Alive from the dead

Howard Storm tells a remarkable story. At 27 years old, he was a professor of art at an American university. He was also an atheist.

At 38, he was leading a tour by art students in Paris. He was talking with his wife and one of the students in a hotel room when he suddenly dropped to the floor, screaming in pain. His duodenum had perforated.

He was admitted to hospital in a potentially fatal condition, but because it was weekend, no doctor could be found to treat him. After some hours, he lost consciousness.

He found himself standing in the room, looking down at his own body on the bed. He had no pain. He spoke to his wife and another man in the room, and couldn't understand it when they didn't appear to hear him.

Then he heard voices calling his name. "We've been waiting for you," they said. "Come with us. It's time for you to go. Hurry up."

He went with his guides on a very long journey through a grey space that got darker and darker as they went. He realised that he didn't trust his guides and became so terrified he refused to go any further. His guides attacked him, biting and tearing at him until he was ripped apart, unable to move.

A small voice inside his head said "Pray to God." He thought "I don't even believe in God." The voice persisted. He didn't know how to pray, but he decided he was going to pray anyway. "Jesus, please save me!" he shouted.

Storm claims that Jesus appeared to him. He saw his life appear before him - his heavy drinking, his adultery and the rest. He talked with Jesus for a long time, then was told he was to go back to the world and live a different kind of life.

He awoke back on his hospital bed, less than 30 minutes after he lost consciousness. A doctor had been found, and the necessary surgery was done.

As he regained strength, he began to devour the Bible. He attended theological seminary, and was ordained to the ministry.

Howard Storm is now involved in missionary work in Belize.

You can read the full story here.

If at first you don't succeed. . .

They just don't stop trying, do they?

There are people who would like to see euthanasia legalised in Britain. After fighting for its legalisation for years without success, they changed tactic and fought for the legalisation of assisted suicide, again without success.

The law lords ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to state when he would prosecute in cases of assisted suicide and when he would not. Critics say that since the DPP's statement two years ago, there have been precious few prosecutions for assisted suicide - but assisted suicide remains illegal.

Richard Ottaway, MP for Croydon South and a patron of Dignity in Dying - formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society - was given time for a debate on assisted suicide in the House of Commons. The debate came up this week.

His motion was said to be "That this House welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions' Guidance to Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide and invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis."

Little by little, you see. A step at a time.

When the debate came up, however, Mr Ottaway's motion had been reduced to "That this House welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions' Policy to Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, published in February, 2010," and Dame Joan Ruddock, MP for Lewisham, Deptford, proposed an amendment adding "and invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis."

Dignity in Dying was reported to be lobbying MPs hard, and there were fears that since the debate was on the last day of parliamentary business before the Easter recess, some MPs might have gone home early.

Such fears were misplaced. There were some excellent speeches in a five-hour debate. Mr Ottaway's motion was passed unopposed, Dame Joan's amendment died the death, and an amendment by Fiona Bruce, MP for Congleton, adding "and encouraging further development of specialised palliative care and hospice provision" was agreed.

Care Not Killing, an alliance of organisations opposed to euthanasia, later welcomed the decision to encourage further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision and to endorse the current law on assisted suicide. John Smeaton, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, however, said the Commons' welcome of the DPP's policy on prosecuting assisted suicide undermined society's protection of the most vulnerable.

The most important thing is that assisted suicide remains illegal - for now.

A scandal twice over

You may remember a Telegraph undercover investigation filmed doctors arranging abortions for women who said they wanted an abortion because their baby was the "wrong" sex. (Abortions because of the sex of the baby are illegal in Britain.)

Details were passed to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who ordered an investigation. Inspectors from the regulator, the Care Quality Commission, paid unannounced visits to 250 private and NHS clinics, and apparently found, according to the Telegraph, that more than 50 were "not in compliance" with the law or regulations. Patients were not receiving acceptable levels of advice and counselling, and doctors were regularly falsifying consent forms.

The law says that consent forms are required to be signed by the supervising consultant and by a second professional who has either seen the patient or read the medical notes and the summary of a consultation. Inspectors are said to have found piles of "pre-signed" forms, indicating that doctors were signing forms without even knowing which women the forms related to.

The Health Secretary said he was "shocked" and "appalled." Action would be taken. He said clinics could be stripped of their licences to perform abortions and doctors could be struck off by the General Medical Council.

If Mr Lansley was genuinely unaware of what was happening in abortion clinics, he must have been one of the few people who were. Misuse of consent forms has long been an open secret.

For too long there has been too cosy an arrangement between the Government and the abortion industry. What has gone on in abortion clinics is a scandal. The way the Government has for years turned a blind eye to it is an even greater scandal.

'Million' protesters preparing to descend on Israel

Israel-haters the world over will be preparing just now for the Global March to Jerusalem.

On March 30 - next Friday, no less - a million people from 20 countries, the march's organisers hope, will seek to breach Israel's borders and march to Jerusalem to protest Israel's "occupation," the "judaisation" of Jerusalem, and "Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing."

Simultaneously there will be rallies in 60 countries, often outside Israeli embassies and consulates, protesting the activities of the "racist Zionist state."

The march is organised by, among others, Iran and terrorist organisations like Hamas. Supporters include Archbishop Tutu, Dr Jeremiah Wright - President Obama's former pastor - and Lauren Booth, Cherie Blair's sister.

A south-east Asian contingent, including activists from Indonesia, India and Pakistan, was welcomed in Iran on its way to the march by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. He told them it was no longer legitimate for Israel to occupy any part of Palestine, that the Zionist regime was "like a malignant cancerous cell," and that "the Palestinians should be running the field and God willing that will happen soon."

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, on a website supporting the march, says "We reject all racist laws that distinguish between people based on ethnicity or religion and call for their cancellation and criminalization." In Israel, Jew and Arab can enjoy equal citizenship, and election to the Knesset, the country's parliament, is open to Jew and Arab alike. Conversely, Palestinians have said that when they get their state, no Jew will be allowed to live there.

One of the stated aims of the march is "freedom for Palestine and its capital Jerusalem." New York radio show host Aaron Klein interviewed Frank Romano, one of the march's organisers. Klein offered Romano $50,000 on air if he could name one city in the Middle East outside of Israel that has more freedom than Jerusalem. He was unable to do so.

Israel, let it be said, is not perfect. But Israel is a legitimate sovereign state. Israel did not steal its land from Palestinians, but bought it, often from absentee Arab landlords, when it was desert and malarial swamp and by hard work turned it into an economic wonder. The Global March to Jerusalem, like the Gaza flotillas and the Durban anti-Zion conferences, is nothing more than an attempt to delegitimise Israel.

