Europe and Britain’s interests: 12 December

David Cameron’s UK veto of the proposed European Treaty to address the ‘financial crisis,’ is a terrible ungodly decision. Not because it isolates theUKfromEurope– geographically, historically, fundamentally, we are semi-detached. Not because it is a refusal to sign up to some sensible rules about governments borrowing money. But because it is proudly based on pursuing our own interests, and the interests of the City ofLondonin particular, without regard for the interests of others. Once again our leaders show how far we are from loving our neighbours as ourselves.

European nations have learnt that the long term interests of one are tied to the interests of others.Germanyhas been able to export so much partly because the Euro is fairly weak. The Euro is weak because other European countries are not so financially healthy asGermany,Greececriminally so. It could easily be argued that it is not inGermany’s interest to prop up much of the rest ofEurope. But German leaders understand that it is inGermany’s interest to continue as part of the fellowship, even if it means paying over the odds for a while. Germans also like to holiday in sunnier places and want to build and continue good relationships with their holiday hosts. German leaders see good sense in looking not to their own interests but to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:4)

Britain, by contrast, is still set in looking to our own interests. David Cameron was proud to state that this was what he set out to do. He also said that he is favouring the interests of the City ofLondonover the rest ofEurope. This is crazy. The French President pointed out rightly that it is the financiers, looking to their own interest and those of their wealthy clients, who put us in this mess. The City ofLondonworks for the benefit of those with capital, not for the interests of British business or British people in general. Why should we refrain from helping our partner nations and holiday hosts and help the wealthy few across the world instead? Once again we are subsidising theLondonfinancial services ‘industry’ at the cost of every other industry.

 Giles Fraser, famous for resigning as Canon of St Paul’s, wrote in the Church Times this week decrying recent levels of executive pay, especially in the City ofLondon:

‘Part of this has to do with the indifference of institutional investors, and in particular those big pension funds that own the company. These are the people who ought to be hopping mad that top bankers are getting paid shed-loads of money, even when they are manifestly doing such a poor job.

Yet these big institutional investors don’t seem to care. This is because they are able to sell their shares with such ease that they have little interest in the long-term health of the companies they own…

Top executives come and go; shareholders come and go; the only people who have a long-term interest in a firm such as Barclays are those lower down the management structure, who work there for long periods of time. This is why we need more inclusive employee-representation in the boardroom, as they have inGermany. Many employees invest their lives in the long-term health of a company. They ought to have a greater stake in the decision making.’

Japanese companies, as well as German companies, have more employee participation as part of their structure. Perhaps the two countries have learnt that disaster comes from aggressively pursuing one’s own interests at the expense of others? British workers respond well to such participation.Toyotarecently announced its decision to make its new hatchback in Derbyshire, creating up to 1500 jobs. David Cameron said this was a ‘massive vote of confidence for British manufacturing.’ A distortion of the truth. This is a vote of confidence in British workers alone. British financiers and managers, in British shareholder companies, mishandled those companies, causing all British-owned car manufacturers to collapse. We need to learn the lesson: create companies in which investors and workers look not only to their own interests, properly loving each other as they love themselves.

 Roger Harper

Protestors and Capitalism: 12 November

St Paul’s Cathedral was right to pull back from evicting the protestors camping close by and to open their doors again. For a time it seemed that the Cathedral was siding firmly with The City, using the pretext of Health and Safety to exaggerate the threat from the protestors. Thank God sense and grace prevailed. As many have said, the protestors have a good point.

The City, particularly the Stock Exchange, the original target, does not work for the best interests of the majority of the people but for the best interests of the rich few. This is not acceptable. Something drastic needs to change.

The detrimental effects of the Stock Exchange are well known. A member of my church manages a medium sized firm making food supplements. A couple of years ago the company was bought by a private investor. The company has benefited hugely from having a single investor who is committed to the future of the company and who plans for the long term. The same goes for the success of JCB, the only major British engineering manufacturing company surviving and thriving today. I was told by a manager there that the chief reason for their success is that JCB are privately owned. They have nothing to do with the Stock Exchange. The Stock Exchange does not work for the best interests of British companies.

