Saturday 31 August 2013

A disaster? No, it's high time Britain stopped being Uncle Sam's poodle...And as for those taunts about their 'oldest allies' the French, who cares! Daily Mail


On June14, 1982, I watched the leading elements of Britain’s task force march wearily but triumphantly into Port Stanley, as the Argentine forces in the Falkland Islands surrendered.
That day, as we can see with painful clarity 31 years later, was the high watermark of British military endeavour since 1945.
Margaret Thatcher’s premiership was saved from disaster. A brutal South American dictatorship was extinguished. The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment put to flight a rabble of Argentine conscripts who were playing way out of their league — Wigan Athletic against Manchester United.
The great divide: Barack Obama may drop David Cameron to join with France¿s Francois Hollande
The great divide: Barack Obama may drop David Cameron to join with France¿s Francois Hollande
Chastened: Prime Minister David Cameron faced calls to 'resign' in the Commons as MPs voted by 272 votes to 285 to reject his motion backing British intervention in principle
David Cameron's premiership is underdoing emergency surgery after his humiliation in Thursday night's Commons vote on Syria
We came home in a haze of euphoria to find the British people likewise. The ghost of the Suez Crisis, a 1956 national humiliation, was laid at last. We had reasserted the nation’s proud martial heritage. The Argies discovered that whatever their prowess at football and Formula One, the British Army was world champion at fighting small colonial wars. 
But all that happened three decades ago. And unfortunately for the British people, prime ministers ever since have striven to recreate a ‘Falklands moment’ for their own aggrandisement and political advantage.
Tony Blair confided to a colleague in the Nineties that the lesson of the Falklands was that ‘the British like wars’. This was a big misjudgment, which cost the nation dear in the years that followed. 
What our people like are victories which happen quickly and cheaply, and serve our national interest.
British Paratroopers near Port Stanley on East Falkland following the ceasefire order in 1982: That day, as we can see with painful clarity 31 years later, was the high watermark of British military endeavour since 1945
British Paratroopers near Port Stanley on East Falkland following the ceasefire order in 1982: That day, as we can see with painful clarity 31 years later, was the high watermark of British military endeavour since 1945
What we have experienced instead is a succession of wars and military interventions which have sometimes done a little good — as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone — but have more often involved the nation in expense, sacrifice and failure.
Thus, by a roundabout route, I arrive back at the medical facility where David Cameron’s premiership is undergoing emergency surgery after his humiliation in Thursday night’s Commons vote on Syria. 
Our Prime Minister sought to follow Anthony Eden at Suez and Tony Blair in Iraq by launching a fumbled military adventure — which Parliament has summarily aborted.
Argentinian prisoners of war at Port Stanley, Falkland Islands: The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment put to flight a rabble of Argentine conscripts who were playing way out of their league
Argentinian prisoners of war at Port Stanley, Falkland Islands: The Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment put to flight a rabble of Argentine conscripts who were playing way out of their league
Is this a sad day for Britain, revealing a once-great power and its leader laid low by snivelling Little Englanders? 
Or is it instead, as I shall argue, a fine day for democracy and a reality check on this country’s rightful place in the world? Let us start with some history.
Britain emerged from World War II among the victors. But, while the U.S. made a large cash profit, this country was bankrupted by the conflict. In the years that followed, the retreat from Empire required repeated, expensive military commitments in India, Palestine, Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya. 
A large army had to be kept in Europe to confront the Soviet threat. Such emergencies as the United Nations deployment to Korea in 1950 stretched our resources to the limit.
Tony Blair once confided to a colleague in the 1990s that the lesson of the Falklands was that 'the British like wars'
Tony Blair once confided to a colleague in the 1990s that the lesson of the Falklands was that 'the British like wars'
But even Labour governments were desperate to uphold Britain’s claims to be a great power. 
Gladwyn Jebb, our ambassador at the UN, cabled in the first days after the communist invasion of South Korea that Britain must ‘correct any impression that the American people are fighting a lone battle… It is very desirable therefore to make out the U.S. is only one of a band of brothers who are all participating, so far as their resources allow’. 
The British Army mobilised reservists — including some former wartime prisoners of the Germans and Japanese — to commit two brigades to Korea, where they fought with distinction until the 1953 armistice.
But, while Downing Street pursued the so-called ‘special relationship’ with a fervour sometimes approaching desperation, the Americans were always far more cynical about it. 
The British Army mobilised reservists to commit two brigades to Korea, where they fought with distinction until the 1953 armistice: Navy ratings board HMS Theseus for duty in Korea in 1950
