The Blasphemy of Christian Voice and an Apology to Tom Daley

proxy

The article on The BBC, Usain Bolt and Anti-Christian Bias got the reactions I expected.  The secularists mocked, the pietists moaned and the liberals wrote lengthy responses to an article I did not write.

Some people sent me comments from other Christians on the Olympics including something that upset me so much that it has taken me 24 hours to calm down so that I can obey my rule never to write in a moment of passion!

Turning gay doesn’t seem to have done Tom Daley any favours at

 

This came from a group calling itself Christian Voice.  I say a group but as far as I know it has only one voice and that is Stephen Green, its leader.  What’s wrong with this post?  Why do I find it so upsetting?  Don’t I agree with it?

1. It’s cruel, sneering mockery.

Tom Daley had just done his best in the diving and, for some reason, had an off day. This meant that he did not qualify for the final, for which he was one of the favourites.  To mock his failure and equate it with his sexuality is just simply cruel.

2. It’s illogical nonsense.

What does a person’s sexuality have to do with their performance in the sporting arena?  Is Mr Green suggesting that if Tom Daley had renounced his sexuality he might have won?  Does Mr Green see this as some kind of divine punishment?  What about Mo Farah, a Muslim?  Or other athletes such as Kate Richardson Walsh, the British hockey captain, who along with her partner Helen won gold for Britain?  Why did their religion or sexuality not prevent them from winning?

3.  It’s biblically rubbish.

Stephen Green professes to be a biblical Christian.  He should know that the Gospel is not that,” God rewards the good guys and the bad guys lose.”  He should know that we are all sinners and that someone like the apostle Paul, towards the end of his life, having planted half the churches in the world and written a considerable part of the New Testament, could say I AM the chief of sinners.  Not I was.  Mr Green’s strange type of ‘prosperity’ gospel, where you get rewarded with Olympic medals if you follow the law of God, and lose if you don’t, is a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And for that reason..

4. It’s profoundly un-Christian.

For all of the reasons above, this is not the voice of Christianity in Britain today.  Christian Voice, for example, only has a few hundred followers on Twitter. I suspect that many of them are those who disagree or journalists who are looking for a story.


So why do I get upset about it?  This is the story that The Daily Mail, the BBC, LBC and other media will carry.  This is the story that the enemies of the Gospel will use to discredit the Gospel and cause Christ to be blasphemed.  This will likely resurrect the sad career of a man I had hoped would have come to his senses, repented and actually decided to follow Christ, instead of making a mockery of him.  Also, in the current confused state of the Church in Britain today, there may be some Christians who may be tempted to sympathise, or may even have had similar thoughts.

If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that I uphold without reservation the teaching of Jesus Christ about marriage, sexuality and human identity.   This comment does not come from some ‘liberal’ who wants to adapt the Bible to fit in with the current zeitgeist of those in power.   I am a Bible believing Christian who hates what Stephen Green says precisely because he claims to be the same thing – and, thereby, tars us all with the same brush.

The Antithesis of Christ

‘Ah’, some will say,’I see what you are doing.  In your heart you really agree with him, but you are more politically savvy than Mr Green and so you condemn him in public, whilst really agreeing with him and perhaps even having a wee chuckle in your heart at his audacity’.  Of course its impossible to argue against people who think that they can see into your heart.  All I can say is that, even if nobody else said it, even if the whole of society welcomed his remarks as witty banter expressing truth and courage, I would still abhor them.  They are the antithesis of the Jesus I know, love and serve.

The Reason for Solas

What many people will not know is that Stephen Green is one of the reasons we began  Solas CPC several years ago.  We wanted to encourage Christians in the public arena and to train and help Christians to share their faith.  We were not interested in being a political group or even a lobbying group.  Our aim was simply to equip believers of all different denominations to share and live our faith. We did have one other aim;  to provide a more positive picture of Christianity in the secular media.  We saw that whilst the Catholic press office were pretty good (until they got caught up in some of the scandals within the Church) the rest of the mainstream denominations were not just a mess theologically, they were also a press mess.  But what really depressed us was that the press seemed to turn to Stephen Green, and his so-called ‘Christian Voice,’ whenever they wanted comment from evangelical Christians.