The Stock Exchange does work for the best interests of shareholders. The purpose of the Stock Exchange is to enable shareholders to sell and buy shares, thereby increasing their wealth. The ability of shareholders quickly to withdraw from a company becomes a kind of blackmail. Keeping the shareholders contented becomes the chief aim of any company quoted on the Stock Exchange. Shareholders’ contentment is understood as them becoming richer. Shareholders, encouraged by the Stock Exchange, are the first and foremost people to benefit from any profit. The best interests of the company take second place to the best interests of the shareholders. This is plain, obvious, indisputable.

The Stock Exchange, and our shareholding system, is not based on loving your neighbour as you love yourself. Can anyone argue that it is?

The problem is with the foundation of the whole system. Ken Costa, banker, Christian and prominent member of Holy Trinity, Brompton wrote in the Financial Times: ‘Worldwide there is an undirected expression of anger and deep frustration that financial markets have drifted from the ethical foundation on which they are supposed to be based.’ The Stock Market does not have an ethical foundation. It is founded to further the interests of shareholders. At its best the Stock Market operates with ethical behaviour, honesty, integrity etc. But these are not the foundation.

The Church of England Newspaper, in a front page editorial, urged the Church to ‘restore faith in the City.’ Christians can only have faith in the City when the City is built on the rock rather than the sand, the rock of hearing Jesus’ words and doing them, the rock of loving your neighbour as you love yourself. We cannot have faith in a system built on the sand.

Alternatives are available. All German companies have to have a Board of Directors with representatives equally of both investors / shareholders and workers. Decisions are taken with the interests of both investors and workers in mind. This leads to investment in securing jobs for the future, retaining manufacturing inGermany, higher levels of commitment and quality by workers – to successful companies with a prospering workforce as well as prospering investors. The success of German companies as opposed to British companies is obvious, dramatic, huge. The success is due to German companies having a different legal foundation, much closer to love your neighbour as you love yourself.

Christian Equitable Companies are a new British model built fully on investors, workers and innovators loving their neighbour as they love themselves. Some detail is at http://www.abritishcrash.co.uk/about-us/index.htm A Venture Capital CEC will be formed to start up or take over a range of CECs. Once the model has been proved to work, it will be commended widely.

There is no point in talking about alternatives to those working in the Stock Exchange. The St Paul’s Institute this week published its Report into Ethics and the City of London 25 years after the ‘Big Bang’ de-regulation. One finding is the 76% of City workers disagree, mostly strongly, that ‘The City of London needs to listen more to the guidance of the Church.’ See http://www.stpaulsinstitute.org.uk/dialogue/st-pauls-institute/article/2011/nov/07/-value-and-values-perceptions-of-ethics-in

The campaign for alternatives has to be aimed at legislators and at Christian entrepreneurs and investors. If we Christians do not build business on the foundation of love your neighbour as you love yourself, then who else will? And the legislators need more than nice ideas. They need to see good working alternatives to then support and foster through legislation. Anyone willing to join in? Please write to lad1@abritishcrash.co.uk

The protestors want ‘economic justice.’ They have little idea of exactly what this is and how to achieve it. The followers of Jesus know. Economic justice is loving your neighbour as you love yourself. It’s time we did it, at last.

Roger Harper

King and Armies: Debate! 1 November

‘Buzz Lightyear’ has commented on a post from last November. Alleluia! May debate continue:

Greetings Roger. Thank you for posting this item.

Hopefully my comments below might generate some discussion. You make lots of interesting points – too many to address in one reply. Indeed, it would be possible to write a book discussing in detail all of the items that you raised. However, playing devil’s advocate and in favour of the existence of our military I offer the following viewpoint.

It would be great if we lived in a world without war, terrorism, famine, natural disasters, etc. Sadly that isn’t the case. There is an argument for the existence of military power alone whilst hoping that it will never have to be used. After all, the use of military force is a last resort when the diplomatic process has failed and our politicians absolutely have to find a solution to a particular problem.

Let’s take the Falkland Islands for example. Since the war of 1982, the UK has military forces stationed on the islands for deterrence (to ensure that Argentina don’t try to invade again) and reassurance (of the Falkland Island locals and the UK population back home). If you asked a Falkland Islander if they thought that the military should be drawn down to the extent that it would affect the military presence on the islands, I think I know what they would say!