The British Army mobilised reservists to commit two brigades to Korea, where they fought with distinction until the 1953 armistice: Navy ratings board HMS Theseus for duty in Korea in 1950
They welcomed British support in confronting the Soviet menace, but whenever it suited them, they dropped us in it. This happened most conspicuously in November 1956, after the British and French invaded Egypt, to seize back the Suez Canal nationalised by President Nasser.
The Americans decided the adventure was a huge mistake — as indeed it was. They pulled the plug by the simple expedient  of threatening to end their  support for sterling. British prime minister Anthony Eden was obliged to withdraw, and soon afterwards resigned. 
The limits of British power, and our absolute vulnerability to the will and whims of the U.S., were painfully exposed.
The events around the US and British invasion of Egypt to sieze back the Suez Canal, which led to Prime Minister Anthony Eden¿s resignation, exposed our absolute vulnerability to the will and whims of the U.S.
The events around the US and British invasion of Egypt to sieze back the Suez Canal, which led to Prime Minister Anthony Eden¿s resignation, exposed our absolute vulnerability to the will and whims of the U.S.
British self-respect suffered a body blow at Suez. In the years that followed, the Army conducted some substantial operations — for instance against the Indonesians in Borneo — but never did a British government stick out its neck as Eden’s had.
Perhaps the only the sensible and statesmanlike act of Harold Wilson’s 1964-70 premiership was his rejection of repeated U.S. pleas to commit our troops in Vietnam.
We were coming to terms with the fact that Britain was no longer a great imperial power, but instead a medium-sized European nation with a chronically wobbly economy. 
Then came Mrs Thatcher’s Falklands saga, which did much to revive our nation’s morale. In the years that followed, not only did we experience an economic and industrial revival, but we shared in the glory of being on the winning side in the Cold War, as the USSR suffered economic and political collapse. Britain, as the Iron Lady frequently declared, could walk tall again.
She was determined that we should play a full part on the world stage. In the last week of her premiership in 1990, when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, she urged President Bush senior to fight. With great difficulty, a weak British armoured division was mobilised, which joined the U.S. army in recapturing Kuwait in the spring of 1991.
Yet that proved almost the last time a British military operation abroad had a swift and happy ending. During the past 22 years, Thatcher’s successors as prime minister have repeatedly committed troops to attempt good deeds in a wicked world.
These caused shrewd soldiers, if not their political masters, to accept some important truths: defeating the Argentines was much easier than fighting ‘wars among the people’, especially in Muslim societies. Such campaigns had no tidy endings — or victories.
Our Armed Forces are now tiny, especially when measured beside those of the Americans. I remember a former Chief of Staff saying during the 2003 Iraq war: ‘The Americans don’t need our troops or planes to do the fighting — they can achieve anything they like on their own. They value us only to provide political cover.’
The only the sensible and statesmanlike act of Harold Wilson's 1964-70 premiership was his rejection of repeated American pleas to commit our troops in Vietnam
The only the sensible and statesmanlike act of Harold Wilson's 1964-70 premiership was his rejection of repeated American pleas to commit our troops in Vietnam
The soldiers and strategic gurus whom I respect believe that Britain pays a disproportionately high price for its efforts to hang in there alongside the U.S. on the battlefield. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan: the big American books about those campaigns devote just a page or two to the British role.
Second, it is hopeless to expect thank-yous for our support. Dear, kind old President Ronald Reagan attempted to shaft Mrs Thatcher during the Falklands War by forcing a ceasefire to save the Argentines from defeat. 
After the success in the Falkland's, Thatcher was determined that we should play a full part on the world stage
After the success in the Falkland's, Thatcher was determined that we should play a full part on the world stage
A senior Foreign Office official said to me ruefully in 2003: ‘We’ve stuck out our necks a long way to back America in Iraq. 
‘We currently have maybe 20 serious outstanding issues with Washington on things like technology transfer and aircraft landing rights. On none of them does the U.S. give us a break.’
Consider what is happening to BP, a great, British-based enterprise. It was responsible for a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, it has become the principal dish of an American legal cannibal feast, which seems likely to destroy the company.
Contrast the way that Exxon, a big U.S. oil company, was let off incredibly lightly after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska. Essentially, BP is being victimised by American legal vultures without a finger being lifted in Washington to urge mercy. Britain still has important interests and values in common with the U.S., reflected especially in an intelligence-sharing agreement closer than Washington has with any other country.
Our Armed Forces are now tiny, especially when measured beside those of the Americans. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
Our Armed Forces are now tiny, especially when measured beside those of the Americans. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