Sadly it was not just the tabloids who liked the lurid sensationalism and the cheap publicity stunts, it was also the broadsheets.  So we made it one of the aims of Solas CPC to try and get a real and sane Christian voice in the secular media. Whether we have succeeded or not is not for me to judge but, at the very least, I thought that the media would no longer turn to the mindless and blasphemous rantings of Mr Green.  I thought we had succeeded in that and I hope that this temporary resurrection of Christian Voice will prove very short-lived.

Hard and Hypocritical?

At this point some Christians might say, ‘Are you not being a bit hard?  After all Stephen Green uses many of the right words, and he is standing up for biblical truth in a corrupt secular society.  Are you not on the same side?’.

No, and a thousand times no!

Stephen Green is a hypocrite whose wife says she left him because of domestic violence. His life, and lifestyle, contradicts his profession. Stephen Green – Wife Beater – The Daily Mail  This doesn’t really surprise me but, even if this were not true, I would still strongly disagree with Mr Green’s pronouncements.

Just because someone uses words, it does not mean that they understand them, or mean them.  It may be that Mr Green is a genuine believer who has backslidden or has just become somewhat disturbed, or it may be that he was never a believer at all.  I don’t know and I am not in the position to judge.  However I do know that his pronouncements, made in the name of Christ, are not Christian.  Those I can judge by the Word of God – always my supreme standard.

 

A Plea to the Media

Could the BBC and others do us a favour?  If you’re going to mention the ‘faith’ of Stephen Green, at least get it right.  It is not the faith of 99.9% of professing Christians in this country.  It is not the faith of the Bible.  It is not the faith of Jesus Christ. It is anti-Christ.   When Mr Green speaks, he speaks with his own voice.  He is not the ‘Christian Voice’ of the UK.  If you want to hear the real Christian voice then why not speak to the Evangelical Alliance, who represent over one million Christians?  Why go for the extreme fringe, unless your agenda really is to try and discredit the Gospel and paint us all with the same brush?

The Beam in my own Eye?

One final thought.  I already know the mocking and abusive posts that will follow from this and the accusation, ‘What about you?  Are you not just the same?  Why do you think that you can speak out on public issues as a Christian spokesperson?  Anyway who gave you the right to judge?”

I take these questions/accusations seriously.

Indeed I take them so seriously and am so aware of my own weaknesses and shortcomings that I often agree with them.  Why should I speak out and risk being bracketed with the Christian eccentric self publicists who seem to attract the media?   To be honest, some times I don’t know.  Is there a danger of seeking publicity; getting a thrill from being in a paper or on the news?  I think that day has long gone!   Sometimes I want to go away, live in an isolated community and just wait for the Lord!  But that is not what he calls us to.   We are to be a light on a hill. That means not only taking on those who openly despise and hate Christ and his Church, but also those who profess to love him yet cause his name to be mocked, and his glorious gospel to be denigrated, because of their crude, cruel and callous remarks.

Let me add another note here.

I am not a lone wolf, heading up my own interdenominational agency.  I am part of a denominational church rooted in the history and teaching of the church.  At times that can appear to be a great disadvantage but it does have advantages – not least is the fact that I am accountable to my brothers and sisters in the wider church and that, whilst I have considerable freedom within the bounds of Scripture, if I stray from those bounds I would expect to be lovingly rebuked and eventually disciplined if I did not listen.  In that sense, as a minister and former moderator of the Free Church, I do speak to some extent on behalf of thousands of Christians.

I also know that the views expressed here are the views of the vast majority of evangelical bible believing Christians in the UK.  It would be good if the press and others recognised that.  In that sense what you read here is far more a Christian voice than so-called ‘Christian Voice’!

An Apology to Tom Daley

I hope and pray that Mr Green repents.  I hope and pray that the media will not use him to abuse us.  And I also hope and pray that if Tom Daley ever reads this he will accept my apology and shame that such a cruel thing was said in the name of Jesus Christ and that he himself will come to know how un-Christlike it is.  I pray that Tom will know this because he comes to know Christ – whom to know is life indeed!  And Tom, why not ask your fellow divers, David Boudia and Steele Johnson about what faith in Christ is really like?