The British government has been forced to reduce our military levels substantially since the fall of the Berlin wall and reduction in justification for an enormous military. The current economic situation has accelerated this reduction and whilst cuts in military spending may not be in line with cuts to other areas of government spending, the effect has still been quite noticeable. As a maritime nation, Britain has always placed significant emphasis on military power. We no longer have an empire to defend and we are no longer considered the global policeman that we once might have been. However, our strategic influence has, to a certain extent, been as a result of our military capability. Britain holds a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Counsel and is seen as a leader when it comes to influence amongst other developed nations. Would our global influence remain the same if we were to downsize or completely remove our military?

Military capability also has utility in disaster response – earthquakes in Haiti, peace support operations in Africa. Would disparate aid organisations like the red cross or MSF be able to respond in a similar way to these disasters without military support?

The recent conflict in Libya is another interesting situation. Without military intervention there can be no doubt that there would have been many of the residents of Benghazi killed as a result of Gaddafi’s imminent intention to quash the rebellious uprising. No doubt much blood has been spilt in supporting the rebels but arguably Libya is in a much better place now than it would have been if it was subjected to a continuation of Gaddafi’s oppressive regime.

I could go on, but I won’t as I’ll be here all day! Interested in your thoughts.

Gee, I’m honored Buzz. Many thanks for taking the time to write. More seriously, yes indeed these are matters about which much has been written and much more could be written.

The old American idea, explained by Alastair Cooke, is that military action as a last resort does not happen with a standing army. The difficulty of calling up recruits means that it will always be a last resort. This was the Biblical system of the Book of Judges, superseded by the establishment of the monarchy with its standing army, against the clear, godly, advice of the prophet Samuel. With a standing army it is far too easy to use military action as a second or third option, rather than a last resort.

You refer to the Falklands conflict. At that time, I was studying at theological college. The father of one of my fellow students worked in the diplomatic service. My fellow student told me that the father and his colleagues were distraught that diplomatic attempts to reverse the occupation were not considered. The Argentinean army had gone in. We had to send our army in. End of argument. Now we have to keep our army there indefinitely at great cost.

It was the same withIraq and Afghanistan. A ‘military’ attack had been made on the symbols of American power withinAmerica. Military action, ‘war on terror,’ was rushed into without exploring proper legal action. How many options were tried before the bombs started falling on Kabul?

What non-military options were tried before NATO bombing in Libya? It may be that military power there achieved its result in a short time and with comparatively low loss of life, But what is the evidence to show that bombing was clearly ‘the last resort?’

Do we want our global standing and influence to depend on our military capability? ‘Listen to us or we send in the boys!’ This is indeed too close to our old imperial attitude. I would far rather people across the world respect and heed us for our experience, wisdom, and creativity, our sense of fair play and adherence to the rule of law. It is righteousness which exalts a nation, according to the Bible, not military power (Proverbs 14:34).

Disaster response would be better carried out by a dedicated UN organisation, properly funded and monitored, or by the Red Cross. A concerted international capability is better than separate, rival, national armies. Civil airlines could be used more. Chartering them when needed would be cheaper than maintaining military planes. An older member of the congregation at my church used to work for British Airways, or its predecessors, in less profit-motivated times. She has flown into disaster areas with relief, often, she says proudly, the first on the scene, ahead of the military.

Roger

A Christmas Carol, Praying in Tongues: 22 September

Apologies for another long delay…

On a day off, a few weeks ago, I woke early, as usual, and lay in bed quietly praying, enjoying lying in Jesus. It occurred to me that I hadn’t prayed in tongues for some days, despite an intention to pray in tongues for 10 minutes a day. I settled back and let gobbledegook flow out of my mouth, mostly quietly. After a few minutes of this, it ceased and I settled into a lovely deep peace, very contented. After a few more minutes, a tune came to me, bubbling up from inside, so I sang it out. ‘I wonder what that is?’ I mused. ‘A Christmas Carol,’ seemed to be the answer.