On many issues in the world, we find ourselves in the same camp. 
But it is nonsense to talk about a ‘special relationship’. America and its rulers think about Britain very little, and when they do so it is only in the context of Europe — as Ukip would do well to recognise. 
Given that this is so, why do successive British prime ministers lead us into grief by trying to make us play a leadership role in the world which nobody else takes seriously? We are still a relatively important, though precarious, economy. But claims that we hold a warrant card to play international policeman are grotesque, and have been repeatedly exposed as such.
In recent years, we have tried to help make Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya democratic, law-abiding societies, at vast cost to British taxpayers. We have got nowhere. We have attempted to make the Afghans behave in a more civilised fashion, for instance by treating their women better, and failed.
BP has become the principal dish of an American legal cannibal feast after the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, which seems likely to destroy the company.
BP has become the principal dish of an American legal cannibal feast after the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, pictured, which seems likely to destroy the company
We have associated ourselves with the U.S. in successive foreign crusades, and gained no reward in prestige, respect or gratitude. 
The historian Michael Burleigh wrote in his recent book Small Wars, Far Away Places, castigating the failure of U.S. interventions: ‘Everything the U.S. did damned it as an imperialist power and, however harsh that verdict may seem, since Vietnam it has stuck.’ Burleigh is not a Leftist, merely a realist. Britain’s subordinate role has secured it only a subordinate share of ingratitude and even hatred in most of the societies where it has joined America to meddle.
I believe the House of Commons this week has belatedly awoken to its responsibilities as a legislature in checking an over-mighty executive. Successive prime ministers have abused their authority to commit Britain to foreign wars, as David Cameron sought to do in Syria.
In contrast to the treatment of BP, Exxon, a big U.S. oil company, was let off incredibly lightly after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska (pictured)
In contrast to the treatment of BP, Exxon, a big U.S. oil company, was let off incredibly lightly after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska (pictured)
Parliament has halted his initiative in its tracks, and displayed exemplary good sense in the interests of us all. There is nothing for Britain in Syria, and nothing for the Syrian people in any attempt by our Armed Forces to blunder in there.
I heard a Cameron supporter say yesterday: ‘But how shall we feel if America, backed by Germany and France, takes military action in Syria, and we are not there?’ 
Pretty good, is my answer to that. As America signalled last night that it is prepared to attack  Syrian targets, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s remark about France as ‘America’s oldest ally’ was only a foretaste of plenty of rougher ruderies to come at Britain from across the Atlantic.
Moment: MPs last night dramatically voted against David Cameron's plea to take military action against Syria
I believe the House of Commons this week has belatedly awoken to its responsibilities as a legislature, in checking an over-mighty executive (Pictured: the moment MPs dramatically voted against the PM)
We should accept them without embarrassment or anger as the price of Parliament’s decision. 
If an intervention is as unsound as many smart people — including the top brass of the U.S. armed forces — believe it to be, then we are as well out of it as we were out of Vietnam.
This episode does inflict damage upon the Anglo-American relationship, not least because it makes our Prime Minister  look foolish after he has urged so much bellicose advice upon President Obama.
But I have argued above that the U.S. does us few favours anyway. Who would suggest that Germany — for instance — suffers as a modern power in the world because the Americans share fewer security secrets with Berlin than with London? 
British people are wisely weary of their own leaders’ pretensions to strut on the international stage.
Successive prime ministers have abused their authority to commit Britain to foreign wars, as David Cameron sought to do in Syria.
Successive prime ministers have abused their authority to commit Britain to foreign wars, as David Cameron sought to do in Syria; It is welcome that the House of Commons this week summarily withdrew that privilege from him
It is not a matter now of becoming Little Englanders, but instead of adopting a realistic view of our national limitations. 
We, and our governments, should focus upon putting our own house in order economically, industrially, socially and politically. We should abandon ludicrous leadership pretensions which only occupants of Downing Street cherish.
I am neither a pacifist nor an isolationist. I readily acknowledge the need, on rare occasions, to use force in support of our national interests, which is why I deplore this Government’s defence cuts. 
But our present and recent prime ministers have been far too eager to play war games in our name.
It is welcome that the House of Commons this week summarily withdrew that privilege from  David Cameron.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407552/Syria-vote-A-disaster-No-high-time-Britain-stopped-Uncle-Sams-poodle.html#ixzz2dWaAPel4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Friday 30 August 2013

