Living with an age-old hatred

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, attended a meeting on Mount Herzl, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, on the eve on Holocaust Remembrance Day last Sunday evening. Others have reported what he said, if only in brief, but I wanted to mention it too.

I. . . visited the Wannsee Villa in Berlin, he said. When I was there, I saw the original invitation for the meeting of high-level Nazi officials, during which they decided on the destruction of the Jewish people. On the invitation that was sent by the Deputy Head of the SS was written: "The chief of the Reich main security office, Reinhard Heydrich, cordially invites you to a discussion about the Final Solution to the Jewish problem. Breakfast will be served at 09.00."

This is how, in an elegant villa on the shore of a pastoral lake, over breakfast and glasses of cognac, 15 men sat and decided how to destroy our people. No one batted an eyelid; no one expressed any doubt regarding the mission, either its necessity or its justness. Immediately after the meal, they began their work to erase the seed of Abraham from the earth.

As I was walking through the villa, moving from document to document, I felt myself becoming filled with helpless rage, and the feeling continued to grow until it became a flood. At the end of the tour, my German host asked me to write something in the guest book. I sat in the chair and the sadness and the anger rose up and started to overflow. And because of the storm of emotions I wrote three words: Am Israel Chai (The People of Israel live).

Tonight at Mount Herzl, I say it again: Am Israel Chai. The people of Israel will continue to live. It re-established its country, gathered its exiles, built its army, settled its homeland and reunited its capital, Jerusalem. . .

Within several decades, the state of Israel has become one of the most advanced countries in the world. Israeli products help cure illnesses and feed millions of people; Israeli developments help irrigate fields and orchards on every continent; and Israeli ideas help save energy in every corner of the globe. Israel is a rich source of innovation for the world and is looking to the future. . .

The historic failure of the free societies when faced with the Nazi animal was that they did not stand up against it in time, while there was still a chance to stop it.

And here we are today again witnesses to the fire of the new-old hatred, the hatred of the Jews, that is expressed by organisations and regimes associated with radical Islam, headed by Iran and its proxies.

Iran's leaders race to develop nuclear weapons and they openly state their desire to destroy Israel. But in the face of these repeated statements to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth, in the best case we hear a weak protest which is also fading away.

The required firm protest is not heard - not a sharp condemnation, not a cry of warning. The world continues on as usual and there are even those who direct their criticism at us, against Israel.

Today, 65 years after the Holocaust, we must say in all honesty that what is so upsetting is the lack of any kind of opposition. The world gradually accepts Iran's statements of destruction against Israel and we still do not see the necessary international determination to stop it from arming itself. . .

I call on all enlightened countries to rise up and forcefully and firmly condemn Iran's destructive intentions and to act with genuine determination to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The following morning, sirens sounded in towns and cities across Israel. Traffic came to a standstill. People got out of their cars and stood in silence to remember the destruction of something like six million men, women and children in the most horrific circumstances. After two minutes' silence, sirens sounded again. . . and life went on.

Lord Carey takes on the judiciary

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey says senior judges in the UK should be prevented from ruling in religious rights cases because they are biased against Christianity.

He claims that some have made disturbing and dangerous rulings that could lead to Christians being banned from the workplace, and that they should stand down from Court of Appeal hearings involving religious rights to make way for judges with an understanding of religious issues.

Writes Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail: As an insult to some of the biggest wigs in the land, this could hardly be exaggerated.

By throwing down the gauntlet to the judiciary in this way, Lord Carey is mounting a full-frontal challenge to some of those who most influence our society.

The last of several final straws for these clerics [Lord Carey has the support of other church leaders] was the case of Lilian Ladele, a registrar who was sacked by Islingtron council after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies because they were against her Christian beliefs.

Led by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger - the second most important judge in England - the Appeal Court ruled that it was unlawful for her to refuse to do so.

It might be argued that these judges were merely ruling on the basis of anti-discrimination law and that they were right to do so.

But in fact, these judges had discretion to rule in Ms Ladele's favour because the law upholds not one principle relevant to this case, but two - and they compete with each other. For enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to exercise religious conscience.

Why, then, did the judges in this case set aside the Human Rights Convention, which they normally revere as Holy Writ? Because, said Lord Neuberger, it only protected those religious beliefs which were 'worthy of respect in a democratic society and are not incompatible with human dignity.'

So what the Master of the Rolls effectively seemed to be saying was that Christian beliefs are unworthy of respect in a democracy, and incompatible with human dignity - a truly preposterous claim, since Judeo-Christian precepts invented the concept of human dignity upon which Western civilisation is based.

Indeed, such a ruling comes very close indeed to criminalising Christianity. For if putting Christian belief into practice is outlawed, it won't be long before Christian believers find themselves outlawed.

This issue is particularly topical because Gary McFarlane, formerly a Christian relationship counsellor for Relate, is due to appear at the Court of Appeal today to appeal against an employment tribunal ruling that upheld his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

Lord Carey has prepared a witness statement in support of Mr McFarlane, and will back an application by Mr McFarlane's lawyers for the case to be heard by a panel of judges with understanding of religious issues.

Melanie Phillips again: No wonder Lord Carey and his colleagues have been galvanised into militant action. For under the guise of promoting 'tolerance' and 'liberal' social attitudes, anti-discrimination law is deeply intolerant and illiberal.

That's because it has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with ideology. It is innately on the side of minorities on the basis that they are by definition vulnerable to the majority. So in the hands of the judiciary, it has turned into a fearsome weapon against Britain's mainstream attitudes and faith.

The result is that Christianity is now in danger of being turned into a despised and marginalised creed practised only by consenting adults in private.

Christians are already being forced into renouncing their religious beliefs if they want to remain in certain jobs.

This is simply intolerable in a liberal society where freedom of religious conscience is a bedrock value.

Ironically, news of Lord Carey's stand came the same day that it was reported that the Department of Health will allow female Muslim doctors and nurses to wear long sleeves to protect their modesty - despite the fact that guidance that all staff should be bare below the elbow was introduced after long sleeves were blamed for spreading MRSA.

New guidance says staff can wear long sleeves provided they roll them above the elbow to wash and when on the wards. Those wanting to stay covered on the ward can use disposable over-sleeves. Sikhs are also to be allowed to wear Kara bangles.

Said Shirley Chaplin, the nurse who got into trouble with the NHS for wearing a cross she had previously worn every day for 38 years without problem: "It seems like life is stacked up against Christians these days."

Christianity under siege

Christianity is under siege in this country. Britain's national religion has never been so marginalised and derided, especially by the public institutions that should be defending it.

