Sunday 5 January 2014

Welby casts out 'sin' from christenings: Centuries-old rite rewritten in 'language of EastEnders' for modern congregation


  • Parents and godparents no longer have to ‘repent sins’ and ‘reject devil’
  • New wording is designed to be easier to understand – but critics stunned
  • Redesigned to attract people who only attend for weddings and christenings
Parents and godparents no longer have to ‘repent sins’ and ‘reject the devil’ during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony.
The new wording is designed to be easier to understand – but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new ‘dumbed-down’ version ‘strikes at the heart’ of what baptism means. 
In the original version, the vicar asks: ‘Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?’ 
Parents and godparents no longer have to 'repent sins' and 'reject the devil' during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony in a move backed by Justin Welby
Parents and godparents no longer have to 'repent sins' and 'reject the devil' during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony in a move backed by Justin Welby
Prompting the reply: ‘I reject them.’ They then ask: ‘Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?’, with the answer: ‘I repent of them.’ 
But under the divisive reforms, backed by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and already being practised in 1,000 parishes, parents and godparents are asked to ‘reject evil, and all its many forms, and all its empty promises’ – with no mention of the devil or sin. 
The new text, to be tested in a trial lasting until Easter, also drops the word ‘submit’ in the phrase ‘Do you submit to Christ as Lord?’ because it is thought to have become ‘problematical’, especially among women who object to the idea of submission. 
 
The rewritten version – which came after reformers said they wanted to use the language of EastEnders rather than Shakespeare in services – is designed as an alternative to the wording in the Common Worship prayer book, rather than a replacement. 
But insiders predict this draft will become the norm for the Church’s 150,000 christenings each year if, as expected, it is approved by the General Synod. It may discuss the issue as early as this summer.
But the idea has angered many senior members of the Church, who feel it breaks vital links with baptisms as described in the Bible. 
Writing in The Mail on Sunday, former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to ‘easily swallowed soundbites’.  
Former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to 'easily swallowed soundbites'
Former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to 'easily swallowed soundbites'
And one senior member of the General Synod, who did not wish to be named, said: ‘This is more like a benediction from the Good Fairy than any church service. 
‘The trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don’t believe in hell, sin or repentance. They think you can just hold hands and smile and we will all go to Heaven. That is certainly not what Jesus thought.
‘There is so much left out that one wonders why do it at all? If you exclude original sin and repentance there is very little substance left. 
‘It doesn’t just dumb the service down – it eviscerates it. It destroys the significance of the rite by watering down the concept of sin and repentance. 
'A humanist could say “I renounce evil.” If you take out repentance you immediately strike at the heart of the whole idea of needing to be baptised. 
‘John the Baptist only baptised those who came and were repentant. This rite is saying to people you don’t need to be particularly repentant. Just come and join the club.’ 
Alison Ruoff, a lay member of the General Synod from London, said the new version was ‘weak and woolly’ and lacked conviction.
She said: ‘By removing all mention of the devil and rebellion against God, we are left to our own vague understanding of what evil might or might not mean.’
The draft was drawn up by the Church’s Liturgy Commission to redress fears the current version was too off-putting for lay people who only go to church for baptisms, weddings or funerals.
The Bishop of Wakefield Stephen Platten, who chairs the commission, said repentance was implied in phrases urging people to ‘turn away from evil’, and defended the omission of the devil by saying it was ‘theologically problematic’.
He said: ‘We are certainly not dumbing down. Far from it. What we are concerned about is to make sure that people who are coming to baptism understand what is being said.’
The Old The New.jpg
Other changes do away with the cleric saying: ‘Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified,’ to which the congregation replies: ‘Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.’
The new version – which refers to sin once in an optional prayer –  replaces this with: ‘Do not be ashamed of Christ. You are his for ever,’ to which the congregation answers; ‘Stand bravely with him. 
Oppose the power of evil, and remain his faithful disciple to the end of your life.’ 
The baptism ceremony had not been altered for more than 400 years until it was changed in 1980. This is the third revision in 30 years.

