"Whoever changes his religion, kill him"

BBC Radio Four broadcast a programme recently called, Could I stop being a Muslim?, as well as publishing a Magazine article in their news section.

If you didn't catch it, you absolutely have to Listen Again. White British Christians may feel that persecution is something that happens "over there", whether "there" be under an Islamic government or an atheistic state, in Saudi Arabia or China. But in fact, "there" could be as close as London, or Bradford. While it can be easy to acknowledge this in theory, this programme presents to us testimony from two converts, one Turkish and one British, who had to endure dreadful family opposition when they left Islam for Christ. It's worth listening to just for the testimony of 'Sophia', whose mother was screaming foul language at her baptism and yet who said simply, "The disciples had worse."

The programme also investigates the source of the belief in Islam that apostates should be killed, as well as asking about different sides of the intra-Islamic discussion about the appropriateness of the death penalty for those who leave Islam. There are interesting reports from a Sufi community which uses a church for their meetings, as well as an interview with a Shi'a jurist.

So long, and thanks for all the laughs

Humphrey Lyttelton, jazz legend and host of BBC Radio Four's I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue, has died aged 86. …and so, ladies & gentlemen, as the goldfish of time swims round the bowl of fate, before being flushed round the U-bend of eternity… it's time to say, Goodbye, Humph.

You can see his vide-o-bituary here.

Retailers in tobacco price probe

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has alleged tobacco firms and supermarkets have been engaged in unlawful practices linked to retail prices for tobacco. (BBC)

Hellooo, Mr Left Hand! While one branch of Whitehall is busy artificially raising the price of tobacco, another is trying to stamp out the practice.

Anyway, trying to be serious: given the OFT recently lost a libel case brought by Morrison's, I assume they'll be extra-careful on this one.

Covenant of works?

I've been reading Michael Horton's God of Promise, in which he covers the biblical doctrine of covenant, and does it very well. He makes the link, which had been present when I read McComiskey's Covenants of Promise although not remarked upon as such, between the two kinds of covenant (suzerainty and royal grant) and the distinction within Scripture between law and gospel. He also explains very well how the language of Scripture is not the language of systematics; in particular, that the Hebrew and Greek sematics do not map exactly into each other.

He also deals with the doctrine of a covenant of works, defending what he describes as the classical Reformed view, which is that Adam was given a condition of obedience, by the keeping of which he would have merited life eternal. Now, I've never really been satisfied with the way the debate's panned out on this one, mostly because I can see arguments on both sides. That there was a covenant in Eden is undeniable. That Adam broke it is clear. That it enjoined obedience of Adam, and held forth a reward for that obedience, is obvious. But the questions run deeper than that, and always have done.

Was Adam created in this covenant, or was this covenant given afterwards? If it came later, was it agreed with Adam, or presented to him? Is it really the classical position that Adam was created able in se to keep the covenant? And, perhaps less obviously but nonetheless importantly, is the biblical definition of grace really "demerited favour" as opposed to "unmerited favour"?

As you can see, there are several points of discussion here, and they all link.

The classical side observe, and convincingly, that Christ's obedience fulfilled the covenant of works while his death exhausted its curse; then our forgiveness and eternal life are gifts of grace to us, but won by works of his (what a nice line for a hymn!). This, I think, is the strongest argument they have: if Machen could say of the active imputation of Christ's obedience, "No hope without it!" then we perhaps need to say of the covenant of works, "No life without it!"

But the others have points in favour, too. The classical side comes over as saying that Adam would have deserved everything he got, either way, so that he wouldn't have needed to have thanked God for neither covenant, obedience nor reward. But the truth, surely, must be that the covenant was a gift of condescension (so Adam owed thanks for that), the obedience was not only created in Adam by God, but sustained by him as well (so he owed thanks for that) and the reward was so far out of proportion with the obedience rendered as to make the idea of strict merit alien to the covenant (so he owed thanks for that, too). The most obvious rejoinder is that thanks would not have been owed, but freely given all the same. You can see, this point could run and run.

They also can argue, and I think this is a strong point in itself, that the classical position, denying the possibility of antelapsarian grace by asserting grace as strictly "demerited favour", is in danger of making the fall necessary in order for God to be seen to be gracious (and surely grace, as God's "proper work," should be demonstrated for God to be known as God). But if the fall was necessary, then it ceases to be an irrational, anti-godly intrusion into a good creation, which seems a far greater price than changing the prefix in our definition of grace.

