WHY IS COUNCIL LEADER ANGUS CAMPBELL PERMITTED TO 'DECLARE AN INTEREST' AND REMAIN SILENT ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE WESTERN ISLES COUNCIL FOR YEARS?

Rather convenient I would say. Considering every man and his dog is craning their necks to hear what he has to say on the matter. After all, he's the only councillor who makes his living out of selling fuel. You would think he'd be the first to be summoned - champing at the bit even. But no. Where is he? I get a picture of him at home with his head under the rug hoping it all goes away. Now why would that be? Perhaps he's making too much money out of this fuel scam and if people knew what was going on it would open a whole new can of worms. Well, Angus, it won't go away. Scottish fuels could see the writing on the wall and implemented damage-limiting measures. I would advise you do likewise before it's too late. Perhaps it's already too late.
I have in the past few minutes watched on BBC News the inquiry into the tax affairs of online retail giant Amazon, where one of the bosses was ridiculed by MPs for not being open about the company's finances.
Perhaps he should have 'declared an interest'.
Of course this would be ridiculous. Just as in a court of law or during any inquiry it would be ludicrous to allow someone to hide behind such a plainly stupid rule.
So the Western Isles Council allows people to 'declare an interest' and not be required to give account of themselves.
Sirs, you need to 'wake up and smell the coffee'. This kind of nonsense was supposed to have been done away with when we chopped the head off Charles the I.
Perhaps it's time to 'chop off the council's head' if he doesn't give proper account of himself. Who does he think he is, the king?
If there's one thing I hate it's institutionalized secrecy. We have the same problem in the church - a few individuals who get carried away with their own importance and deem themselves 'above' the rest and start creating rules to suit themselves.
It's not on boys and girls, it's not on.
I, as your employer, wish you to know this.

GOD'S LAW AND THE SABBATH DAY

I was recently present at a Sabbath school outing within the denomination of which I have been a member for the last 19 years. When everyone was gathered together for food, a minister of the denomination rose to his feet to make a short speech. His speech basically consisted of this: 'Now remember children, the Sabbath day is very fragile, it is very easily broken. So be very careful that you don't break the Sabbath day.'
I think it is not so much what preachers say that we are to be aware of, but what they don't say.
In my opinion the minister's statement about Sabbath keeping is legalistic. It is legalistic by its wording but more so by the omission of vital information. The missing part is the fundamental Christian doctrine of total depravity, or in other words, our total inability to keep even the smallest part of God's law. The fourth commandment being part of the Decalogue, this also means that our attempts at keeping this commandment are in reality, futile. God does of course recognise our desire to keep it out of love to him and his law. But only out of love.
If we imagine for one moment that we are actually able to keep it we deceive ourselves. It is vital that we have this understanding clear in our minds.
A relevant text here is Romans 3:20: 'THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.'
This text makes the use of the law clear: to prove to us that we cannot keep it. This is the proper use of the law. To utterly condemn and punish us (our awakened conscience will do this) and so to drive us to Christ.
Galatians 3:24: 'WHEREFORE THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING US UNTO CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH.'
And so, I believe the proper use of the Sabbath day is the same as the rest of God's law: to show us that we cannot keep it.
We are also flesh. Our minds are sinful. It does not come naturally to us to delight in the Sabbath. I believe we are to recognise this in ourselves and look to Christ to mortify it.
We can only keep the Sabbath in our true desire and that only as far as the Holy Spirit gives us the 'power'.
So, to my point.
I think many people who seek to keep the Sabbath believe that because they do this, that and the next thing on the Lord's day that it equals 'keeping the Sabbath' and are content with this. They feel a sense of 'achievement', that they have 'kept' the Lord's day, and feel good about it. What folly.
This is raw legalism - God is not in it.
Legalism is the religious business of clearing our conscience by doing this and that.
It would have been bad enough teaching this to the converted, but when I heard the minister teaching it to unconverted kids I was horrified.
Perhaps I am to be criticized for not standing up and publicly rebuking him.
Our desire ought to be to keep the Sabbath but we must always be aware that of ourselves, we can only break it.
Luke 17:9-10: 'DOTH HE THANK THAT SERVANT BECAUSE HE DID THE THINGS THAT WERE COMMANDED HIM? I TROW NOT. SO LIKEWISE YE, WHEN YE SHALL HAVE DONE ALL THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE COMMANDED YOU, SAY, WE ARE UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS: WE HAVE DONE THAT WHICH WAS OUR DUTY TO DO.'
We must never entertain the Satanic delusion that we do well.
There is no place in the gospel of Jesus Christ for patting ourselves on the back.

WITHOUT IRONY. 'ZERO TOLERANCE' : THE MAD INTOLERANCE OF THE 'TOLERANT' ONES.

ONLY OUR PREJUDICE IS ALLOWED.

WHY WAS NOAH'S SACRIFICE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD?

At morning worship today we read Genesis chapter 8. It gives us the account of when the flood waters receded and Noah, his family and the animals emerged from the ark.

Verse 20 describes how Noah built an altar, took clean animals (clean beasts were taken into the ark in sevens) and offered burnt offerings upon the altar. Verse 21 tells us: 'And the LORD smelled a sweet savour...'

By these words we know that God accepted Noah's offering.

The question is, why was it acceptable?

This is a very important question. One which aught always to be asked and which everyone should be asking. Why? Because it addresses the most essential aspect of salvation. If we understand this most fundamental point, we have a grasp of the truth. This same theme runs through the whole of scripture from beginning to end.

So, to the question.

The reason Noah's sacrifice was acceptable to God was because it was offered in obedience.

But just as there are two separate universes, the seen and the unseen, there are also two kinds of obedience: the seen and the unseen. Before our offering can be acceptable to God we must have both kinds. But the second must be begotten by the first. Faith worketh by love. (Galatians 5: 6).

I believe the best example we can find of this is the narrative of Cain and Able in Genesis 4.

