Current Affairs

I don’t know whether this week’s Church Times’ reporting of the Exeter CU (sic) debate is accurate or not. But:

The ECU had hoped to have a ruling overturned that had forced it to add the word ‘Evangelical’ to its title. Instead, it had its Student Union bank account frozen, and was banned from free use of Student Guild premises, or advertising events within the Guild.

The new equal-opportunities policy was introduced this term by the Students’ Guild. The Guild told the ECU that it failed to meet the criteria because of a doctrinal statement that all speakers and committee members have to sign.

The Guild asked that other people who did not abide by the statement should be on the ECU committee.

All the usual questions come into our heads - are they real Christians etc?

But, notwithstanding those questions, we often complain that the media reports the persecution of every religious group except followers of Christ. How refreshing to read this article in the Guardian.

Refreshing to see this kind of story getting coverage;

disappointing to discover there is a political slant to the reporting;

but overwhelmingly sad to read of the plight of fellow believers.a href=

The BBC reports the row caused by an e-mail sent by Councillor David Clutterbuck.

A Conservative councillor who sparked a row when he joked that Noah would have to let gay animals on board if he built his ark today has refused to apologise.

This is like something from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Who decided to name the next hurricane about to attempt havoc-wreaking on the United States, "Gordon"?

I could be misconstrued as Binitarian in my recent entry on the Independent “Good List”.

Just to clarify:

The BBC reports today on the Independent’s recent compilation of a British “Good List”. Not just those people who did something good, or changed things for better, but those who expressly sought to do so.

The list is interesting. Most of Britain’s religions have someone on their because of their affiliation with that religion. We have a Muslim leader, a rabbi and a Sikh leader. That affiliation qualifies their inclusion.

According to Times Online, a magistrate in Hull has drawn up an oath of truthfulness which makes no reference to God.

His reason was that it is more important to stress the risk of a charge of perjury if someone does lie under oath. That is, after all, the importance of the oath.

The trouble is: What if there is a God? What if there will come a day when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed (as Acts 17:31 says)? If these things are so, someone lying under oath may still face a charge of perjury. But they can also expect to give an account of the way they took their oath lightly to God one day. That is far more serious...

Surely it is entirely appropriate to remind someone of the most serious consequence of breaking an oath?