Israel will have much worse to come. According to the prophecy of Zechariah:

I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished. Zech 14:2.

Because it is prophesied in the Bible, it will happen. What is needed is to see that it doesn't happen before its time.

Supporters of Jerusalem can console themselves with the knowledge that one day Israel will be gloriously restored. Says the prophet Zephaniah:

Sing, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O Israel!
Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!
The Lord has taken away your judgments,
He has cast out your enemy.
The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst;
You shall see disaster no more.

In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem:
"Do not fear;
Zion, let not your hands be weak.
The Lord your God in your midst,
The Mighty One, will save;
He will rejoice over you with gladness,
He will quiet you in his love,
He will rejoice over you with singing."

". . .At that time I will bring you back,
Even at the time I gather you;
For I will give you fame and praise
Among all the peoples of the earth,
When I return your captives before your eyes,"
Says the Lord. Zeph 3:14 - 18, 20.

'Till death us do part' would be a bit difficult. . .

Well, it had to happen. It might have taken a while, but we did finally get round to it.

Nadine Schweigert, a 36-year-old from Fargo, North Dakota, USA, got married - to herself. She confided to a friend that she was waiting for someone to come along and make her happy. The friend said "Why do you need someone to marry you to be happy? Marry yourself." So she did.

It was quite an affair, with a good-sized guest list of family and friends. The bride wore a long dress in peacock blue satin, and carried a cluster of white roses.

During the ceremony, conducted by a friend, she read her vow: "I, Nadine, promise to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self." According to the Park Rapids Enterprise, she presented herself with a ring, and at the point where the groom normally kisses the bride, she invited all the guests to "blow kisses to the whole world."

After the ceremony, guests enjoyed white wedding cake decorated with peacock blue fondant and New Orleans-style king cake. The bride later left for a honeymoon in New Orleans.

Nadine said the wedding went so perfectly, it left her in awe. "I'm very proud of it and I feel very good about it. I'm so glad I did it.

"I'm just a unique, awesome person who doesn't fit anyone's mould or ideal, and I hope you're OK with that. And if you're not, that's OK too."

The bride's mother said that nothing surprised her any more.

Actually, the bride had some experience. She was already married. And divorced.

Her 11-year-old son told her he loved her, but that she was embarrassing him.

Like I said, it had to happen. Start messing about with the law concerning marriage, and there's no limit to where things can get.

Government's consultation on same-sex marriage 'a sham'

The UK Government's official consultation on redefining marriage in order to allow same-sex couples to marry was launched this week.

The consultation will be open for 13 weeks until June 14. You can find details here.

The Government has now included in the consultation a question asking people if they agree or disagree with rewriting the definition of marriage - but the Government still makes clear that its response "will be based on a careful consideration of the points made in consultation, not the number of responses received" and that it is a matter of how not whether the change will take place.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone gave a "cast-iron guarantee" to the Independent that civil same-sex marriage will become law by the next General Election. "There is no rolling back whatsoever," she said. "The essential question is not whether we are going to introduce same-sex civil marriage, but how."

(If the change is introduced, same-sex couples will be able to choose between a civil partnership and marriage; a man and a woman will be able to choose marriage only. So much for equality.)

Said Colin Hart, campaign director for the Coalition for Marriage, which wants to see the definition of marriage unchanged: "I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views, before making a decision.

"Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they're redefining the meaning of consultation.

"This consultation is a sham. It is being pushed through despite the public never having a say on this change.

"None of the main political parties proposed redefining marriage in their manifestos and the impact assessment misses out many of the possible problems that could occur if this institution is redefined, for example how this change will affect our schools.

"The institution of marriage is not a plaything of the state, it belongs to society and therefore cannot be redefined by a few politicians obsessed with appearing 'trendy' and 'progressive.'"

The Coalition for Marriage's petition asking for the definition of marriage to remain unchanged, launched three weeks ago, has so far attracted 231,000 signatures.

Equality - except for Christians?

You might find it hard to believe.

Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk, was instructed to remove a small cross she wore at work (despite the fact that Muslims were apparently allowed to wear hijabs and Sikhs to wear karas and turbans). Shirley Chaplin, an Exeter hospital nurse, was asked to remove a cross she had worn around her neck for years.

Having got no satisfaction in British courts, both are going to the European Court of Human Rights because they want to establish the right of Christians to wear symbols of their faith at work.

They are supported by the British Government's own equality quango, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which argues that workers should have legal protection if they want to display a token of their faith at work.

But Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone - the same Lynne Featherstone who is insisting that UK law is to be altered to allow same-sex marriage - has instructed Government lawyers to ask the European human rights judges to dismiss the claims, arguing that in neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a cross is "a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded as a requirement of the faith."

This within days of a report that the joint committee considering the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill is likely to recommend that bishops should lose their seats in the House of Lords.

Time for Christians - not just some Christians - to stand up for who they are?

Euthanasia on wheels

Dutch Prince Johan Friso, 43-year-old second son of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, suffered severe brain damage in an avalanche while skiing in Austria, and is in a coma. He has been transferred to Wellington Hospital in London.

Doctors say he may never emerge from his coma. If he does regain consciousness, rehabilitation could take months, if not years. In any event, they say, it may be months before the situation becomes clear.

In the Netherlands, where euthanasia was legalised in 2002, there has already been speculation about whether the royal family would ever decide to end his life if he remains in a coma. Media experts on the royal family feel that this would not happen.

Euthanasia in the Netherlands is common. Mobile euthanasia units are now being introduced, the idea being that if your doctor is not willing to end your life you can call in a mobile unit for euthanasia in your home.

The scheme is an initiative of NVVE (the Dutch Association for a Voluntary End to Life), a 130,000-member organisation that is the biggest of its kind in the world. The free mobile service began last week. It is hoped to have six units covering the country by the end of the year.

Novelist Martin Amis was widely quoted for his remarks about "euthanasia booths on every street corner." A deliberate exaggeration, no doubt - but perhaps not as far-fetched as some had supposed?

Deciding on the right to life

Dr Catherine Constable, an Oxford-educated American bioethicist, writing in the journal Bioethics, says food and water should be withdrawn from all patients in so-called permanent vegetative state, unless there is clear evidence they want to be kept alive.

She argues that it is not in the patient's interest to be kept alive, because an individual in PVS has no consciousness and therefore no interests. Whether he or she is alive, she says, is irrelevant.

Isn't the chance of the patient recovering reason for keeping the patient alive? No, she says. Even if PVS patients recover, they will be in "some state of middle consciouness; a life, quite possibly, worse than non-existence."