So says Dr Taj Hargey, imam of an Oxford Islamic congregation and chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, writing in a national daily newspaper. (You can read the full article here.)

The case of nurse Shirley Chaplin, he says, who has been banned by Devon and Exeter NHS Trust from wearing her crucifix while caring for patients, is a graphic illustration of this insidious trend.

Indeed, it is surely an affront to the very concept of religious liberty, which was once regarded as a cornerstone of our democratic, respectful and tolerant nation.

For make no mistake, a new form of virulent secularism is sweeping through society - and its target is Christianity.

I am a Muslim. But even as a non-Christian, I can see all too clearly the shameful way in which Britain's national faith is being eroded. Indeed, banning a crucifix makes a mockery of our treasured right to religious freedom.

With a typically bureaucratic mix of arrogance and authoritarianism, the Devon and Exeter Trust has claimed that the ban is not an attack on Christianity because wearing a crucifix is not an essential requirement of the faith.

But who appointed these quangocrats to pronounce on matters of religious doctrine? What right do they have to lecture a devout woman about her cherished beliefs?

And why can't they accept that Ms Chaplin's deeply religious convictions, which she chooses to express by wearing the crucifix, also inspire her compassionate work in the NHS?

As a Muslim, I am filled with despair at the attitude of our politically correct officials towards Christianity. . .

It is no coincidence that as Christianity is repeatedly attacked, so the social fabric of Britain becomes increasingly frayed. As we lose our strong moral compass, family breakdown and violent crime are at record levels, while our once famous sense of community spirit is evaporating. . .

Without the restraining, selfless morality that ultimately stems from faith, the triumph of either social anarchy or totalitarianism becomes a worrying possibility.

But what is sickening about this case is the PC brigade's outrageous hypocrisy.

For in the public sector, normally so hypersensitive to allegations of prejudice against ethnic minorities, it is unimaginable that bureaucrats would wade in with the same bullying ferocity against a Muslim or Hindu nurse who wanted to wear a symbol of her faith in the workplace. . .

Many schools have been sidelining Christianity, while celebrating other religions, so much so that in some areas we have a generation of pupils who know more about the Hindu festival of Diwali than about the religious meaning of Christmas. . .

These politically correct busy-bodies don't even have the courage to be open about their fanatical loathing of Christianity.

Instead, they often cravenly cite 'health and safety,' that catch-all term so often clutched at by bureaucrats when they want to shut down something they disapprove of. . .

Too often the PC brigade support overt demonstrations of faith by minority religions, while coming down hard on quiet religious gestures by Christians.

This must change. Mutual respect is the only way forward for Britain - and that has to include respect for Britains's ancient Christian civilisation. . .

And it takes a Muslim to tell us this?

Sex ed: A last minute hitch

As part of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, the UK Government was set to make sex education from the age of five a compulsory part of the national curriculum for schools.

Decisions on sex education would be taken out of the hands of parents and school governors and placed in the hands of Government officials.

Teachers would be required by law, irrespective of personal conviction, to present homosexual partnerships and unmarried sexual relationships as being on a par with marriage. Religious as well as secular schools would be required to teach children where to get contraceptives and how to access abortions.

The bill also provided what lawyers called a draconian regime for home education, where parents who wanted to teach their children would have to be licensed, there would be regular visits by inspectors and parents could easily lose their right to continue.

No longer. At the end of a Government's term of office, there is always a period of horse trading between political parties so the Government can push through remaining legislation before Parliament rises. It is understood that the Conservatives objected to proposals for sex education and the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to proposals for home education legislation.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls this week dropped the proposals on these two issues so the rest of the bill could go through. One newspaper suggested that he ditched his sex education reforms in a fit of petulance rather than compromise on one of the Conservatives' key demands. Whatever the reason, it was certainly an answer to prayer as far as some people were concerned.

A word of warning though. Labour have promised to being the proposals back in the summer if they are re-elected.

One more thing: the Government recently passed legislation making "incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" a specific offence. Lord Waddington successfully proposed the addition of a freedom of speech amendment which would ensure people were not taken to court for simply criticising homosexual conduct or expressing the belief that homosexual behaviour is wrong.

The Government tried four times to remove the amendment, but lost in the House of Lords each time.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that the next Labour manifesto will include a commitment to reverse the Waddington amendment, and Labour would use the Parliament Act to overturn the Lords' decision if necessary.

Persecution for Britain's Christians?

"Are Christians Being Persecuted?" was the title of an hour-long documentary, presented by Nicky Campbell, on BBC TV on Easter Sunday.

Christians in the title, of course, referred to Christians in the UK. The programme looked at cases of Christians being suspended or sacked for offering to pray, wearing Christian symbols or talking about God at work. For 99.9% of its time, it seemed to be trying not to express an opinion of its own: but some of the people interviewed had some interesting views.

"Rights," said Britain's Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, "are a good thing. They arose really in England in the 17th century. . .

"The major question was how can people of strongly conflicting religious beliefs live peaceably together. People stopped saying 'Religious faith is supremely important, therefore everyone should have my religious faith' to saying 'Religious faith is supremely important and therefore everyone should have the right to the faith that they in conscience believe,' and with that one simple move religion turned into a friend of liberty instead of being its enemy.

"That's why it becomes ironic when rights themselves become a threat to religious liberty."

Said the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, referring to religion and secular ideology: "One way in which to understand the tensions around equality legislation is not to think that one is a matter of doctrine and the other isn't.

"Secularism is a doctrine and it can be as forceful and it can be as narrow minded as the worst of a doctrinaire Christian position."

Professor Roger Trigg, of Oxford University, commenting on the case of the Christian registrar at Islington Council who got into trouble for asking not to conduct same-sex civil partnerships, had this to offer: "Principle wise, they were against discrimination, but they were against discrimination of people on grounds of their sexual orientation.

"They weren't, it seems, very concerned about discrimination on grounds of religion. And yet that is just as crucial. It seemed to me in that case there is a balance between two different things; but they didn't see it that way, they just only saw discrimination on one side.

"There is a kind of view among some people that would say if you don't like it, you are free to give up your profession: you must do as you are told.

"I think that kind of overriding of deep feelings of conscience is very dangerous. Indeed I think democracy depends on these deep feelings of conscience; if people actually in democracy are not acting basically in accordance with what they believe is right, it all just becomes a power struggle between people of different ideas, with no idea that anybody is acting for the common good. And that will destroy it."

In the closing seconds of the programme came the programme's verdict: "So, are Christians being persecuted? No, they are not being tortured and killed, like Christians in Pakistan and the Sudan. But a minority believe they are being sidelined and victimised. By the standards of a liberal society, that can feel like persecution."

Some people would think differently.