Why Desmond Tutu Is So Right and So Wrong

Why Desmond Tutu Is So Right and So Wrong

When a man like Desmond Tutu, who spent his life defending the rights of the disenfranchised, views homosexuality from this perspective, we're not surprised to hear him say that he would not want to worship a homophobic God. Nor is he, in this sense, wrong. For who would want to worship a God who truly "hates fags"? Who would want to worship a God who smiles on those who torture and murder gay youth? What kind of God would mock those who struggle with their sexual identity? Certainly not the God of the Bible, and Archbishop Tutu is absolutely right in disowning such a false go

Some thoughts for Today, True Christian Leadership




1 Timothy 6

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

6 If you are a slave, you should respect and honour your owner. This will keep people from saying bad things about God and about our teaching. 2 If any of you slaves have owners who are followers, you should show them respect. After all, they are also followers of Christ, and he loves them. So you should serve and help them the best you can.

False Teaching and True Wealth

These are the things you must teach and tell the people to do. 3 Anyone who teaches something different disagrees with the correct and godly teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. 4 Those people who disagree are proud of themselves, but they don’t really know a thing. Their minds are sick, and they like to argue over words. They cause jealousy, disagreements, unkind words, evil suspicions, 5 and nasty quarrels. They have wicked minds and have missed out on the truth.

These people think religion is supposed to make you rich. 6 And religion does make your life rich, by making you content with what you have. 7 We didn’t bring anything into this world, and we won’t take anything with us when we leave. 8 So we should be satisfied just to have food and clothes. 9 People who want to be rich fall into all sorts of temptations and traps. They are caught by foolish and harmful desires that drag them down and destroy them. 10 The love of money causes all kinds of trouble. Some people want money so much that they have given up their faith and caused themselves a lot of pain.

Fighting a Good Fight for the Faith

11 Timothy, you belong to God, so keep away from all these evil things. Try your best to please God and to be like him. Be faithful, loving, dependable, and gentle. 12 Fight a good fight for the faith and claim eternal life. God offered it to you when you clearly told about your faith, while so many people listened. 13 Now I ask you to make a promise. Make it in the presence of God, who gives life to all, and in the presence of Jesus Christ, who openly told Pontius Pilate about his faith. 14 Promise to obey completely and fully all that you have been told until our Lord Jesus Christ returns.

15 The glorious God
    is the only Ruler,
    the King of kings
    and Lord of lords.
At the time that God
    has already decided,
he will send Jesus Christ
    back again.
16 Only God lives forever!
And he lives in light
    that no one can come near.
No human has ever seen God
    or ever can see him.
God will be honored,
and his power
    will last forever. Amen.

17 Warn the rich people of this world not to be proud or to trust in wealth that is easily lost. Tell them to have faith in God, who is rich and blesses us with everything we need to enjoy life. 18 Instruct them to do as many good deeds as they can and to help everyone. Remind the rich to be generous and share what they have. 19 This will lay a solid foundation for the future, so that they will know what true life is like.

20 Timothy, guard what God has placed in your care! Don’t pay any attention to that godless and stupid talk that sounds smart but really isn’t. 21 Some people have even lost their faith by believing this talk.

I pray that the Lord will be kind to all of you!