David Robertson

Solas CPC

Dundee

22nd August 2016

 

PS – Just had a phone call from Stephen Green re the article below. When I asked him what gave him the right to speak on behalf of the Christian church and how many supporters he had, he refused to answer except by saying that he was speaking on behalf of Jesus Christ. When asked about his sneering tweet about Tom Daley he said that it was comparable to Jesus calling Herod a fox! He then played the Matthew 18 ‘you should have called me first’ card. I pointed out that my interest was primarily in the Gospel and the wider church, and that he had tweeted in public and therefore he deserved to be rebuked in public. (he has shown no repentance at all and indeed has continued his attack on Tom Daley on his website). I found his phone call quite intimidating and smary and it did make me angry. I told him that he was doing great damage to the cause of Christ and I asked him to stop spreading his poison in Jesus’s name. Then I hung up. I ain’t playing that game….

 

This is the follow up – What the Green Reaction tells us about the UK Church

 

 

 

 


63 thoughts on “The Blasphemy of Christian Voice and an Apology to Tom Daley

  1. The tweet in saying “turning gay” seems to implicitly accept the notion that sexuality is a ‘lifestyle choice.’ This is another line of argument which is only advanced by a minority of Christians but which LGBT advocates seize on as somehow typical of the religious case. The genesis of a homosexual persons sexuality is, as yet, an unknown process but we can be certain that it is rarely if ever a conscious choice easily made and easily abandoned.

    That being so it behoves representatives of the faith to uphold its teachings sensitive to the lifelong implications they will have for faithful Christians who are homosexual ie lifelong celibacy and singularity. These can be hard crosses to bear and are not made lighter by implying that they are self-inflicted as a result of deliberately chosen perversity when they are nothing of the kind.

    1. The “turning gay” is a term in my opinion that is unhelpful and a hindrance to the Gospel in our context. Yes it’s does imply that being gay is a choice where the jury is out on to what degree it it nature or nurture that determines one’s sexual orientation.What we find ourselves facing in conversations of course is the view being expressed that homosexual practice is a sin vs the “born that way” view that equality dictates that homosexuality should be afforded everything the heterosexuality has.

      It’s a minefield to negotiate and one best done with the utmost sensitivity in my view from both sides.

      I would suggest that the following clip may indicate that it is not only a “minority of Christians” that regard homosexuality as a choice or nurture rather than nature (“born that way”). Given that it is a gay man speaking in the video, the opinions expressed can hardly be considered to by homophobic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ

      I don’t know to what degree sexual orientation is about nature or nurture – to what degree it is “that way” and about choice. Bur when someone who is LGBT shares of their experience, I listen.

      1. “By the time maturity is reached a sexuality has become such an ingrained habitual way of responding to the world”or there is “the “notion” that *anything* is a choice, which used to be called “free will””

        OK so if something is an ingrained habit having “all the force of a natural tendency” then your argument “thoughtfullydetached” is that it takes a rare miracle to change that, i.e. not an act of choice or will. So any habit good or bad takes that in your view.

        So, in the video I posted Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay man says that there are people who were once gay and now living heterosexual lifestyles and are happy whereas before they weren’t happy, that he would quite like to try something that would result in that outcome for him and that we would all like our children to be heterosexual and that being “born that way” is a lie. Of course, there are others that say that being gay a result of being born that way.

        So, given your view about it be a “rare miracle” required to change an “ingrained habit” and “the genesis of a homosexual persons sexuality is, as yet, an unknown process,” do you think Milo Yiannopoulos’ views about “born that way” and the sexuality we would like our children to be are homophobic views to have?

      2. Miracles generally require an act of faith to be made either by the subject of them or someone on their behalf. So your apparent notion that a miracle is something to which we are merely passive spectators is inaccurate. That being so choice of course enters into the matter.

        Homophobic is a word I rarely use, it describes a pathological condition not a political, religious or philosophical viewpoint.

    2. I’d never heard of Tom Daley until Stephen Green tweeted that rather puzzling tweet, and emailed me to boast about the attention it was getting. I assume that Mr Daley, whoever he is, must actually have “turned gay” at some stage of his life. Determinists, both mechanistic and theistic, and libertarians can agree about that change in Mr Daley’s lifestyle, despite disagreeing as to whether humans have free will, or are more like machines (in the view of mecanistic determinists) or puppets whose strings God pulls to fulfil his decretive will (in the case of theistic determinists).

      I am not any kind of determinist myself, so I rather welcome the “notion” that *anything* is a choice, which used to be called “free will”. The downside of my libertarianism is that, saddened by all this internecine Christian venom directed on this page by one writer I like against a daft 140 characters penned by another, I don’t have the consolation of being able to say, “Oh well, never mind, it was bound to happen.” Presumably that is how ThoughtfullyDetached feels about Tom Daley turning gay, assuming he did. Like Wee Free’s disproportionate, enraged, ad hominem rant against Green, Daley’s turning gay when he did was, one way or the other, “bound to happen”, rather than being his choice.

