Saturday, 9 September 2017

Left, Right, What does it Mean

Fascists, Communists and Capitalists

I want to look at this question a bit more closely, because I think it may be the key to current politics in the West.

I was brought up to think that politics was one dimensional:
 left wing = Communist and right wing = Fascist
I guess you were too. Some more observant people made it a circle rather than a straight line, with Communist and Fascist “meeting round the back”.

In my reading over the past few years I've come across authors who say this is NOT correct. Some go further and say it was and is a deliberate obscuration of reality, an Orwellian attempt to prevent us from even being able to think in terms of reality: a Collectivist – Individualist political spectrum.

But what if Communism and Fascism are just the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Collectivism and should be lumped together on the “Left Wing”

OK that may seem weird, so let me first compare and contrast these two ideologies – who naturally each view the other as wicked heresy.

a) What Fascism and Communism have in common:

1. Central control of production: In traditional communism every enterprise is state owned and decisions are made by the central government. Fascists like Mussolini were prepared to have private ownership – as long as all enterprises ran under strict state control. And he warned that corporations should not run for private gain but for the good of the state. In practise there is not much difference between the two. So both are anti- Capitolist.

2. Uniformity of thought. Both Communist and fascist governments ruthlessly suppress dissidents, and, as Mussolini said, use law and education to make everyone think alike and accept the same moral values. The Communists, particularly in China were more effective in using “shaming”, social pressure, deprivation of livelihood and “re-education camps”.
Interestingly These (apart from the camps – so far) are being mercilessly used now in the West by “Progressives” to enforce orthodoxy.

3. Anti-Christian. Both communism and fascism are avowedly atheistic. (Though Hitler did try to re-introduce old Norse paganism and is said to have used astrologers) They have either tried to eradicate Christianity as in Russia, or where faced with a powerful institutional church as in Italy made a compact trading institutional survival of the church for political obedience. In China Christians were persecuted by the Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution, and new opposition seems to be on the rise under Xi Ping.
Modern Western “Progressives” are also coming out stridently anti-Christian.

4. Violently suppress dissent. As Hyack (in “The Road to Serfdom”) demonstrated, the objectives of any state espousing central control of production and redistribution of wealth cannot be achieved without the use of force. Violence has historically been evident as in Mussolini's Black shirts, Hitler's Brown Shirts and later Gestapo, Mao's Red Guard and Tiananmen Square, and the Stalinist secret police.
Some modern “Progressives” such as “Occupy Wall Street” and “Antifas” are singing from the same play-book.

b) what are the main differences between Fascism and Communism?

1. Marx envisioned a class struggle within nations. Mussolini saw this had not happened in England and he could not ignite it in Italy so he changed to a national struggle: Italians all united against “inferior” nations. Similarly Hitler named his party the “National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany”. He also added the racist element (absent in Italy): the Aryan race above all and Jews to be exterminated.

2. Marxism was internationalist, fascist states were, as said above. Nationalist. However currently Communist states Russia, China and North Korea are nationalistic.

3. Marx had an idea of equality, with committees of workers making decisions. Russia started with all being “comrades” (True in practice they ended up with dictator Stalin and the Chinese with Mao) and committees set up at all levels. Fascists had no such illusions: The masses could not organise themselves – they needed leaders. The state needed a strong supreme leader – Hence Mussolini and Hitler. Hitler took it to the extreme with “Germany is the Fuhrer and the Fuhrer is Germany”.
One way authors describe this is: Horizontal collectivism (communist) Vs Vertical collectivism (fascist). Collectivism being their common trait.


As we see, Both of these are fiercely opposed to both Capitalism and the idea of a free market in economics, and individual freedom of thought, speech and association in social structure. They are also both anti-Christian. So lets put them together where they belong!

So what am I (among many others!) suggesting “right-wing” actually looks like?

