Islamic Candidate Defeated

Now that the results of the London Mayoral election are known, whatever we might think of Boris Johnson and his policies, it is a great relief that Ken Livingstone, the promoter of the Muslim Menace in the UK.

Not only did the London electorate give its answer to Livingstone, so also did the sovereign Lord.  He has spared London the ignominy of being governed by a lover of Islam.  This should be seen as a wake up call to the London and UK populace alerting us of the ongoing encroachment of Islam into the very fabric of our society.

Were the people to see, it is not so much what Muslims do that is the problem, through that is a great concern to peace-loving, freedom-loving and democracy-loving people.  It is what they are taught from their 'bible,' the Qu'ran, that causes the problem.  It is their religion itself that creates the circumstances from which all kinds of 'trouble' emanate.  The UK has welcomed into our nation a religious system that is designed and calculated to destroy every 'infidel' and 'unbeliever.'  We have welcomed within our shores those who are committed religiously to destroy what we hold dear.  Nay, we give them utmost protection to promote and progress their well-publicised plans to destroy every 'infidel' and thus win the praises of Allah for so doing.

There is a great spiritual battle being waged in the world, a battle that has been going on since the Fall of man in Eden.   This battle is between light and darkness, truth and error, right and wrong, Christ and the devil.  Satan will stop at nothing to strangle the true Christian Church, the Body of Christ.  Much of the established religion in these islands is no threat whatever to false religion, be it Islam or Roman Catholicism or liberal Protestantism.  These mighty powers are out to annihilate Christ's church and people from these lands, make no mistake about it.

But let us not be afraid: if Satan's power and the power of false religion is mighty - and it is!  the power of the living and true God is ALMIGHTY.  Our God is unconquerable.  He loves His church and gave Christ to die for her.  We can rightly conclude that if He did the greater thing - redeeming her by blood; He is well able to do the lesser thing, and that is to deliver her from the clutches of Satanic religion of whatever hue.

The free world must waken up and see the monster that it is breeding and nurturing, a monster that will one day devour whatever remains of the UK as we know it. Indeed, given an unfaithful church in this land, anything short of a God-sent revival of true religion will prevent that occurring.  Only when the people of this land fall on their knees and beg the God they have so grossly offended by their dalliance with false religion will we see a return to the glory days of the past.  Unless and until our people turn from the sins and plead with the living and true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, will we know again the blessing of God upon us.

Is it not the case that God's blessing often comes upon His church suddenly and when we least expect it?  His coming in power by the Holy Spirit is miraculous, and we surely need to know the miraculous, transforming power and grace of almighty God in these adulterous days.

The defeat of Ken Livingstone in London is most welcome, and we thank God for it; but let us not rest on our laurels because these powers of darkness will regroup and will launch another attack on democracy and freedom, including the freedom to worship the true God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Graceless Ministers?

Why do some Christians prefer to have preachers who are 'nice' and rather than being 'shepherds' of the flock are the 'pet lambs'?

Let me offer several suggestions as to why this is the case.  First and fundamentally, sin is a deceiver and a reality in all our lives.  Second, sin breaks the biblical balance of the truth.  Third, personal preferences and experiences of preachers tend to distort how we see things.  Fourth, there is a growing dislike within evangelical circles for pointed, clear and direct applicatory preaching - that only disturbs the people, and we don't want that, do we?

No, the truly gracious preacher is the one who demonstrates that he is deeply concerned for two things: the glory of God and the salvation of sinners.  Indeed, God is best glorified when sinners are saved.  So to seek for the salvation of the lost - and all mankind is lost - is to seek also the glory of God.  As Jonathan Edwards famously said, God is glorified in man's dependence.  And for salvation, man is totally dependent on God's grace and mercy.

