The Beeb reporting Islam/Christian issues misses the point again

More frustration-inducing religious reporting from the BBC. I'm baffled by the disconnect they've made between the 'getting a permit' issue and the 'being a Christian' issue.

Because, of course, if only those naughty Christians would get a permit, then they can have their churches, intimidation-free. Can they have a permit, then? Er, no, they can't, because Indonesia is a Muslim country.

Argh!

today's ramblings.

I've been thinking about feeling a bit out of place recently. In the most significant sense, it's entirely right that I don't fit anywhere perfectly on earth, I'm not supposed to get too comfy here.

But the very nature of not getting comfy means that I'm often uncomfortable. I'm slowly but surely getting back on an even keel, and recovering a sense of vision as a wife and mother. There are some really good places online to go and be encouraged in that. But inevitably, there will be differences, because home-making, while a godly pursuit, is not something exclusively Christian.

I have my interests and hobbies, like science fiction and writing in general, but that clearly isn't exclusively Christian, and sometimes and in some places can be downright anti-Christian.

Then there is the broad spectrum of Christendom itself, and my place in that. Some of the most uncomfortable places going are with other people who profess Christ in some capacity. Of course, the easy thing to do is to hive yourself away with those who believe as you do on every detail, but then you just become Darwin Fish and thus ridiculous.

But the happy medium between that and smudgy ecumenicalism is a ticklish business. I've thought of it before now as like a series of concentric circles, with those whom I go to church with on the smallest circle, and gradually widening out to those who I have little in common with but the label Christian.

But it's not quite accurate to view it like that, because there are some people with whom I have significant differences in one area, but with whom I am identical in another, and still other that are the opposite. Maybe they're not circles, more wibbly wobbly shapes.

I don't have any neat answers for you, because I don't think there are any. The gospel is my bottom line, and if you are a Christian, it should be yours too. Personally, I am utterly convinced of the five Solas too. I suppose my problem is when I try and narrow it down to 'essentials', I find that actually, what is basic is a lot bigger than it's often made out to be.

The charismatic issue jumps out at me as a proper secondary issue, but then that cuts to the heart of what we believe about the Bible. The same with the vexed question of women pastors.

I suppose the best way to move forward is for each of us to be concerned primarily with truth in all it's fullness, rather than trying to shave off what is a cause of disagreement, because the end of that road is well-meaning but deadly universalism. I think I might read Pilgrim's Progress again.

More on Dr Mohler...

But no cross-cultural advice this time, just hearty approval of his latest post about the visit of the Pope to America.

His position is identical to my own, especially in light of the recent re-affirmation by the Pope of the official Roman Catholic belief that it is the one true church. I blogged briefly on that at the time.

I found the comment section of the actual online column very interesting, but not tremendously surprising, edifying, or even challenging. Just a round of atheist unpleasantness, the standard Catholic apologetics about the ever-increasing number of 'Protestant denominations' (yawn), some ecumenical Christians being very snooty about the (as usual) un-hysterical Dr Mohler and not a lot else. Read the post, don't bother with the comments, they're dispiriting.

My own thoughts on the visit? Well, erm, not much, to be honest. Mild bemusement at the extraordinary lauding of him among my Catholic friends, endeavouring to take note of what he may say on the news, and trying to correct a few of the misunderstandings my non-Christian friends and family have about his role in Christendom.

(And am I allowed to suggest that Dr Mohler's use of 'breach' in his article isn't quite right? :D )

on a martyr and stubborn blindness

This sort of reporting is exactly why the liberal establishment is never going to grasp why Islamic terrorists do what they do.

Note, the man's wife says he was shot for 'his Christian beliefs'. Yes, that's a quote from her, but putting it in quote marks like that gives an impression of incredulity on the part of those reporting it.

It's completely in the public domain that Islam requires the death of anyone who converts to another faith. It was headline news some time ago with the case of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan. Yet the article puts this information in the mouth of Margaret Ali, thereby pushing it away from the purely factual (which it is) and making it 'opinion'.

It's this obfuscation that will continue to lull the elites into their cosy fantasy that if only we can find out what the terrorists want, we can make them stop. If only we can give them the land they want, or give them privileges in our country, or be very, very nice to them, they will stop killing us.

But this kind of appeasement is missing the point. To the Islamist, this is a religious and ideological war. This is why 'apostasy' is a crime punishable by death for them. It's a rejection of the very thing that drives them.