It is the opposite of collectivism!
(the common feature of communism and fascism)

a) in economics: individual decision making in private enterprise (with only natural monopolies state owned). This is “Darwinian” in that efficient and valuable enterprises succeed whereas less efficient or less socially valued enterprises succumb to competition. Other descriptors are “competition” and “free market” In “moderate-right” government regulations are provided to ensure a “level playing field”, restrict anti-competitive behaviour and provide consumer protection. All of which we see in most Western nations at present.

b) Morals and hence laws: traced back to deistic absolutes (in the West, Christian). So whereas collectivist morals are arbitrary – decided by the State - (and precisely because they are arbitrary, uniformity must be enforced and dissenting opinions ruthlessly suppressed). Morals based on absolute principles allow freedom of thought and debate as to how those principles work out in practice. (This does not work for Islam – it does not set out principles, but rather end practices)

c) in society: the enlightenment ideals of freedom of thought, expression, association and religion have been painstakingly built up in Christian and especially Protestant states (often against church institutions!). We should not take them for granted.
They are incompatible with collectivism, and so can flourish on the “right” but will be extinguished by the “left”.

d) in Academia: truth matters – so free debate is encouraged to test theories. This was the basis of Western scientific achievement. It was also what gave us the enlightenment.
It is incompatible with collectivism.
Today we are seeing dissenting ideas brutally suppressed on campus and in left-leaning corporations. And we are seeing – climate “science” is one example – the prostitution of science to political dogma.

e) in government: Government of the people by the people and for the people. Resulting in small rather than large government. Individual responsibility rather than a “nanny state”, private enterprise rather than state control. Individual freedom rather than “red tape”. Free elections to make politicians answerable to the people. And above all: freedom rather than servitude.

Let's simplify all this into a table of Left-wing Vs Right wing.

Politics 1.01½



Tends to
Tends to

Big government

Small government

More government control of businesses

Less government control & regulation

Less freedom of speech, belief etc.

More individual freedom

The individual exists for the state

The state exists for the individual
In its extreme
In its extreme

State controls all means of production

Private enterprise starts & controls all businesses

Individuals give up their rights to the state “for the greater good”

The rights of the individual are paramount

Historically atheistic so ...
MORALS: are decided by the state – so have to be ruthlessly enforced because no higher power (as Nietzsche said: without God there is no basis for morals)

Historically “nominal” Christian so …
MORALS: are an attempt to live godly lives – left to individual conscience
– This ignores sinful human nature! (some people have no conscience!)

TOTALITARIAN: because its agenda can only be achieved by force (as Hyack demonstrated)
(think, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin & Mao!)

HELLISH: because some humans will use their “freedom” to cheat, defraud, oppress and enslave others (think C18 English factories!)

Aristotle, you remember said that virtue was generally the mean between two opposing vices. So in politics “Ideal Government” is the golden mean between the extremes of Left wing and Right wing.

Do you see our current problem? The present Left – Right definition gives us “the mean between Communism (Collectivism) and Fascism (Collectivism)” … which is … Collectivism! No wonder we can't talk sensibly about politics!

But once we sort things out as above we get:

Ideal Government = the Golden Mean between Collectivism and Individualism

Now we're cooking with gas! On each individual issue we can discuss sensibly with both allies and opponents. We know where our opponents are coming from (collectivist or individualist). So we can understand them. We can now debate whether on a particular issue more or less government control would be better. Not just WHAT the government control should look like!

In Australia at the moment electricity prices are rising because private (and government owned!) enterprises are gaming the system to get windfall profits. One could argue for more government control to protect consumers.

Also at present in Australia gas prices are rising and in part this is the result of state governments banning new gas exploration and development of known gas fields. One could here argue for less government control so the gas can flow.

Sunday, 3 September 2017

a Fascist by any other name

a Fascist by Any Other Name

Name calling is as old as language. The latest pejorative buzz word is “fascist”. It is a wonderfully effective one – it conjures up images of Mussolini and his black-shirts, the terror of secret police and stokes our fears with hints of a possible descent into the hell of Hitlerism.

But as I said last time, I suspect the old terms left-wing, right-wing, fascist, communist have developed a life of their own quite independent of their historical meaning. So I decided to check up on what the Italian Fascist party of the early to mid 1900's actually believed, and what policies they implemented to at least tried to implement when they were in power.

What I found was quite surprising.