He's alive!

Conservative Party leader David Cameron said recently that schools should teach children that homosexuality is normal and that homosexual civil partnerships have as much value as marriage. In an interview with a homosexual magazine, he is recorded as saying that "our Lord Jesus" would back equality and homosexual rights if he were alive.

Apart from the fact that the first chapter of Romans makes it clear that to indulge in homosexual practice is to exchange the normal use for that which is against nature, someone should tell David Cameron that Jesus is alive.

There must be a lot of people who would claim to be Christians who don't believe that Jesus is alive - yet both Christ's crucifixion and Christ's resurrection are basic and essential to the Christian faith.

Now going around saying that Jesus is alive won't make you popular. People will say that you're crazy, that you've gone over the top, that you're taking your faith too seriously. They will try all sorts of ways to explain away Christ's resurrection, although there will still be one thing they won't be able to account for: the fact that the tomb was empty.

The apostle Paul went everywhere preaching that God had raised Jesus from the dead. He explained to the Roman governor Festus that Jesus was alive. "Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?" he asked King Agrippa (Acts 26:8). Why? Because it's important.

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus," says Rom 10:9, "and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Better to be saved than to be lost.

Examine the evidence. Recognise that Jesus is alive. Ask Him into your heart and let His love change your life. You won't regret it. Ever.

When two wills conflict

One English translation of the Bible says that in the days of His flesh, Jesus "offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety" (Heb 5:7). "Because of his piety" doesn't convey a great deal.

I am grateful to Derek Prince for pointing out something that I had not noticed. That phrase in the New International Version of the Bible is translated "because of his reverent submission."

Picture Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. He knew what was going to happen the following day. Did He want to be crucified? He did not. He prayed if it were possible for that ordeal to be taken from Him. But then He prayed "Nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done." Reverent submission means that if my will and God's will conflict, God's will takes precedence.

Jesus didn't have to go to the cross. He told Peter "Do you think that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?" But He was submitted to His Father's will.

His disciples would not have understood at that time. They would have expected deliverance for Jesus, not death. Sometimes God fails to answer our prayer because He has something better.

So it was here. God ignored the first part of Christ's prayer in the garden because He had something better. He was prepared to sacrifice His Son so that He could have millions more sons and daughters in His family. And Jesus was willing to be sacrificed.

He died that I might live. What sort of love is that?

Behold the Lamb

Tomorrow is Palm Sunday. An appropriate time, perhaps, to point out that words spoken to the prophet Daniel by the angel Gabriel and recorded in Dan 9:24 - 27 form perhaps the most amazing prophecy in the Bible. The first three of those verses say:

Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.

And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Some English translations of the Bible say "weeks" and some say "sevens." (In Hebrew, the word for "week" and the word for "seven" are similar.) These sevens are in fact sevens of years. So there were to be 69 sevens, or 483 years, between the command to rebuild Jerusalem and the death of the Messiah.

Neh 2:1 - 8 says that King Artaxerxes gave the command to rebuild Jerusalem in the month of Nisan in his 20th year. Counting 483 years from that date brings you to the time of Christ.

Nineteenth century Bible scholar Sir Robert Anderson worked it out to the day. He says a year in Jewish calculation at the time of Daniel was 360 days, so 483 years becomes 173,880 days.

He assumes the decree was made on the first day of Nisan in Artaxerxes' 20th year, which he says was March 14, 445 BC. Assuming Jesus began His ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1) and continued for three years, Jesus' Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem would be in AD 32, and seeing that Passover is always on 14 Nisan, Palm Sunday would be the 10th day of Nisan, or April 6.

The period from March 14, 445 BC to April 6, AD 32, allowing for leap years, is - 173,880 days.

You might think there are a few too many assumptions there to be able to accept such an exact calculation as fact - but there is no doubt that the period is right. You will notice too that according to the prophecy, Messiah had to come before the temple was destroyed. The temple was destroyed in AD 70.

So the Bible prophesied not only that Messiah would come from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from the tribe of Judah and from the house of David and that He would be born in Bethlehem, but the time that He would come.

There's something else here too that is interesting. Jesus died, of course, at Passover. That is no coincidence: 1 Cor 5:7 says that He is our Passover, sacrificed for us. Passover commemorated the Jews' deliverance from the last of the plagues on Egypt, when the firstborn in every Egyptian household died. God had said the Jews were to put the blood of a lamb on the lintel and the doorposts of their houses; when the Lord saw the blood, He would pass over them.

Exodus 12, which records the instructions for that original Passover, says the Jews were to choose a lamb for each household on the 10th day of the month and keep it for four days before killing it, making sure that it was without blemish.

Jesus presented Himself to the Jews on the 10th day of the month, it appears, as He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. A few days later, He hung lifeless on the cross. Jesus was not only the Son of God, He was the Lamb of God: a last and perfect sacrifice.

Blue-eyed, blonde-haired twins, anyone?

Children, the Bible says, are a blessing from the Lord. At least, that's the way it was intended to be.

Whenever man starts to engineer human birth, there seem to be problems. The New York Times listed some of the problems, for instance, involving the use of surrogate mothers.

There was the case of Scott and Amy Kehoe, of Michigan, who were unable to have a baby of their own. They obtained donor eggs and donor sperm and hired an IVF clinic. Laschell Baker, also of Michigan, agreed to be the surrogate mother. In due time twins Ethan and Bridget were born and handed over to the Kehoes.

Six days after the birth, Mrs Baker discovered that Mrs Kehoe had had mental problems and was still having treatment. She decided she was not prepared to run the risk of Mrs Kehoe having a relapse and being unable to look after the twins. She had the Kehoes' guardianship rescinded and got a court order to retrieve the children. She and her husband plan to raise the twins with the four children of their own.

The Kehoes, who had to say goodbye to the children a month after they took them home, still have 20 frozen embryos at an IVF clinic from the eggs and sperm they bought.

Then there's the case of Donald Robinson, a Manhattan accountant. He and his male partner Sean Hollingsworth decided they wanted to be parents. They obtained eggs from an egg donor, Hollingsworth donated sperm and Robinson's sister, although she had had no children of her own, agreed to be surrogate mother.

During the pregnancy Ms Robinson began to have differences with her brother and began to bond with the twins she was carrying.

The male couple had custody of the twins for the first five months, then Ms Robinson asked a court for custody of the children. She was granted custody on a temporary basis for three days a week. The twins were being shuttled back and forth between her house and her brother's house until a further court hearing.

Finally, there was the case of 62-year-old Stephen Melinger, an unmarried male elementary school teacher from New Jersey who decided he wanted a child. He obtained donated eggs and donated sperm and hired a surrogate mother.