 My wife had drawn my attention a few weeks previously to the Times Christmas Carol Competition. She was thinking of entering, although words are her forte and they were asking for original tunes. I had wondered about making an entry myself, but not done anything more about it. Suddenly I had a carol tune.

 Wondering what words would go with this tune, some favourite words of Lancelot Andrewes, Elizabethan Anglican Bishop came to mind. ‘He was The Word, yet not able to speak a word.’ That was a good start, pointing me to John’s Gospel, Chapter 1. I mused on in the same vein, also reminded of words of Geoffrey ‘Woodbine Willie’ Studdert Kennedy, World War 1 Chaplain and pastor to working men.

 By now I had too much in my head to remember. Downstairs I picked up my MP3 player and recorder (bought to interview Fay Weldon), and sang into it the tune that had come. I wrote down the words. A little later I picked out the tune on our piano, and worked on the words more. I had a chorus and two verses. 5 days later the next and last two verses came, with a little thinking and searching.

 Our highly talented Church organist, pianist, composer, Charles Tebbs, transcribed and improved slightly what I had recorded and written. It is now with the Times Judges. The winner will be announced in November. Charles and I intend to have it sung on our church whatever the Times people say.

 What an amazing gift is praying in tongues! Without the tongues the carol would never have come. Tongues does seem to be a first, often the first, gift of the Spirit, after which other gifts come. But tongues is so weird! Why doesn’t God have people start with something more acceptable, less offensive? He doesn’t always make things easy for us.

 Tongues is like stepping fully into the swimming water. As our legs, and then our tummies, hit the cold water, a sensible, natural, part of us screams ‘No! Too uncomfortable. Back out now!’ We need to push ourselves further in. Soon we are acclimatised, and we can then swim happily in the water, exploring all kinds of places.

 With praying in tongues we ‘step in’ by beginning to make gobbledegook sounds with our voices, asking the Holy Spirit to flow and take over what we say. ‘We speak…  the Spirit [then] gives the ability.’ (Acts 2:4) We start, initiate, turn on the tap. The Holy Spirit then comes in, amplifying, filling out, giving a much greater flow than our hesitant efforts. From then on we can turn on this tap whenever we want. We don’t control what comes out, but we can stop and start again as we want. The Holy Spirit is ‘willing to yield.’ (James 3:17) But the beginning is hard. Our critical, in-control mind, screams ‘No! Too weird. Back out now!’ we have to go ahead in faith trusting that this really is good and helpful, if weird.

 A wonderful older Christian lady with whom I taught ‘Praying and Playing in Tongues’ in workshops in Lichfield Cathedral, began with ‘ping pong, ping pong.’ Only later did the full gobbledegook flow. An American Christian lady wrote to me fairly recently than she had opened her mouth for several days before anything truly flowed. As well as starting and feeling very foolish, it seems that quite often we are left floundering for a short while before God blesses our feeble efforts. He really doesn’t make it all easy at first.

 What a gift we then have! Tongues were great when my father died and I had no idea what to pray. I could express all that was in my heart without effort. Tongues have been powerful when praying with others for their healing or deliverance. ‘It feels like prayer that reaches the parts other prayer doesn’t reach,’ said one woman. Tongues have brought great insight. As I have followed tongues with praying in English, when it seems that I am praying the same thing but in my own language instead, a clear sense of what to pray for or how to proceed has come. Tongues have been miraculous. Twice, in Uganda, in seminars I have led, women who could not speak or understand a word of English, said a few, very pertinent, words in English.

 If you would like to read a paper I wrote explaining praying in tongues for the workshops I led, please write to harperrog@googlemail.com. Have a go! Ask someone to pray with you for the gift. Speak nonsense and keep going until you are aware that it’s not just you praying, but the Holy Spirit praying in you. You are likely to be surprised by what comes!

 Roger Harper

More Nurses (fewer soldiers): 25 July

We, the people, we, the Church, need to press for fewer trained killers, more trained carers. It’s what God has always wanted for His people.

I posted these words on November 25^th. A couple of weeks ago my wife Sarah had 6 days in hospital, experiencing an understaffed NHS ward.

