Thursday, November 17, 2005

Apologies to Rob Bradshaw!

I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .

I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.

In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.

I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].

As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?

This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!

By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.

As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?

If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.

All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!

if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk


























Tuesday, November 15, 2005

SWIFTYPETE

My name is Peter Swift and I
want to make it perfectly
clear to any other inter-
lopers on the internet that
the name "swiftypete" is
my blog persona and
mine exclusively. I hereby
assert my "intellectual
property right" over the
name Swiftypete.
Some-one rabitting
about a film "American
Pie" is nothing to do with
me! Honest!

Thursday, November 10, 2005

An Irish Joke!

An Irishman goes to a building site looking
for work. The foreman interviews him and
asks:

"What's the difference between a joist and
a girder?"

The Irishman replies:

"Joyce wrote 'Ulysses' and Goethe wrote
'Faust'!"