This points up again the difference between the Christian worldview and the secular worldview. The Christian view is that any human being, young, old, well, sick, able or disabled, is made in the image of God, and so his or her life is of inestimable value.

Disregard the Christian view, and where do you draw the line?

How to get rid of that churned-up feeling inside

Some days ago I read in a newspaper of someone who said "I will never forgive that man for what he did to my family. Never."

When I read something like that - and it's quite common - it sends a shiver up my spine.

This week I read how the mother of an 18-year-old student killed in another school shooting in the United States had forgiven her son's killer. A 17-year-old youth was said to have run amok with a gun, firing indiscriminately. Three youths died. Said the bereaved mother: "I would tell him I forgive him. Until you've walked in another person's shoes, you don't know what made him come to that point."

Statements like that always make the headlines, because most people wouldn't understand how someone in that situation could forgive.

Is forgiveness important? It is. Why?

When Jesus taught the disciples what has come to be known as the Lord's Prayer, He added:

If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matt 6:14, 15.

When you pray "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," did you realise you are asking God to forgive you in the same way that you forgive others?

Jesus told a parable of a man who owed a king a vast amount of money; an amount impossible to repay. "Have patience with me," he said, "and I will pay you all." The king had compassion on him, and forgave him the debt.

The man went out, met a man who owed him a small amount, refused his plea for time to pay, and threw him into prison.

The king delivered the man who had been forgiven to the tormentors until he paid all he owed. "So my heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."

If I have believed on Christ and the Creator of the universe has forgiven every sin I ever committed, how could I fail to forgive a fellow sinner for some odd thing he or she had done?

Unforgiveness leaves me tormented; all churned up inside.

"But he's not asked forgiveness." It doesn't matter. You need to forgive.

"But I can't forgive him. Not for what he did." Yes, you can. You may feel that most certainly you cannot forgive him. But forgivenesss is not a feeling. Forgiveness is a choice. Forgiveness is a decision.

I honestly believe I don't hold unforgiveness against anybody for anything. I can't afford to.

How about you?

Fighting over the right to marry

When homosexual couples complained they lacked the legal rights married couples have, the Government created civil partnerships, described as marriage in all but name.

Some homosexuals are not satisfied, and want to be allowed to marry. The Government has promised to allow it.

Homosexuals have a variety of arguments in favour of same-sex marriage. Their arguments miss the point. One of their arguments is that homosexual couples are being discriminated against. Not so.

As Bill Muehlenberg points out, a lot of people are not allowed to marry. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A man cannot get married who is married already. A father cannot marry his daughter. And a girl cannot marry her pet goldfish, no matter how much she might love it.

Are they being discriminated against too?

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, writing in the Telegraph, says "This is not a battle between gay rights and religious beliefs. This is about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedoms."

She says the church does not own marriage. By doing so, she infers the church has no right to say who can marry and who can't. There is something she should realise. Neither does the Government.

The principles of marriage were laid down thousands of years ago, and recorded in the first book of the Bible. "It is not good that man should be alone: I will make him a helper comparable to him." "Male and female he created them." "God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'" "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Allow one change to the legal basis for marriage, and it's certain other demands for change will follow.

The present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, made his view known in a speech this week. He said the law has no right to legalise same-sex marriage.

The petition asking for marriage law to remain unchanged has attracted 94,451 signatures in less than two weeks. You can sign the petition at www.c4m.org.uk.

Working at the edge of the law

A Daily Telegraph undercover investigation made recordings of doctors at Pall Mall Medical, Manchester, the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, and the Calthorpe Clinic in Birmingham arranging abortions for women who said they wanted abortions because their babies were the "wrong" sex. Abortions because of the sex of the baby are illegal in Britain.

Details were passed to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. He passed them to police, who have launched an investigation.

"The government, the medical profession and the police have consistently turned a blind eye over many years to practice at or beyond the edge of the law," according to Dr Peter Saunders, CEO of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

"The present cases raise again the question of just how many illegal abortions are being carried out in Britain. . .

"BPAS, one of the country's two major 'abortion providers,' just escaped a police investigation when a centre manager at one of their clinics cancelled an abortion for sex selection that other staff at the same centre had authorised.

"Thus far BPAS and Marie Stopes International have managed to escape blame. But the rabbit hole may run deep.

"In 2007 Dr Vincent Argent, former medical director of BPAS, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, in which he alleged widespread abuse around signing of the 'abortion form' HSA1 that allows an abortion to go ahead.

"He said that 'there are widespread variations in the actual provision of signatures' and added that he had personally observed 'the following practices':
*Signing batches of forms before patients were even seen for consultation
*Signing the forms with no knowledge of the particular patient and without reading the notes
*Signing forms without seeing or examining the patients
*Signing forms after the abortion had been performed
*Faxing the forms to other locations for signature
*Use of signature stamps without any consultation with the doctor. . .

"The Labour Health Secretary at the time did nothing about these allegations.

"Perhaps Mr Lansley will.

"By forcefully making the point that some abortions (ie for sex selection) are illegal he has already opened the question as to where exactly the line should be drawn.

"Having started asking questions Mr Lansley may now find it very difficult to stop, because in reality sex selection abortions are actually just the tip of a large iceberg of illegal activity."

There's more. Dr Francesca Minerva, an Australian philosopher and medical ethicist, and Dr Alberto Giubilini, a bioethicist from the University of Milan, suggested it could be acceptable to kill newborn babies born with disabilities who "might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole" and healthy children whose adoption would be distressing for the mother.

Writing in the British-based Journal of Medical Ethics, they said newborns were not "persons" in the sense of "having a moral right to life," only "potential persons."

The idea is not a new one. After all, if it's not wrong to kill a baby shortly before birth, what makes it wrong to kill a baby shortly after birth? (But what if abortion is wrong in the first place?)

I look forward to the result of the police investigation into the Telegraph revelations with interest. But not with an awful lot of hope.

'Cultural vandalism' and the battle for marriage

Since Creation, marriage has been between one man and one woman. The present UK Government intends to alter that - without asking the electorate's opinion.

Homosexuals already have civil partnerships, which give them all the legal benefits of marriage. The Government now intends to alter the definition of marriage, so that marriage will be open to couples of the same sex, as well as to a man and a woman.

Such a move was not a priority in the election manifesto of any political party. The Government is to launch a consultation next month - but not on if the change should take place - only how the change will work.

No 10 Downing Street insists that the change will be legalised, despite opposition. It says the Prime Minister is "resolute in his determination to end discrimination faced by homosexual couples" and "very passionate about this subject."