Why CofE must abandon this dumbed-down christening, writes Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali

Since at least the 1970s there has been a fashion  in the Church of England to minimise depth and mystery in its worship because of the alleged need to make its services ‘accessible’. 
The new alternative service for baptism, which has been sent for trial, continues this trend. Instead of explaining what baptism means and what the various parts of the service signify, its solution is to do away with key elements of the service altogether!
From ancient times, the structure of the service has included the renunciation of sin, the world and the devil and the turning to Christ as Lord and Saviour. 
The new wording is designed to be easier to understand - but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new 'dumbed-down' version 'strikes at the heart' of what baptism means
The new wording is designed to be easier to understand - but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new 'dumbed-down' version 'strikes at the heart' of what baptism means
If a child is being baptised, it is on the basis of the faith of the parents and the godparents, as well as the faith of the community. 
There is, finally, a commission both to hear and to proclaim the Gospel.
In all of these aspects, the new service falls short of what has usually been required. At a time of high interest in supernatural evil, the traditional renunciation of the devil and all his works has been replaced with an anodyne rejection of evil in its ‘many forms’.
The very first baptisms of the Church took place after St Peter’s call at Pentecost to ‘repent and be baptised .  .  . for the forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 2:38). 
The Church has always regarded repentance as necessary for beginning the Christian life and, for children, a cleansing, if not from actual sin, then certainly from the sinfulness of the whole race since the original sin. 
Because of its anxiety to make everyone feel welcome and its desire not to offend anyone, the new service, almost entirely, does away with sin and the need to repent from its personal and social manifestations and consequences.

  'If a child is being baptised, it is on the basis of the faith of the parents and the godparents, as well as the faith of the community' 

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali
The whole thrust of the service  of deliverance from sin, protection from the devil and regeneration by water and the Holy Spirit, based on the teaching of Jesus himself, has been set aside and replaced by a ‘welcome’ which seems to have no basis in the promises of God, the faith of the parents and godparents or of the Church as a whole.
Indeed, there seems to be ambivalence about the Church itself with such circumlocutions as ‘God’s family’ being used. We are not told anything about the Christ in whom we are to put our trust.
There is no acknowledgement of him as Lord and Saviour. In general, there is a reluctance to declare that the Bible sees the world as having gone wrong and needing to be put right. 
This is done by the coming of Christ. Baptism is nothing less than taking part in this story of salvation, no part of which can be sold short.
Rather than the constant ‘dumbing down’ of Christian teaching, whether for baptism, marriage or death, we should be spending time preparing people  for these great rites of passage. 
When it comes to the service itself, the need is not to eliminate crucial areas of teaching but to explain them.
It is best to call a halt to this perhaps well-meant effort before  it further reduces the fullness of the Church’s faith to easily swallowed soundbites.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533874/Welby-casts-sin-christenings-Centuries-old-rite-rewritten-language-EastEnders-modern-congregation.html#ixzz2pVTCv77A
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Friday 3 January 2014

Break Out of Mediocrity

Break Out of Mediocrity

Shirley Arnold

Scottish independence would be economic disaster, finance experts warn just as the SNP say the economy is key battleground , Daily Mail


  • Businesses and academics warn country would be plunged into turmoil
  • Scotland would join the list of impoverished European countries
  • Another says there would be 'utter panic' if voters back independence 

Finance experts, academics and business leaders have raised fears that independence would destroy the economy, hit investment and force companies to migrate to England.
In an unprecedented survey that will prove devastating for the SNP, analysts believe a Yes vote in the referendum could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs and plunge the country into turmoil.
One finance insider suggested Scotland would be added to the list of impoverished European countries left on their knees. Another said there would be 'utter panic' among finance firms and several warned of a 'disaster' for Scotland.
Setback: The vision of independence set out by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon risks the Scottish economy and would see businesses flee to England, experts warn
Setback: The vision of independence set out by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon risks the Scottish economy and would see businesses flee to England, experts warn
Alex Salmond's separatist vision was dismissed as 'economically incoherent'; there were warnings that 'skilled labour' would leave; and creating a new border would cut gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 3 per cent. 
The findings are particularly humiliating for Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who yesterday predicted the economy would be the key battleground in the referendum campaign.
The Financial Times asked a number of high-profile economists and eminent university professors to examine the impact of a Nationalist victory in September. 
 