Both brothers offered a sacrifice to God. Able's offering was according to God's will, but Cain's was not. It was something which he himself decided was of value. He disregarded God's guidance but still attempted to make his offering to God. Today, this mad, presumptuous approach has lost none of its popularity and continues unabated. Nay, grows ever more popular. This is the cause of every false way in the world. Every way which claims to be of God and the way of salvation but in reality is just a lie. Even in the midst of Truth and the preaching of the word we find this. In 'orthodox' 'reformed' churches we find people who follow blindly. I would go as far as to say that the majority do this. Entire congregations attend churches which often preach much truth but never address the issues. It is possible to preach truth and not address the issues. We must address the issues. Just preaching truth is not enough.
We must preach the WHOLE truth.
Christ always addressed the issues. That's what made him controversial. That's why he was hated. That's why he was crucified. The Church must also address the issues, the Church must also be hated, the Church must also be crucified.
FOR UNTO YOU IT IS GIVEN IN THE BEHALF OF CHRIST, NOT ONLY TO BELIEVE ON HIM, BUT ALSO TO SUFFER FOR HIS SAKE. (Philippians 1: 29).
Cain disregarded God's guidance because he had no stomach for God. He loved his own ideas and hated God's authority, even arguing with God and attempting to cover up the crime of murdering his brother.
This runs clean contrary to reason and logic. I mean, to treat the infinite God as you might treat a mere man and to argue with him to his face. What motivates this kind of insanity? I think it reveals something of the nature and power of sin.
Able's offering on the other hand, was acceptable because God's hand was in it. God had placed his love in his soul by living in him by his continued presence: the indwelling of the holy spirit.
If this is our case, then we have the true love of God. We can now offer the acceptable sacrifice. Only now.
Now we will strive to obey. By love.
The legalist strives to obey, not out of love to God, but out of love to himself. And in a drive to glorify himself by waving the flag of his own works, like the pharisee whom Christ condemned because he stood in public making long prayers to be seen of men.
He said of them: 'They have their reward.'
Let us be sure that our reward is not merely in this world.
Noah's sacrifice was an Old Testament sacrifice which by shedding the blood of animals typified the one great sacrifice to come: the sacrifice of the Son of God.
We no longer have to do this because the divine blood of Christ has now been shed. We can now approach God boldly, and personally in the knowledge that the work has been done on the behalf of every penitent sinner.
Are you penitent? Do you desire God but cannot approach him because of your sin? Are you too wicked for God?
Then God will hear you.
Ask for mercy.
This is the acceptable sacrifice.

SNP:
SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARANOIA

At face value I would say that with independence it looks like we would have fewer options/opportunities.  We cannot look into the future but we can look at the past. Ever since the UK teamed up, generally and comparatively speaking we've gone from strength to strength. For the UK as a whole it has been a most successful formula.

We've all heard of the old and true saying: 'Divide and conquer.' If you want to defeat your enemy, split his forces. Any student of warfare will tell you that. The driving of a wedge through the enemy ranks has always been a most effective battle tactic because it divides a large force into smaller, weaker, groups. Together they are stronger.

The UK is a community, cities are communities as are towns and villages.  If you go right down to the the most basic situation where people are truly inter-dependent through necessity, the way it was here in Lewis and in many other places at the turn of the 19/20 century when there was no such thing as a locked door. People were dirt poor and shared everything. Meagre possessions were used and shared. They had to be.  It was the habit of entire villages to come together and help in work which was required to be done for their very survival.

This was their strength.

Today we have a different approach. Today, in the developed world we have prosperity. We have wealth and comforts in abundance. We want more. Take, take, take. Selfishness is the thing: me and mine. Who cares about the rest.

This is our weakness.

I would argue that this ill-thought-out drive for independence is from the same bucket. Sheer selfishness. There seems to be an almost blind panic about being 'ripped off by the English' (even though there's no evidence for it). This has in turn caused in the minds of some a deep distrust of 'the English' as if they've been meeting in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors and plotting against us. Actually, it's insane. The word for it is paranoia.

Scottish National Paranoia.

Finally, I would argue that it is un-Christian. To place no real value in material possessions and worldly comforts is something which comes part and partial with Christian doctrine. To have a spirit of happily sharing wealth is actually a Biblical requisite. A requisite which happens to create greater wealth collectively and therefore individually too. Whether we like it or not Great Britain/the United Kingdom was built on Christianity. Historically, all the most developed countries in the world were. The pooling of our wealth and abilities has carried the UK to great success. To look upon the country that we live in as 'belonging to God' and not ourselves is the Biblical way. God will prosper us only if we follow his direction. Selfishness is not his way.

This kind of nationalism is selfishness.
Our economic woes have been caused by depending on our own 'wisdom' and despising God's. Getting into massive debt just to satisfy our greedy and impatient desires has caused the problem. Never mind pointing the finger at bankers - perhaps you should point it at yourself too.
So some imagine that pulling Scotland out of the United Kingdom will solve the problem?
How wrong they are.

INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND

Would individuals in an independent Scotland have more opportunities than they had as citizens of the UK?

SINGLE PARENTING

I really didn't expect this.  I didn't plan for it.  Single parenting that is.  Bringing up 5 kids on my own.  It's a challenge.  Some are willing to help, but there's always a cost.  One way or another.  You don't know until you go there. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as the old saying goes.  It's subtle at first, but becomes plainer as time goes by.  Even if the intentions of the helpers are truly honourable, it still happens.  I think it's inevitable.

Even when nothing is said, they're still there - the opinions. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, they are there, solid as rock - in the minds of the helpers - reinforced by your continued use of their help.  It makes not one jot of difference what you say. You can talk until you're blue in the face - in their minds you NEED their help, you cannot do without them - you would sink if it were not for them.

I find this being treated like some kind of poor soul infuriating. Infuriating and patronising. I'm no different to most people in this regard - I dislike being patronised.

The only way you can solve this problem is to break free completely. Drop the help. Granted it makes life more difficult, but much more rewarding and satisfying (even if you are muddling along and living in a midden).

I had a wife for over 12 years.  A good Christian wife from the Lord I absolutely believe.  But he took her away. Every day of my youngest son's life is another reminder of that because she died giving birth to him. I now have to plough my furrow alone.

It's a challenge.

Calum, my youngest, is 18 months old. The rest are 8; 10; 11 and 13. Three boys and two girls.

Getting them up for school in the morning and breakfasting them I don't find so terribly difficult as that was my job anyway when Margaret was alive. As the day wears on though I can often find things a bit daunting. keeping the house at all tidy I find impossible at the moment, but I do intend for that to change as time goes on. I'm looking at the long game.

Deciding on and making meals is another ongoing daily challenge. Breakfast is simple enough: eggs, porridge, toast. Cereal if in a hurry. As it's the October holidays at the moment lunch is also my responsibility (as the October holidays were for tattie picking and nobody picks tatties any more, perhaps they could be cancelled to give us parents a break?), but doesn't usually present too much of a problem. It's dinner that can be annoying: planning making and serving.  The continual piling up of dirty dishes I hate. Getting the kids to clean up is an uphill struggle (but I think the Wii has a lot to do with that).