The real Fascist platform was much more like the policies of the people now throwing this epithet, than those it is aimed at! Weird, but true! So I developed a 20 point check-list based on the main themes of Giovanni Gentile, who was the 'Karl Marx' of fascism, and what Mussolini tried to implement when he had the chance (he didn't achieve all of them because … well he was Italian! And he was up against a powerful Catholic Church which, much as he despised them, had to be “bought off”, and lastly he was appointed by and could be dismissed by the king.)

So here is a check-list that I think accurately describes historic fascism. Try it on politicians you know: – how do they rate.

Fascist check list – how many of these statements do you AGREE with
  1. individuals should give up their freedom for the good of the state
  2. the state should be like an extended family – providing for everyone and with everyone contributing according to their ability.
  3. People can't manage to form genuine communities unaided – they need to be mobilised
  4. socialism is the bedrock of social justice
  5. the individual trying to live for themselves and their family is selfish and bad. The good, fully actualised citizen willingly puts themselves at the behest of community and state.
  6. Corporations should serve the public welfare, not just the welfare of their owners and shareholders
  7. Marxism is “internationalist” this is wrong, we need to be nationalistic.
  8. Morality and religion should be subordinated to the laws of the state
  9. Society and the state are one and the same
  10. there needs to be ideological conformity and this should be brought about by law and education
  11. legislating for worker participation in industrial management would be good
  12. stopping religious instruction is schools would be good
  13. the state should control all industrial activity and finance.
  14. Unions should be part of the governing assembly
  15. In an ideal world we would abolish all private property
  16. “Our work as teachers is at an end when our students speak our language”
  17. “everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”
  18. Tax rates should be much higher for the rich
  19. Marxism had everyone equal, this is wrong – we need leaders and for the nation a strong charismatic Supreme Leader.
  20. The state and the individual are one.

I think the answer to the bigger question is that politicians who live in glass houses shouldn't throw epithets.

Friday, 25 August 2017

USA Today

Situation Review.

So what is our situation in the West in a few brush strokes?

The U.S.A.? … A nation divided. True, there has long been a two party state with the inevitable division of half (more or less) supporting Republicans and the other half Democrat. But now it is different, deeper and not along party lines

The difference now is between two totally different mindsets

The old labels don't serve us well. Left, Right, Fascist, Socialist are slung about – usually as insults – with very little regard to their meaning. But what they actually mean is anyone's guess and they are either useless or downright misleading as applied to current political positions.

So how can one name the opposing camps the US is dividing into.
Progressives” I think will do for one side. For a start they self describe that way. It then remains to fill in this term with an accurate description.
There is a spectrum from beyond Bernie Sanders through Hilary Clinton to … to something middle-of-the road. In “-isms” they cover a vast array, but with a recognition of kinship between the particular groups. So our task becomes a bit like trying to do facial recognition on a Hydra!
I think the recognition of kinship between progressive groups springs from features they typically have in common. 
These are notable ones:

State rights above individual rights;
State controlled re-distribution of wealth (at one end of their spectrum)
Censorship of opposing news and views
Rejection of democratic process if it does not give the results they want
Rejection of America's historical roots
Rejection of the role of Christianity in shaping the good things in the nation
Rejection of the role of universal “fallen” human nature in shaping the bad things.
Bias against males, whites and Christians
Utopian dreams, but a man-made utopia without God and without recognition of warped human nature. So a utopian dream that is just a phantom leading to hell-on-earth!

On the other side there is an embarrassing lunatic fringe claiming the limelight – Neo-Nazi's, white supremacists, KKK, and even some of the “alt-right”. But I think (and pray!) they are quite a separate phenomenon to the bulk of people opposed to Progressive ideology. At most they may be just a tail trying to wag the dog.

Hilary's “Deplorables” are I think the dog itself! Ordinary hard working people. People who struggle through life: work, marry, raise families, take part in their community and otherwise try to mind their own business.

On the whole, by-and-large they cherish:
America's Christian roots and the ideals of the Founding Fathers
American society (which on a world standard is pretty impressive),
Freedom of the individual - not tyranny by the government.
Freedom of Speech
Individuals being rewarded according to their ability and efforts.
Rule of law


I can't think of a name that does not carry baggage or mean other things as well. In Australia we can turn intended insults into badges, for instance Rommel abused the Australian soldiers holding out against his siege of Tobruk by calling them “rats”. Ever after they proudly wore the title “the Rats of Tobruk”. In that vein I thought “Deplorables” might do as a name – but I'm not sure Americans have the same sense of humor. For now the best I can do is “Conservatives” because it is already popularly applied to this group, even though it does not describe them all that well.