In a daunting verdict, 27 respondents said it would hurt the Scottish economy and the rest of the UK.
Only four people who took part in the survey said a Yes vote could have a positive impact.
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling, who is leading the pro-Union Better Together campaign, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'.
But a spokesman for the Yes Scotland campaign insisted separation would 'encourage growth and increase employment'.
Referendum: Voters in Scotland will have their saying on leaving the UK this autumn
Referendum: Voters in Scotland will have their saying on leaving the UK this autumn

FARMERS WANT TO STAY IN UK

Farmers in Scotland are set to reject independence, a survey suggests
Farmers are overwhelmingly set to reject independence, according to a survey. 
Scots Lib Dem MEP George Lyon received 2,000 replies to a study he conducted, with 72 per cent of respondents supporting the Union.
Three-quarters of farmers expressed concern about the impact separation could have on EU agricultural subsidies.
Four-fifths said uncertainty over currency would harm their businesses, while 72 per cent feared separation would make it difficult to sell produce in the rest of the UK.
Mr Lyon said: 'Everyone wants to see a thriving Scottish rural economy, but if you look at the real positives we get from the UK market, from our place in Europe and our trade links overseas, our farmers can achieve more as part of the UK family.
'Scotland's place in the EU is not only vital for farmers, but also for jobs and growth.' But Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has claimed farmers would have been handed an extra £1billion in European subsidies if Scotland were separate.
Philip Rush of Japanese finance giant Nomura launched a stinging attack on the SNP vision. 'Higher taxes on income would push many wealthy individuals and some companies they work for south of the Border, harming Scotland's economy,' he said. 'A fate similar to the secular stagnation in productivity seen in parts of Europe's socialist south may await.' 
Ruth Porter of the Policy Exchange think-tank was similarly dismissive, saying: 'The raft of economically incoherent policies being proposed by Alex Salmond would be disastrous for Scotland.' Gavyn Davies of Fulcrum Asset Management described a Yes vote as an 'unmitigated disaster for Scotland' as did Stephen King, chief economist at HSBC bank.
One of the main results of an SNP victory in the referendum would be the loss of companies - and jobs - to England, several experts said.
Keith Wade, chief economist of asset management firm Schroders, commented: 'When combined with the considerable uncertainty over whether Scotland can remain in the EU, Scottish business would start to head south.' 
David Owen, chief European financial economist with investment firm Jeffries, said: 'Scotland is likely to see an ongoing loss of business as it migrates south of the Border.' 
Andrew Hilton of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation warned: 'If there were a Yes vote there would be utter panic - with the Scottish fund managers heading for the Border in droves.' 
Neville Hill of Credit Suisse bank said: 'The flow of direct and portfolio investment, as well as some bank deposits, south of the Border would provide Scotland with a nasty negative monetary shock.' 
Many of those taking part in the survey said uncertainty would devastate the economy.
James Knightley of banking giant ING said: 'I think the uncertainty will be damaging for everyone ... it is going to make a lot of foreign companies think twice about investing in the UK.' 
Melanie Baker of Morgan Stanley warned of 'increased uncertainty for businesses and markets'.
Brian Hilliard of French banker Société Générale said: 'It would create major uncertainty about the viability of the country as an economic unit. Growth would be hurt.' 
Ray Barrell of Brunel University in London warned that independence 'is the introduction of a new border. That is likely to reduce Scottish GDP by 3 per cent, and English GDP by 1 per cent'.
Alistair Darling, leading the Better Together campaign against independence, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'
Alistair Darling, leading the Better Together campaign against independence, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'
An independent Scotland's reliance on oil was also highlighted, with Philip Shaw of financier Investec predicting 'overall it will be on a slow growth path'.
But despite the strong warnings Miss Sturgeon said yesterday: ‘I firmly believe who wins the economic argument will win the referendum.
‘Scotland can more than afford to be independent, something that even the No campaign agrees with. We need the powers over the economy to get faster and more sustainable growth into the economy for the long term.’
A spokesman for Yes Scotland added: ‘The greatest uncertainty for business as well as the country as a whole stems from a ‘No’ vote. With ‘Yes’, we can tailor policies to suit our own needs and priorities, thereby encouraging growth and increasing employment.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533222/Scottish-independence-economic-disaster-finance-experts-warn-just-SNP-say-economy-key-battleground.html#ixzz2pMyug9zO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Views, Visions and Values.: The Church, God's Agent of Change and Transforma...