Christians have described the proposed change as an act of "cultural vandalism." They believe the majority of people in Britain do not want a change in marriage law. (A poll by Sky News showed 38 per cent in favour of the proposed change, with 62 per cent against. In a ComRes poll, 34 per cent supported the change, 51 per cent said that "no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us," and 86 per cent agreed that it is "possible to be tolerant of the rights of others and protective of traditional marriage at the same time.")

A new organisation, Coalition for Marriage, launched a national petition to the Government this week. The petition says: "I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it."

Details of the coalition can be seen at the coalition's website, www.c4m.org.uk. The petition can be signed at the site, and petition forms can be obtained for further signatures. Each person can sign the petition only once, and persons signing must be 16 or over.

Coalition for Marriage is supported by CARE, Christian Concern, the Christian Institute, the Evangelical Alliance and the Family Education Trust. The Roman Catholic Church is reported to have pledged its support for the campaign. By today, the petition already had 39,810 signatures.

Some homosexual rights activists set up a copy website - in pink - with a petition supporting "the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender." By today, it had 5,247 signatures.

Most people seem to be of the opinion that same-sex marriage should not be foisted on Britain without a proper national debate. One more thing seems clear. Those who wish to preserve traditional marriage are going to need to stand up for what they believe.

The baby who refused to die

A month ago, I told the moving story of unborn baby David John Anker, who suffered from a shortage of amniotic fluid in the womb and died during birth.

Here's another even more amazing story.

Kristen Page woke up in the night. After 13 weeks of pregnancy, her waters had broken.

An ultrasound at hospital the following morning revealed that there was no amniotic fluid. Surprisingly, the baby's heart was still beating. Kristen was told the baby would die, and she should go home and rest.

A few days later, Kristen returned for another ultrasound. To everyone's surprise, the baby still had a "super strong" heartbeat.

The doctor explained there was no hope. "No water, no lungs, no life," she said. She advised an abortion to avoid the increasing risk of serious infection.

At 16 weeks and two specialists later, Kristen was told she was not being fair to her husband and other children in risking leaving them without a wife and mother for the sake of a baby who would not survive. Her only option was to terminate, the specialist said.

Kristen and her husband Matt searched the internet. Everywhere they looked said the same: a baby with no amniotic fluid had zero chance of survival.

They decided they would let God take the baby when He wanted. "Then I would be at peace knowing it was God's choice and not mine," said Kristen.

She was ordered to strict bed rest. At 26 weeks, she was moved to hospital, hooked up to an IV machine and continually monitored. The baby continued to thrive.

At 32 weeks the baby developed an irregular heartbeat. The following day, he was delivered by caesarian section. He was completely blue. He had a collapsed lung and needed to be put on oxygen.

After seven weeks undergoing tests in the hospital's intensive care unit, little Joey was released with a clean bill of health.

Joey is now five years old. "He is bouncing, funny and so amazing," say his parents. "We look at Joey every day and thank God we chose to keep him. He is a blessing and a much loved member of our family. We all know he is special.

"You can still see how his face sinks in a bit from being squished and his nose is somewhat flattened. But really, only we can tell."

Joseph Charles Page, say his parents, is nothing short of a miracle.

You can read the full story here.

'One of the greatest political power grabs in history'

In my last post, I commented on Lord Carey's outspokenness on Christian issues these days.

Well, he's at it again.

Writing in the Daily Mail yesterday, he called the Government's proposal to alter marriage law to allow same-sex marriage "one of the greatest political power grabs in history."

"The state does not 'own' the institution of marriage," he said. "Nor does the church.

"The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.

"For thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman has been the bedrock of societies across cultures, all around the world. Marriage is now an integral part of the modern world not because of a government diktat, or a church decree, but because it has stood the test of time - and proved to be the fundamental building block for every stable society."

The ideal, he says, is for children to be raised by a mother and a father who are married.

"Marriage is the glue that binds our country together. . . perhaps, as a nation, we can fool ourselves into thinking that we don't need marriage. But we'd be terribly wrong. Marriage is a cornerstone of our society. . .

"I do not believe the British public wants any of this. The move to legalise same-sex marriage is undemocratic."

Lord Carey was writing in support of a new organisation named Coalition for Marriage, about which more shortly.

A faith to die for?

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who seems far more outspoken about Christianity now than he did when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, had some pertinent words this week about the British legal system and a "tiny majority of secularists who will stop at nothing in their attempt to sideline Christianity."

British Christians, he said in an interview in the Spectator, should not see themselves as martyrs. "We are still very lucky in this country. Unlike in other countries, we can practise freely. What we are talking about here is discrimination, not persecution."

But discrimination might be a prelude to something more sinister. The silent majority must stand up for religious freedoms before it's too late.

"It's up to us to do something. We've got to shake up the clergy, shake up the people, encourage them to get over the attitude of 'We can do nothing about it, this is now a post-Christian age.'"

British Anglicans have much to learn from their African counterparts, he said. "For them, faith is so important that they would face death for it if it came to that. It's not an old overcoat you can dispense with. Maybe we have got to learn to be more committed to our faith."

Baroness Warsi, chairman of the Conservative Party and a cabinet minister, led a ministerial delegation from the United Kingdom to the Vatican this week. In a speech to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, she complained of a militant secularisation that is "at its core and in its instincts. . . deeply intolerant."

We have got to the stage, she said, where aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth, "leaving us with the ironic situation where, to stave off intolerance against minorities, we end up by being intolerant against religion itself."

Europe, where faith is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded, she said, needs to become more confident in its Christianity. "People need to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs," with "individuals not diluting their faith and nations not denying their religious heritage."

Fine words.

The trouble is that Baroness Warsi supports a Prime Minister who says he is a Christian and a churchgoer, but who supports abortion rights, who supports homosexuality and who intends to alter laws on marriage so marriage can include two people of the same sex. Christians, he has said, should be "tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded" in their attitude to homosexuality.

Just to clear things up, could Baroness Warsi tell us what type of Christianity she thinks Christians should be more confident in?

Prayer in Bideford: the latest

Bideford Town Council has apparently opened its meetings with prayer since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. In recent times, an atheist councillor, one Clive Bone, objected. The council twice voted on the matter, and agreed by a majority to continue to open in prayer. Mr Bone decided to be no longer a member of the council.

Along with the National Secular Society, he took the council to the High Court. They claimed that prayer was discriminatory against atheist councillors, that prayer was in breach of human rights laws and that the council had no lawful authority to hold prayers as part of its formal meetings.

Even Trevor Phillips, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, called the case "nonsense on stilts."

The court decided that the council's opening in prayer was unlawful.

It held that the prayers were not discriminatory against atheist councillors, that the prayers were not in breach of human rights, but that "the saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a council is not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue."

One MP called the court's decision "utterly preposterous."

Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 says that "a local authority shall have power to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."

Barrister Neil Addison writes: "As a lawyer I find the decision bizarre. . . By any rational analysis it seems wholly disproportionate to say that a local ceremony which has lasted for hundreds of years is unlawful merely because it is not specifically mentioned in legislation."

Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said: "We are a Christian country. Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation. Public authorities should have the right to say prayers before meetings if they wish."

Yesterday the Christian Institute, who funded the council's defence at the High Court, reported that the Communities Secretary will introduce new legislation by the end of the week if possible, and if not by the end of the month, which will restore the right of councils to say prayers at official meetings if they wish.

So within two weeks we're going to be back where we were.

There are complaints of militant secularism taking over in Britain - but can it be that secularists have exceeded themselves this time? Can it be that reasonable people are fed up with secularists going to such lengths to stop a couple of minutes' prayer? Can it be that this time the secularists have shot themselves in the foot?

Dangerous times

Three weeks ago, people were remembering that it was exactly 70 years since the Wannsee Conference, where Nazi leaders decided on the Final Solution to what they called "the Jewish question."

Jews in Israel are now facing a second Holocaust as their sliver of land is surrounded by enemies and Iran, who have promised to wipe Israel off the map, are putting the finishing touches to their nuclear capability.

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt Gen Benny Gantz said there is no longer any point on the Israeli map that is not within range of enemy missiles. Israeli military intelligence chief Maj Gen Aviv Kochavi said a week ago that Iran has completed the development of a nuclear weapon and is only waiting for a sign from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to start assembling its first nuclear bomb.

There have been meetings galore outside Israel to discuss the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. The Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy, Yuli Edelstein, told one of them: "What Israel needs now is not more meetings, but a firm commitment from the world community to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

"The Holocaust did not start with the first train to Auschwitz, but long before, with hate speech and demonisation of a whole people group, which finally led to actions. The train to Auschwitz could have been stopped in 1938 in Evian or in Munich, but the world community failed to act."

The European Union has placed an oil embargo on Iran in an attempt to dissuade Iran in its nuclear ambitions. The US, Britain and France have ordered additional naval forces to the Gulf. There are doubts if such moves will be effective.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested the Jewish people must not leave their fate in the hands of the international community. "How does the world react to the calls for genocide against the Jews today?" he asked the Knesset. Seventy years after the Holocaust, "Iran is calling for us to be wiped off the map. Hezbollah is calling for our extinction, as are many in Hamas. . .

"The Jerusalem Mufti (Sheik Muhammad Hussein) called on Sunday for Jews to be killed wherever they are. . . echoing his predecessor Haj Amin Al Husseini, who actively helped Hitler and Eichmann. . . I do not hear the international community condemning this. I hear them condemning buildings in the West Bank. But I don't hear them condemning this incitement."

It is impossible to say what will, or will not happen next, but there are commentators who believe that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear installations, out of a concern for their own preservation, within the next several months.

The Bible makes it clear that God has plans for Israel's future:

For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace,
And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest,
Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness,
And her salvation as a lamp that burns. Isa 62:1.

God has intercessors who pray for Israel:

I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem,
Who shall never hold their peace day or night.
You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent,
And give him no rest till he establishes
And till he makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth. Isa 62:6, 7.

He promises to preserve Israel:

He will not allow your foot to be moved,
He who keeps you will not slumber.
Behold, he who keeps Israel
Shall neither slumber nor sleep. Psa 121:3, 4.

Nevertheless, these are dangerous times. Do remember the Middle East in these difficult days.

'I love you, Mum'

People who want to see euthanasia legalised say it would only be for people who were terminally ill and there would be no such thing as a "slippery slope" leading to ever more categories of people who qualified.

It isn't true, of course. The Netherlands, where euthanasia was legalised in 2001, permitted it originally only for people who were terminally ill, in irrelievable pain, after repeated requests, and with the consent of two doctors. Now Dutch parliamentarians are discussing allowing it for any and no reason, including just being "tired of living." Not only doctors, but psychiatrists are reported to be euthanising patients.

Once euthanasia were legalised, there would be pressure to end the lives of the old, the infirm and the disabled. Vulnerable people would have their lives put at risk. Caring, not killing, needs to be the aim.

Consider the story of Simon Ellis. Simon was in a car crash in 1992, when he was just 18. He suffered two skull fractures, he suffered brain damage and he lost the use of his arms and legs. Doctors said he would never speak again.

Nineteen years later - over the recent Christmas holiday - Simon, now 37, told his mother "I love you." Then he spoke the names of a brother and a sister. Now, says his mum, "Every day we come in to see him someone comes up to us and says he has said something new. He really is getting there and it is amazing to see."

Simon is cared for in a Sue Ryder care home. Said Laura Gill, manager of the home: "We are absolutely thrilled with the progress Simon is making and we hope his speech continues to improve. It's fantastic to see him so happy, full of life and able to share his wonderful sense of humour."

Putting the pressure on those Christians

Unbelieving secular organisations are still telling Christians how they can and how they can't live their lives. There have been at least three examples in the news in the past week.

In Bath, a group of Christians belonging to a number of different churches - the group are a registered Christian trust - have gathered over the past three years outside Bath Abbey to pray for people, including people who are sick.

Presumably they go there out of the goodness of their hearts. Presumably they make no charge for their prayers, and presumably they only pray for people who are happy to be prayed for.

A woman complained about the group and the group has been censured by the Advertising Standards Authority. What has it got to do with the Advertising Standards Authority, you might ask? The woman said the group's claims "could not be substantiated." The Advertising Standards Authority upheld the complaint, and has ordered the group to stop stating on their website or in literature that God can heal in answer to their prayers.

In London, the Student Union at University College London has voted to take a pro-abortion stance and affiliated itself to the organisation Abortion Rights. It has said that a Catholic Society at the university organising a meeting with a pro-life speaker must also have a pro-choice speaker and an independent chairman "to ensure there is a balance."

A barrister versed in religious discrimination law says the Student Union's motion is illegal. It is also claimed that in affiliating itself with Abortion Rights the Student Union has breached its own constitution.

In America, the US Government has announced that religious organisations will have to offer their employees contraceptive services, including sterilisation and drugs that induce abortions, as part of their healthcare provisions. Churches will be exempt, but faith-based organisations like colleges and hospitals will not.

Catholic churches and the National Association of Evangelicals have protested. As a concession, the Government has given the organisations a year before they have to violate their consciences in obedience to the new law.

Critics say the new law contravenes the US Constitution, which promises freedom to practise a religion, and should be ignored. The battle goes on.