Keeping them in clothing and with the right kind of clothing is a real pain. Not because of the cost, but because my mind simply is not on it. That is an area where I really miss Margaret - she was on the ball with that kind of thing - I just didn't have to think about it.

I've been dropped in at the deep-end and I've got to sink or swim - on my own. That's how I see it.

But am I on my own? Is the Lord with me?

Well...yes. I believe he is.

A DISTURBING DISCOVERY

I have discovered on sound authority that the Nicolson Institute school library contains a book entitled: "Starting Out Lesbian and Gay Guide."

Is this good? Is this wholesome? Is this healthy? Is this to be supported, encouraged, applauded? Is this a heroic action in the cause for the promotion of the greater good?

Before the gasps of mock righteous indignation start, yes, I am aware there is a tiny fraction of the population who think this kind of thing is a laudable pastime. But I belong to that old-fashioned (a truly terrifying phrase to many) group who not only think it's wrong and against nature to promote such practices but actually believe God when he says:

FOR THIS CAUSE GOD GAVE THEM UP UNTO VILE AFFECTIONS: FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENCE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH WAS MEET. AND EVEN AS THEY DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND, TO DO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT CONVENIENT. (Romans 1: 26-28).

Now, before anyone starts pointing the finger and uttering idiotic things like 'homophobic' I would just like to point out that these are not my words, they are God's. He wrote them. I've delivered his letter to you. So don't bother taking it up with me - I'm just the messenger. TAKE IT UP WITH THE AUTHOR - he's the one you have the problem with.

A MISTAKE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164

I think it's a mistake for William and Kate to seek to ban her topless pictures from being published. I mean, if she didn't want this to happen she should simply not have flashed herself in a place which was clearly risky.

This now just comes across as petulant and (dare I say it?) spoiled.

Hey Kate, just let it go. And in future - think before you flash.

OLYMPIC TORCH CARRYING? CRINGE-ABLY FARCICAL AND THIS PROVES IT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18756050

Above is a link to a clip showing a lad being manhandled for riding his bike in the vicinity of the sacred Olympic torch.

Am I the only one who thinks this whole childish torch-carrying farce cringe-able?

Surely not. People badly need to grow up.

HOW SCRIPTURAL IS THIS NOTION OF A 'CLERGYMAN'?

"...WHEN YE COME TOGETHER, EVERY ONE OF YOU HATH A PSALM, HATH A DOCTRINE, HATH A TONGUE, HATH A REVELATION, HATH AN INTERPRETATION. LET ALL THINGS BE DONE UNTO EDIFYING...LET THE PROPHETS SPEAK TWO OR THREE, AND LET OTHER JUDGE. IF ANY THING BE REVEALED TO ANOTHER THAT SITTETH BY, LET THE FIRST HOLD HIS PEACE. FOR YE MAY ALL PROPHESY ONE BY ONE, THAT ALL MAY LEARN, AND ALL MAY BE COMFORTED." (1 Corinthians 14: 26, 29-31).

In established churches things are normally done in a very inflexible and precise manner. We usually have one minister set over a congregation who preaches week-in week-out year-in year-out to the same people.

Unsurprisingly, all too often, this has a deadening effect on congregations.

The question I would ask is, is this the correct way? Is this the way the Lord wishes us to do things?

The text quoted above, I would say, gives us another scenario. It gives us a picture of members of the congregation prophesying (speaking, preaching, teaching). It is easy to see why this is a better way than the 'same-guy-droning-on' system which many of us are stuck with. The really sad thing is that just because it's been like this for a long time congregations want it to remain the same. Trying to tell people that the way things are done may not be scriptural is like banging your head against a brick wall. They don't think - they don't want to think - and that's the problem.

Ministers ignore this part of scripture. On the one hand they will seemingly whole-heartedly assure you that they would never ignore any part of the Bible. But, sorry to say, on the other hand, the reality is quite different.

In Roman Catholicism the clergy has had a strangle-hold over their followers for many centuries. The priests have an entirely un-scriptural power over them. Let us not forget that this system sprang up in the midst of the true Church. It always grows here, because that's where Satan sows his seeds. It began because people ignored parts of scripture. And for the same reason these weeds of error will always sprout in the Church.

It is our duty to rip them up.

How do we rip them up? We do this by prayerful meditation in the scripture so that we are not ignoring any part, and by exhorting one another. And if we exclude the members of the congregation from speaking publicly, from a practical point of view, we are greatly depriving the Church of much good, in that we are not utilizing a God-appointed means of his conveying his will to his Church. Does the above text not make this plain?

There are other advantages to be had from obeying this part of the scripture. It would show us who has the gifts and who has not. The present system is so lacking it's painful. Let me explain.

A man decides for one reason or another, that he'd like to be a minister. He inquires about what's required. He discovers that apart from making a profession of being a Christian, he must have some sort of academic qualification before he can start even training to be a minister. He goes and gets it - it often takes years. Years of wasted time. He then spends some more years 'training' to be a minister. More wasted time. He is then 'licensed' to preach - licensed! In other words if you don't have a 'licence' you're breaking some law if you preach. How un-scriptural is that?

It all boils down to this. These so-called ministers have been accepted as spiritual leaders. As soon as they are accepted to train as ministers they're in - very often even before anyone has heard them preaching. It's nothing to do with whether they've been sent or not - gifts or ability don't enter into it.

They have been set in place not by God's rules, but by man's.

At this point, I can almost hear the indignant voices crying out in protest. But I ask, is it possible to 'train' someone to be a minister? I say no. You can train anyone to be anything, from a postman to a king, but, my friends, the Bible asks the question: '...how shall they preach, except they be sent?' It is an anointing, a being sent of God: a miraculous thing. As everything God does is. Who is man to interfere? And what scriptural warrant does he have for this idea? And how scriptural is this notion of a 'clergyman' anyway? A man often dressed up in a crazy uniform being paid a salary to uphold an old un-scriptural system.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Remember the pharisees.

LEGALISM AND THE SABBATH DAY

The fourth commandment states:

REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY. (Exodus 20:8).

Is it possible to keep the Lord's day holy? The simple answer, I believe, is no.

Let me explain.

This commandment which deals with the keeping of the Sabbath day is part of the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, and is therefore to be treated in exactly the same manner as the other nine.

The chief rule for the interpretation of scripture, is scripture itself, so, I will endeavour to explain my meaning by the Book.