Views, Visions and Values.: The Church, God's Agent of Change and Transforma...: We, the Church are the visible representation of God ’ s Kingdom Rule and Reign here on Earth, we are his messengers of hope, lov...

Words for The Wise, Living to Please God, 1 Thessalonians 4 NIV




 1 Thessalonians 4


New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

Living to please God

4 As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honourable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b] The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

9 Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. 10 And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more, 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: you should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, 12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

Believers who have died

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Footnotes:

1 Thessalonians 4:4 Or learn to live with your own wife; or learn to acquire a wife
1 Thessalonians 4:6 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family.

The Bible Panorama

1 Thessalonians 4

V 1–2: INCREASE AND INSTRUCTION Their spiritual lives should increase continually and abundantly. They should remember Christ’s commandments received through Paul and his Christian colleagues.

 V 3–8: SANCTIFICATION AND SEX God’s will is to have a holy people in contrast to the unregenerate Gentiles. This means that sexual immorality has no place whatsoever in the life of any believer. Adultery and lustful passion is out. To reject this clean and holy teaching is to reject God and His Holy Spirit.

V 9–12: LOVE AND LIVING Heavenly love towards each other must predominate. As it increases, it will produce a quiet, industrious, ordered life. This will ensure that they have a good testimony to those outside and that their needs are met by their daily work.

 V 13–18: COMFORT AND COMING Some suggested to the Thessalonians that Christians who had died had missed the blessing of Christ’s second coming. Paul teaches them that, when Christ comes, those who have died physically will be raised with a resurrection body first and be reunited with Christ in the air. Christ will bring their redeemed souls with Him, so there will also be another reunion—that of the body and soul of the believer. Then those who are alive physically will join that blessed reunion with their returned Lord of glory. This is, of course, a great comfort. The Christian who has died and the Christian who is alive both have their future gloriously secured in Jesus Christ. Those who died trusting Christ only fell ‘asleep’ in death, and awoke immediately in His eternal presence. Now they will be given a resurrection body also when Christ brings them back with Him.


The Bible Panorama. Copyright © 2005 Day One Publications.

Why Romania and Bulgaria want us to take their Roma

Why Romania and Bulgaria want us to take their Roma

The Roma suffer discrimination and disadvantage in Romania and Bulgaria

Benefits Britain here we come! Fears as migrant flood begins

Benefits Britain here we come! Fears as migrant flood begins

 At least 5 000 are expected in the first week alone

NHS must continue to be free for British taxpayers

NHS must continue to be free for British taxpayers

Some GPs want to see patients charged 10 for a visit to A E

Michael Gove blasts 'Blackadder myths' about the First World War spread by television sit-coms and left-wing academics


  • Education Secretary says war is represented as a 'misbegotten shambles'
  • But he claims that it was in fact a 'just war' to combat German aggression