A contribution to Marriage Week

February 7 to 14 is Marriage Week, with a media launch at the Palace of Westminster, an evening discussion and an education conference in London, and church services, marriage courses, workshops, film nights and Valentine's Day dinners up and down the UK.

You can find details here.

As a contribution to Marriage Week, here's something (author unknown) I picked up somewhere or other:

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR MARRIAGE

1. Thou shalt not take thy partner for granted.

2. Thou shalt not expect perfection of each other.

3. Thou shalt be patient, loving and understanding, kind and true.

4. Thou shalt tend the garden of love daily.

5. Thou shalt take great care that thy partner's trust never is violated or diminished in any way.

6. Thou shalt not forget thy wedding vows, remembering especially those important words, "for better or worse."

7. Thou shalt not hide thy true feelings. Mutual love provides a bright sunlit room where things of the dark can be discussed freely and without fear.

8. Thou shalt always respect each other as individuals. Degrading words and a sharp tongue cause grave distortions. Endearing terms ennoble, lift up, engender peace.

9. Thou shalt give thy marriage room to grow. Both partners should be willing to face the future together with confidence and trust. Today is a better day for them than yesterday, and tomorrow will find them closer still.

10. Thou shalt through all thy days reverence God, thy Creator, never forgetting that it is He who hath made you one.

Now how about that?

God's silent witnesses

Atheists try to tell us either that God doesn't exist or that they find it impossible to believe in a God.

The Bible says (in Psalm 19):

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows his handiwork.
Day to day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.

Think about it. The nearest star to the earth is so far away that it takes light from that star, travelling at 186,000 miles a second, four years to get here. Some stars you can see with the naked eye are 4,000 light years away. Light arriving on earth from those stars just now left when Abraham and Sarah got married.

It would take light (travelling at some 670 million miles an hour) more than 100,000 years to travel the length of our galaxy, the Milky Way. There are billions of galaxies. There are about 200 billion billion stars in the known universe.

If the sun were hollow, 1,300,000 planets the size of the earth could fit inside it. There is one star which, if hollow, could fit 64 million suns inside it. There is a star in the constellation of Hercules which could fit 100 million of those stars inside it. The largest known star, Epsilon, could swallow up several million stars the size of that one.

Could you stand somewhere unpolluted by smog on a cloudless night, look up at all of that and pretend it came there on its own?

Early in the book of Romans, Paul seeks to establish that all of us are sinners - Jews, Gentiles, you, me, whoever - in order to demonstrate that we all need a Saviour. (Either we accept the price He paid for our sin or we pay the price ourselves, which would be fearsome.)

But what, you might say, about those who have never heard the gospel? Those who haven't heard the gospel, says Paul, will be judged according to the knowledge of God they had. He explains it like this (in Rom 1:20):

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Immanuel Kant wrote:

It is impossible to contemplate the fabric of the world without recognising the admirable order of its arrangement and the certain manifestation of the hand of God in the perfection of its correlations. Reason, when once it has considered and admired so much beauty and so much perfection, feels a just indignation at the dauntless folly which dares ascribe all this to chance and a happy accident.

The Bible says (in Psa 14:1):

The fool has said in his heart,
"There is no God."

The word used for fool in the Bible does not refer to someone who is mentally deficient, but someone who makes foolish decisions. (It infers a malicious refusal to acknowledge the truth.)

Deciding there is no God and trying to prove to oneself that that's true is a foolish decision indeed.

Homosexual marriage: trouble ahead

It doesn't seem long - not more than a decade or three - since homosexual practice was illegal. Now not only is it legal, but practising homosexuals appear to have been transformed into a group who have to have whatever sort of legal privilege they ask for.

The first book in the Bible establishes marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Marriage has long been legally defined as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Civil partnerships were introduced to allow homosexuals virtually all the rights and privileges of married couples, the practical differences between marriage and civil partnerships being those caused by the differences in sex.

Apparently this is no longer sufficient. Now there are voices calling for the definition of marriage to be altered to allow marriage not only between a man and a woman but between persons of the same sex. Prime Minister David Cameron, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband have all voiced their support.

Why the cry for change, if civil partnerships offer virtually the same legal rights as marriage? Because homosexuals insist that homosexual relationships are every bit as normal as relationships within marriage and must not be allowed to appear in any way inferior. But that's not all. There is a second reason. This is a serious attempt to tear down the institution of marriage, divinely appointed at creation and the bedrock of society since.

The Scottish Government held a consultation on the matter which closed in December. When the consultation was opened, the Scottish Government said while no decision had been taken, "the Government's initial view is that marriage should be open to both same sex couples and opposite sex couples" - as though the Government's collective mind was already made up.

A consultation is to be launched south of the border in the next few weeks. Lynne Featherstone, minister in the Westminster Government in charge of equality matters, has said it will be followed by a change in the law. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the reform will be driven through Parliament. Home Secretary Theresa May is reported to have said that the Government intends to introduce same-sex marriage regardless of the consultation; the consultation was merely to help with the "nuts and bolts" of the legislation.

If David Cameron does attempt to change the law, he is not unlikely to have the biggest revolt on his hands since he became Prime Minister. Ministers would be expected to support him; other MPs have been promised a free vote. Opponents say more than 100 Tory backbenchers might vote against homosexual marriage.

MP David Burrowes said an attempt to change the law would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, said in an interview in the Telegraph today: "Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just change it overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

It would be wrong to underestimate the pressure for change.

If it comes to it, will Christians be united in their support for traditional marriage, or will there be some few voices in the wilderness, and remaining Christians acting as though they were unconcerned?

Brave New World again

It's been an interesting few days.

The Daily Mail reported that abortion clinics are to be allowed to advertise abortion on TV and radio (with effect from April 30).

Said Dan Boucher, of CARE: "The idea that abortions should be freely advertised on TV along with toothpaste and breakfast cereal says something very sad about the way in which the values of our consumer culture, of acquiring and disposing, are penetrating our way of life."

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: "Having an abortion is a deeply traumatic experience that can lead to further medical and physiological complications. A 30-second advert is not the place to discuss and promote this medical procedure."

MP Nadine Dorries said: "What this is actually going to do is desensitise what abortion is and the seriousness of it, and making it sound like it's as easy as having your lunch. Broadcasters will be making profit through advertising revenue off the back of a service which ends life. It's appalling."

Cranmer writes: "It is curious that, at a time when all advertising for cigarettes and tobacco is banned from our TV screens in order to avoid promoting and propagating the habit, we should move towards permitting advertisements for abortion. Only a decade ago, HM Government (spurred on by EU directive) outlawed tobacco advertising in order to mitigate the detrimental effects on the nation's health. Why is lung cancer of a higher political priority than mental health? Is the life of an emphysemic pensioner worth more than the child in the womb?"