Sarah had had leg and back pain for some months. Her GP saw some signs for concern about the possibility of ‘cauda equina’ syndrome: paralysis from the waist down and double incontinence. An urgent (two weeks) referral was made to ‘the spinal people’.

Sarah saw a hospital doctor eight weeks later. He looked at her MRI scan. ‘Operation first thing next Monday’ was his surprise, alarming, decision  Unexpected problems with putting a tube down Sarah’s throat, for while she was under general anaesthetic, meant that they kept her under for longer – in Intensive Care, the only place with ventilators. Intensive Care was well staffed, with cheerful, relaxed, motivated nurses.

Next day Sarah moved to a normal ward, with a machine which allowed her to give herself a shot of morphine when she needed it. After another day she went onto oral morphine, which she could have every hour as she requested. Except that…. Two nurses working together needed to give her the morphine. When were two nurses free at the same time? Not often enough for adequate pain management.

Tramadol, another painkiller, was suggested on the ground that it only requires one nurse to administer. Sarah tried and it was no help. Medication according to staffing level, not patient need.

A couple of days later someone else in the ward was recovering from a similar operation, similarly having to wait much longer than an hour for oral morphine. Other elements of nursing care for which the nurses had no time were: not being available to take newly mobile post-op patients to the toilet, discharge planning, communicating non-urgent messages at changeover and / or to the ward doctor (some of which then became urgent.) This is not counting ‘spiritual care’ the ‘helping a person to feel personally recognised’ which is now part of all nursing training but has no hope of being delivered with current staffing levels.

The ward nurses worked as hard as the Intensive Care nurses but looked very different: they tried their best to be cheerful, but were never relaxed, often looking harassed. When I worked in a hospice the nurses told me that they never wanted to go back to working in a hospital. Hospice levels of nurse staffing are much higher than hospital levels. Nurses feel they can do the job they want to do. Adopting hospice levels in NHS hospitals would be too expensive. But the present levels are too cheap. Patients and nurses feel cheap, misused. Not at all what God wants.

Roger Harper

Reforming the Lords: 25 June

Another break from posting. Let me know if you would rather have more frequent comments.

Reforming the House of Lords is firmly on the national agenda. The Government have published proposals which are being considered over the next months by a Parliamentary committee. The Government want most members of the Lords to be elected – 80% is their starting proposal – for a 15 year term, paid like MPs. They want the total number of members reduced to 300, retaining 12 out of the 26 Bishops (making them a higher proportion of the new House) and allowing the Government to appoint a few Ministers.

Elected members of the Lords will be political party members. We will have the same political parties in the Lords as in the Commons. How, then, will the Lords be able to check the Commons? The Lords need to be sufficiently independent from the Commons to check the detail of their work (including their expenses etc.) and to say, rarely, ‘Please think again about this.’ Professional politicians in the Lords will instead simply vote according to their party line.

The ‘Wakeham Report’ commissioned by Tony Blair near the beginning of his time as Prime Minister stated that the Lords need to provide: ‘broad representation, breadth of experience, skill and knowledge of constitutional and human rights issues, philosophical moral or spiritual perspective, personal distinction, freedom from party domination, and the ability to take a long term view.’(p10) A largely elected Lords will not provide this.

A Civil Society Lords would be far better than an elected Lords. Instead of members representing the political parties, we need people representing the wonderful breadth of British member and supporter organisations. A great Lords would contain representatives of Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth, the NSPCC, the National Trust, Amicus, the National Farmers’ Union, the Law Society, the Motor Traders’ Association, the World Development Movement, the Baptist Union, the Moslem Parliament, the Football Association, the Women’s Institute, the Country Landowners Association and many more.

Every organisation with a large membership or supporter base would be able to apply to a Royal Appointments Commission for representation in the House of Lords. The basis of membership would be democratic – numbers would still count. The Toe Wrestling Association, representing a few dozen people, would not have a Lords member. The Angling Trust, representing millions, would have at least one. We would have a new kind of democracy in Parliament to complement and check the political parties in the Commons.