'Just war': Michael Gove says left-wing myths about the First World War peddled by Blackadder belittle Britain and clear Germany of blame
'Just war': Michael Gove says left-wing myths about the First World War peddled by Blackadder belittle Britain and clear Germany of blame
Left-wing myths about the First World War peddled by Blackadder belittle Britain and clear Germany of blame, Michael Gove says today.
The Education Secretary criticises historians and TV programmes that denigrate patriotism and courage by depicting the war as a ‘misbegotten shambles’.
As Britain prepares to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the war, Mr Gove claims only undergraduate cynics would say the soldiers were foolish to fight.
In an article for the Daily Mail, Mr Gove says he has little time for the view of the Department for Culture and the Foreign Office that the commemorations should not lay fault at Germany’s door.
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a ‘just war’ to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
‘The First World War may have been a uniquely horrific war, but it was also plainly a just war,’ he says. ‘The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified.’
Britain has pledged £50million in public money to mark the event, with school trips to battlefields and ceremonies planned over four years. The French government has also embraced the centenary, planning 1,500 events across the country. But there are few plans for events in Germany itself.
Mr Gove, who has rewritten the school history curriculum to give pupils a better grasp of the broad sweep of British history, reserves his greatest scorn for those who have sought to depict the soldiers as lions led by donkeys.
 
He says: ‘The war was, of course, an unspeakable tragedy, which robbed this nation of our bravest and best.
‘But it’s important that we don’t succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict in the last 70 or so years.
‘The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder as a misbegotten shambles – a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite.’
Vanessa Redgrave playing Sylvia Pankhurst, in the film Oh! What A Lovely War: Mr Gove singles out the film as propagating what he calls the myth of the First World War as a 'misbegotten shambles'
Vanessa Redgrave playing Sylvia Pankhurst, in the film Oh! What A Lovely War: Mr Gove singles out the film as propagating what he calls the myth of the First World War as a 'misbegotten shambles'
Mr Gove turns his fire on ‘Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths by attacking Britain’s role in the conflict’.
He singles out Richard Evans, regius professor of history at Cambridge University, who has said those who enlisted in 1914 were wrong to think they were fighting to defend freedom. 
Dramatisation: Paul McGann, as Percy Topliss, in the 1980s television series The Monocled Mutineer, another of the TV programmes Mr Gove targets
Dramatisation: Paul McGann, as Percy Topliss, in the 1980s television series The Monocled Mutineer, another of the TV programmes Mr Gove targets
Mr Gove writes: ‘Richard Evans may hold a professorship, but these arguments, like the interpretations of Oh! What a Lovely War and Blackadder, are more reflective of the attitude of an undergraduate cynic playing to the gallery in a Cambridge Footlights revue rather than a sober academic contributing to a proper historical debate.’
The Education Secretary says it is time to listen to historians such as Margaret Macmillan who has ‘demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order’.
He also cites the work of Professor Gary Sheffield, who has reassessed the damaged reputation of British commander Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.
Blackadder Goes Forth cast Rowan Atkinson in the title role as a captain in the trenches of Flanders during 1917.
It focused largely on his cowardly attempts to avoid certain death through going ‘over the top’ to engage the enemy.
Under the misguided leadership of a general played by Stephen Fry, and with little help from the hapless Private Baldrick (Tony Robinson) plus a twittish ex-public schoolboy played by Hugh Laurie, it chronicles his increasingly gutless efforts to dodge the action or escape the trenches.
The series was written by Four Weddings and Bridget Jones creator Richard Curtis in partnership with Left-wing comic Ben Elton.
It is still shown in schools to help children learn about the war.

Why does the Left insist on belittling true British heroes?