Opposing False Teachers (6:2-5)

The Christian leader must not forget the responsibility to protect the faith. Those of Paul's readers who fell into this category, including Timothy, were to discharge this duty by teaching and urging the true faith (v. 2). The command that sets Timothy in this mode again (see also 3:14; 4:6, 11; 5:7, 21) also reminds them that in this operation the Christian leader is not unarmed. Paul has given specific teaching (these . . . things) for confrontation with the false teachers.
Having repeated the command, Paul issues a kind of "wanted poster." It is the counterpart to the "job description" given in chapter 3. Notably, each begins with the general if anyone (compare 5:4, 16; Tit 1:6). Here, verses 3-6 consist of one long sentence in the Greek, beginning with the "criminal" and the "crime" and going on to give identifying characteristics in a list of vices. By using the list (compare 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:2-4; Tit 3:3) Paul meant to create a strong stereotype or caricature of the false teacher that would communicate primarily two things: an authoritative denunciation and a solemn warning. Readers, after seeing this "poster," would not be likely to form or maintain casual attitudes about the false teachers or their doctrine.

IVP New Testament Commentaries are made available by the generosity of InterVarsity Press.

The words of Christ are the best to prevent ruptures in the church; for none who profess faith in him will dispute the aptness or authority of his words who is their Lord and teacher, and it has never gone well with the church since the words of men have claimed a regard equal to his words, and in some cases a much greater.

 2. Whoever teaches otherwise, and does not consent to these wholesome words, he is proud, knowing nothing; for pride and ignorance commonly go together.

 3. Paul sets a brand only on those who consent not to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness; they are proud, knowing nothing: other words more wholesome he knew not.

4. We learn the sad effects of doting about questions and strifes of words; of such doting about questions comes envy, strife, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings; when men leave the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, they will never agree in other words, either of their own or other men’s invention, but will perpetually wrangle and quarrel about them; and this will produce envy, when they see the words of others preferred to those they have adopted for their own; and this will be attended with jealousies and suspicions of one another, called here evil surmisings; then they will proceed to perverse disputings.

 5. Such persons as are given to perverse disputings appear to be men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth; especially such as act in this manner for the sake of gain, which is all their godliness, supposing gain to be godliness, contrary to the apostle’s judgment, who reckoned godliness great gain.

 6. Good ministers and Christians will withdraw themselves from such. “Come out from among them, my people, and be ye separate,” says the Lord: from such withdraw thyself.

Matthew Henry's Commentary

Why do people still fly the Confederate flag?



Confederate flag
A row has erupted in Virginia over a proposal to fly a huge Confederate flag outside the state capital, Richmond. One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War, the flag can still be seen flying from homes and cars in the South. Why?
For millions of young Britons growing up in the early 1980s, one particular image of the Confederate flag was beamed into living rooms across the UK every Saturday evening.
The flag emblazoned the roof of the General Lee, becoming a blur of white stars on a blue cross when at breathtaking speed, the Dodge Charger took the two heroes, Bo and Luke Duke, out of the clutches of the hapless police in The Dukes of Hazzard.
Thousands of miles from the fictional county of Hazzard in Georgia, it seemed like an innocent motif but in the US, the flag taken into battle by the Confederate states in the Civil War is politically charged - not a week goes by without its appearance sparking upset.
Dukes of Hazzard
Recently, there's been a row in Texas over car licence plates bearing the flag, a man arrested after shouting abuse while waving it at a country music concert, and the ongoing fallout from South Carolina flying the flag in front of the State House.
Now plans by a heritage group, the Virginia Flaggers, to erect a large Confederate flag on a major road outside Richmond has drawn considerable fire from critics who say it's a symbol of hate.