      It is easy to deflect moral superiority adopted by a determinist, by pointing out that one’s being obnoxious isn’t a lifestyle choice after all, because nothing at all is. Even the pot blaming the potter for making him thus was “bound to happen”.

      1. Which part of “The genesis of a homosexual persons sexuality is, as yet, an unknown process” did you not understand? There is no real reason to suppose that a sexuality is a choice in the same way as a preference for Pepsi over Coca Cola but the possibility of agency cannot, I think, be entirely ruled out.

        FWIW it seems probable to me that any choices which are made occur in the pre-conscious areas of a persons mind and, at any event, do so during childhood when that person cannot be held morally culpable for such choices however made. By the time maturity is reached a sexuality has become such an ingrained habitual way of responding to the world that it acquires all the force of a natural tendency and is unlikely to be changed by anything short of a miracle. Miracles do happen but by definition are exceptionally rare events.

    3. It is not held by an insignificant number of Christians
      Please don’t confuse the small number of Christians in this country with the millions world wide who would not agree with you

      And more than one billion Muslims disagree with you
      You may not believe God destroyed Sodom
      I do
      You may not accept why He destroyed Sodom
      I do
      You may believe God believes what was wrong then is ok now
      I don’t
      The issue of nature and nurture is still open to debate
      I give you the right to your opinion and expect the same courtesy

      I do agree we must speak the truth in love but truth is incontrovertible

      1. Sorry – what wouldn’t they agree with? You seem to be writing out of ignorance….not knowing what I believe (the Bible) nor having actually read the article. Truth is incontrovertible – it would be a good idea to make sure you know it before you claim to be speaking it!

    4. Thoughtfullydetached,

      You have the view that I have a “notion that a miracle is something to which we are merely passive spectators.” Obviously you are right that any miracle requires an act of faith and therefore of will, to have “belief” if you like. That’s simple to understand and common sense. I can see where you got the view that you have about me regarding that as us being passive. either I have not communicated well or you have misunderstood.

      I apologise if I have not made the point I was wanting to get across clear, which is this. It follows from what you say that anything that becomes a habit takes a miracle to change. The other view being expressed was that *anything* is a choice.

      In the video Milo Yiannopoulos is quoted as saying he would “choose not to be gay if [he] could and everyone should” he is then asked if he thinks anyone can choose their orientation. He begins his answer with saying that the “gay lobby” started a “big lie” in the 1980’s about being “born that way”. which if it were true, and there was no way to change that, it would make a large number of people “massive bigots.” He then continues to say “in my experience it’s mostly nurture… I’d quite like to have kids and I’m not sure I want to bring up kids in a gay household… I don’t want to be responsible for him or her having the best possible, easiest life… If we could all choose wee would have them be heterosexual if only to have a better happier chance in life… to spare them pain. I do want to do that pray the gay awy therapy just to see if it works… people who say it doesn’t work sat it is bigoted, hateful religious nonsense but there are just as many people… who say yeah it’s transformed my life – I’ve got a wife, I’ve got kids and I’m happy now and I wasn’t before.”

      “Homophobic is a word I rarely use.” OK, I hear you. Allow me, if you will, to rephrase the question. Would this opinion about people who hold to a particular position being “massive bigots” be a view that you subscribe to?

      1. It might be easier for you to understand where I’m coming from if I make it clear that I hold to the position articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and by the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. We simply do not know why some people have a predominantly same sex orientation but we do know that Scripture and Tradition always and everywhere views homosexual acts as gravely sinful. Therefore the Church cannot accept the acts but does have a pastoral obligation towards those who face more or less powerful temptations to commit these acts.

        It is no sin to be tempted. Anything which can be done to lessen or remove the temptation, provided it is voluntary and ethical, should be done. Sometimes though victory cannot be achieved in this live and we must have great solidarity and sympathy with people who live lives marked by both faithfulness to orthodox Christian teaching and a homosexual orientation.

      2. Thoughtfullydetached,

        Yes it does help in my understanding of where you are coming from that you hold to the view that any homosexual practice is “gravely sinful”.
        I would ask the reason why the “victory” you talk of sometimes doesn’t happen in this life in the light of our discussion about choice vs an “ingrained habit” that cannot be change without the miraculous.

