Turns out that Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews did have more information than had been released to the public.  That gives me more confidence in his decision to revoke Mohamed Haneef’s visa and not reinstating it after the charges were dropped.  At last, something slightly substantial!

I did suspect there might be more, but couldn’t see why the Government and the ALP would only release such unconvincing evidence and so was leaning heavily to the side that said they had no real reason to hold him other than posing as toughies on terrorism.  One thing that did make me slightly reticent about coming down hard on the Government, though I wasn’t convinced their actions were right, was the glaring absence of abuse from the Opposition and even criticism of Peter Beattie’s comments from Kevin Rudd.

Where to from here?  Apparently there are ongoing investigations.  I feel strangely comforted.  Obviously, those involved in these investigations are not taking the line that terrorists are merely misunderstood and just need a bit of TLC to bring them into line.  Instead, they seem to be of the opinion that these are deadly serious threats and that the people they are dealing with are committed to an agenda completely opposed to Western civilisation.

We will see how this all unfolds.

Unfortunately the majority don’t seem to.

Take for instance the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 in Victoria Australia and the resultant case involving two Pastors who taught a group of Chrisitans about Islam at a “Catch the Fire” sponsored seminar.  Why was that law passed in the first place?  Apparently as a liberal initiative to promote racial and religious tolerance as was further tweaking of the Act last year.

Now a San Diego public school is setting aside time in class for Muslim students to pray each afternoon (HT: Tom Ascol).  This is amazing in a country that legally does not allow prayer in schools.  It is more complicated than that (read the article), and I am not actually against making concessions for religious observance, but how many similar allowances for other religious practices of this kind are there?

Patrick Sookhdeo in his book Islam the Challenge to the Church says:

Where left-wing anti-Christian attitudes, guilt for colonialism, political correctness and post-modern relativism predominate, it is easy for Muslim lobbyists to have considerable influence (p63).

Sookhdeo doesn’t make this claim from right-wing bias, but provides real life examples and explains the incredible differences between the Islamic and Western mindset of which most liberals - and conservatives for that matter - are completely ignorant.  People of different worldviews have always been talking past each other.  In these instances the Western participants are almost completely blind and the consequences far reaching.

So what do I mean by the title of this post?  Am I anti-liberal?  No.  In fact, I don’t believe a biblical Christian can afford to adopt a conservative or liberal label too strictly because biblical teaching overlaps on both sides and yet remains distinct.  However, much of liberal thought has at its base the idea that humans are good and that people just want to get along.  This translates to the idea that cultural and religious differences are of secondary importance which in turn breeds “blind Freddies” who cannot see that religion might actually be fundamental to another, i.e. far more important than liberal concepts of tolerance of ideology (as opposed to just people), across-the-board egalitarianism, indiscriminate compassion for the poor and so on.

Without this understanding, many liberal initiatives blithely pave the way for competing ideologies that do not share their Western convictions.  They are like a man inviting a burglar into his home, assuming that if the burglar is given a chance to get a job and earn a living he will not steal anything from his house.  This may happen in some instances, but not all burglars steal because they have not been able to get a job!

Now, many conservatives are bigoted and intolerant, and while this is not right and should be condemned, it does have the benefit of not making them as vulnerable to handing over a whole culture on a silver platter.  Of course, there are conservatives and liberals of varying degrees, but it is unusual for a person not to share, at least to some degree, the weaknesses of their stated “wing”.  Praise God for those on both sides who have a more perceptive view of world affairs and the people who make up our global community.  Unfortunately they are rarely the ones with all the power.

This week it’s at Brain Cramps for God.  Check it out.

These carnivals actually happen every week, but I haven’t been particularly on top of posting about them.  This week, though, I submitted a post so I guess a little self-interest goes a long way.

You search the Scriptures…it is they that bear witness about me…

(John 5:39) 

It’s amazing what you find in the Creation story when you start to look:

• The first Adam was made flesh (Genesis 2:7) and in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). The second Adam (Jesus) was made flesh (John 1:14) and is the Image of God (Colossians 1:15).

• There was no partner suitable for Adam (Genesis 2:20). There was no partner suitable for Jesus (Romans 3:23).

• God made Adam fall into a deep sleep (Genesis 2:21). God made Jesus fall into a deep sleep (death) (Isaiah 53:10).