When a minister 'nails' his hearers to the pew so that they cannot get away from the challenge of the true Gospel, he is at his most gracious.  It shows he cares for their souls.  There is no 'take it or leave it' with such an evangelist.  A gracious preacher pleads with the lost to come to Christ - a sign of great grace; he appeals to them to trust the only Saviour - another sign of grace; he labours in the Word and in prayer so that the lost will no longer be lost - another sign of true grace.

The truly graceless preacher could not care less about a lost and perishing world, or for the eternal destinies of those to whom they preach.

Islam Promoted by London Mayoral Candidate

This email was received by me today.  It is so relevant to the Norwich situation that I considered it relevant for inclusion in this blog.  After you've read it, you can make up your mind what the issues really are.


Re: update notes from Heartcry Ministries in relation to Mayoral Candidate Ken Livingstone

  

Ken Livingstone - "I will make London a beacon of Islam"

London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone has vowed to make the capital city a ‘beacon of Islam’.

In a speech last Friday at the North London Central Mosque, also known as the Finsbury Park Mosque, the Labour candidate said that he was determined to “educate the mass of Londoners” about Islam.

“I want to spend the next four years making sure that every non-muslim in London knows and understands [its] words and message. That will help to cement our city as a beacon that demonstrates the meaning of the words of the Prophet”, he said.

Running for mayor for the fourth time, Mr Livingstone spoke to assembled muslims at the controversial mosque and described Mohammed’s words in his last sermon as “an agenda for all humanity.”

The ex-mayor also promised that he would be making life “a bit easier financially” for the muslim population.

North London Central Mosque

North London Central Mosque was once controlled by Abu Hamza, a notorious recruiter for terrorism. He was removed in 2003, although the mosque is still dogged by allegations of links to extremist groups.

The mosque is now controlled by the Muslim Association of Britain, which has previously been linked to the banned terror group Hamas. Azzam Tamimi, who has acted as spokesman for the current leadership, is on record for expressing support for suicide bombings.

One of the current directors of the mosque, Mohammed Sawalha, has supported attacks on Israel’s allies, which includes UK troops. The BBC has described him as a former senior figure of Hamas who is “said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy”. 

Ken Livingstone and Islam

Mr Livingstone has often been linked to fundamentalist Islam.

In 2010, he campaigned against his own party’s candidate in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and backed an independent candidate, Lutfur Rahman, who had been previously fired by the Labour party for links to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), an extremist group.

The IFE believes in sharia law, jihad and creating an "Islamic social and political order" in Britain.

In the course of his mayoralty, Mr Livingstone gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the East London Mosque, which is controlled by the IFE. IFE activists championed him in the 2008 mayoral election. Azad Ali, the IFE's community affairs co-ordinator, helped run “Muslims 4 Ken”, which encouraged large numbers of muslims to vote for Mr Livingstone.

It is alleged by the Daily Telegraph that, on his IFE blog, Mr Ali praised a key mentor of Osama bin Laden, described al-Qaeda as a "myth," and justified the killing of British troops in Iraq.

MY COMMENT:

If this is not a challenge to the Christian church, I do not know what is.  If such a move by a senior politician is not an attempt to destroy, not just our legal system and democracy, but the Christian church in its entirety, I don't know what is.

Mr Livingstone is promoting a false religion that is not only totally opposed to biblical Christianity but it out to destroy it.  As a false religion, it stands condemned by the truth of God's Word.  It reduces our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the level of a man, a prophet, thus denuding Him of His Godhead.  It is a substitute religion that is on the march and, as its name, Islam, implies, is bent on bringing all non-Muslims into submission to Mohammad.  This is a religion that denies the fundamental freedoms that our forefathers won for us at incalculable cost.  The enforcement of Sharia Law will completely remove any freedom to worship and serve the Lord Christ.  Archbishop Rowan Williams recently said that he would have no problem with Sharia Law being implemented in some parts of the UK.  So a senior churchman, who is supposed to promote the Christian faith is in fact promoting its publicly recognised destroyer.  