Start Quote

If you're going to be offended by a flag, why not the Union Jack?”
Barry IsenhourVirginia Flaggers
That's not true, says Barry Isenhour, a member of the group, who says it's really about honouring the Confederate soldiers who gave their lives. For him, the war was not primarily about slavery but standing up to being over-taxed, and he says many southerners abhorred slavery.
"They fought for the family and fought for the state. We are tired of people saying they did something wrong. They were freedom-loving Americans who stood up to the tyranny of the North. They seceded from the US government not from the American idea."
He displays a flag on his car but lives in a street where the flying of any flags is not permitted. They are a dwindling sight these days, he thinks, because people are less inclined to fly them in the face of hostility - monuments honouring southern Civil War generals are, he says, regularly vandalised.
Denouncing the "hateful" groups like the Ku Klux Klan who he says have dishonoured the flag, he adds that people should be just as offended by the Union Jack, the Dutch flag or the Stars and Stripes, because they all flew for nations practising slavery.
Annie Chambers Caddell explains why she hangs the flag from her porch
Others strongly disagree with his analysis. African Americans, especially older ones, are traumatised when they see the flag, says Salim Khalfani, who has lived in Richmond for nearly 40 years and thinks it risks making the city look like a "hick" backwater that is still fighting the Civil War.
"If it's really about heritage then keep the flag on your private property or in museums but don't mess it up for municipalities and states who are trying to bring tourists here because this will have the opposite effect."

frican-American author Clenora Hudson-Weens saw people waving the flags on the street in Memphis a few weeks ago. "I just said to them 'This is 2013' and they just smiled. I personally believe in some traditions but this is a tradition that is so oppressive to blacks. I wouldn't be proud waving a flag that has an ambience of racism and negativity."

Many Americans will be familiar with the arguments on either side but perhaps not with the convoluted origins of the flag itself.
The flag seen today on houses, bumper stickers and T-shirts - sometimes accompanied by the words "If this shirt offends you, you need a history lesson" - is not, and never was, the official national flag of the Confederacy.
The design by William Porcher Miles, who chaired the flag committee, was rejected as the national flag in 1861, overlooked in favour of the Stars and Bars.
It was instead adopted as a square battle flag by the Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee, the greatest military force of the Confederacy. It fast became such a potent symbol of Confederate nationalism that in 1863 it was incorporated into the next design of the national flag, which replaced the hated Stars and Bars.
The saltire - or diagonal cross - on the battle flag is believed to have been inspired by its heraldic connections, not any Scottish ones.

How a flag was bornThree Confederate flags

  • The first national flag of the Confederacy was the Stars and Bars (left) in 1861, but it caused confusion on the battlefield and rancour off it
  • "Everybody wants a new Confederate flag," wrote George Bagby, Southern Literary Messenger editor. "The present one is universally hated. It resembles the Yankee flag and that is enough to make it unutterably detestable."
  • Its replacement was nicknamed the Stainless Banner (centre) and it incorporated General Lee's battle flag, designed by William Porcher Mills
  • A third national flag, nicknamed the Bloodstained Banner (right) was adopted in 1865 but was not widely manufactured
  • After the war, the battle flag, not any of the national ones, lived on
So has the flag historically been more about slavery or heritage?
You could say that both sides are correct if you look at how the flag has evolved, says David Goldfield, author of Still Fighting The Civil War.
When the Confederacy debated the adoption of a new flag in Richmond in 1862, it was clear this was to be a symbol of white supremacy and a slavery-dominated society, he says.
After the war, the flag was primarily used for commemorative purposes at graves, memorial services and soldier reunions, but from the perspective of African Americans, the history and heritage that they see is hate, suppression and white supremacy, says Goldfield, and the historical record supports that.
"On the other hand, there are white southerners who trace their ancestors back to the Civil War and want to fly the flag for their great-grandfather who fought under it and died under it." And for them, it genuinely has nothing to do with racism. However, he thinks they should respect the fact it does cause offence and not fly it in public.
Nascar raceThe flag is commonly seen at Nascar races
The flag wasn't a major symbol until the Civil Rights movement began to take shape in the 1950s, says Bill Ferris, founding director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi, It was a battle flag relegated to history but the Ku Klux Klan and others who resisted desegregation turned to the flag as a symbol.
He likens it to the swastika but others see it very differently. Indeed, the flag has been compared to a Rorschach blot because it means several things at all at once, depending on who is looking at it.
"All symbols are liable to multiple interpretations but this is unique in its power and ability to inflame passions on all sides, and the volume of interpretations and preconceptions about it make it unique in American history," says John Coski, author of The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. He has even seen it displayed in Europe, where it has become shorthand for "rebel".
Since attempts by campaigners in the 1990s to remove the flags from public buildings, he thinks the issue has died down in the US. In 2001, Georgia changed the 45-year-old design of its state flag after pressure to remove the Confederate symbol.
Although the number of incidents is diminishing it's not going away, he says, because it just takes a couple of well-publicised episodes to get it back on people's radars, and feelings inflamed.
"We can all write the script ourselves - they will say this and they will say this." It's a predictable pattern, he adds.
"I think it will die out," says Ferris, who thinks flag-wavers feel like an embattled minority. "The south is changing, with the growth of Hispanics and Asian and a growing black population, and you can be sure that the Confederate flag has no place in their world."
The South, he says, needs a new emblem to reflect its changing character.
You can follow the Magazine on Twitter and on Facebook