This wasn't meant to go anywhere; it's just a record of my confusion. I can't really see why these three points (one classical, two counter-classical) are really so opposed to each other. Of course, the counter-classical lot are basically the Federal Vision crowd, who are wobbly on the imputed active obedience at the best of times, but it seems that their wobbles come from something other than seeing grace at work in Eden. And as for the other two: Jesus is both God and man, so it seems kind of obvious that for man to achieve works' reward has required the full power of God and thanks should therefore be given, and unless someone's got a biblical argument for grace as "demerited favour", I fail to see what's lost by saying it's "unmerited favour".

Part of the problem is that the only way of answering these questions, like any question of historical signifiance, is to engage in counter-factuals. To be mundane for a second, it's only by thinking about the question, "What if Williamandmary hadn't landed in England?" that we can begin to answer the real question, "How important was the so-called Glorious Revolution?" Similarly, in order to work out whether there was grace in the Edenic covenant, we need to answer questions surrounding what would have happened had Adam and Even not failed: who wants first shot?

Where did he get that from?

Ever wondered where Paul got his ideas from sometimes? Ever wondered, for instance, about his explanation of Israel's wanderings in 1 Cor. 10?

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

No? Bet you have really. I mean, it stacks up, but how on earth would you ever come up with it?

Ed Clowney's sermon (of the ones on Sermon Audio, the most recent) is a wonderful exposition of that story of the water from the rock, which manages both to preach and to teach at the same time: we're presented clearly with Christ and him crucified, and at the same time, Clowney manages to show how the apostle's mind might well have worked in thinking about this story.

And if this works, you shouldn't even need to leave this site to listen to the sermon. So just listen to it, right?

I am a conspiracy theorist

Most people have something which bugs them, where they think the mainstream could be wrong. From the relatively benign—the Moon landings were hoaxes to spook the Soviets—to the more reckless—climate change is a figment of a hyperactive climatologist's imagination—and not forgetting the downright sinister—9/11 was staged by the US government to allow them to bring in fascism by the back door—most people find something about the way the world is explained to be a little fanciful.

Of course, I think all these conspiracy theories are put about by the Jews, Masons and Catholics to divert our attention from the real action.

But apart from that, I have a conspiracy theory of my own. I've mentioned it, I think, before. It's to do with pensions.

You may recall rumblings from Whitehall emanating to the effect that we may eventually be forced to opt out of personal pension provision, rather than opting in. And if you follow such rather dull matters, you'll be aware that the holder of a personal pension account is required, by law, to use that money to purchase an annuity. And if you follow the even duller technicalities of all this sort of stuff, you'll be aware that annuities are funded by the purchase of government debt. You'll also be aware, because this is basic economics, that a large demand for government debt will result in the interest rate charged on government debt decreasing.

If you've managed to make it through that last paragraph without voluntarily impaling yourself on the nearest writing implement, you may be able to string this together with me.

The government wants to make us all have a pension …
which it will force us to use to buy an annuity …
from a private company …
which administers annuities by purchasing government debt …
so HMG have just guaranteed themselves a huge market for government debt …
which keeps interest rates down on that debt …
which will push annuity rates down.

In other words, the government's policy will have the effect of guaranteeing a market for their own debt (which debt, incidentally, is part of the reason for our current economic problems), they are guaranteeing a profitable clientele for a particular sector of industry, and they are guaranteeing that pensioners will lose out as a result. The government and the life companies will profit, while pensioners struggle.

My conspiracy theory? Not much of one, really, given the argument I've just provided and given the murky way politics often proceeds. I suspect that life companies, through Westminster lobbyists, have colluded with the government against the better interests of the British public, and in favour of their own entrenched positions.

Brothers, you are not pastoral

Evidently, I had more material than time. While I could do some posts from work, I simply hadn't the time at home to pick this up for two weeks. Gosh. Still, here's the next bit.

The person who normally preaches is the pastor of the church. Actually, that's definitive: even if the church can't afford to employ someone as the full-time "pastor", the regular preacher (who generally is also the president at the Lord's Table) is the pastor of that church.

And as pastor, he inherits the commission Jesus gave to Peter, Feed my sheep. Just as Jesus is the great Shepherd of the sheep, so each pastor—for his title means as much—is a shepherd in the flock of God. His commission is to feed the sheep. But what is the food on which we are nourished?

Someone says, the word of God. And the answer is, Almost. Certainly, we are not fed apart from the word of God. But it is in that word that we learn the true food. It is, of course, none other than Jesus, who said of himself, "whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me." We feed through the word because we feed on the Word.

And notice that this feeding is continual: not whoever has fed on him, but whoever feeds on him, will live. It is not enough to have fed on Jesus—to have tasted the heavenly gift and the goodness of the word of God—but life is ours as we continually feed on the Word. So, preacher-pastors, feed us on Christ.