The first text I would like to quote is:

THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. (Romans 3: 20).

This text tells us that no matter what we do, we are utterly unable to keep God's law.

So bearing in mind that the fourth commandment is also part of God's law we ought to know that we cannot keep it.

Why then is it taken for granted and taught that we can actually keep the Lord's day?

This is pure legalism.

We do not and we can not keep the Sabbath Day holy.

While we do our best to keep it holy it is vital that we understand that we cannot. We are saved by grace - won for us by Christ's sacrifice. He kept the law for us.

We have a holy principle in our heart from the Holy Ghost which gives us a love for God and his law - and we desire to keep his law, by faith, which worketh by love. This is acceptable to God.

So when we read the following text we know that this high standard of God is too high for us to reach, but Christ has done it on our behalf.

IF THOU TURN THY FOOT FROM THE SABBATH, FROM DOING THY PLEASURE ON MY HOLY DAY; AND CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT, THE HOLY OF THE LORD, HONOURABLE; AND SHALT HONOUR HIM, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, NOR FINDING THINE OWN PLEASURE, NOR SPEAKING THINE OWN WORDS: (Isaiah 58: 13).

The true spiritual desire is accepted for Christ's sake and is an evidence that the Holy Spirit resides in our heart.

Let us never imagine that we are keeping any part of God's law - we only break it continually.

There are two ways of keeping the Lord's day - by our own strength, or by God's.

One is right and one is wrong.

IS JESUS REALLY GOD?

Many argue that Jesus is not God. That he was just a man. A good man, even a man who was greatly used by God, but, just a mortal man.

The so-called Jehovah's Witnesses maintain this, as do the Muslims. The JW's claim to believe the Bible and the Muslims also give the Bible place as a holy book. It is common for people to give the Bible some place, and to pick and choose which parts they are prepared to believe. But, of course, if we don't believe the whole Bible, we don't actually believe any of it.

The scriptures describe him as 'The only begotten Son of God'. These words on their own tell us who he is. If he is the 'only begotten' this means that he came forth from God in a unique way. We know he is higher than the angels as Hebrews 1: 6 tells us: '...LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.' So if he's higher than the angels - who is he? And, only God is to be worshipped. Verse 8 tells us: '...UNTO THE SON HE SAITH, THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND EVER'. And Matthew 1: 23: '...THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME EMMANUEL, WHICH BEING INTERPRETED IS, GOD WITH US.

So I'm sure you can see from the very few quotes offered here how ridiculous it is to maintain that Christ is not God.

If Christ had not been God he couldn't have saved anyone - not even himself. The first person he delivered from death was himself. There was no effort involved in this, as Acts 2: 24 tells us: '...HAVING LOOSED THE PAINS OF DEATH: BECAUSE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE HOLDEN OF IT. Not possible. Why not possible? Because he is God. The infinitely holy and righteous God, who cannot die and cannot suffer.

But he did suffer, I hear you say. Yes, he did - but therein lies the mystery.

He had to become man to suffer and to die. He suffered and died as a man, but he was, and is, God and man - both.

In Genesis 2: 7 we read: 'AND THE LORD GOD FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND'. When Jesus Christ became man he was formed of the same dust in the virgin Mary's womb. After he died and rose again he ascended into heaven with the same body which had been formed from this very same dust. So, it is quite true to say that the dust of the earth sits upon heaven's throne.

What is the point of all this?

The point is this. It would have been impossible for God to save anyone if Jesus Christ had not done this. Because in that God is infinitely righteous, it means that it is impossible for him to sin. '...HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.' (2 Timothy 2: 13). He cannot break his own laws. That is impossible. He must punish sin. Mankind's sin must be punished. If God saved without punishing sin it would be sinful. If you or I are to be punished for our sin, because it is against an infinitely holy God it therefore requires an infinite punishment. Our souls are immortal, the punishment must be of infinite duration - it will never end.

Herein steps Christ.

When the Son of God was nailed to the cross, enduring the infinite agonies of his passion, God the Father was the one unleashing the worst of his fury upon him for the sin of mankind. Even if only one sinner were to be saved, or if he was being punished for only one sin - he would still have had to endure all of God's wrath.

Who can enter into those awful immortal words from Mark 15: 34: 'MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU FORSAKEN ME?'

This was the Son, beloved of the father from all eternity, without beginning or end, enduring all of God's wrath for sin - nothing spared. This is deeply, deeply spiritual.

If God opens this up to you, you'll experience something like nothing you've ever known before, and you'll be thankful. Very, very thankful - though you know nothing about it now.

Do you know what the greatest sin is? It is to ignore God's command to look to the Son that you would be saved. This is treating him with contempt. You won't if you're wise.

'HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE, IF WE NEGLECT SO GREAT SALVATION...' (Hebrews 2: 3).

How can I be saved? How do I find God?

'BUT THOU, WHEN THOU PRAYEST, ENTER INTO THY CLOSET, AND WHEN THOU HAST SHUT THY DOOR, PRAY TO THY FATHER WHICH IS IN SECRET; AND THY FATHER WHICH SEETH IN SECRET SHALL REWARD THEE OPENLY.' (Matthew 6: 6).

Ask. Do it now.

YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF NO JUSTICE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18082606

The above link is a report about a man deemed 'insane' who committed murder.

Because he's deemed insane, it's reckoned that he's not responsible for the murder.

Then, forgive me for asking - who is? Because someone is, and as sure as apples - it's him.

So, let's think about this, shall we? The guy flies into a rage, hatches a plan to commit murder, finds himself a knife, commits the crime - and because he's deemed mad, he's not responsible (I think he might just know something about this).

Strange.

Isn't every murderer mad? I mean, don't you have to have a particular problem with your mind to commit murder anyway?

If it was up to me he'd be under the ground where all murderers belong.

Mad or not.

'...THE MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.' (Numbers 35: 16).

ANOTHER SHOCKING EXAMPLE OF NO JUSTICE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-18070507

Above is a link to a news story about the murder of a little boy by a truly evil and deranged man.

We are regularly disgusted by certain crimes we read about in the news. This one easily ranks amongst the worst of them, but it is only one of two crimes committed here. The other one is the so-called sentence of 'life' given to the murderer.

Every right-minded person knows that murderers ought to be put to death.

WHOSO SHEDDETH MAN'S BLOOD, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED: FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN. (Genesis 9: 6).

It's not 'life' they should get but 'death'.