The Royal Appointments Commission would continue the distinctive British heritage of Royal Appointment. The Commission would appoint primarily on the basis of size of membership, but with some flexibility to include smaller organisations deemed important to our national interest. The Commission would give an important role to the Monarch, more than decorative. The Commons would have the ability to veto the whole list proposed by the Commission.

The Civil Society Lords would build on the precedent of the Bishops in the Lords. Instead of only one national organisation, the Church of England, every sizeable national organisation would be represented.

The Civil Society Lords would play a secondary, checking, role to the Commons, who rightly retain overall authority. Yet, as part of the ‘checking’ role, the Lord would be able to halt, for a while, a controversial initiative taken by the ruling party in the Commons. A large majority of Lords members, representing millions of people, speaking with one voice, could not be ignored.

I am trying to promote the Civil Society Lords further, not least within the Church of England. For more details, or to give advice about how to proceed, please comment.

Roger Harper

A Funeral like a Wedding: 11 May

Graham Jeffery, a good friend and contemporary of mine, died before Easter; his funeral was last Saturday. Before the service we had a delightful slide show of pictures of Graham on the big screen at the front of church (a practice which will surely grow.) The first song, There is a Redeemer, began with a tremendous wall of sound from the congregation behind us, uplifting, enveloping, comforting. There is nothing like wholehearted singing for togetherness.

Graham was Treasurer of his local church inSouth London, a member for well over 20 years. Most of the congregation at his funeral were fellow church members, hence the gusto singing an untraditional song. A few Sunday mornings ago Graham presented the accounts at the Annual Meeting, answering questions clearly and inspiring people to give. Someone commented on what a good job he had done. ‘What if anything were to happen to you?’ ‘You’d be in a mess,’ was Graham’s forthright, amused, reply.

Later that day Graham was in his study upstairs when the call was shouted up for dinner. He didn’t come down. A rogue blood clot had lodged in his lung and he was dead. His church has known two men in their forties dying in recent years. Graham’s death was the greatest shock. A woman who runs a Christian community drama project, which Graham supported, described his death, cheekily, as ‘a shocking exit.’ Bizarrely it was almost the same as his father’s death, also from a blood clot, also following a broken leg, also from a skiing accident. Graham lived 10 years longer than his father.

Graham’s funeral was a time of tears and laughter, good food and wine. Most poignantly, his Vicar ended the burial of his body with tears in his eyes. Graham and his imperfections were remembered fondly. He enjoyed good wine, of which there was plenty. Church members brought food to share: best olives and smoked salmon and much else. Graham enjoyed dressing up, so everyone was given a button hole to wear. We had been told we needn’t wear black, although Graham’s widow had bought a lovely back hat for the occasion, crying all over the shop assistants. As we drove away, we wondered if we looked like we had just attended a funeral or a wedding.

Roger Harper

The Koran: more detail – 28 April

More detail on Surahs 2 and 3 of the Koran, as promised.

These first two chapters of the Koran make it plain that Allah wants, first and foremost, believers. Believers are promised blessings now and beyond death. Disbelievers are heading for Hell. ‘Disbelievers’ is the word in my official Moslem translation, which probably could equally be translated ‘infidels.’

The call to believe in Allah is often repeated, far more than the call to lead a righteous life. Good deeds and just dealing are commended, but are not given anything like the prominence of right belief. Right belief is to lead firstly to right worship. There is much, especially in Surah 2, about the importance of worship and pilgrimage. Living morally takes third place.

The fate of disbelieves is clearly specified as hell – the ‘awful doom’, ‘evil resting place’, ‘fire – they will abide therein.’ Surah 2 warns of hell in 28 out of 286 verses, Surah 3 in 24 out of 200 verses.

The disbelievers are simply those who do not believe in Allah. Most wrath is promised for those who refuse to believe, but those who have never had the opportunity to believe, never heard the Moslem message, are in the same category.