Has anyone heard of any senior evangelicals or reformed men speaking out against this ploy by Livingstone?  Or have evangelicals again been left without spiritual leadership in face of a religion that is determined to annihilate it?  Are challenges to the biblical Gospel being ignored by today's spineless evangelical and reformed leaders?  It appears so.

No, the Gospel is not treasured in the way it ought to be in today's anaemic church.  Is Islam a true religious faith that has been given by the Lord God Almighty for the salvation of the world?  If it is, why don't liberal church men and members leave their churches and cling to Islam?  If it is not, why the deafening silence of church leaders?  Is the Gospel way of salvation the ONLY way of salvation, or are there others, and is Islam one of them?  Paul doesn't think so (Gal.1:1-10).  Does Islam make its adherents better people, or worse?  Does Islam promote peace and brotherliness?  Is Islam tolerant towards Christians in countries where Islam is in a sizable majority?  Does Islam still murder Christians, or does it love them?

I think we have to face up to these questions now and before it is too late.  Our weak and principle-less government is facilitating the onward march of Islam, despite its loud protestations to want to preserve all that's good in the British way of life.  This CANNOT be done while at the same time allowing Islam free reign in our country.  

One day we will pay a heavy price for what successive governments have knowingly done to our people.  Our Christian heritage is being undermined by dangerously silly legislation and by the tolerance of a foreign religious system that is set about destroying that same Christian heritage.  

Do you agree?

GRACIOUS OR PASSIONATE?

Why is it that we all tend to drive wedges of our own philosophical thinking into our interpretation of the Scriptures?  We like the either/or scenario, but not the both/and.  We like to square one truth up against the other and then argue for our preferred point of view.  

In this scenario, we want a preacher to be either gracious or passionate.  If he is the one, he cannot at the same time be the other.  A dead, powerless, boring preacher is preferred by some Christians to the man who really is convinced of the truth and necessity of what he is saying.  A man who really believes what he preaches cannot under any circumstances preach it in a lifeless way.  It is impossible.  How can any man handle the dynamic Gospel is such a way?  It is only possible if he does not really believe that it is the ‘power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes’ (Rom.1:16). 

I find it exceedingly sad that some Christians compare every other preacher with what they have come to accept.  I suppose we all do it to some extent.  For example, if we have a dead, boring, powerless, passionless preacher (whatever that is and whoever created that), then every preacher who is like that is gracious but every preacher who is different from that is not.  He has to be either gracious or passionate; he cannot be both.

Now that raises an interesting question: where do the prophets fit in to this understanding?  How would Elijah and Elisha fair on this assumption?  Not very well.   

Would Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel fair much better?  Hardly.  Would Daniel and the other twelve minor prophets get a call to be minister of your church, if that is what you believe?  Never.

What about John the Baptist?  Would you like him?  No.  Why?  Because he is not a gracious preacher.  He’s too straight and too strong.  He says hard things that make people turn against him.  Didn’t he offend Herod and his mistress by his preaching and ended up literally ‘losing his head?’  Had John been truly gracious, he would not have had that effect on his hearers.  John turned people off the faith; how could that be gracious?  We wouldn’t like a minister like John in our church.

Then we have his second cousin, Jesus of Nazareth.  Would He suit you?  Well, here we have a bit of a quandary because we profess to be Christians so we have to say, at least, that we would like Jesus as our minister.  But in our quieter moments, we would not want Him anywhere near our church either.  That’s probably why He doesn’t come to your church, at least very often.  You do not want Him there.  Why is that?  Well, look at His track record.  He got up the religious people’s noses right at the very start of His public ministry in Galilee, and from those early days they sought for a way to kill Him.  He was exceedingly offensive towards the religious leaders, saying they were hypocrites, their religion was only outward show with no reality behind it, that by his preaching he turned many away from following Him, that He preached too much law to them, that he associated and seemed to prefer the company of prostitutes and publicans and other sinners to the religious establishment.  Was Jesus gracious in the way He dealt with people?  According to the viewpoint I’m criticising, He most assuredly was not. 