WE MIGHT AS WELL DRESS UP LIKE THIS GUY

'FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL: NOT WITH WISDOM OF WORDS, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST SHOULD BE MADE OF NONE EFFECT.'

(1 Corinthians 1: 17).

Long ago, during the time of the apostles, when the Christian church was being established, there was no such thing as 'academic requirements' in the Church. In those days it was all about the power of the Holy Ghost. The words, 'wisdom of words' in our text can be put as: 'clever talking'.

So going by what we read here, if we depend on clever talking in our preaching instead of the power of the Spirit we will make the cross of Christ of none effect.

What does this mean?

It means that the word of God which you are attempting to preach will not benefit your hearers because it will not be accompanied by the power of God.

That's bad.

This has a demoralizing effect - some of you might know what I'm talking about. It happens in many many churches up and down the land - especially the large established ones. So-called ministers preaching week-in week-out, year-in year-out and doing nothing but demoralizing their hearers.

In my view, it also encourages legalism, because people use it like the Roman Catholics use self flagellation - the more unpleasant or even painful the experience, the more points they think they score with God. So if they have spent their whole life coming and going to church in that manner then they imagine they must be onto a good thing (no pain, no gain).

Friends, this ought not to be.

The root cause of the problem is in the ordination of ministers. There is a myth which has been in existence for centuries - that ministers must be 'educated' this is utterly unscriptural. The reason it is so readily accepted is because it makes sense in the natural world. And yes, it does - in the natural world. But when we are talking about the preaching of the gospel we no longer occupy the natural plain. We have entered God's domain - where our rules do not apply.

This problem of requiring academic attainment for ministers proves that the people making the demands are depending on the abilities of mere men to bring people to God instead of God himself.

This is nothing new and it can never work.

We might as well dress up like the geezer in the picture for all the good it'll do.

...TO OBEY IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICE, AND TO HEARKEN THAN THE FAT OF RAMS.

(1 Samuel 15: 22).

HAVE YOU EVER ARRIVED AT YOUR CAR TO FIND ALL FOUR OF YOUR TYRES SLASHED?

No? well I did.

We've passed midnight now, so it was yesterday morning I discovered it.

I know who did it. The same guy who recently deliberately broke the windscreen of my Transit Luton. Oh, he's denying it - asking me if I've got any proof.

This has been going on for a number of weeks now. It all started with me being woken out of my sleep at about 3 o'clock in the morning by angry banging on the front door. I felt sure it must have been a case of mistaken identity - some drunk had obviously come to the wrong house.

Well, not exactly...

I stuck my head out of the window and shouted, 'What's the problem?' The reply was, 'You've got 20 seconds to get your a**e down here before I pan your windows in!'

I could hardly believe my ears. I said, 'Slow down. Don't do anything, I'm coming down.'

When I got down, he started to rant at me about parking my car deliberately in the way of his van so that he couldn't get it out. Actually, it isn't even his van, it's his stepfather's van.

It was then that I realized what I'd done. When all the parking spaces were used up I would often just park my car in front of my van and partially in front of whatever vehicle happened to be parked beside it. I can truthfully say that my intention was never to show annoyance at the parkers. I was simply parking conveniently. Whenever anyone wanted out, they knew where I lived and simply knocked on the door and I moved my car and let them out - no problem. Normally, I would always park further away before I went to bed if all the spaces were used up. This time, I forgot.

For him, it was a red rag to a bull.

I should really point out, this fellow seems to be OK when he's sober. But when he's drunk he's a complete...och, words fail me - you know what I mean.

He's in his early to mid twenties and has a respectable (and quite senior) job in town. To see him at his work dealing with customers you'd think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, but he's a real Jeckyll and Hyde character. Once he gets at all drunk - look out.

He'd been on the booze that night. I had no idea who he was. He stood there yapping incessantly at me about me having parked my car in front of 'his' van so that he couldn't get it out because I was annoyed about not getting my space. I told him that I knew what it looked like, but I assured him that it was not actually the case - I had simply forgotten to park my car properly before going to bed.

He wouldn't listen to a word. He just continued to yap at me.

I could feel my temper which I had managed to keep in check up to this point, beginning to rise. I said, 'Look mate, you want to switch your brain on, because if you go around speaking to people like that, you'll only make them angry.'

I jumped into the car and parked it. When I arrived back after parking, he said, 'I really must apologize, I overreacted.' I was delighted to hear this, and said, Och, that's OK, we all get angry and do stupid things at times', and went back into the house relieved that that was the end of it.

Ha, dream on!

Well, I'm getting tired now, and it's getting late (or early), so I'm off to bed.

THE SAGA OF THE TYRE SLASHING NEIGHBOUR - CONTINUED.

So, after hearing his apology, I naturally thought that would be the end of it. Well, a couple of weeks or so later at about 11.30 at night I popped out to post a letter. As I reached my car which was parked in the same area as the above picture, I noticed a hooded figure walking past. He was obviously drunk. I wondered if it was our friend. He looked at me and I saw that it was him. I quickly looked away and got into the car. The fact that he noticed me looking at him was enough to light the touchpaper. He turned back, approaching the car as I reversed, glaring menacingly at me through the window. He was clearly looking for trouble. The temptation from the old man within was to get out and grab him by the scruff of the neck and deck him if need be. But these desires must be resisted. I ignored him and drove off to post my letter hoping that he would be gone by the time I returned. When I arrived back, he was gone. I breathed a sigh of relief, had a quick check inside the house to make sure he wasn't lurking anywhere there and went to bed.

A couple of days later one of the kids came into the house saying, "Dad, someone's broken the window of the van." I didn't need three guesses - I knew immediately who had done it.

I was fuming. I went to his house to speak to him (he lives very close by) and was told by his younger brother that he was at work. So I went to his place of work.

When I accused him he made no denial but said that he could not remember doing it. After I gave him a good row he said that he would pay for the windscreen. I was content with that, and wasn't going to call the cops. That was on the 17th March.

The next thing that happened was the tyres being slashed.

Now, it's important that I point out one or two things at this juncture. The first thing is that it was not only my tyres that were slashed. No. Lots of other cars in the area were also done on the same night. At the last count to reach my ears the total number was put at as many as 12. Now, at this point you may well be saying, 'Maybe it wasn't him then?'

Now, this is where you can don your Columbo coat and test your detective abilities.

All of the other cars which had their tyres slashed that night, only had one of their tyres done - all four of mine were slashed.

OK, what does that tell you?

Don't know?