After twin girls were born he took custody, but then is said to have exhibited eccentric behaviour and the question arose of whether he was capable of looking after them. The girls, now four, are currently in his custody but have already spent two spells in foster care.

The main problem, said a bioethicist, is seeing children as a consumer product. Like commodities. Or like pets.

Could this sort of thing happen in the UK? I suppose it could. (Surrogacy is not allowed on a commercial basis in the UK, but surrogacy agreements are not enforceable in UK courts, so it is not possible to have a legally binding surrogacy agreement.)

The Bridge Clinic, a London IVF centre, was recently raffling a woman's eggs as part of a Mother's Day promotion. The winner of the raffle was to receive a free £13,000-worth of fertility treatment in the United States - where you can choose your egg donor from profiles listing education, race, age, hair colour, eye colour and upbringing.

How do you suppose a child would feel growing up to learn he had been won in a raffle?

Time to stand up and speak up

Over the weeks I have written more about the conflict to do with Israel than I had intended. But it is important. Very important.

1. God has not washed His hands of the Jewish people. God's promises to Israel still stand. I will not quote Bible references here in case I turn out to be wasting my time: but if anyone wants Bible references, I will be pleased to provide them.

2. Christians above all need to recognise the colossal debt they owe to the Jewish people. Were it not for the Jewish people, there would be no Bible, no Saviour, no gospel and no salvation. And that's just for starters.

3. Israel is in need of friends. People who claim to appreciate the truth should stand up and speak up for it. Now would be a good time.

There has been an extraordinary attack on Israel by the American administration in recent days for building in an orthodox Jewish neighbourhood in east Jerusalem - it is said that the Obama administration has not used the harsh language it employed against Israel in its dealing with any other nation, including Iran and North Korea, since coming to power - and in recent days there has been some rioting in the streets in Israel.

Writes Melanie Phillips in a piece entitled A revolutionary proposal on her blog at the Spectator yesterday:

Compromise is in general a good thing, but in a war of extermination, if the victim compromises with its attackers it strengthens them and makes its defeat more likely.

In no other conflict in the history of the planet has a country which is the victim of an eight-decade belligerency aimed at wiping it off the map been expected to make concessions to its attackers. In no other conflict has such a victimised people been bullied by onlookers into doing so.

Yet the first pressure is what Britain, America and Europe have been applying for decades, and the second is what Obama is now applying, with the EU falling in behind him: bullying the prospective victim of extermination into submitting to measures which increase the risk of such an eventuality, and in the process almost forcing the Palestinians from their habitual pose of sullen obstructionism and sporadic terrorism into another spate of outright war. . ."

Why would Israel go along with that? You can read the whole piece by clicking here.

I want our streets back

Mrs Marilyn Hebbron thought her Hampshire village of Four Marks a pleasant place - until youths gathered on the village green each night, bringing noise and "inappropriate sexual behaviour" and leaving behind drug paraphernalia and empty bottles.

Having grown tired of verbal abuse and youths vomiting and urinating in her garden, she called neighbours together. Clothed in yellow jackets and supported by local police, they now form regular street patrols.

"Now I have got to know those people I once feared," she says. "Things are not as bad as they seem. It turns out it is just a minority of people going over the top."

Six police forces have visited the area to see her Street Watch scheme in action.

In 2003, a group of local Christians began to patrol the streets of Brixton at weekends. Now there are 125 groups of trained Street Pastors, as they call themselves, serving in their distinctive blue jackets in the streets of towns and cities across Britain - helping youngsters who have drunk too much to get home safely, discouraging antisocial behaviour, defusing potentially violent situations and offering a word of help and comfort where they're able.

"Getting out of the cosy environment of our churches and homes to where we can make a difference," as one put it. According to police, they make a real difference in reducing public disorder in areas where they operate.

Recently the local church I belong to organised some days of prayer and fasting. I was praying for the streets of our towns and cities. They seem to me to be reasonable places during daylight hours - but when darkness falls, it seems like evil takes over. People start using obscene language at the top of their voices; there's violence and drunken belligerence. I want our streets back.

I am asking Christians I know to pray for our streets, so that elderly people can walk them once more without fear, and they can become once again places for decent, righteous, godly behaviour. Would you like to join in?

What's the real agenda here?

The authorities introduced sex education in schools and the number of teenage pregnancies went up. The authorities provided more sex education, and teenage pregnancies continued to rise. The authorities decided what was needed was MORE sex education, and still teenage pregnancies increased.

Question: Is one entitled eventually to assume that the powers that be really aren't concerned about reducing teenage pregnancies?

Here is part of a piece by Peter Hitchens at MailOnline:

Some years ago, I wrote a short history of sex education in this country. I didn't then know about its first invention, during the Hungarian Soviet revolution of 1919, when Education Commissar George Lukacs ordered teachers to instruct children about sex in a deliberate effort to debauch Christian morality.

But what I found was this. That the people who want it are always militant Leftists who loathe conventional family life; that the pretext for it has always been the same - a supposed effort to reduce teen pregnancy and sexual disease; and that it has always been followed by the exact opposite.

It was introduced into schools against much parental resistance during the early Fifties. And, yes, the more of it there was, the more under-age and extramarital sex there seemed to be.

By 1963, in Norwich, parents were told that their young were to be instructed in sexual matters because the illegitimacy rate in that fine city had reached an alarming 7.7 per cent (compared with a national rate of 5.9 per cent). The national rate is now 46 per cent and climbing, so that was obviously a success, wasn't it?

Well, yes it was, because the people who force these popular classes on our young are lying about their aims. You can see why.

Most of us, in any other circumstance, would be highly suspicious of adults who wanted to talk about sex to other people's children. But by this sleight of hand - that they are somehow being protected from disease and unwanted pregnancy - we are tricked into permitting it.

And our civilised society goes swirling down the plughole of moral chaos.

The UK Government is now introducing legislation to make sex education an integral part of the national curriculum and remove the right of parents to withdraw children from sex education lessons. The Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group, which advises the Government, says contraception, abortion and homosexuality are all legal; therefore children should be able to learn "the correct facts."

Is Peter Hitchens right? Is the real target not the reduction of teenage pregnancies, but simply the "sexual liberation" of our children and young people?

Responsible journalism? Not this

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a British journalist. She is a Muslim. Her views are influenced by her Muslim faith. I had some respect for her opinions. Until yesterday.

Yesterday she wrote an article in the Independent in which she spoke - on what evidence, I have no idea - of Iraqis being killed "when we bombed indiscriminately in civilian areas."

