it contains (Ex. 9:29; Dt. 10:14). So God is the only absolute owner of property, and in reference to Him, we are all stewards. We will all give an accounting to Him for what we have done with the goods He has entrusted to us.

So my argument does not neglect this relativization of property in the sight of God, but merely insists that no creature — especially including kings, parliaments, congresses, and presidents — may usurp and supplant God in this role.

This is why Jesus can tell the rich young ruler to give all his goods to the poor (Matt. 19:21), and if he did not do it, he was stealing in the eyes of God. At the same time, he would not be stealing in the eyes of man — any more than a lustful man could be charged with adultery in our courts, or a spiteful man with murder, despite the words of Jesus (Matt. 5:28; Matt. 5:21). We must, always and everywhere, maintain the distinction between sins and crimes.

“Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings” (Mal. 3:8).

Tithes went, in part, to the poor. The same thing would be true of offerings. And offerings were entirely voluntary — but a man could rob God by refusing to offer them. He would be guilty before God of the sin of theft (greed, covetousness, and so on). But he would not be guilty of the crime of theft. Consider the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1). Peter told them that they could have sold their land, kept all the proceeds at home, sitting on top of the pile cackling like Scrooge McDuck, and they would not have bought the farm, so to speak.

“Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts 5:4).

After he sold it, was it not within his power? Yes — as far as the authority of fellow creatures could reach. But could he do whatever he wanted with it, and not have to answer to God? No, of course not.

And this is what I am arguing. When any creaturely entity assumes the prerogatives of the Deity, assuming the power of control over the property of others, that entity has become lawless and wicked. And the Bible does not say, “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” The Bible does not countenance the notion that two coyotes and a sheep can form a rudimentary democracy, and then vote on what’s for lunch.

If I am walking down the street and encounter someone begging alms, and I have twenty bucks in my wallet, and I receive an unmistakable burden from the Lord to give him that twenty bucks, and I suppress the impulse and walk on, am I being disobedient? Yes. Am I robbing God? Yes. Am I robbing the beggar? No. For if I were, he would have the right to chase me down and take the twenty bucks.

If a woman had her purse snatched by a bicyclist, and fifteen minutes later she pulls into a drugstore parking lot, and that same bicycle is outside with her purse hanging on the handle bars — the thief having run inside to buy smokes with some of her dollars — is she stealing if she takes her purse back? Of course not.

We must learn to distinguish that which is sin in the eyes of God, and that which should be a crime in the eyes of man and God. Being a selfish pig is a sin, but must not be made a crime. If we outlaw “being a selfish pig,” I have ten dollars here that says that within two weeks this crime of selfish piggery will be vigorously policed (and fined) by tribunals made up entirely of selfish pigs.

When we make something a crime without scriptural justification, and penalize it, we invert the order of God. When we make property ownership a crime, and fine people heavily for being guilty of it, we have a society as corrupt and as mendacious and as greedy as . . . well, as our own.

If we love people, if we love our neighbors, we will consider their stuff inviolate. We will form governments that respect our neighbors’ property as much as we ourselves do. But as it is currently, we form the kind of government we now have because we the people have larceny in our hearts. We are governed by thieves who represent us well.

Daily Devotional

Devastated and Delighted

The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)

John Piper

What would the doctrines of grace sound like if every limb in that tree were coursing with the sap of Augustinian delight (that is, what I call “Christian Hedonism”)?

  • Total depravity is not just badness, but blindness to God’s beauty and deadness to the deepest joy.
  • Unconditional election
    means that the completeness of our joy in Jesus was planned for us before we ever existed as the overflow of God’s joy in the fellowship of the Trinity.
  • Limited atonement is the assurance that indestructible joy in God is infallibly secured for us by the blood of the new covenant.
  • Irresistible grace is the commitment and power of God’s love to make sure we don’t hold on to suicidal pleasures, and to set us free by the sovereign power of superior delights.
  • Perseverance of the saints is the almighty work of God not to let us fall into the final bondage of inferior pleasures, but to keep us, through all affliction and suffering, for an inheritance of fullness of joy in his presence and pleasures at his right hand forevermore.

Unconditional election delivers the harshest and the sweetest judgments to my soul. That it is unconditional destroys all self-exaltation; and that it is election makes me his treasured possession.

This is one of the beauties of the biblical doctrines of grace: their worst devastations prepare us for their greatest delights.

What prigs we would become at the words, “The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6), if this election were in any way dependent on our will. But to protect us from pride, the Lord teaches us that we are unconditionally chosen (7:7–9). “He made a wretch his treasure,” as we so gladly sing.

Only the devastating freeness and unconditionality of electing grace lets us take and taste such gifts for our very own without the exaltation of self.

For more about John Piper’s ministry and writing, see DesiringGod.org.