It tells you that I was the target. My car was singled out for special attention. The rest of the cars which were done between the Cearns and Grant Square were only done as a distraction - a smoke screen to confuse the issue - to throw the scent.

He wasn't too drunk to realize that the first plonker I would suspect would be him - so he took measures - what a genius! No wonder they made him a prefect in the Nici.

Anyway, in the morning, when I made my discovery, I got that sinking feeling in my stomach, and thought, 'Aw no, here we go again.' At just before 12 noon I knocked his door again. His mother answered the door in her dressing gown. When I asked if he was in, I was told that he was in his bed. I asked if he had been on the booze the night before. She answered 'yes'. As soon as I said, 'I think he's slashed all four of my tyres', she burst into floods of tears and started wailing and sobbing, saying I just don't know what to do with him, he's such a problem...I'm so sorry, I'll pay for your tyres, I'm so sorry, and so on.

She knew very well this was typical - immediately believing what I said.

I was content that the tyres were going to be paid for and also felt sorry for her. So I said, 'I was going to call the cops, but now I think that might be just adding insult to injury.' Before leaving I told her that I would have to talk to her son.

Not long afterwards, I was standing at the car telling a neighbour about it when the man himself came striding arrogantly towards me from the house saying, 'What basis of proof do you have to support this?'

That annoyed me.

I said, 'Listen mate, between you and me - I'm sure you slashed my tyres.' He asked me to come into the house to hear what his mother had to say. When I arrived in their kitchen the mother had completely changed her tune.

He had manipulated her mind. She was now singing from his hymn sheet.

I knew that he had been very drunk the night before because my mother had been speaking to a relative of his on the phone and had been told all about the problems they'd been having with him that night. When I reminded him that he himself had told me that he doesn't remember things after being drunk - so how did he know?, he said, 'But I only had a couple of pints last night.' His mother also backed up his story.

They were both lying through their teeth. I no longer felt sorry for her.

This is significant because it is well known that this man has a big problem with drink - every time he gets even a little drunk he goes off his head and does something insane. He and his mother know very well that if it gets out that he was drunk that night people only have to put two and two together.

He even had the brass neck to be quite cheeky about it. I said to him, 'You know, you've got a bad attitude.'

He replied, 'Your own attitude isn't exactly sterling either', and started to go on about me parking my car in a way that was supposed to be malicious. To him, this thing which only exists in his own warped mind is tantamount to the cardinal sin.

Boy, did I feel like laying him out at that point.

OK then, I said, 'Seeing that you're denying it, I have no option but to call the cops,' and left.

The thing that really annoys me about this is the way he went around slashing the tyres of other people he didn't even know in an attempt to cover his tracks just so that he could slash my tyres in his private little fit of insane drink-fuelled hatred.

As I write this, the police investigation is ongoing.

I'll keep you posted.

THE KIND OF SCHOOL I WOULD LIKE TO SEE...

Once upon a time, accidentally, I became a student at the Faith Mission Bible College Edinburgh. I didn't agree with them on everything. Especially on the idea that it's OK for women to be ministers, as the Bible plainly forbids it:

"BUT I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, BUT TO BE IN SILENCE." (1Timothy 2:12).

I can never understand it when people claim to believe the whole Bible and then proceed nonchalantly to ignore the parts which don't agree with their pet notions. It's precisely this attitude which causes all the problems in the church. What hope can there be if even basic honesty is lacking?

Anyway.

There were things though, that I did agree with. The clip which I have attached above, was taken during an element of the course which was called Communication Skills. I found this to be the best part of the course. The reason I found it to be the best part is because it was absolutely practical. Practical in that all that it consisted of was training, and then each of us in turn getting up in front of the others and preaching. We would then be assessed by the lecturer and our peers. We would be scored on all the various elements of the exercise, like voice projection, clarity, emphasis, pronunciation, body language and so on.

The method which the established churches ordinarily use for appointing ministers, in my opinion, is deeply flawed. Whatever else they do, the lion's share of the emphasis is squarely placed upon academic qualification - instead of practical ability. If you don't have this magic wand of education, all else is null and void. Never mind that the Bible tells us plainly:

"...NOT MANY WISE MEN AFTER THE FLESH, NOT MANY MIGHTY, NOT MANY NOBLE, ARE CALLED: BUT GOD HATH CHOSEN THE FOOLISH THINGS OF THE WORLD TO CONFOUND THE WISE; AND GOD HATH CHOSEN THE WEAK THINGS OF THE WORLD TO CONFOUND THE THINGS WHICH ARE MIGHTY; AND BASE THINGS OF THE WORLD, AND THINGS WHICH ARE DESPISED, HATH GOD CHOSEN, YEA, AND THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, TO BRING TO NOUGHT THINGS THAT ARE: THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE." (1 Corinthians 1: 26 - 29).

Nowhere in holy scripture is it even implied that ministers ought to be educated. On the contrary we have the above. And before anyone mentions the apostle Paul, I would point out that he was the exception, not the rule. And let us not forget this:

"NOW WHEN THEY SAW THE BOLDNESS OF PETER AND JOHN, AND PERCEIVED THAT THEY WERE UNLEARNED AND IGNORANT MEN, THEY MARVELLED; AND THEY TOOK KNOWLEDGE OF THEM, THAT THEY HAD BEEN WITH JESUS." (Acts 4: 13).

John Bunyan is a case in point. The following is reportedly true:

John Owen, probably the most prominent and respected academic leader of Bunyan's own era, once went to hear Bunyan preach. Charles II, hearing of it, asked the learned doctor of divinity why someone as thoroughly educated as he would want to hear a mere tinker preach. Owen replied, "May it please your majesty, if I could possess the tinker's abilities to grip men's hearts, I would gladly give in exchange all my learning."

Way back, in the dim and distant past, close to 2 thousand years ago, a small Christian community was set up on the remote Scottish island of Iona. Before the Pope through his usual guile and cunning managed to enslave them, it was a spiritually prosperous and self-sufficient college/school of the Bible which sent many missionaries to all parts of the known world. We can be confident that they were greatly used of God. And there was no such thing as "academic qualification".

Though, I stress, I am not saying we shouldn't have it, I am merely saying a high attainment of it must not be a requirement.

The established churches in our day have long since been holed below the waterline and are, like the band on the Titanic, continuing to play; but the Lord is not blessing it.

Why?

Because they are ignoring scripture.

What I would like to see is a truly independent (independent of denominations), practically-based school of preaching, open to any man, which doesn't force opinions on anyone, but simply exalts the Bible, has no exams, but simply assesses each man on practical merit alone.