        I’m not convinced that something that has become a habit requires the miraculous to change it in all cases but choice surely must come into it in all cases. We all have or have had habits, partly due to the choice of others who have had influences on our lives, partly due to circumstances, and partly through our own choices. Of course these may be good, healthy habits or on the other hand could be unhealthy and even addictions.

        I’m not convinced about the miraculous being rare that you claim or that it is a “line of argument which is only advanced by a minority of Christians” that sexual orientation is about choice. I’ve heard the gay human rights activist Peter Tatchell share of friends of his who from what he says have some fluidity regarding their sexuality. The clip I posted of the gay Milo Yiannopoulos talking of an equal number of people saying that they were gay and now are married with children as those that say thinking that your sexuality can change is bigoted and religious. So theses two people representative of LGBT and expressing those vies cant be considered to be bigoted. It follows therefore that it can’t be bigoted or homophobic to hold the view that sexual orientation can change and with that change it being a matter of choice.

        So while you talk of “LGBT advocates” seizing on it being typically the religious case i.e. holding a view about choice is bigotry, I would suggest that what we see with Tatchell and Yiannopoulos, both representing LGBT is a more open view towards what is possible and taking that into consideration there appears does it not that there are a range of views about sexuality within the LGBT community.

        Although perhaps we only get to hear the views that tend to sell papers and get internet hits – often the most extreme opinions and frequently accompanied with accusations about “the other” from both sides.

        I would suggest that there is hope for miraculous and the victory in this and in any other area of life where challenges and difficulties exist. I hold to God’s love being the most powerful force in the universe and I ask what can’t be achieved with this?

        “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”
        “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?.. we are more than conquerors through him who loved us”.

  2. Well…….what to say. I think you have over-reacted. I think the comment that being gay didn’t do Tom Daly any favours, was clearly “witty banter” and what is to be expected perhaps in these days of tweets, hashtags etc.

    It is certainly not Mr Green’s “strange type of prosperity gospel – where you get rewarded with Olympic medals if you follow the law of God and lose if you don’t”.

    To say that it is “cruel, sneering mockery” is to miss the point. Surely, what would be “cruel” would be to ignore the bible’s clear teaching on homosexuality and the consequences thereof.

    You often mention what the majority of Christians believe. I have been involved in a situation for about a year now, whereby I have been trying to stop the role play of the marriage ceremony of 5 year old children at their local church. They participate in a “marriage ceremony” whereby they exchange sacred vows in front of an ordained priest, in a church setting in front of their classmates. To-date, I have written to the Priest, the Church Wardens, The Archdeacon, The Archbishop, MP’s, local councillors, the Headmaster of the School, the trustee of the school, the education secretary etc etc.

    I know how hard it is to stand against your peers and argue/stand up for what you truly believe and the unchristian responses you invariably receive from people who purport to be practicising Christianity. As far as I am concerned, whilst Stephen’s article was controversial and perhaps his attempt at lightheartedness was ill judged, your response, particularly as a Reverend, is a disgrace and if anyone should be proffering an apology, it should be you towards Mr Green .

    As I said to Stephen, I dislike controversy between Christians, as it gives the secular society more ammunition to attack Christianity, but if we can’t get our own house in order……..

    Kind regards.

    1. You think that mocking someones failure in a sport and blaming it on their sexuality is ‘witty banter’. Have you seen Mr Green’s website where he continues this ‘witty banter’? Did you listen to his conversation on LBC where he did not claim it was witty banter? You seem to assume that I either don’t know or don’t accept the bible’s clear teaching on homosexuality. You are wrong.

      For someone who dislikes ‘controversy between Christians’ you seem quite happy to add to it…but you should realise that what gives the secular society more ammunition to attack Christianity is the ‘witty banter’ of self publicising charlatans and abusive ‘leaders’ like Stephen Green…

      1. I’m glad you know the bible’s clear teaching on homosexuality and how am I wrong? (that is a rhetorical question really). In your rage, you seem to be lashing out here.

        I would ask for an apology for saying that I seem “quite happy” to add to controversy amongst Christians – I am merely joining in a discussion and stating my point of view. It is unlikely I will reply again, in the face of abuse – I have more important things to do.

      2. You seem to be a very judgemental person. I have no rage about this. And I’m not lashing out. You didn’t join in the discussion and you did state your point of view, and I questioned it. Given your original post the fact that you can call my questioning abuse indicates a cognitive dissonance which is a little worrying!