She claimed that for the British establishment "Muslims are contemptible creatures, devalued humans." She said the establishment "steal our human and civil rights," treating Muslims as "lesser citizens." She goes on to complain how appallingly Muslims are treated here.

She managed to drag in Israel's incursion into Gaza in Operation Cast Lead, which she called "one of the worst acts of state terrorism in recent history." (She had previously written of the Palestinian population in Gaza: "First systematically starved, the population was denied escape and more than 1,200 were slaughtered like animals in an abbatoir" in "a spectacle of ruthless power.")

No mention of the fact that Israel's incursion was in response to Palestinians in Gaza firing rockets at civilian centres in Israel each day for several years. No mention of how Palestinians in Gaza used Palestinian women and children as human shields. No mention of how Palestinians in Gaza killed other Palestinians.

For a reasoned, measured response to Ms Alibhai-Brown's article I would recommend Robin Shepherd's blog. He is director, international affairs at the Henry Jackson Society in London and a former Moscow bureau chief for the Times.

You can read Ms Alibhai-Brown's article - if you can stomach it - by clicking here. You can read Robin Shepherd's piece by clicking here. I would invite you to read them both.

The spirit of Haman lives on

Antisemitism in Western Europe has reached its highest level since the Second World War, according to a report by the Jewish Agency for Israel. In Britain, the number of antisemitic incidents in 2009 was the highest since records began.

Last month Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, invited to speak at Oxford University, was heckled throughout his talk. A British protester carrying a Palestinian flag yelled "Death to the Jews." Students shouted inside and outside the hall "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea," which, as someone pointed out, effectively called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Several students reportedly attempted to assault the speaker physically and were only prevented from doing so by security men.

Israeli historian Benny Morris was due to speak to students at Cambridge University at the invitation of the university's Israel Society. The society cancelled the talk after protesters accused him of "Islamophobia" and "racism."

When the Deputy Ambassador of Israel was due to speak at Manchester University more than 300 protesters were expected and the embassy had to cancel her visit. All this at Britain's leading universities, once bastions of free speech.

This week is Israel Apartheid Week, described as "a festival of bigotry," "an odious and bigoted annual ritual" and "a global campus hate-fest whose message. . . is in effect a call for Israel's destruction and. . . an incitement to genocide." Well organised meetings will be held on university campuses in dozens of cities.

Jewish students, said to be outnumbered by Islamic students in British universities by eight to one, will be feeling distinctly apprehensive. Strangely, Israel Apartheid Week lasts from March 1 to 14.

Said Dr Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations: "Given the difficulty in applying the apartheid model to Israel, one wonders what the true hidden agenda is behind this campaign. . . Israel Apartheid Week is not about respect for human rights; it is an incredibly hypocritical initiative that ignores the apartheid practised by the Palestinians themselves, who make the sale of land to Jews punishable by death.

"It is also not a movement dedicated to making peace, but rather to denying the historical rights of the Jewish people. The answer to the challenge is to expose the true intentions of its backers, who clearly seek to dismantle the state of Israel and deny its people their inherent right of self-determination."

Meanwhile, student groups such as the Muslim Students Association are being funded by radical Islamist groups, and various university departments in the West are becoming beholden to Islam because of funding from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

In the Middle East last week the Syrian leadership hosted a summit with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the chief of Hezbollah and the head of Hamas. All reportedly vowed the destruction of Israel, whom President Ahmadinejad described as "an insult to humanity."

There was another meeting in Iran last weekend attended by the leaders of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. President Ahmadinejad said Israel is the origin of all wars, genocide, terrors and crimes against humanity and a racist group that does not respect human principles, and suggested a referendum on the destruction of Israel.

Rumours of war continue to roll around the Middle East. The tragedy is that a people which had to suffer a deliberate attempt at its total annihilation in the Second World War (I refer to Israel and the Holocaust) 65 years later still has to fight for its existence.

Making marriage work

John Annas and his wife Lenore recently celebrated their second wedding anniversary. What's special about that, you might ask? Lots of people have celebrated their second wedding anniversary.

What's special about that is that John is 105 and his wife is 86.

The couple live in an old people's home in Leesburg, Florida. John is a retired Methodist minister (A faithful soul. He spends his mornings in prayer. One of the advantages of growing old and less physically active is that you have more time to spend in prayer).

John was married to his first wife for 47 years before his first wife died. Lenore was a widow. She was married for 57 years to her first husband.

When the couple first talked about marriage, family and friends were opposed. They thought John was too old. They went ahead anyway. Now family and friends are delighted.

"He's closer to God than anybody else that I have ever known," Lenore says of John.

"I love her wonderful and gracious spirit, her interest in people, and her love of God," says John of Lenore. "I've discovered somebody who makes my half a whole. I'm 105 and I've never been happier than I am now.

"I have a wonderful companionship with Lenore, a woman who makes me smile. She makes my heart sing. She's my Valentine. She's beyond and above anything I can put into words. Next to God, she's it."

The secret of their happy marriage? They didn't say; at least not in the account I read. But I think John hinted at it when he said "Next to God, she's it."

If you are talking about getting married, tell your young lady - or your 86-year-old lady, if you like - that if you marry, she will never have first place in your life. That belongs to Jesus. But tell her she will have second place, and no one will ever have that place but her.

And if you're a young lady - or an 86-year-old lady, for that matter - thinking of getting married, tell your husband-to-be the same thing.

A young lady I remember whose marriage failed complained that there were three people in her marriage, for all the wrong reasons. Make sure there are three people in your marriage for all the right reasons - you two and Jesus.

Putting Jesus first won't make you a worse husband or a worse wife. It will make you a better husband or a better wife than you could ever be without Him.

I can give personal testimony to the truth of that.

Getting ready to go

The Bible clearly teaches that we are living in the last days of this present age. This age will end with the return of Jesus Christ (gloriously described in Rev 19:11 - 16) to set up His physical kingdom on the earth.

No date is given for this; in fact, we are told that we must not set dates. But the Bible gives signs of the time in which this will happen. I list some of them here:

1. There will be wars and rumours of wars (Matt 24:6, 7).

2. There will be famines, pestilences and earthquakes (Matt 24:7).

3. Travel and knowledge will increase (Dan 12:4; 2 Tim 3:7, 8).

4. We may expect to see materialism and blatant homosexuality (Luke 17:26 - 30; Gen 19: 4, 5).

5. People will be selfish, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God (2 Tim 3:1 - 4).

6. Israel will be back in her land (Mark 13:28, 29).

7. Many will be deceived by false prophets and false teachers. Many will fall away from the true faith, and Christians will be persecuted (Matt 24:4, 5, 11; 2 Pet 2:1, 2; 1 Tim 4:1 - 3; 2 Pet 3:3 - 7; Jude 17, 18; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12 - 18).