All it would require would be a few like-minded Christians to come together.

Interested?

Then get in touch.

There is much outward show in established religion.

People will attend their preferred church, and on the whole, wish for no changes.

Why do they want no change? Is it because they are simply not thinking about what they are doing and enjoy the lack of responsibility? By nature, we all seek an easy life, but generally, if something costs nothing, it's usually worth nothing.

In true religion this is also the case. But if you take this same principal too far, you end up in legalism: which is earning your way into heaven - and that's impossible.

A man once said: 'Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.'

Very true.

But there are regiments of people doing just that. Even genuine Christians, I believe, are guilty of this. Oh yes indeed - walking in darkness (Isaiah 50: 10).

Every denomination, congregation even, has its own way of doing things. Its own peculiarities, it's own wee traditions and habits, and these same habits, have, over the years become much loved and much entrenched. We are, after all, when all is said and done, creatures of habit. We form our various habits and we enjoy them. Sadly, we carry this baggage into our religion and into our churches.

Churches are perfect cultures for this form of self-deceit and the devil knows it well.

So we have congregations of people up and down the land, coming and going to and from church, imagining they do well. Yes, and often imagining that they are the only ones right.

But they do not do well.

This, is Christianity's biggest problem. This, is what Christ preached against most. This, he warned us, will bring us down to hell.

If we are guilty of this, we are not worshipping God, but a system. Our own chosen little system of so-called worship. Is that what we hold dear - our particular little set of habits and peculiarities which define our little (or large) group? Because if it is, it is not the worship of God, but just another form of idolatry.

Dead outward religion.

Smoke in his nostrils.

While we are in this condition we are only capable of hypocrisy.

We must look beyond these things.

Christ said: 'And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, ENTER INTO THY CLOSET, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them...' (Matthew 6: 5-8). My capitalization.

Here, Christ makes it clear what is important. And it is not time spent in church.

Rather, what is important is drawing near to God in the secret place. Then, and only then, will we be prepared and therefore able, to discern the good from the bad, wisdom from folly and to 'take forth the precious from the vile.' (Jeremiah 15: 19).

GO STARK RAVING BONKERS, SAYS ALLAH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17123464

The above link is the latest example of Muslims cracking up with rage. Their 'holy book', their 'god' tells them to go completely off their heads, to attack, kill, destroy.

My holy book, the Bible, tells me to be calm and trust in God.

Which?

MORE INSANITY

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16773620

The link above is a BBC report about Tommy Sheridan being banned from public speaking.

What, Sorry, what country are we in again? Regardless of what anyone thinks of Tommy Sheridan's politics or opinions, this is insane - we are indeed ruled by those with the wisdom of children. Hitler did the same.

AND I WILL GIVE CHILDREN TO BE THEIR PRINCES, AND BABES SHALL RULE OVER THEM. (Isaiah 3: 4).

WOODY, THAT'S FAR TOO MUCH

I've always said that Argos pretend they're cheap, but they're not. To be fair, they are handy. That's what they've got going for them. Now, when quality is important I've always preferred to shop elsewhere, like IKEA. Now before anyone says anything, I would like to point out that when it comes to the more affordable end of the market IKEA stuff is DEFINITELY the best designed and the best value for money.

Anyway, today I wanted to buy bunk beds, so I checked IKEA's website to see how much they would charge to have it sent to the island. When I typed in my postcode for the website to calculate my delivery cost, it came up with: 'invalid postcode', which quite obviously means that they are not interested in sending stuff here. 'Och, well then', I thought, 'I'll chust away down to the new Argos and buy one there.'

I found a suitable bed and ordered it (without mattresses). It was a delivery only item so it had to come from the mainland. It's a good job the thing was half price because this is what it all came to: bed - £99; Argos delivery to Eastgate, Inverness - £8.50; WOODY'S DELIVERY FROM INVERNESS TO STORNOWAY - £40! Yes, £40. FORTY, F-O-R-T-Y. Even the girl in the shop said that she felt 'evil' charging me Woody's levy.

Remember, this is a flat-packed item we're talking about.

I checked with Heb Haulage and they quoted me a few pence over £26 for the same thing. DR Macleod haven't got back to me with their quote yet, though the girl did say she didn't think it would be much less because she knew how much Woody's charge.

OK, here it is:

WOODY, THAT'S FAR TOO MUCH.

ARGOS, THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS.

GREED MAKES US STUPID

I have just read a report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16698555

which talks about house sales being down, as if it were somehow strange. It's not strange. People keep talking about 'the banks not lending'. That may well be so, but it is not the real reason the property market is stagnating. The real reason is because of greed. People are still too greedy to lower their property prices. It's a double edged sword: on the one hand you have prices set unrealistically high, so that sensible people don't want to borrow, and of course the banks don't want to lend that much money either. The prices need to come down. Hopefully in time this will become inevitable.

The above picture is of a couple of shops in Stornoway which I recently enquired about with a view to possible renting. I chose not to rent. Why? Because the rental was far too high. I estimated it was twice what it should be. 'How much?', I hear you ask. £1,000 per month. They are not large shops. They are empty. Of course they're empty. And they will remain empty unless someone with more money than sense comes along. Other premises of similar size in the town are rented for half this figure, and are of course, occupied.

These shops stand as a testimony to why the economy is stagnating. And it is easily summed up in two words: 1) Greed. 2) Stupidity. Put them together and you get a new word: 'greepidity'.

Some time ago I had to travel from Inverness to Edinburgh. The bus fare was about £10.00. I liked the idea of taking the train because it would be more comfortable, so I priced it. It was £42.00. A no-brainer - I took the bus.

Are you getting the picture?

The man's shops are standing empty because he's too greedy to lower his prices even though it means that he'll actually make some money instead of losing it. And for the same reason the trains are swooshing up and down the country with empty seats when they could so easily have paying customers filling them.

The business philosophy of Wal-Mart in America is simple: 'Stack it high, and sell it cheap.'

I wonder if this had anything to do with them becoming the most successful supermarket chain in the world?

Greed makes us stupid.

IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG IN THE CHURCH? AND IF SO, WHAT?

It's well known that the first and most difficult problem for an alcoholic to overcome is to admit that he has a problem. Until the time comes when he is able to acknowledge this he is in denial.