Furthermore, preaching someone or something other than Christ is not pastoral in another way. As well as withholding the true food from the flock, the preacher who preaches another Subject causes pastoral damage. This other Subject has not saved from sin and death and the devil; this other Subject cannot be relied upon implicitly; this other Subject will not redeem our lifeless bodies from the grave.

The most pernicious are the "moral lesson" sermons, since they are so easily preached (I've done it, to my shame). Even if they are cast in the form of "do this and God will do that," they cause us to focus on ourselves and our own strength. But suppose that a member of the congregation takes such a message to heart.

If she is of a realistic persuasion, then she will realise that she is incapable of meeting God's standards, and will despair of herself. And thus far, she is right. But by not holding out the One who is all-sufficient, beyond telling is whose worth, the preacher has completely failed to follow the Lord himself, who did not snuff out a smouldering wick.

If, however, he hears the message of morality extolled, and feels himself equal to the task, then what sort of son of perdition is he becoming? To such a one, Jesus must be presented as the proof that his pride is mis-placed, and as the one who died that even his pride might be forgiven.

In all things Jesus must be presented, for the perfection we cannot attain he shows us and gives us; and it is on him that our souls feed and are satisfied.

Today's Daily Confession posting

It's the twenty-third article of the Belgic Confession, and is worth repeating in its entirety.

Article 23: The Justification of Sinners

We believe that our blessedness lies in the forgiveness of our sins because of Jesus Christ, and that in it our righteousness before God is contained, as David and Paul teach us when they declare that man blessed to whom God grants righteousness apart from works.

And the same apostle says that we are justified “freely” or “by grace” through redemption in Jesus Christ. And therefore we cling to this foundation, which is firm forever, giving all glory to God, humbling ourselves, and recognizing ourselves as we are; not claiming a thing for ourselves or our merits and leaning and resting on the sole obedience of Christ crucified, which is ours when we believe in him.

That is enough to cover all our sins and to make us confident, freeing the conscience from the fear, dread, and terror of God’s approach, without doing what our first father, Adam, did, who trembled as he tried to cover himself with fig leaves.

In fact, if we had to appear before God relying—no matter how little—on ourselves or some other creature, then, alas, we would be swallowed up.

Therefore everyone must say with David: “Lord, do not enter into judgment with your servants, for before you no living person shall be justified.”

This we most firmly believe and confess.

Easter banner

Just knocked together an Easter banner for the blog. Being short of ideas and times, I dug up "Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!" in a few European languages and used the usual cliché of sitting them atop each other. Hope it's not too messy.

Shh! It's a secret slump

On Thursday, the Nationwide released their figures on the housing market for the first calendar quarter of this year, and it has an interesting headline:

House price growth slows across all UK regions.

In case the real message escapes you—because it looks like the headline was carefully constructed for precisely that result—what actually happened was a bit stronger than a simple slowing. In fact, if you drill down to the actual figures, you'll see that the seasonally-adjusted house price index fell in every UK region last quarter. Now, it's entirely true that regional figures are subject to a lot of volatility, and that they don't mean terribly much individually. But there's a story here about house prices slipping across the board, and you'd be surprised to think you'd heard it here first, wouldn't you?

Psalm 47, words and music

John mentioned on his blog, some time ago, the rather wonderful set of mp3 files which can be bought from Crown and Covenant called Sing a New Song. It's a choir singing metrical psalms a capella, and it's really quite something. The recordings cover the range of the psalter, from a chilling rendition of Psalm 83 to an exultant performance of Psalm 47:

All peoples, clap your hands for joy;
To God in triumph shout;
For awesome is the Lord Most High,
Great King the earth throughout.
He brings the peoples under us
In mastery complete;
And he it is who nations all
Subdues beneath our feet.

The land of our inheritance
He chooses out for us,
And he to us the glory gives
Of Jacob whom he loves.
God is ascended with a shout,
The Lord with trumpeting.
Sing praises unto God! Sing praise!
Sing praises to our King!

For God is King of all the earth;
Sing praise with skillfulness.
God rules the nations; God sits on
His throne of holiness.
Assemble, men of Abrah'm's God!
Come, people, princes, nigh!
The shields of earth belong to God;
He is exalted high.

(Words and music.)

If the music links moves subsequently, that's the tune "Jesus is God!" which can be found under the hymn of the same name at the CyberHymnal. And why yes, it is a slow day at work.

Oil executives taken to task over soaring pump prices

From the Guardian.

The first paragraph: "American lawmakers told top oil executives on Capitol Hill yesterday the laws of supply and demand were an inadequate excuse for rocketing petrol prices, ballooning profits and for slow progress on investment in renewable fuels."