It is mostly for Allah to deal with disbelievers. The Koran calls on Moslems to see disbelievers as cursed and to be careful in their relations with disbelievers. There is no call to kill or torture disbelievers – this is Allah’s role. ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ (2:256) It is not for Moslems to force people into believing. ‘It is of no concern at all of thee (O Muhammed) whether He relent toward them or punish them, for they are evil-doers.’ (3:128)

There is, however, also a continuing sense of struggle, of battle, between Moslems and disbelievers, which some people could take as a general call to arms against disbelievers. Surah 2 ends ‘give us victory over disbelieving folk.’ Surah 3:151 says ‘we shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners…’

Surahs 2 and 3 are very clear that warfare is necessary and to be embraced, especially in retaliation. Those who refrain from fighting are castigated. (2:246, 3:167) ‘There is life for you in retaliation , O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil.)’ (2:179) ‘And fight not with them at theInviolable Placeof Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.’ (2:191)

‘and fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah.’ (2:192) ‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you.’ (2:194)

It seems that the very worst that can happen to a Moslem is that they become a disbeliever, for this ensures them eternal torment – as opposed to dying a martyr’s death which ensures them eternal pleasures. So ‘persecution is worse than killing’ (2:217) and is to be met with a violent response.

The call to arms is made, as is all the Koran, to men. Women are mentioned but are not addressed. Women can maybe listen in, but the message of Allah is given directly only to men.

After right belief and the willingness to fight for the cause of Allah, righteous dealing between men, and between men and women, is commended:

‘Those who break the covenant of Allah after ratifying it, and sever that which Allah ordered to be joined, and make mischief in the earth, those are they who are the losers.’ (2:27)

‘Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.’ (2:42)

‘Shed not the blood of your people nor turn your people out of your dwellings.’ (2:84)

‘And each one hath a goal toward which he turneth; so vie with one another in good works.’ (2:148)

‘Righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scriptures and the Prophets; and giveth his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk, and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free, and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when the make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and times of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.’ (2:177)

Roger Harper

The Central Message of the Koran: 16 September

Is burning paper a violent act which justifies people responding with murderous violence? Only, apparently, when the paper has the Koran printed on it, and the speaker is a weasally UN official keen to justify those who murdered his colleagues. We should be saying more clearly ‘Killing people because someone has burned paper with words that are important to you is criminal over-reaction.’

Not that burning the Koran is a good thing. I would not want anyone publicly to burn the Bible, so I will not publicly burn any other holy book. It is not good to aggravate even the nastiest criminals. Burning the Koran is too much like retaliation for Moslem extremists burning the Stars and Stripes. Even this non-violent retaliation is against the teaching of Jesus.

John Simpson, whose books I am reading, describes in detail the burning of the Stars and Stripes in Peshawar shortly after 9/11 when theUSwas planning revenge on and inAfghanistan,  at which he was present. These pictures were shown repeatedly as evidence that ‘Moslems’ were ‘against Americans’ and other Westerners. Simpson is clear that extremist religious leaders orchestrated and fuelled the burning, with the crowd going along but not sharing the hatred. This was not a spontaneous crowd but the congregation from one mosque which had been whipped up into fervour. There was no hostility at all to the Western news crews. It was a piece of theatre which should not have been taken so seriously.

Rather than burn the Koran we should publicise it.

Surah 1 is a short prayer of praise and request for guidance, contrasting those who worship Allah and those who ‘go astray’ and earn Allah’s anger.

Surahs 2 and 3 are the longest in the Koran. The order was copied from the Old Testament where the longest book of a prophet, Isaiah, comes first, the second longest, Jeremiah, next, and so on. Both 2 and 3 were written inMedina, later than those written inMecca, and therefore more authoritative. My official Moslem introduction says that Surah 2 ‘might be described as the Koran in little. It contains mention of all the essential points of the Revelation, which are elaborated elsewhere.’

The overall message of Surah 2, and so of the whole Koran, echoed also in Surah 3, is simple: Believe in Allah or go to Hell!

‘As for the disbelievers, whether thou warn them or thou warn them not, it all one for them; they believe not.

Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.’  (2:6.7)

… The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.

… They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.  (2:89,90)

‘Lo! Those who disbelieve, and die the while they are disbelievers, on them is the curse of Allah and of angles and men combined.