  3. Hi David. I just wondered if before you published this latest addition to your blog did you exercise

    Matthew 18.15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

    As commanded by scripture. I don’t know if you did or not but if you didn’t now might be a good time to do so. Love in Him,

    Sidney McFly.

      1. Actually you’ll see if you read the verse I haven’t misused it. It’s actually a command from the Holy scriptures. It’s not an option. Perhaps you could show me in what context I misused it? If you didn’t exercise Matthew 18.15 don’t you think rather than defuse the situation you have instead fanned the flames of a campfire therefore turning it into an inferno? If you didn’t exercise Matthew 18.15, I can only but wonder if this would have died down a lot sooner instead of becoming the sensation it has become. The more people who keep it burning longer the more it damages the faith. Non Christians love this stuff. Anyway again!love in Him

        Sidney.

      2. As I already explained it is a misuse. This is written to deal with the situation where we can something against a brother in the church who offends us. If Mr Green were in my church, that is exactly what I would do, before taking it to the elders….and (if it were just about me) never making it public. But Matthew 18:15 does not apply in this case because Mr Green is not subject to any church, and because his offence was in public. You are also mistaken in thinking that I have either the desire or the ability through this blog to fan the flames into a campfire. I would not have mentioned it at all (there are ‘Christian’ crackpots everywhere!) if it were not for the fact that Mr Green had put this in the public domain and it was already widely being cited by the secular press – including broadcast media. My intention was simply to state on behalf of bible believing Christians throughout the UK – not in our name.

        I sometimes despair at the narrow understanding and worldview that so many Christians seem to have of what is going on in the wider world. Publicly disagreeing with Stephen Green does not ‘damage the faith’. Keeping silent and letting him speak on behalf of the Gospel – does.

  4. Stephen Green criticises Tom Daley (though it isn’t wrong to assert that sin can have consequences);
    David Robertson criticises Stephen Green ….

    …. and we say we preach a gospel of love and reconciliation.

    Lord, have mercy.

  5. Why do you consider the Evangelical Alliance, who represent over one million Christians, the real Christian voice?
    And what do you consider a real Christian. A real Christian should be some one who follows the teachings of Christ, believes him and believes in him, to be the only begotten son of God, the sent one from God who is the Way to God. According to my knowledge the Evangelical Alliance do not belief the words of God when He says that Jesus is God’s only begotten son, nor do they belief Jesus his words when this man says God is greater than him, because according to them Jesus is God.

    1. The EA do hold to orthodox Christian teaching. They do believe that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son and they do believe that Jesus is God…because that is what Jesus said. You can feel free to believe and teach your own heresy (a very ancient one) but not on here!

      1. I have a sneaking suspicion that no matter what I say you are just going to ignore it all. Rather than broaden it out to all the verses lets just stick with John 10. Jesus says I and the Father are one. The Pharisees understood that, as most people would, as a claim to be God. He did not refute them – indeed he reinforced it. He claimed to be the I AM (the Hebrew name for God). Do you deny any of that?

      2. Jesus has it about the unity of mind like he also requires us to be one with him like he is one with his Father. In your way of thinking this would make ourselves than to become Christ and also to become God or to be God.

      3. No where in that verse or the surrounding verses does it say or imply that Jesus had in terms of unity of mind. You are making that up. Basically you have pre-determined what you are going to be believe and you just reinterpret the plain meaning of Scripture to fit your grid. Are you really claiming that you are one with the Father? Why did the Pharisees say he was claiming to be God? And why did he not deny that?

      4. Jesus did not claim to forgive sins, he made it clear it was out of authorisation by his heavenly Father. In case a person would claim he could forgive sins, like the pastors in several denominations and those in Catholicism, according to your way of thinking are then God.

    2. Actually Marcus Jesus said to John in several verses in the book of revelation that He is God. In revelation 1.8 EG Jesus reveals that He is the Almighty. As far as I’m aware there is only one Almighty and that is God. Jesus if He lied (and He didn’t) is guilty of blasphemy making Himself above God. There are many other references in other chapters of revelation where Jesus refers to Himself as the Almighty. He is God incarnate the third person of the Godhead as per John 1.1

      1. I do not know what for Bile translation you are using but in the many bibles I have no where is said that in Revelation 1.8 where is written about the Almighty God speaking not His son, Jesus Christ and where God says he is the beginning and the end:

        “I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8 ASV)

        “”I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING,” saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8 KJ21)

        “”I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”” (Revelation 1:8 NIV)

      2. Marcus,

        That’s why you need not to take verses out of context! because if you go across to verse 17 of the same chapter you will find that Jesus makes exactly the same claim!