BioEdge, the bioethics website based in Australia, reports on a couple of interesting stories.

First, a company in Philadelphia suggested that in these days of economic difficulty women should consider "well paid, part-time positions" as egg donors and surrogate mothers. "Wages" range from $20,000 to $35,000.

Professor Art Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania, said it was "most outrageous."

Second, Dr Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia, said pregnancy and childbirth are so barbaric, painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should be diverted urgently to the development of artificial wombs.

Ectogenesis - artificial gestation - is still the stuff of science fiction, but may be possible.

"Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with 'natural' reproduction."

Another reminder of how remarkably prescient was Aldous Huxley's satirical Brave New World, published as long ago as 1932.

David John Anker and a life worth living

Dave and Trish Anker had one daughter, Jasey, when Trish became pregnant again. Everything seemed perfect until Trish's 20-week ultrasound.

The ultrasound technician went for a doctor. The doctor's first words were "I'm so sorry." The baby had Potter's syndrome - a shortage of amniotic fluid which prevents normal development of lungs and kidneys and means the baby is likely to be stillborn, or at the most, to survive a few hours.

One of the first things the doctor said was that they should think about terminating the pregnancy. "We didn't hesitate," writes Trish, "and told him we would never even consider that, since we believe only God can create life and only He has the right to end life. . .

"Dave and I cried the whole way home. . .

"We begged God to heal him and spent a lot of time during the following months with our hands on my growing belly feeling our baby kick and squirm, and made sure that Jasey felt included in those times so he would feel real to her as well. We hoped and prayed that David knew how much we loved him" - they had decided to call the baby David John - "and counted every day of my pregnancy as a blessing. That is not to say it wasn't an extremely difficult time! We struggled to accept God's will, and though it is painful for me to admit it now, there were times as I grew bigger and more uncomfortable that I wished for it all to be over."

The night before a further ultrasound, Trish went into labour. It was a difficult delivery. During the delivery, David's heart stopped beating.

"One of our nurses cleaned him up and placed him into my arms. He was still warm and merely looked as though he was sleeping. Dave and I held him and kissed him with tears streaming down our faces. Then Dave went to call our family to meet our son. I will never forget the sound of my mom and sisters weeping as they came down the hall. . .

"We held him for hours and told him how much we loved him. When it was finally time to let him go, it was so hard to let the nurse take him and put him in his little bassinet. . .

"To this day we have regrets about the short time we spent with David. . . but the one thing I will NEVER regret is that we chose not to end his life. He was our son, loved and longed for, and his life, although short, has touched our lives and the lives of our family and closest friends unforgettably. However short, his life was truly worth living."

Some people today would look down their noses at Dave and Trish Anker. But can it be so wrong to have such a high opinion of the value of human life?

Reunited at last

Randy Alcorn tells a beautiful true story on his blog.

While she was in her teens, a farm girl named Minka was raped. Her parents sent her to a home for pregnant girls, with the understanding that she would not be able to bring her child back home.

Minka gave birth to a blonde-haired little girl with a dimpled chin. She called her Betty Jane. A pastor and his wife wanted to adopt the baby. "I loved that baby so much," said Minka. "I wanted what was best."

Betty Jane was renamed Ruth. Minka had no further contact with her, but wrote dozens of letters to the adoption agency, who kept her informed of the child's progress - until there was a change in management at the agency, and Minka lost touch.

The years rolled by. Minka married and had more children. When she was in her nineties, she prayed a prayer. "Lord, if You would just let me see her," she said. "I promise You I will never bother her."

One day the phone rang. A man began to ask about Minka's background. It was Ruth's son, seeking his mother's natural family.

Not long afterwards Ruth and her son arrived at Minka's apartment with a massive bunch of flowers. They talked, looked at photographs and caught up on the years they'd missed.

Minka is now 100, and Ruth 82. They are still in regular contact.

Says Dianna, a daughter from Minka's marriage: "I have never seen my mother so happy."

Says Randy: "The story is so powerful because the rape, as evil as it was, in no way diminished the mother and child connection, and the joy they've experienced in the past six years. It's a great example of how a child conceived by rape is as precious as a child conceived by love, because a child is a child. The point is not how she was conceived but that she was conceived. She is not a despicable 'product of rape' but a unique and wonderful creation of God.

"After I had shared similar thoughts in a message at my church in 1989, a dear woman in her mid-twenties came up to me, sobbing. I'll never forget what she said: 'Thank you. I've never heard anyone say that a child conceived by rape deserved to live. My mother was raped when she was twelve years old. She gave birth to me and gave me up for adoption to a wonderful family. I'll probably never meet her, but every day I thank God for her and her parents. If they hadn't let me live, I wouldn't be here to have my own husband and children, and my own life. I'm just so thankful to be alive.'

"Women often think that a child conceived by such a vile act will be a constant reminder of their pain. On the contrary, the innocence of the child often has a healing effect. But in any case, the woman is free to place the child for adoption, which in some cases is the best alternative. Aborting the child is an attempt to deny what happened, and denial is never good therapy. One woman who had been raped and given birth to the baby said to me, 'A baby is the only beautiful thing that can come out of a rape.'"

You can read the whole thing here.

Keeping on going

In a race, it's not the one who starts well, but the one who finishes well who wins the prize. The Christian life is like that. It's not the one who starts well, but the one who keeps on going to the end of the road who gains the reward.

There are difficulties, there are distractions, there are temptations. But there are plenty of encouragements. Isn't it remarkable how many dozens of times the Bible tells us to "fear not"? Have you noticed how many times we are instructed to "stand fast"?

Christians are promised God's love, God's protection, God's provision, God's power and God's presence. "If God is for us, who can be against us?" we are asked. "Neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord," the Bible says.

"He will not leave you nor forsake you," we are promised. "Be steadfast, immovable." "Let not your heart be troubled," said Jesus. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

"Let us hold fast our confession," says Hebrews. "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith." "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering." "Do not cast away your confidence." "Let us run with endurance that race that is set before us."

I love the story of Polycarp, the Christian in the 2nd century who had been a disciple of the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. In his old age, Polycarp was the well known and well loved leader of the church in Smyrna, in present day Turkey. It was a time of Roman persecution, and Polycarp was going to be in trouble because he was not willing to burn incense to Caesar. His friends urged him to flee, but Polycarp refused. He eventually agreed to move to a small estate outside of town.

When the Romans found him there, they escorted him to the local proconsul. Told to curse Christ and offer a pinch of incense to Caesar, Polycarp replied: "Eighty-and-six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong; how then can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?"