I could go on to speak of Peter and John, Paul and the writer to the Hebrews.  They are no better.

Then there are the Reformers, men like Calvin who was thrown out of Geneva, who refused to allow openly sinful unbelievers to come to the Lord’s Table, agreed to the execution of Servetus for heresy, and criticised Rome, her priests and the pope with monotonous regularity.  Was he gracious in the minds of some Christians?  No way.  

What about the Huguenots in France; did grace characterise their lives?  Again no, because the authorities persecuted them, put many of them to an ignominious death, forced multitudes to flee their native country to save their lives, and forced others to renounce their faith.  Had these Christians been gracious, according to this view, these things would never have happened to them.

Move on to the Scottish Covenanters and what do you find?  Well, these believers were martyred for "the faith once delivered to the saints," falling foul of God-rejecting authorities.  

The Puritans did not show much grace either, according to this modern view, because they refused to accept the rulings of the church authorities of that era.  2000 were forced out of their ‘livings’ because they refused to be shackled by a tyrannical Archbishop, William Laud.  Had these good and godly men been of a truly gracious spirit, they would have submitted to the courts of the church with good grace; but no.  They were men of biblical conviction and their biblical convictions motivated them "to obey God rather than men," even if they be churchmen.

Take the great Methodist Awakening in Britain in the eighteenth century; were these Methodists gracious people?  Well, not if you take men like John Wesley as an example.  We are told that wherever he preached there was either a riot or a revival.  When George Whitefield preached his first sermon in Gloucester Cathedral, he drove some 18 persons mad, and was reported to his Bishop.  Were Whitefield and the Wesley’s gracious men?  Not according to today’s understanding of what it means to be gracious.  They were troublers within the church, and no church troubler can possibly be of a gracious spirit.

I could go on, but I must limit what I am saying.  The very fact that such an article like this has had to be written demonstrates the shallowness in understanding of basic biblical theology held by some within the evangelical church.  These are the men who are dragging the church into increasingly deeper apostasy.  They are feeding lukewarmness to the church instead of turning up the heat in many of them.  They are inoculating their hearers and members against a dose of real biblical faith.  These people are offending God’s majesty and are showing utter disrespect to those they are seeking to point in the direction of heaven.  They are "wolves in sheep’s clothing," and the sooner they are recognised as such and removed from office within the Christian church, the better for all concerned.

I Believe in the Devil!

Does the evangelical church no longer believe in the existence of a personal devil?  Judging from the paucity of sermons preached on this subject, one could be excused for concluding that this indeed the case.  That it is indeed a biblical doctrine no evangelical will deny.  The denial comes, however, when this intensely personal issue is not preached from our pulpits.

Is this because evangelicals, with all their great theological learning and knowledge, believe that this doctrine belongs to the distant past when people were superstitious and not to today’s very clever church?  

If that is the case, then God help us.  If Satan and his nefarious activity is no longer a concern for contemporary Christians, then a most serious question arises about what modern day Evangelicals believe concerning the authority of Scripture.  

How then can they preach those texts in Paul and Peter that deal with the devil and his anti-God activity in Christ’s church and in the world?  Where have all those Christian deviations come from?  Who is behind these?  Who is responsible for all those challenges to the exclusivity of the biblical Gospel way of salvation, if not the devil?  Where did Romanism emerge from if not from the devil’s pit?  How is the resurgence and global murderous activity of Islam explained if there is no devil?

There are many more questions that could be added to these, but the point is well made.  The answers to these questions provide clear demonstrations of Satanic activity on a cosmic scale.  Yet the reformed and evangelical churches are suggesting that this doctrine is outdated and need not be proclaimed as an integral part of the Gospel of God.

Is this lack of recognition not the explanation of the state both of the world and of the church in the world?