I believe the same problem prevails within the professing Christian church. Everywhere. I would say the cause of this phenomenon is the biggest and most fundamental problem of the human race. The prevailing madness of the human mind, which is to be in denial. Denial of the truth. Choosing to believe what we want to believe - what suits us. Saying, 'This is what I'll have, because this is what I like.' The one thing all the different denominations within the professing Christian church seem to have in common is that each one thinks that their way is the right way. Well that can't be, because they're all different. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. Apart from those of course, which God calls 'synagogues of Satan', I'll leave them out.

'FOR THEY THAT ARE AFTER THE FLESH DO MIND THE THINGS OF THE FLESH; BUT THEY THAT ARE AFTER THE SPIRIT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT.' (Romans 8: 5.)

We must understand that by nature every one of us will always prefer the things of the flesh over the things of the Spirit. Christians are plagued by this because although we are born again by the Spirit of God we are still in the flesh - at home in the body - held back by the carnal mind. The closer we walk in obedience to our creator's revealed will the more we 'mind the things of the spirit' the more spiritually minded we will be. On the other hand, the less obedient we are, the more carnally minded we show ourselves to be.

'FOR TO BE CARNALLY MINDED IS DEATH; BUT TO BE SPIRITUALLY MINDED IS LIFE AND PEACE.' (Romans 8:6.)

The more spiritually minded we are, the less taken up we will be with outward displays of tradition and practice.

WHILE WE LOOK NOT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN, BUT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN: FOR THE THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN ARE TEMPORAL; BUT THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN ARE ETERNAL. (2 Corinthians 4: 18.).

THE OUTWARD SHOW

The Pharisees, who hated Christ, loved the outward show. They loved their traditions. Their religion was completely made up of this - there was no spiritual life in it. Today also we have much of this carnal-mindedness in our churches. People have a tendency to look at their traditional, outward habits of so-called worship rather than the inner spiritual life. This, of course, is all we can do if we are not truly born again. But those that are born again are also susceptible to it. Some try to solve the problem by running to the other extreme of letting everything go and maintaining a kind of Christian anarchy, or licentiousness, which of course, contradicts the most basic principles of Christianity.

CORPSE-LIKE

When churches spend their time looking at their outward habits and traditions instead of spiritual necessities they trundle along in a corpse-like manner. Actually, worse than corpses, because corpses don't have sin. Corpses don't assume they do well whilst looking down their noses at others. Treating others with contempt, saying, '...COME NOT NEAR TO ME FOR I AM HOLIER THAN THOU.' (Isaiah 65: 5.) If we are guilty we will not admit it. We may in fact not even know it. It is not what people say we are to be aware of, but what they do.

Remember what God says, which is the final part of the above text:

'...THESE ARE A SMOKE IN MY NOSE, A FIRE THAT BURNETH ALL THE DAY.' (Isaiah 65: 5.)

The text shows us how displeased God is if we self-righteously despise others.

THE PHARISEE STOOD AND PRAYED THUS WITHIN HIMSELF, GOD, I THANK THEE, THAT I AM NOT AS OTHER MEN ARE, EXTORTIONERS, UNJUST, ADULTERERS, OR EVEN AS THIS PUBLICAN. I FAST TWICE IN THE WEEK, I GIVE TITHES OF ALL THAT I POSSESS. (Luke 18: 11-12.)

The above text is an example of what we must all beware of. This anti-Christian sentiment is a transcript of the heart of man. This is sin. This is what grieves the Holy Spirit away. Christians, let us constantly watch and search our hearts for this pride, and by God's grace alone mortify it. That is, kill it.

Here's a challenge.

LET NOTHING BE DONE THROUGH STRIFE OR VAINGLORY; BUT IN LOWLINESS OF MIND LET EACH ESTEEM OTHER BETTER THAN THEMSELVES. (Philippians 2: 3.)

Can you do it? It requires God's power.

At the risk of sounding self-righteous, I find it very depressing when I sit in a church where everything that matters seems to revolve around what is outwardly said and done and then - off home. This is even the case when everything preached is quite right and proper.

HOLY ETIQUETTE - LEGALISM

You know what I mean. When people take too seriously the exact order of service etc. How and when the elders enter at the start, where they sit, how many singings before or after sermon, whether the first prayer is long enough (they're always un-scripturally long) and the really silly one of imagining that it is somehow pleasing to God if we sit down for a wee minute after the benediction has been announced (there are even people who find fault because we're not sitting for long enough and will enthusiastically argue that if you don't sit down for a long enough while after the benediction that it is somehow irreverent, imagining that they are having a last wee meditation before leaving.) I mean, we're already standing - why sit and stand up again before leaving? The trouble is that people are so terrified of going against the flow they join in with these things just to keep the peace.

This kind of carry-on in my opinion is what drives all the life out of the church. God has no interest in it - so why do we? It's sheer legalism. Obviously it's best to have some kind of routine, but let's not get carried away with it. Let's not make a religion of the routine. This is a massive problem.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM

The biggest problem in my view though, is not so much that we're getting things wrong, but as I said at the start, we're not aware that we're getting things wrong. Or worse - stubbornly refusing to consider that we might be getting things wrong. We're in denial. It's no use to say, 'Oh we should be praying more' and so on. This rot in the professing church is of long-standing and requires a root-and-branch remedy. Anyway, we shouldn't be praying 'more' we should be praying 'better'. As far as long prayers are concerned, isn't it about time we listened to what God has to say on the matter.

BE NOT RASH WITH THY MOUTH, AND LET NOT THINE HEART BE HASTY TO UTTER ANYTHING BEFORE GOD: FOR GOD IS IN HEAVEN, AND THOU UPON EARTH: THEREFORE LET THY WORDS BE FEW. (Ecclesiastes 5: 2.)

EGOS AND SALARIES

One area where things are plainly wrong is in the ordination of ministers. Candidates are chosen on man-made merits. Academic education being at the top of the list. The truth is, the ability to read and write acceptably is quite enough as far as that goes (John Bunyan being a case in point.) How did the church ever allow itself to get into this lamentable position of being hi-jacked by academics? The Church of Jesus Christ was never meant to be a vehicle for the inflation of egos or the provision of salaries.

TRIAL OF FAITH

The truth is, what the Church needs is some hardship, some real persecution, the Church has always been in its healthiest spiritual state under real persecution, which usually precedes and ushers in true revival. It's the only thing which really separates the wheat from the chaff.

What is that I hear?

'But we mustn't seek persecution.'

Well, we don't, but the apostles thanked the Lord that they 'WERE COUNTED WORTHY TO SUFFER SHAME FOR HIS NAME.' (Acts 5: 41.) Good for us if we do the same.