It cost him his life. He was sentenced to be burned at the stake in the arena.

More than 50 years ago, I came to Christ and He took me in. I know my sins are forgiven. I know my future is secure. I have a home in heaven which He has gone to prepare for me. I have friends and relatives there waiting for me. Over the years I have failed Him, often. But He has never once failed me. So why should I believe He is going to start now?

Go on. . . laugh

There's a need for laughter in this sad old world.

There's a little boy named Micah who really is the happiest little character. He just loves to laugh.

His grandfather, a retired minister who appropriately enough is an expert on relieving stress, says of him: "Baby Micah has brought our whole family hours of joy with his contagious laughter. He's a contagious laughing machine who enjoys life to the fullest, with a few whimpers sprinkled in to remind us that he's human."

When Micah was eight months old his parents made a video of him laughing fit to bust as his father tore up a letter advising him his job application had been turned down. They put the video on You Tube. So far it has been viewed 34 million times.

If you feel like a smile and would like to see Micah laughing his socks off, you can watch the video by clicking here.

"A merry heart does good, like medicine," the Bible says (in Proverbs 17, if you want to know).

So, go ahead. Take a minute off and give your laughter muscles some exercise.

Where owning a Bible can be fatal

Each January the organisation Open Doors publishes its World Watch list of countries where Christians are the most severely persecuted.

On the 2012 list, North Korea is No 1 for the 10th successive year. The remaining nine in the top 10 - and a total of 38 of the 50 countries on the list - are all countries where Muslims predominate.

Nowhere in the world is persecution of Christians more fierce than in North Korea. (Kim Jong-Un recently replaced his late father, Kim Jong-Il, as the country's leader.)

Owning a Bible there could get you killed, or sent to a labour camp. In 2010 hundreds of Christians were arrested; some were murdered. Christians can't share their faith with their children until they are old enough to understand the dangers. Despite the risks, the church is growing: there are an estimated 400,000 believers.

Prayer is requested for an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 Christians suffering horrific conditions in labour camps there.

The other countries in the top 10 are Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, Somalia, Iran, the Maldives, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Iraq and Pakistan. Pakistan made the top 10 for the first time.

Nigeria remains the country with the worst atrocities in terms of lives lost. More than 300 Christians are known to have been martyred in Nigeria last year, though the actual count may be double or triple that number. (The total is probably greater in North Korea, but it is impossible to confirm the number killed in North Korea because of the country's isolation.) The extreme Islamist group Boko Haram has destroyed more than 50 churches and killed 10 pastors in Nigeria since 2009.

China still has the world's largest persecuted church - an estimated 80 million - but has dropped to 21 on the list, due in large part to house church pastors learning how to play "cat and mouse" with the government.

You can see more details of the list here.

While sitting in a pew or in a comfortable chair at home, free to believe what you want to believe, spare a thought for those laying their lives on the line for their Christian faith.

Assisted killing: Don't open the door

The Independent Commission on Assisted Dying published its report today. It suggested the law in England and Wales should be changed to allow assisted dying for the terminally ill, with safeguards.

If you had asked me a year ago what the report would say, I would have told you it would suggest the law in England and Wales should be changed to allow assisted dying for the terminally ill, with safeguards.

How so?

The commission was a sham. Calling it a commission might suggest it was Government appointed. It wasn't. It was sponsored by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and financed by supporters of assisted suicide.

Its chairman was Lord Falconer, an advocate of assisted suicide. He chose the 11 members of the commission. Nine of them were known supporters of assisted suicide. Forty organisations - including the British Medical Association - and more than 40 individuals declined to give evidence to the commission because of its evident bias.

I expect the findings of the commission will now be trumpeted by proponents of assisted suicide as evidence that the law on assisted suicide needs changing.

They say it is unfair that 20 or 25 people a year should have to travel to Switzerland to have help to end their lives. There would be 1,200 a year having their lives ended if we had a law like that in Oregon, and something like 13,000 a year if we had a law like that in the Netherlands, according to a 2005 House of Lords report.

The law does not need changing. The present law, properly applied, is a safeguard against pressure on the elderly and the disabled to end their lives.

And please don't tell us about adequate safeguards. There wouldn't be adequate safeguards. When abortion was decriminalised, we were told it was for a very small number of people in desperate circumstances. Within a short time, we had abortion on demand.

The day the law on assisted suicide is changed in the UK, if that day ever comes, will be a sad day.

Critiques of the commission and its report can be found here.

It's a two-way business, Mr C

A concerted programme is needed for religious literacy to be recovered in the Civil Service, Parliament and local authorities, says the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, writing in the Telegraph at the New Year:

In his recent speech on the place of the Bible and Christianity in our national life, David Cameron showed how the political development of the nation is inextricably bound up with Christian ideas. He challenged the Church, and specifically the Church of England, to provide moral and spiritual leadership. Such a challenge is long overdue, but the role of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in national life is more important than the status of any particular church. Whether or not this or that church provides what the Prime Minister is asking for, this tradition must remain central to our public life.

Much of what Mr Cameron said is music to my ears. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Many obstacles will confront him if he tries to give effect in legislation to things he has said in his speech.

One issue is religious literacy in the Civil Service, Parliament and local authorities. What Mr Cameron said about Christian ideas being embedded in our constitutional arrangements is no longer understood in the corridors of power. A disconnected view of history and the fog of multiculturalism have all but erased such memory from official consciousness. A concerted programme is needed if this literacy is to be recovered. Church leaders can help with remedial action, but this has to do with the place of Christianity in schools, and the teaching of history. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, knows that history cannot just be about dates and personalities, but must be a narrative of a nation's emergence from the mists of time. For such a project, the place of Christianity is absolutely central. Education on citizenship cannot ignore the fact that our cherished values have biblical roots. . .

The proper relation of religion to science is also vital. Young people must be taught to appreciate both the experimental methods of science and the ultimate values which religion offers. Such a conversation must take place in the classroom if we are not to continue being divided by "scientistic" and religious fundamentalists. . .

The Prime Minister is aware of the vast scale of social service, prison work, relief of poverty, and the like that churches and their agencies undertake. He is right to expect their help with his vision of citizens working for the common good. Churches will welcome greater participation in building up communities. But they cannot simply be surrogate service-providers. What they do springs from their beliefs; the authorities must respect these, if there is to be genuine collaboration. . .

Bishop Nazir-Ali has hit on a point that many others have missed: wanting Christian ideals is all very fine, but you can't have Christian ideals without Christianity, and the authorities, generally speaking, have not much time for Christianity.

Finding the solution to this problem is the challenge for the church - and, in particular, for Christians whose ministry is prayer.