There will be a time of great suffering on the earth known as the Tribulation, the Great Tribulation or "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Matt 24:21, 22). But before that happens, all those who belong to Jesus will be taken up and will escape the terrible things that are to come (You can read about that at 1 Thess 4:13 - 18; 1 Cor 15:51 - 54 and Phil 3:20, 21).

We need to be ready against that day.

Helping people to die

So, it's happened. A day after a plea by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the law on assisted suicide should not be changed, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has issued his new guidelines on when people should and should not be prosecuted for assisting suicide - a move some have interpreted as a ploy to allow assisted suicide in Britain without the law being altered by Parliament.

"The law - together with the values and standards of our caring professions - " the Prime Minister wrote in the Daily Telegraph, "supports good care, including palliative care for the most difficult of conditions; and also protects the most vulnerable in our society. . .

"The risk of pressures - however subtle - on the frail and the vulnerable, who may feel their existence burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded. And the inevitable erosion of trust in the caring professions - if they were in a position to end life - would be to lose something very precious."

Assisting someone commit suicide is illegal, plain and simple. But in an "astonishing" decision by the law lords which was described this week by ethics expert Professor John Keown as "unprecedented and unsound, if not unconstitutional," the law was required to be "clarified" by the DPP being obliged to state under what circumstances he would and would not prosecute, thus spelling out to people when they would be able to commit assisted suicide and avoid court action.

(Some MPs considered that the judiciary was "overriding the will of Parliament." A few promised to do something about it; but if they have done something about it of consequence, apart from their first verbal protest, I haven't heard what it is.)

The DPP provided interim guidelines in September, along with a public consultation. The final guidelines he announced this week.

It has to be said that the guidelines are not as bad as they might have been. The number of factors where prosecution will be unlikely have been reduced from 13 to six. One that has been scrapped is where the victim is disabled or terminally ill, although not where the victim is fit and well, which people complained discriminated against the disabled.

The 16 factors where the DPP might be inclined to bring charges include where the suspect is a doctor or nurse caring for the victim; in other words, no physician-assisted suicide. And where the suspect belongs to an organisation providing premises where people can commit suicide; in other words, no suicide clinics.

But there are still dangers. Helping a loved one commit suicide "out of compassion" will not invite court action, although the suspect may benefit financially from the death.

Much will depend on how the guidelines are implemented. This is how it all began in the Netherlands, with "strict guidelines" - guidelines that were interpreted more and more widely until the Netherlands practised euthanasia for newborn babies and adults who hadn't requested it.

Consider the facts, Mr Balls

According to a report in the Daily Mail this week, Ed Balls, the UK Government's Children's Secretary, said that faith schools must teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

Normal? Homosexual practice is not normal. It is abnormal.

And harmless? The medical profession says that carefully documented studies show that male homosexuals have a much higher incidence of sexually related disease, as well as viral infections such as herpes, hepatitis A and B and HIV, with one study showing 72 per cent of male HIV infection in the UK acquired through homosexual practice.

It says that multiple partners, unsafe sexual practices and substance abuse are more common in homosexuals, leaving homosexuals at risk of psychiatric conditions; that suicidal tendencies are higher in homosexual and lesbian young people; and that male homosexuals are three times more likely to have seriously contemplated or attempted suicide, and 12 times more likely to have had a major depressive disorder than their heterosexual counterparts.

What other subject can there be besides sex education where teachers are going to be forced by law to teach things they do not believe? What other subject can there be where teachers are going to be forced to teach things they know are not true?

Having said all of that, homosexuals should be treated with love and respect. The Bible says that homosexual practice is sin, but says that we have all sinned in one thing or another. To accept homosexuals as people, while recognising the responsibility to speak out about the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle, is not to accept their way of life.

Mr Balls was speaking, of course, of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which will make sex education mandatory for children from five years old and which completed its course through the House of Commons this week. We'll see now what the House of Lords will do with it.

Kingdom rules OK

On TV recently I saw a man being interviewed on the street. The interview was taking place somewhere in the United States.

The man being interviewed was half drunk. He said he did not read the Bible and admitted he was a liar, a thief, an adulterer and a blasphemer, but he was adamant that he was going to heaven because he had accepted Christ as his Saviour.

Unless he repents, that man is in for a serious shock.

When God made the world, He made it perfect. Because man needed to be subject to God's authority, God told him there was one thing he must do. It wasn't a difficult thing. He must not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Bible scholars believe Satan was originally an angelic being named Lucifer (see Isa 14:12 - 15 and Ezek 28:11 - 17). Lucifer was not satisfied with his position. Because he wanted to be like God, he rebelled.

Satan tempted man with the same spirit of rebellion. He succeeded. Man ate the fruit of the tree and fell into Satan's hand. Satan became the prince of this world.

In due time, Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom (see Matt 4:23). He sent His disciples to preach the gospel of the kingdom (see Matt 10:7). The Bible says that one day the gospel of the kingdom will be preached to all nations, and then the end will come (see Matt 24:14).

The gospel of the kingdom says there is another kingdom apart from Satan's kingdom called the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God. If you repent of your sins and will believe that Jesus is risen from the dead and that He is lord, you are able to be transferred from Satan's kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son.

Unfortunately, some people today don't preach the gospel of the kingdom. They preach "Jesus loves you." This is true, but it is only half the story. By accepting half the story, people believe they can have God's forgiveness and still make their own decisions about how they live.

That's not true. If people are to be in the kingdom, they must live by the laws of the kingdom and be subject to the King.

Only in Satan's kingdom, and nowhere else, can you live how you please.

When man becomes God

The trouble with us as a nation is that we are a nation away from God. As a result, we have become more individualistic, more selfish. My life is my own, we say, and I can do what I like with it.

If we have an unwanted pregnancy, we can get rid of it by killing the unborn child. Nothing must be allowed to interfere with my right to choose. That's why we are now talking about allowing assisted suicide. Old people and sick people are a nuisance. They affect my autonomy. They interfere with my right to live my life as I want to.

Once upon a time, in a more godly age, we would have been afraid to take innocent human life. With God pushed out of the way, we can do it with impunity. The Bishop of Durham recently made a valuable point. If you get rid of God, he said, you inflate yourself to be divine instead.

In a recent article, Wesley J. Smith, the American pro-life commentator, warned what is likely to happen in the UK if assisted killing is permitted here. He quotes the case of the assisted suicide of Myrna Lebov in Manhattan in 1995:

The case generated national headlines in the States - as so many recent UK assisted suicides have - when Lebov's husband, George Delury, announced that he had assisted his wife's death at her request because she was suffering the debilitations of progressive multiple sclerosis.