They ever dwell therein. The doom will not be lightened for them, neither will they be reprieved.’  (2:161,162)

… Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, their will be a heavy doom…  (3:4)

(On that day) neither the riches nor the progeny of those who disbelieve will aught avail them with Allah. They will be fuel for Fire.  (3:10)

 Lo! The riches and the progeny of those who disbelieve will not avail them augfht against Allah and such are the rightful owners of the fire. They will abide therein. (3:116) 

Let not the vicissitude (of the success) of those who disbelieve, in the land, deceive thee (O Mohammed)

It is but a brief comfort. And afterward their habitation will be Hell, an ill abode.  (3:196,197)

“Muhammad had nothing to say to the world other than, ‘If you don’t believe in God you will burn for ever.’ ” So wrote Sebastian Faulks. “With the Koran there are no stories. And it has no ethical dimension like the New Testament, no new plan for life. It says ‘the Jews and the Christians were along the right tracks, but actually, they were wrong and I’m right, and if you don’t believe me, tough — you’ll burn for ever.’ That’s basically the message of the book.”

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/fiction/article6803845.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

More detail on Surahs 2 and 3 to follow.

Roger Harper

Jesus tickles OK! 21 March

After my last two serious postings I wanted next to tell a story of God doing something lovely. But I didn’t have a story to tell. Until 2 days ago…

Last Friday I went to talk to a friend who could let me know if a detail I had written in my next novel is unbelievable or not. It seemed to me that Jesus was encouraging me to offer to pray with him, not for himself, but for someone he knows. This ‘word’ came to me through using the ‘Four Keys to Hearing God’s Voice’ by Mark Virkler (http://www.cwgministries.org/Four-Keys-to-Hearing-Gods-Voice.htm) Albert, my friend (not his real name) and I had prayed together before, so I felt not too awkward in making the offer. I still knew that I could be accused, as I have been before, of being religiously pushy.

Albert was very happy with my offer and wanted to pray for his grandson, Paul (not his real name either.) About two years ago Paul, then about 5, was critically ill with kidney failure. The doctors had told the family to prepare for the worst. Albert, his wife, and I prayed earnestly together. The lad recovered. He was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder. Last week he had had a check-up which showed him to be doing fine. But they warned that in future he may well need a kidney transplant. Paul is very close to Albert’s heart.

I talked with Albert about finding a picture of the Holy Spirit coming to Paul which we would use in prayer. (Person Centred Prayer Ministry:http://www.grovebooks.co.uk/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16304&substring=) I suggested beams of sunshine or streams of cleansing water, with a little mention of Jesus’ hand as another possibility. In the past Albert and I have prayed for light and he has experienced light, so I was expecting that to be his choice. As I was talking, Albert was surprised to find himself picturing Jesus, with His hands up in front of Him at shoulder height, palms out, like ‘I surrender.’

I said Jesus was showing His hands for us to ask Him to place them on Paul. It is common that Jesus or the Holy Spirit come close, waiting to be asked to come closer, to be invited to do something particular - as we did. Albert then thought Jesus leant forward and down, reaching out His arms. I asked Jesus to put a hand on Paul’s lower back, and then wondered where Jesus’ other hand was. What came was that Jesus was tickling Paul under his chin. I’m never too confident about the ‘pictures’ I see as they are hazy impressions, but I told Albert. I also tickled Albert under his chin to show what I had seen. It didn’t mean anything to him. We were both encouraged to have seen something, but had no sense of anything significant having happened.

Paul was staying with Albert later that night – his wife was on holiday with her sisters. Albert said nothing about praying with me. They had a good time at the local pub with Paul arranging to see the bar girl again. They had fish and chips, and were sitting watching TV. Paul turned to Albert and said ‘Grandad, please will you tickle me?’

Albert was taken aback. Paul had never asked anything like this before. He was also taken back to our prayer earlier that day. Calmly, Albert agreed. ‘Yes, if you want. Where shall I tickle you?’ ‘Under my chin, just here – and on my hands.’

Albert stroked Paul gently under his chin, where Paul had indicated and where I had tickled Albert, and on the palms of his hands where Paul had showed him. ‘That’s really nice,’ said Paul. His body relaxed, and he decided it was time for bed. He slept deeply in the renewing peace of Jesus. Maybe Jesus’ hands were on him all night, renewing his kidneys?

Wow! Thank you Jesus!

Roger Harper