2 Dating Truths for God’s Man





A recent study reports one-third of new marriages start with online dating; obviously making the computer the latest, greatest cupid’s arrow. I can see where online dating websites can play a role in connecting two people, but they don’t replace two of God’s timely dating truths:
1. Where to Begin?
You can do relationships your way or God’s way.So many adults take a vacation from God in the dating and sex arena only to wind up paying a steep emotional and relational price that will harm them for the rest of their lives. You may relate to thinking either you know better than God (pride) or that you will “miss out” (fear) if you honour him. Both impatience and arrogance breed horrible dating decisions.
God knows more. God loves you. God has your best interest in mind. That’s the mentality I wish more people approached dating with, and looked to God for how to do it right. God’s way in dating involves trusting in Him, His plan for your life, and trusting Him for your future partner—before you even start dating.
In Psalm 37:4-5, the Bible says “Take delight in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord, trust in Him and He will do this”. How does this play out in the dating arena? Invest your time and energy in knowing God, delighting in the process, and committing to honor Him with your actions. If you trust and obey His plan, He will match you with the ideal mate when you are ready.
A healthy relationship requires two healthy individuals who are both seeking God and His plan for their lives. A relationship with God is the ultimate common trait men (and women) should seek in a future mate. Without that common bond, there are too many weaknesses -- or targets—for the enemy to shoot at.
2. The Dating Litmus Test
The quality of your dating relationship will directly reflect the quality of your character. Men are prone to believing a culture that throws relationships to the wind, preferring to ‘score’ with chicks, get in-and-out of the sack without any harm, and racking up babes while protecting their hearts and avoiding commitment. But God’s ultimate dating litmus test is this: The quality of your relationships directly reflects the quality of your character.
God’s plan is a character-development plan, working on your true nature, and developing you for a future of adversity and abundance. If your character needs work, then your relationships are going to fail and be filled with hurt and pain. But as God prepares your character, you will be prepared for a relationship that honors God, your mate, your family and future.
Consider what the Bible says in Matthew 12:35, “A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart, and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart.”
If you are committed to dating God’s way, then you will be patient with the process of knowing God and allow for character development so that when God puts your mate in your path, you are ready and able to carry out God’s plan.
Please add a comment on the bottom of this article to let us know what your biggest challenges with dating are.
If you would like to be ready for God’s mate for you, find Godly men to hang out with, focus on Jesus and your character development. Additional resources available HERE.
Kenny Luck, founder of Every Man Ministries and Men’s Pastor at Saddleback Church, provides biblically-oriented teaching and leadership for men and pastors seeking relevant, timely material that battle cultural, worldly concepts threatening men and God’s men. Follow Kenny and Every Man Ministries now on FacebookTwitter (@everyMM) and YouTube.


Words for the Wise, Discipleship


2 Timothy 1

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Timothy Charged to Guard His Trust

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.3 I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience the way my forefathers did, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy. 5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. 6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.

8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. 12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. 13 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

15 You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains; 17 but when he was in Rome, he eagerly searched for me and found me— 18 the Lord grant to him to find mercy from the Lord on that day—and you know very well what services he rendered at Ephesus.

2 Timothy 1

V 1–2: BELOVED Although writing with apostolic authority, Paul salutes Timothy with his usual, heartfelt greeting, calling him ‘a beloved son’. Paul takes a fatherly interest in Timothy, notwithstanding his existing spiritual maturity and leadership ability.

 V 3–7: BACKGROUND He prays daily for Timothy, greatly desiring to see him. He is joyful in recalling the godly example of Timothy’s mother and grandmother that brought him to faith in Christ. Paul’s spiritual fatherhood role encourages him through discipleship to maturing leadership. He urges him to serve by stirring up God’s gift in service with a fearless, powerful and loving mind from God.