Failing to face up to this means we're going to be forever chasing our tails trying to soothe away 'grievances', when we should grasp the reality that the reason they are attacking the West is because we're not submitting to Allah. It's really that simple.

Now, that aside, let's give thanks to God for our brother's witness in Somalia, and pray for his wife to be comforted and upheld at such a difficult time. He gets a martyr's crown.

A snapshot of my children's faith.

So, there's Eden, who has already been a guest blogger on the pink blog, and very well she did, too. She is currently pondering whether or not she is a Christian, based on something she picked up from church on Sunday.

She is deeply concerned that, although she trusts that Jesus took her sins when He died on the cross, she still sins. She's spending a lot of time in prayer about it, because she wants to be very sure that she really does trust in Him.

We had a chat in which I asked her if I sin. She was happy to affirm that I do. I told her that, despite that, I was convinced that I was a Christian, and explained about santification.

I don't want to give her false assurance, and I don't want to make her despair either. After all, these wrestlings with realities of our sinfulness are precisely what drive us to the cross in the first place. But it's a challenging thing to parent a child through that sort of soul-searching. Especially when they're not yet seven.

Then there is Constance. Connie is both a clown and very precise and deliberate thinker. She is beginning to really engage with spiritual things, and is particularly keen on the idea of the broad and the narrow way. She told me the other day that she thinks the way to the broad way is by the shops.

Her prayers are becoming more thoughtful, and have been addressed to 'Farger dod' for sometime. I shall be quite sorry when she begins to get it right, actually, it's very charming and so earnestly said. She used to pray 'In Jean genie' as well, but thankfully she's learned the accurate version now.

My favourite part of her prayers is when she thanks God for His 'grayshuns and blessings', which she does without fail. She's stopped thanking God specifically for the ingredients during grace, which is a bit disappointing but does save time.

Aurelia has been persuaded to join in bedtime prayers now. She puts her hands together, burbles a lot and every 6th burble will be a discernable family name, rounded off with an emphatic 'Amen!' at the end, and an enormous cheeky grin of accomplishment.

Reuben likes to 'rev up' on all fours, and makes a particular noise like The Fonz from Happy Days when he sees his Daddy, but I'm confident there's nothing significantly spiritual about that.

Correcting Dr Mohler (respectfully, of course)

I managed to get to church today, and it was great. And made a lasagne.

I wanted to flag up this article at Dr Mohler's blog. It's interesting in and of itself, but it did make me chuckle for a cross-cultural reason. We don't call them 'Laddie mags', we call them 'Lad mags'.

'Laddie' brings to mind Tam O-shanters, kilts and highland dancing. Which might make for an interesting magazine, but probably wouldn't get quite such a high circulation.

on grieving again

This time of year is never fun for me. It's the anniversary of my mother's death on Monday, and if you know anything about this sort of thing, you know it doesn't really run on rational rules and logical 'if-then' processes.

I mentioned Ashes to Ashes in the previous post, which was my total-fluff-brain-fodder of choice these past few weeks, and I wasn't quite sure why I was quite so taken up with it until it ended. For those that are unaware (probably most of you) the plot involved a woman who had lost her parents in a car bomb as a child, being shot as an adult and somehow travelling back in time to relive those events from a different perspective.

Now, yes, being sci-fi, it made not one lick of sense, but what do you expect from someone whose idea of great telly involves giant killer pepper-pots and a blue Police Box that travels in time and space?

It was very powerful to me personally because this main character, Alex, sees the death of her parents as a helpless child and becomes utterly convinced that she can stop it happening again when she's an adult. As someone who watched my mother die, there is something so incredibly poignant in the idea of being able to do it again, and do it differently.

I don't think I'm going to be spoilering anyone significantly if I tell you that she doesn't succeed in her task, and has to watch it all unfold again, and her grief - the wretched scream the actress let out - was absolutely pitch perfect. I don't have the ability to go back in time, and even if I could, without a cure for cancer, there wouldn't be any chance of me saving my mother.

But memory - oh, what a mixed blessing memories are. I've been back in time more times than I can count in my memories, lived through every last dreadful second of it, and it's just awful. There is no redemption in these thoughts. I don't really know what to do with that.

Alex has a rescuer in her world, a flawed man who probably causes more trouble than not. I have a rescuer, too, a not-so flawed man who rescued me when I had lost everything, who was there when my world fell apart and who pointed me to what really matters and who still does. Lots to be grateful for, really.