Delury's defense of compassionate assistance quickly became a cause celebre. He was lauded as a dedicated husband willing to risk jail to help his beloved wife achieve her deeply desired end to suffering. Assisted suicide advocates tub-thumped for legalization, while some editorialists asked why doctors shouldn't be allowed to relieve such misery so that husbands wouldn't have to. Delury appeared on television and radio programs and spoke to a convention of the American Psychiatric Association. He quickly signed a book deal, later published under the title But What If She Wants To Die?

Today, a UK George Delury probably wouldn't be prosecuted, and indeed, might even be applauded by family members. But. . . the actual story eventually came out. The story it tells illustrates the danger presented to society's most vulnerable populations by the UK's current path.

In part because Lebov's sister launched a media crusade against Delury, and in part because he foolishly kept a computer diary - perhaps in preparation for his planned book - it soon became clear that George had put Myrna out of his misery. The diary showed that Lebov did not have an unwavering and long-stated desire to die, as Delury had claimed. Rather, as often happens with people struggling with debilitating illnesses, her moods waxed and waned. One day she would be suicidal - but the next day she was re-engaged with life.

Moreover, Delury worked assiduously at destroying his wife's will to live by making her feel like a worthless burden. In one of the many damning diary entries that came to light, he wrote about a plan to tell his wife: "I have work to do, people to see, places to travel. But no one asks about my needs. I have fallen prey to the tyranny of a victim. You are sucking my life out of my [sic] like a vampire and nobody cares. In fact, it would appear that I am about to be cast in the role of villain because I no longer believe in you." Delury later admitted that he had shown his wife that very passage.

With the diary's publication, Delury's planned "compassion" defense became inoperable and he quickly accepted a plea bargain that put him in jail for several months. But that still wasn't the end of the story. In But What If She Wants To Die - published after he became constitutionally immune from further prosecution - Delury wrote that he had smothered Lebov with a plastic bag because he was worried that the drugs she ingested might not be sufficient to kill her. . .

The Delury case, says Wesley Smith, needs to be kept firmly in mind as the UK decides whether public policies should punish all assisted suicides - or just those of the young, healthy and able bodied. Many apparently believe in the latter approach. But be warned. Approving assisted suicide of the most sick and disabled is like telling teenagers "Don't smoke, but if you do, use filter cigarettes." The decidedly mixed message will create the opposite effect of what might be intended.

The power of prayer

One of the greatest assets Christians have is prayer. Prayer has great power; greater than we often imagine. Prayer can change nations. To illustrate the point, Derek Prince tells how he was serving with the British Army in North Africa during the Second World War. For more than 700 miles the British had been in continuous retreat; morale, he says, was very low.

There I was, newly converted. I had not had any opportunity to attend church. All I had was the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I thought to myself, I ought to be able to pray about this situation intelligently. I knew I did not know what to pray. So I said in my naive way, "Lord, show me how You want me to pray."

The Lord gave me a specific answer, which was this prayer: "Lord, give us leaders such that it will be to Your glory to give us victory through them." I was less than a year old in the Lord when I prayed that prayer. I prayed it consistently.

Now I did not know what was happening, but God began to move swiftly. The British government appointed a new commander for their forces in the Middle East in North Africa. This man was flown back to Cairo to take command but his plane crashed on landing and he was killed. So at that very important time in the most active theater of the war, the British Forces were left without a commander.

In that situation, Winston Churchill, who was prime minister of Britain at the time, acted more or less on his own initiative and appointed an unknown officer who was flown out from Britain. His name was Bernard Montgomery. Montgomery was a committed Christian and a God-fearing man. He was also a very fine commander and a man of great discipline.

He went to work reorganizing the British forces. He restored discipline and morale; he changed the whole attitude and bearing and conduct of the officers. And then there was fought the well-known battle of El Alamein, which was the first major Allied victory in the whole of that theater of war. It reversed the course of war in North Africa in favor of the Allies.

I was serving with a military ambulance up in the desert, a little way behind the advancing British forces. On the tailboard of the truck there was a little portable radio. I listened as a news commentator described the preparations at Montgomery's headquarters just before the Battle of El Alamein was fought. He described how Montgomery came out and assembled his officers and men and said this: "Let us ask the Lord, mighty in battle, to give us the victory."

As I listened to those words, what I call "heaven's electricity" went through me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. God spoke quietly but firmly to my spirit and said, That is the answer to your prayer.

Thus, I learned early in my Christian experience that prayer can change the course of history. I read an article in a British newspaper on the 100th anniversary of Montgomery's birth in which it said that no British general in human history has ever conducted a more brilliant campaign than Montgomery conducted at that time in North Africa. As I prayed, God raised up a man who would give Him the glory. Do you believe that? Can you believe that your prayers can change history? That God will do things for you as you pray?

Now, some people may say, "Well, that's arrogant. I'm sure there were other people praying." There certainly were other Christians in Britain praying. But this is true as well: Even if just one person prayed, and prayed the prayer of faith, and met God's conditions, God has committed Himself to answer.

There are only two alternatives about prayer. Either God answers prayer or He does not. If He does not answer prayer it is foolish to pray, and if He does answer prayer it is foolish not to pray. I believe He answers prayer. That is my firm conviction. But the lesson I want to emphasize here is God has got to give you the prayer. Receiving it is like taking hold of a spear. When you take it, hold it out. Keep it held out. Don't draw it back.[1]

[1] Secrets of a Prayer Warrior. Baldock, Herts: Derek Prince Ministries International, 2009, p118f.

Middle East war soon?

Tomorrow is February 11. February 11 is the anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979.

On Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reported as saying that Iran will deliver a "harsh blow to global arrogance" on February 11. On Monday, Iran's Supreme Religious Leader and commander-in-chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: "The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance [Western powers] on the 22nd of Bahman [February 11] in a way that will leave them stunned."

US President Obama has ordered Patriot missiles sent to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. The US has two ships in the Gulf that are able to shoot down Iranian missiles. It is common knowledge that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons and has promised to wipe Israel off the map.

But Iran's next battle with Israel may not be fought by Iran, but through Iran's proxies. The Jerusalem-based military intelligence website debka.com says US intelligence has discovered detailed war plans drawn up by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas for 5,000 Hezbollah fighters trained in Iran to invade northern Israel, with rocket attacks from Lebanon, Hamas attacking Israel in the south and the east and Syria providing artillery and aircover.

It is interesting that Psalm 83 prophesies a time when Israel's enemies will form a confederacy against Israel, saying "Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, That the name of Israel may be remembered no more."