V 8–12: BEATEN! Jesus Christ has beaten death, and through the gospel has brought ‘life and immortality to light’. Paul is neither ashamed of the gospel nor of his Saviour, who will keep him through life and eternity, despite his own imprisonment in Rome. He urges Timothy not to be ashamed of him either, but to share in his sufferings.

V 13–14: BASIS Timothy must hold the pattern of sound teaching given him by Paul through faith and love in Christ. Timothy’s gift of ministry and service, and his commission to serve Christ, is to be kept through the Holy Spirit who dwells in them both.

V 15: BEREFT Paul relates to Timothy that all those in Asia turned away from him, including Phygellus and Hermogenes. Sometimes it is a lonely task to be a Christian leader and gospel preacher.

 V 16–18: BOLSTERED But Paul has been bolstered by the refreshment gained from the household of Onesiphorus, who ‘zealously’ sought Paul out in Rome to minister to him as he had done at Ephesus. Paul commends to God his unashamed, supportive and faithful co-worker in the gospel.

The Bible Panorama. Copyright © 2005 Day One Publications.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary

III. He exhorts him to hold fast the form of sound words, 2 Tim. 1:13. 1. “Have a form of sound words” (so it may be read), “a short form, a catechism, an abstract of the first principles of religion, according to the scriptures, a scheme of sound words, a brief summary of the Christian faith, in a proper method, drawn out by thyself from the holy scriptures for thy own use;” or, rather, by the form of sound words I understand the holy scriptures themselves. 2. “Having it, hold it fast, remember it, retain it, adhere to it. Adhere to it in opposition to all heresies and false doctrine, which corrupt the Christian faith. Hold that fast which thou hast heard of me.” Paul was divinely inspired. It is good to adhere to those forms of sound words which we have in the scriptures; for these, we are sure, were divinely inspired. That is sound speech, which cannot be condemned, Titus 2:8. But how must it be held fast? In faith and love; that is, we must assent to it as a faithful saying, and bid it welcome as worthy of all acceptation. Hold it fast in a good heart, this is the ark of the covenant, in which the tables both of law and gospel are most safely and profitably deposited,

 Ps. 119:11. Faith and love must go together; it is not enough to believe the sound words, and to give an assent to them, but we must love them, believe their truth and love their goodness, and we must propagate the form of sound words in love; speaking the truth in love, Eph. 4:15. Faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; it must be Christian faith and love, faith and love fastening upon Jesus Christ, in and by whom God speaks to us and we to him. Timothy, as a minister, must hold fast the form of sound words, for the benefit of others. Of healing words, so it may read; there is healing virtue in the word of God; he sent his word, and healed them. To the same purport is that (2 Tim. 1:14),

 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us. That good thing was the form of sound words, the Christian doctrine, which was committed to Timothy in his baptism and education as he was a Christian, and in his ordination as he was a minister. Observe, (1.) The Christian doctrine is a trust committed to us. It is committed to Christians in general, but to ministers in particular. It is a good thing, of unspeakable value in itself, and which will be of unspeakable advantage to us; it is a good thing indeed, it is an inestimable jewel, for it discovers to us the unsearchable riches of Christ, Eph. 3:8. It is committed to us to be preserved pure and entire, and to be transmitted to those who shall come after us, and we must keep it, and not contribute any thing to the corrupting of its purity, the weakening of its power, or the diminishing of its perfection: Keep it by the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in us. Observe,

 Even those who are ever so well taught cannot keep what they have learned, any more than they could at first learn it, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. We must not think to keep it by our own strength, but keep it by the Holy Ghost. (2.) The Holy Ghost dwells in all good ministers and Christians; they are his temples, and he enables them to keep the gospel pure and uncorrupt; and yet they must use their best endeavours to keep this good thing, for the assistance and indwelling of the Holy Ghost do not exclude men’s endeavours, but they very well consist together.

Yours by His Grace

Blair Humphreys

Southport, Merseyside

Today's post

Jesus Christ, The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever

I had the privilege to be raised in a Christian Home and had the input of my parents and grandparents into my life, they were ...