  6. John Allman,

    I don’t think David needs a McKenzie friend, even if they are allowed in Scotland. And in this instance certainly not one like you.

    Unfortunately, this post by David has raised the profile of Green and his views. Think I’d only heard of him once before – think that a few years ago he was on BBC TV Question Time.

    You seem to be implying that David is a “morally superior determinist” or am I wrong? Who is? Or are you just seeking to be clever, with a diguised (and not so disguised) ad hominem attack on David.

    You certainly don’t address the substantive points made by David, although you look to consider points made by those who have commented by bringing in free will (though wrongly reducing it to choice.)

    Sam Allberry’s “Is God anti -gay”? is a must read for Green and many other Christians.

    And my take on Green’s tweet: it feeds into a widely held view (inside and outde the church) that Christianity is only, exclusively, or primarily about morals and/or lifestyle choices. It Is not. It is the better than Good News of Jesus Christ. And this is what David has sought to address, with a righteous (not self -righteous) indignation.

    1. Geoff – thanks but just one comment. My blog has not ‘raised the profile of Green and his views’. Before this blog went out his tweet had gone viral…it was being used by secular media and anti-Christian groups. Mr Green was interviewed on LBC….my blog was designed to counter his post – from the reformed evangelical perspective and just to simply say – ‘not in my name’…in that sense I hope it has worked…

  7. The blog title begins the ‘blasphemy’ of Christian Voice, but to my view fails to establish what the blasphemy is in the tweet. Whether or not one has issues with the sentiment underlying the tweet, I suggest it is incumbent upon a Christian to substantiate that specific accusation. I take for my definition of Blasphemy (OED) “Profane speaking of God”. ‘Cursing God’ is another helpful definition. The tweet does not mention God, and I submit cannot hence reasonably be called blasphemous. I hope therefore the author will either address and substantiate this or withdraw the accusation. Maybe more than 24 hours cool-off, “bottle to throttle” time is required in such circumstances.

    1. If you read the article carefully and don’t just go by the tweet and the title you can see clearly what the blasphemy is. Stephen Green claims to speak on behalf of Christ. As ‘Christian Vocie’ he mocks and abuses a young man, who, like the rest of us, is a sinner. The name of God is blasphemed amongst the Gentiles because of Mr Green. I don’t withdraw the accusation. I repeat it. Mr Green is a self-serving charlatan whose intemperate and abusive remarks cause a great deal of harm to the Gospel. It is blasphemous.

      1. So you effectively agree that the tweet itself is not blasphemous, just your interpretation of who Mr Green is and what he stands for. You fail however in your blog or reply to substantiate that Christian Voice or Mr Green is blasphemous either, you just restate it, without citing evidence of his blasphemy per se. Being wrong, misguided or sinful is not necessarily blasphemy. This is I believe, Reverend, unbecoming of a Church Elder who seeks to advance the Gospel, as you aver. If you cannot justify an attack, I suggest that you don’t make it.

      2. No- I don’t effectively agree that. And please don’t play with words. The blasphemy is that Mr Green claims to speak on behalf of Jesus and then tweets a remark which Christ would never say. Please stop trying to justify this behaviour. Pointing out such blasphemies and the harm they do, is precisely what a church elder who seeks to advance the Gospel should do!

      3. Reverend, you have still failed to establish blasphemy. I am not trying to justify the tweet as you imply, merely to point out that it was not blasphemous, as you erroneously, and arguably libelously, allege. None of us is without sin. Those who seek to represent Christ may make statements that fall short of Christ, who was without sin, but that does not necessarily make that statement blasphemous, cursing God. What Christ would probably said to Daley, like the to the woman caught in adultery, “Go forth and sin no more”. It is in the case of rebellious, unrepentant sin that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the word, should act to use it in due rebuke and warning. It is not loving to fail to do so.

