From The Telegraph

Tom Wilson, the former mayor of Nuneaton, Warks., and his wife councillor Sonja turned down an invitation to judge the event due to their religious beliefs in October 2009.

They were asked to go to Nuneaton Town Centre for the Saturday afternoon event but decided against it after consulting fellow members at their Manor Court Baptist Church.

Mayor Wilson, who is in his 60s, said he did not think young people should take part in Halloween because it glamourises evil.  He said: “It glorifies Satan’s angels and celebrates the dark side – Halloween is a pagan festival.

[...]  His comments sparked fury from pagan groups who complained to the council, saying his remarks were “inaccurate and likely to cause distress.”

More than two years after the row, cllr Wilson, who stepped down as mayor last May, was found guilty of three breaches of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council’s conduct for members.

The council’s standard sub-committee found he “failed to treat others with respect”, “behaved in a manner which could have caused the council to breach ‘equality enactments’ and “behaved in a manner which could be regarded as bringing an office of the council into disrepute.”

Read here

In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?

Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?

“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.

The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.

Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.

What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.

Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]

Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argued that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

ON THE CHURCH CALENDAR: Saint Trumwin of Whitby, Monk and Missionary Bishop, 686 -consecrated by St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, as a missionary bishop among the Picts, and was the first Bishop of Whithorn, in Galloway. When the Picts reasserted their independence he retired with a few of his followers to the monastery of Whitby, where he was a leading member of the Synod there.

MEDITATION- Today and tomorrow the Office Readings are taken from the Book of Jude. While brief it can offer richness, if we but take the time to ponder and not just read it quickly. He describes himself as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.” He deliberately focuses on his spiritual relationship with Jesus, rather than the possible familial connection. That is not how we approach relationships necessarily but perhaps for Jude he knew the essence of life was in the spiritual relationship which is ultimately of eternal significance.

Read the rest of this entry »

“It would be terribly sad,” said Mike Judge, spokesman for The Christian Institute.

“The Girl Guides has always embraced all people but has its roots in Christian values, which is what has made it so popular and successful.

“It will be very difficult for it to maintain its values if it removes the ethics from where those ideas spring from. It would change the character of the Guides for the worse.

“Sadly, I think this is symptomatic of a much wider problem in Britain, which stems from a culture of embarrassment about being Christian.”

Since its establishment by Robert Baden-Powell in 1910, the Girl Guides has asked youngsters to pledge their commitment to God.

The current wording states: “I promise that I will do my best, to love my God, to serve the Queen and my country, to help other people and to keep the Guide Law.”

Caroline Mason said her daughter felt unable to take part in her Brownies enrolment in north Somerset due to the religious content of the Promise.

“I am bringing up my children with strong morals, but no religious belief. This is our choice as parents and I do not understand why my daughter should be excluded from something because of it,” she told the association.

In a second complaint, Juliette and Barry Willett claimed their daughter Maddie had been excluded from a ceremony in Crawley Down, West Sussex.

The National Secular Society took up the cases and complained to the association.

In response Jo Hobbs, the association’s head of Guiding development, said: “On an issue as important as the expression of our core values, we must take a measured approach to ensure any decisions are right for our organisation.

“The issue is on the executive committee’s agenda and when the time is right we will review our approach.”

A Girlguiding UK spokeswoman said the association would consider reviewing the promise at a forthcoming meeting.

The Scout Association, which demands that members pledge their “duty to God and to the Queen”, said it had no plans to change its promise.

As a charity, the Guide Association has an exemption under the Equality Act which allows it to require its members to make a statement of belief.

AM is still being asked to re-post the All Saints Day video produced by The Revd Peter Ould in 2004.  We are happy to do so, and it can be viewed here.