Tomorrow, they'll be telling Nasa to stop using gravity as an excuse for failing to get more stuff into space.

Evangelical convictions, legal tenor

About the only thing the church I attend has which possesses any sort of confessional status is the Declaration of Principle of the Baptist Union of Great Britain. Obviously, as a paedobaptist, I'm always going to have a problem with at least one of these principles, but nevertheless it should have been possible to write something a little better than this:

The Basis of the Baptist Union is:

1 That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

2 That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.

3 That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world.

The chief problem is that the operating principle is one of law: you can see words like "authority", "laws", "duty" and, as I and others have already noted, the Baptist position on baptism as an ordinance makes it out to be an act of obedience, which is a fundamentally legal notion. The Baptist Union is committed, it is true, to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and say as much in their declaration of principle. But that same declaration of principle betrays a distinctly legal way of expressing that Gospel. It makes being a Christian out to be basically about doing certain things and obeying certain commands, rather than trusting a certain person; and that's not going to be healthy.

Of course, there are other problems, too. In the Seventies, the BUGB had a fight to hold the line on Christ's sinlessness, because their confessional basis was and remains so weak. But frankly, if they wrote a proper confessional basis which was shot through with "law" the way this is, I'd sooner they didn't bother.

They nationalised bad press, too

Both the Torygraph and the Daily Rail reported that Northern Rock, the Government-owned bank, is planning to reduce its mortgage book in order to pay off the debts it owes to the taxpayer, and that in order to do that, its customers will have to re-mortgage at significantly higher rates than previously. Since fully a tenth of the bank's mortgage book was for loans of greater than 100% loan-to-value, this means that, as the Torygraph was reporting, there will be hundreds of thousands of people unable to re-finance their loans because they cannot get an appropriate deposit together.

Northern Rock, of course, is behaving entirely properly: if you can't pay off your loans from cashflow, you have to liquidate assets in order to re-pay them. But what is interesting is that, of course, the Treasury should have seen this one coming. The Rock can only survive if it gets rid of large parts of its loan book—indeed, one of the major concerns about this whole venture from a business perspective is that in order to decrease its loan book sufficiently rapidly, the Rock will have to lose its best loans first—and that will mean some people losing their homes, as re-possessions soar and some people become forced sellers [1]. There will also be redundancies, as the Rock seeks to cut costs and slim down.

This will be dreadful publicity for the Rock, and while a publicly-listed company will be given the benefit of commercial exigency, the same will not be extended to a state-owned bank, no matter how much it is run at arm's length. That bad publicity will only rebound on the government.

[1] And for those in that situation, my sympathy is for those children caught up in a potentially frightening situation which they neither caused nor, probably, understand. The adult borrowers, on the other hand, should know better than to borrow more than one can afford to re-pay.

Immigration 'small benefit' to UK (BBC)

Record levels of immigration have had "little or no impact" on the economic well-being of Britons, an influential House of Lords committee has said.

Link.

As it's April Fool's Day, I'll chalk this up to their Lordships having a bit of a laugh.

Immigrants "competing for low-wage jobs" actually means lower prices in the places where they work. Perhaps immigration doesn't add any GDP per capita, but immigration makes my GDP per capita go further, and that's a Good Thing.

And when will this "immigrants put pressure on services" lunacy be stopped? Sure, they create demand: but in any sensible economy, demand for services will result in new jobs opening. Therefore, immigrants result in more jobs being created. This is, to my mind, the critical point in this debate, made all the more important for being a point not often brought out. Take this morning's Today interview: the immigration minister was told that the number of vacancies in the economy had remained constant despite an influx of 1.5mn immigrants, and he completely failed to point out that this means immigrants aren't taking British jobs, contrary to anti-immigrant rhetoric. So I'm pointing it out now. I suspect that the vacancy profile has probably also shifted somewhat towards the better-paid, higher-skilled end of the market (this is why a points system is counter-productive as a "Brits first!" policy: it will move British workers into lower-skilled jobs).

By direct analogy, the "pressure on housing" argument will only work as long as we don't produce enough housing stock; in other words, as long as we have a restrictive planning regime, delaying the construction of new homes. If we had sensible planning policies, house prices wouldn't have rocketted upwards in the last few years, and they wouldn't be beginning to slide downwards now. The house price bubble is not the creation of immigration, nor, in a sense, is it the creation of the mortgage bubble, although that's clearly more directly at fault. It's really a failure of our systems to allow the housing market to respond rationally to price increases. You can't blame immigrants for a problem of our own making.

The economic arguments in favour of immigration are compelling. When will we hear them made forcefully and convincingly?