By MICHAEL GOVE, Education Secretary
The past has never had a better future. Because history is enjoying a renaissance in Britain. After years in which the study of history was declining in our schools, the numbers of young people showing an appetite for learning about the past, and a curiosity about our nation’s story, is growing once more. 
As a Government, we’ve done everything we can to support this restoration. We’ve changed how schools are judged, and our new measure of academic success for schools and pupils, the English  baccalaureate, rewards those who study history at GCSE. 
And the changes we’ve made to the history curriculum have been welcomed by top academics as a way to give all children a proper rounded understanding of our country’s past and its place in the world.
Captain Coward: Tony Robinson as Private Baldrick, left, and Rowan Atkinson as Blackadder in the titular sit-com, which Education Secretary Michael Gove blames for distorting attitudes about the First World War
Captain Coward: Tony Robinson as Private Baldrick, left, and Rowan Atkinson as Blackadder in the titular sit-com, which Education Secretary Michael Gove blames for distorting attitudes about the First World War
That understanding has never been needed more. Because the challenges  we face today – great power rivalry, migrant populations on the move, rapid social upheaval, growing global  economic interdependence, massive technological change and fragile confidence in political elites – are all  challenges our forebears faced. 
Indeed, these particular forces were especially powerful one hundred years ago – on the eve of the First World War. Which is why it is so important that  we commemorate, and learn from, that conflict in the right way in the next  four years.
The Government wants to give young people from every community the chance to learn about the heroism, and sacrifice, of our great-grandparents, which is why we are organising visits to the battlefields of the Western Front.
The war was, of course, an unspeakable tragedy, which robbed this nation of our bravest and best.  But even as we recall that loss and commemorate the bravery of those who fought, it’s important that we don’t succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict.
Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country  and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.
The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles – a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. Even to this day there are Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths. 
Professor Sir Richard Evans, the Cambridge historian and Guardian writer, has criticised those who fought, arguing, ‘the men who enlisted in 1914 may have thought they were fighting for civilisation, for a better world, a war to end all wars, a war to defend freedom: they were wrong’. 
And he has attacked the very idea of honouring their sacrifice as an exercise in ‘narrow tub-thumping jingoism’. These arguments are more reflective of the attitude of an undergraduate cynic playing to the gallery in a Cambridge Footlights revue rather than a sober academic contributing to a proper historical debate.
The First World War may have been a uniquely horrific war, but it was also plainly a just war. Nigel Biggar, regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford, laid out the ethical case for our involvement in a superb essay in September’s Standpoint magazine. 
The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified.
And the war was also seen by participants as a noble cause. Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order.
Other historians have gone even further in challenging some prevailing myths. 
Generals who were excoriated for their bloody folly have now, after proper study, been re-assessed. 
Douglas Haig, held up as a crude butcher, has been seen in a new light thanks to Professor Gary Sheffield, of Wolverhampton University, who depicts him as a patriotic leader grappling honestly with the new complexities of industrial warfare. 
Even the battle of the Somme, once considered the epitome of military futility, has now been analysed in depth by the military historian William Philpott and recast as a precursor of allied victory. 
Rehabilitated: Even Field Marshal Douglas Haig, popularly known as 'the butcher of the Somme', has been seen in a new light thanks to Professor Gary Sheffield, of Wolverhampton University, writes Gove
Rehabilitated: Even Field Marshal Douglas Haig, popularly known as 'the butcher of the Somme', has been seen in a new light thanks to Professor Gary Sheffield, of Wolverhampton University, writes Gove
There is, of course, no unchallenged consensus. That is why it matters that we encourage an open debate on the war and  its significance. 
But it is important to recognise that many of the new analyses emerging challenge existing Left-wing versions of the past designed to belittle Britain and its leaders. 
Instead, they help us to understand that, for all our mistakes as a nation, Britain’s role in the world has also been marked by nobility and courage. 
Indeed, the more we reflect on every aspect of the war, the more cause there is for us to appreciate what we owe to our forebears and their traditions.
But whatever each of us takes from these acts of remembrance and hours of debate it is always worth remembering that the freedom to draw our own conclusions about this conflict is a direct consequence of the bravery of men and women who fought for, and believed in, Britain’s special tradition of liberty.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532923/Michael-Gove-blasts-Blackadder-myths-First-World-War-spread-television-sit-coms-left-wing-academics.html#ixzz2pJOKtkSy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wednesday 1 January 2014

What’s God’s Purpose for You in 2014?