• God took a handful of flesh and bone out of Adam’s side to create a bride for him (Genesis 2:21-22). God took blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side to create a bride for him (John 19:34; Eph 5:26; 1 John 1:7).

• God brought Adam’s bride to him (Genesis 2:22). God will bring Jesus’ bride to him (2 Thessalonians 2:1).

• So the pattern was set that a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become one with his bride (Genesis 2:24). Jesus himself followed this pattern: He left his Father (John 6:51) and will become one with his bride (John 17:20-23).

Jesus is just everywhere!

An interesting theory about the fall of Satan that won’t change the way you live. 

Alan Myers suggests that the fall of Satan happened simultaneously with the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden.  That’s All-Fall.  (Awful, get it?)

Now, this is interesting, especially in light of the fact that it is often little peices of the storyline puzzle in the Bible such as this that can cause a doubting person to stumble.  If it helps us understand the history of creation that much better, then great.  But I doubt anyone’s life will be changed if they adopt this theory.

Still, it’s a good theory and I might adopt it.  After I have a good think about it.

Hat tip: The Thinklings.  Good on you lads.

I have a healthy respect for the threat of terrorism and as such I do not get up in arms about the stricter laws that have been put in place in order to combat it.  However, in the case of Dr. Mohamed Haneef, the police had better have something better than a SIM card to justify Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’ actions. 

How is keeping Dr. Haneef in custody going to help?  Even if the guy is guilty of “reckless” support of the failed terrorist plot in Britain - which to me sounds fairly low on the terrorism scale to the point of being unintentional - does that crime really require the government to step in and basically overrule the court’s decision to grant bail?

If the Australian government wants to show it is doing something to combat terrorism, this is a poor way to do it.  Unless there is something bigger going on than we have been told about, any future cases against potential terrorists will be viewed with far less sympathy by me because of the seeming inanity of this first one.

And what a good way to increase tensions within the diverse Australian community!

[Update: There is apparently more information connecting Dr. Haneef with the terror attack such as talking with his second cousin online in a chatroom - about his newborn.  There's got to be more than that!]

Doug Wilson, someone I know very little about, has written an excellent piece comparing modern evangelicalism and early liberalism, making the general point that the former is treading the same path as the latter.  This is something I’ve noticed for quite some time and it has been commented on by a number of other people.

I was brought up in what I now call a third generation liberal Presbyterian church.  The first generation was in my grandparents’ time; the second, my parents; the third, mine.  Talking to my grandparents generation, there was doubt in the veracity of the Bible, fuzzy lines of belief, tolerance and adoption of the surrounding culture even among people who - it seemed to me - had true faith in Christ.

The second generation moved further down the road.  Some among that generation might have genuine faith in Christ but it’s hard to tell; others eventually gave up altogether.  The Bible is only one among many sources for theology and spirituality, and is rarely referred to, and Jesus is rarely mentioned.

The third generation have very little understanding of Christianity and the Bible, and most of them are no longer anywhere near the Church. 

For various reasons, among them the fact that there was no actual power in what I was seeing, I defected and embraced a more conservative Christianity.  But now I see a new first liberal generation among evangelicals and the beginnings of a second and it worries me.

Read Doug Wilson’s article and see what you think.

This amazing article (follow the link) cites early writings that confirm the 2nd Century (and later) Church considered prophecy to be active in their times.  It should also cause today’s proponents of prophecy to pause for thought when reading why the Church rejected Montanist prophecy as unorthodox.

The best site to read this article is here, but I don’t seem to always be able to access it.  Originally could be found in JETS, but they seem to have taken down their website - got to pay now I guess!

I’d be interested in any articles that answer this one.  Haven’t had much chance to search for any.

Over the last few years I have heard this statement a number of times from a number of people:

The most important thing is relationship.

And, yeah.  I agree relationship is important.  I agree that the Trinity is a relationship (but not only a relationship).  I agree that Jesus died to restore us to relationship with him.  Relationship is huge in the Christian life.

But it is not the most important thing.

It could probably be argued that relationship is found everywhere, but I really don’t think people take the term so loosely.  To most people, the word ‘relationship’ means ‘good relationship’ and so what they hear by the above statement is, “The most important thing is to establish and maintain good relationships”.  Again, that is not the most important thing.

So, what is?

I think there are different ways of framing the answer, but Matthew 6:33 teaches us that there are at least a couple of things more important:

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you aswell.