      4. Oh dear,

        So we justify someone send by saying that no one is without sin? Really?! Christ has many things to say to religious hypocrites who spoke in his name and caused his name to be blasphemed. And it wasn’t just go and sin no more. He called them whitewashed tombs. He called them fathers of the devil. Stephen Green says that he speaks in the name of Christ. He is a hypocrite. If you believe in the inerrancy of the word and in the glory of Jesus Christ and false teachers like Stephen Green should be dealt with most seriously. And by the way the tweet was blasphemous, Because in it someone who claims to be the voice of Christ was uttering something that Christ would never say.

      5. I am not seeking to justify the tweet. There is undoubted a mote in my eye, but with all due respect and agape, the wee flea, I believe there is a speck in yours that is currently blinding your thinking, revealing the lack of logic or truth in your defence of your unwarranted attack of blasphemy. Mr Green was not cursing God. QED. Calm down, and have a wee dram. Peace by with you.

      6. Again – so judgemental! I am quite calm. I don’t appreciate games or faux pas humility. I also don’t believe there is any respect or agape. Please don’t use words to play games. You seem to think that the mote in your eye enables you to see whereas the speck in mine is blinding my thinking. The logic is clear and the truth is there. Mr Green claims to speak on behalf of Christ. He utters things that Christ would never utter. You are aware that blasphemy is not just using the Lord’s Name as a swear word? When someone professes to speak on behalf of Christ and then utters things that Christ would not – that is blasphemy. The allegation still stands.

      7. You reject any genuine concern for your own welfare from a fellow Christian at your own Peril. You are shooting yourself in the foot, and have lost the argument.

      8. I may be missing something but where is the genuine concern and what is it for?! All I hear from you is a rather silly argument and condemnation based upon your view that Stephen Green did not blaspheme. I think he did…you don’t. So why not just leave it? But you seem to think that you are making some kind of serious point and seem very confident about your own righteousness. If you were genuinely concerned for my own welfare you could of course have contacted me privately, but instead you choose to engage in public debate. I have been doing this for years and you will forgive me for saying that I find your posts somewhat sanctimonious and indeed pointless. So unless you actually have something constructive to say (including constructive criticism) then I think we’re done. Please don’t be worried about my welfare – I’m fine….Perhaps you should see what you can do with Mr Green?

  8. Well written – the gay comment was un helpful – though. Nevertheless, the Royal College of Psysciatrists, concluded a while back – that the LGTB condition is post natal – we all have choices with sex, our sexual urges are not commands but signals – and as a married man with 3 children – when it comes to others, mine are all at red – but David is right – I don’t know another Christian who would subscribe to Stephen’s theology and spirit in which he wrote. As I have found out in several decades – you can be biblically right and lose the argument.
    .

  9. Thanks David,

    Didn’t know that.

    It’s one “joys” of not “horizon scanning” through being media ignorant, though aware of its powerful influence on opinion forming or confirming, especially when there is widespread ignorance of what Christianity is or isn’t and when accusations of “fundamentalist” abound. I don’t mind people calling me a fundamentalist Christian when they know what the fundamentals are, starting with the Triune God. I’ve had discussions with JW’s who see themselves as christian and can quote their scripture (New World Translation), and would subsribe to Green’s views. I have little doubt that Green will be widely seen as a christian fundamentalist, whose expressed comment would have much in common with the views of some fundamental Islamists.

    I’m so grateful that God doesn’t give me what I deserve, but has given me Himself in union with Christ Jesus, God the Son, in Him and He in us, through God the Holy Spirit that we may become one. (John17)

  10. My comment of “well said” was actually directed at pastordelboy’s entry (I don’t believe that that was a mistaken entry on my part). My lengthier entry, earlier in the day, doesn’t seem to have been included for some reason.

  11. I just checked Stephen Green’s website. He is certainly outspoken. He did raise a thought in my mind. Could God indeed devastate this country through some judgement for turning its back in Him? I only ever hear christians talk about revival being the outcome and all will be well. Is that just happy thinking?

    1. I think it’s wishful thinking. Of course there may be a judgement. Romans one tells us what that judgement is! Maybe people like Stephen Green are part of the judgement?!

    2. Billy Graham once quipped “if God doesn’t judge America He will have to apologise to sodom and gomorrah”. Not saying He is right (Billy Graham)…. Just saying.

  12. David Robertson- I have been richly blessed by your writing and your appearances on In the Market.
    Wow. Being new to Christian blogs, I can see where one could go absolutely mad in an endless loop of comments and replies, not really getting anywhere.
    Prayers and blessings to you!

  13. Pingback: Quantum 76

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s