What’s God’s Purpose for You in 2014?

What are your life goals for the New Year?

My New Year Message

Views, Visions and Values.: Forgetting the Past, and moving forward towards th...: A number of years ago,  while back in my home town of Neath, my pastor at the time, Pastor Ernest Williams quoted this Scripture,  wh...

Make 2014 the year you find love Written by HopefulGirl


For Christmas one year, I got more than I’d bargained for. I was unceremoniously dumped by my fiancé. We’d been together for some years, so it came as a tremendous shock when, just as we were finally planning the whole wedding-and-babies thing, he announced out of the blue that it was all off. It turned out my replacement was already waiting in the wings, although he was too cowardly to tell me himself.
During my year of recovery, I worked my way through a stack of weird and wonderful self-help books. Despite the embarrassment of being caught reading Why Men Marry Some Women And Not Others on the train (why didn’t I just hide it inside a copy of The Shack?), these books taught me a thing or two. Mainly that if we’re serious about meeting Mr (or Ms) Right, we must be pro-active about it. Instead of waiting for God to drop a partner into our laps, we should put ourselves in situations where we meet lots of suitable people, and not linger in relationships that aren’t heading towards marriage (I learned that lesson the hard way).
By the time the following Christmas rolled around, I felt ready for romance again. At 36 and still hoping to have a family, there was no time to waste if I was to meet Mr Right while there were still a few eggs left in the basket. So my new year’s resolution was to find the love of my life. I launched my ‘new year, new love’ campaign by throwing myself enthusiastically into the world of Christian dating.
It turned out my timing couldn’t have been better. Dating websites get their biggest number of new subscribers at the start of the year, so there were plenty of eager cyberdaters to meet and chat to. In fact, last year on Christian Connection, the number of new members doubled between December and January! There were 60% more log-ins, twice as many photos uploaded, and more than double the number of messages sent.
So if you’re looking for love and are considering joining – or rejoining – the Christian dating scene, now is the ideal time to do it. Who knows, your perfect partner may be sitting behind a computer screen right now, hoping their future beloved is about to pop up on a Christian dating website. However, it’s not enough to upload your profile, sit back and wait for the offers to drop into your inbox. As with most things in life, you get out what you put in, and being pro-active is the name of the game.
What if you’re already on the Christian singles scene, but things aren’t happening for you, or you’re becoming demoralised? (Yes, I’ve been there too.) Now is the time to change it up, or step it up – or both. First, refresh your approach. If you’re losing enthusiasm for online dating, why not try speed dating? If you’re seeing the same old faces at singles parties, consider organising a group meet-up in your area. You can find or arrange all these on Christian Connection and its sister sitewww.eventsforchristians.co.uk, and it’s a great way to encounter new people and gain a fresh wave of enthusiasm.
Second, step it up a gear. Set yourself targets to contact at least one new person a week, and arrange one date a month (more would be better). Does that sound rather business-like and unromantic? Maybe so, but the truth is you’re unlikely to hit the jackpot on your first, or even tenth, date. Occasional miraculous encounters aside, for most of us, finding love is a numbers game – or as my brother TopBro told me: ‘HopefulGirl, you might have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your prince.’ Well, I didn’t plan on kissing too many, but I was willing to meet lots of men and go on plenty of dates, if that’s what it took to find my Prince Charming.
So did my ‘new year, new love’ campaign work for me? Well, that would rather give away the ending of my book… let’s just say the mistletoe wasn’t wasted this Christmas!
It’s a new year, friends. Time for a fresh start. Your perfect partner is out there somewhere – your mission for 2014 is to find them.
When looking for love, do you have a strategy, or do you just wing it and see what happens? Are you considering a different approach in 2014?

Prince Charles: ‘Pray for Middle Eastern Christians’

Prince Charles: ‘Pray for Middle Eastern Christians’

prince-charles-pray-for-middle-eastern-christians

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 ...