Those involved, it says, are "The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagarites; Gebal, Ammon and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assyria also." These are the names of peoples of Bible times; their descendants, we are told, are the Arab peoples now surrounding Israel. Iran is not listed among them.

Is is interesting too that Isa 17:1 prophesies that one day Damascus will be destroyed.

So what will happen tomorrow? Will there be an act of serious aggression, or are the Iranians' remarks mere rhetoric intended to support an increasingly unpopular Iranian regime? I don't know.

There is no doubt that war in the Middle East will come.

One thing is certain (or two things, if you like): God will have His way, and Bible prophecy will be fulfilled.

'Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey him'?

The other day someone was trying to convince me that Jesus was not God, but was Himself created. They couldn't do it. The Bible shows quite clearly that Jesus is God.

Try Psa 45:6, 7; Isa 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 8:58; 20:28, 29; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:5, 6; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 1 John 5:20.

The whole point of the Christian gospel is that man could not save himself, so God came down in the person of the Son and died in man's place so that man's sins might be forgiven (1 Tim 3:16).

Some Christians who would accept the deity of Christ have difficulty in accepting that He is a man. "No," they suppose, "He was a man, but He's God now." Not so. He is God, of course. He always was, and He always will be.

But He is still a man. Listen: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5, my italics). When Jesus took on human flesh, He didn't take it on for a lifetime, He took it on for ever.

At the resurrection, He arose physically from the dead. "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself," He told the disciples. "Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). "Reach your finger here, and look at my hands," He told Thomas, "and reach your hand here, and put it into my side" (John 20:27). He ate food after He rose from the dead (Luke 24:41 - 43). When He went back to heaven, He took His body with Him.

The good news is that there is a man sitting on a throne in heaven, and He is representing me. The fact that He is in glory is evidence that I shall be there too. "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:2, 3).

Jesus is wholly God and wholly man. He is entirely wonderful. He deserves my complete devotion. "Blessing," says Rev 5:13, "and honour and glory and power Be to him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, for ever and ever!"

Alive, but unable to communicate

There has been a growing tendency in recent years to withdraw food and water from patients in a so-called vegetative state and starve them or dehydrate them to death. Here is one good reason why it should never happen.

Rom Houben, a 20-year-old student and martial arts enthusiast, was paralysed after a car crash in 1983. Doctors in Zolder, Belgium, used internationally accepted tests to assess eye, verbal and motor responses. They concluded that his consciousness was "extinct."

Three years ago his mother Josephine contacted neurologist Dr Steven Laureys, of Liege University. New state-of-the-art scans showed that Rom's brain was functioning in almost completely normal fashion. Although he had lost control of his body, for 23 years he had been conscious of everything that was happening.

He is still disabled, but a device over his bed allows him to read books, and after therapy he can communicate with family and friends via a specially adapted computer.

For 23 years he had no way of letting doctors, nurses, family or friends know that he could hear every word they said. He screamed - but there was no sound.

"I meditated. I dreamed my life away. It was all I could do. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt." He studied other patients. He listened to the conversation of the nurses, who were not embarrassed to speak about their boyfriends in front of him, believing he was not aware. "That made me an expert on relationships."

He says he will never forget the day they discovered what was really wrong with him. "It was my second birth. I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now."

Rom's mother said she and her husband always believed Rom was aware, but doctors would not believe them. When her husband died in 1997, she went to the hospital to tell Rom. "He shut his eyes. There were no tears, but he understood everything."

Recently, he told his mother via his computer: "Sorry I could not help you, Mummy, when Father went."

So what does go on here?

What devious dealings are going on behind the scenes in an attempt to legalise assisted suicide? Are unelected civil servants, who are supposed to be impartial, using political means in an attempt to change the law?

And what is going to be the final result of the intense campaign for legalised assisted suicide by the chattering classes, aided by a sympathetic media?

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, claimed yesterday that mercy killing is being legalised on the back of a celebrity-driven campaign, without reference to Parliament.

He condemned what one newspaper called "the current bandwagon of fashionable opinion seeking to allow relatives to help the sick and dying commit suicide without fear of prosecution."

I wrote here how, after Parliament refused to legalise assisted suicide, the High Court and the Appeal Court refused Debbie Purdy a guarantee of non-prosecution for her husband if he accompanied her to a suicide clinic.

After she appealed to the House of Lords, Lord Phillips - who expressed sympathy in a newspaper interview for people desiring assisted suicide - said in announcing the decision of the highest court in the land that the law was unclear and that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, must state when he would prosecute for assisted suicide and when he would not.

The DPP did so, thus effectively allowing assisted suicide in some cases without Parliament having changed the law.

Mrs Kay Gilderdale appeared in court last week. Her daughter Lynn, who was in constant pain after 17 years of chronic ME, had died after taking a massive dose of morphine. Mrs Gilderdale, who had already admitted assisting suicide, was now charged with attempted murder (she was found not guilty of that charge).

At the trial, the judge, Mr Justice Bean, asked why a charge of attempted murder had been brought. He was told by the prosecuting barrister "It was thought at the highest level this should be a case that should be canvassed before a jury." This was taken to be a reference to the DPP, who felt obliged to issue a statement defending the prosecution.

Some MPs are reportedly of the opinion that the DPP brought the case as a "showpiece" to build public sympathy for making assisted suicide legal.

MP Ann Widdecombe has laid down an early day motion in the House of Commons, supported by MPs from both sides of the House, stating that the DPP's prosecution guidelines override the will of Parliament. It points out that before prosecution for theft or grievous bodily harm, unlike assisted suicide, "we are not told how much we can steal. . . or how much injury we can inflict."

It calls for the guidelines to be withdrawn, "leaving Parliament rather than the judiciary or unelected civil servants to consider whether to change the law, and making it clear to judiciary that they are not permitted to override the supremacy of Parliament."

The BBC, which claims to be impartial but shows evidence of being anything but, continued the barrage of publicity yesterday. "Hours of coverage," says the Daily Mail, "were given to a Panorama opinion poll. . . Sir Terry Pratchett, who has Alzheimer's, was given the platform of the Richard Dimbleby lecture on BBC1 to call passionately for the establishment of a tribunal where people can seek legal permission to be allowed to die. . .

"There is. . . little doubt that Britain's liberal intelligentsia is cheerleading for assisted dying laws. Celebrities, Labour luminaries and lawyers, including the publicity-hungry Director of Public Prosecutions. . . are all aboard the bandwagon. . .

"But it is for law-makers who represent the people to decide - not bien pensant opinion."

The battle over assisted suicide goes on - but the question remains: what is going to be the effect of this dangerous campaign outside Parliament?