If my assessment if the key points of the two sides is correct, these represent opposite and largely irreconcilable belief systems. Moreover each side cannot even comprehend how a sane person could think what the other side believes!

Now we are seeing signs of violence:
To take the example of the violent progressive protest group Antifas: they say that their opponents are “fascists” and so not real human beings worthy of being allowed to have, let alone propagate, ideas. This is the age old perversion that gave us: “Jews are not real people – so we can exterminate them” by the Nazi's; and “Blacks are sub-human - so we can enslave them” by the nineteenth century Democratic Party and so forth!

In conflict with them at the moment is an equally lunatic fringe of extremists who have an even more ruthless penchant for violence. Surely the riots and murder in Charlottesville recently has brought this home to us. Between them these violent extremists on both sides could drag the rest into violence.

There is, tragically, a real possibility of the nation descending into another civil war. Please God, this must not be allowed to happen!

Can the nation be re-united about some compromise position? I truly pray that it can. However to give a successful solution this must be a position that recognises the real world, not a misguided utopian dream nor a return to past errors. For this I think two things are vital.

1. Free speech: let words not bodies be the battleground.

2. Christian revival: “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”

Sunday, 6 August 2017

to All Angry Atheists

To All Angry Atheists

Since you are passionate about your opposition to Christianity, I don't need to persuade you further that the question of God's existence is important.

As it is important and I assume you are a seeker after truth, I hope you will play along with me when I ask you to perform a thought experiment. First let me narrow the field. We are only interested in God – not churches (no matter how badly they may have behaved) or priests (and unfortunately we do know how evil some of them have been). A person may be quite justified in being angry at any of these, and angry at their misuse of religion and perhaps angry at “religion” in general as a result. But for our present purposes I ask you to hold this in abeyance. It is your passion for the belief that there is no God that is the subject of our thought experiment.

I am going to ask you to do a simple but difficult mental exercise. To try to look inside yourself and determine what makes you passionate about your belief?

Now I believe that UFO's do not exist. But I'm not passionate about it. I can be indulgent towards people who do believe they exist. And I suppose if a real one landed on my lawn I would become a true believer without any angst!

So back to you: can you pinpoint what puts passion behind your belief? Make, if you will, a note of your reasons.

Now am I right thinking that many of you will have put some variation of “If there is a just & loving God then why is there so much suffering in the world” (In a few posts time I think I can satisfy you on that one). That that may be sufficient reason for thinking Christians are a bunch of duffers – but is that reason for you to get worked up about it? Does it not indicate something further is present?

Please bear with me – since we agree this is an important issue – while I suggest two reasons which I expect none of you will have put down.

The first is guilt. No, I'm not suggesting you are a bad person. Don't we all, if we are driving down the road at a safe and legal speed instinctively slow down. But if we are people with a keen sense of justice, we are not only distressed by the injustices in the world, but also conscious that we ourselves have at times contributed to them. It would be natural indeed laudable if – perhaps at a sub-conscious level – one thought along the lines: “Well there had better not be a God – or I'm for it!”

Now what if I say to you that in fact the God who does exist has done something such that “justice” can be fully served even when He forgives people the punishment “justice” would otherwise demand. Details can come later. But if this is the case and if God has offered to forgive any person who rejects evil and commits themselves to a friendship with him, does this de-fuse the anger you had felt?

The second is an inexplicable surge of anger – pain even, whenever God or Christianity comes to mind or is mentioned. If you have or do feel this, I can give you an explanation.

In the Christian world view there is not only God and a host of good spiritual beings loyal to him, but the devil – a defeated enemy but for the moment an active enemy of God and all that is good – and spiritual beings under his control. These beings assault humans in many ways. One way is stirring up anger and causing a mental / spiritual pain that makes us react against other people. There is solid precedent of these evil spiritual beings doing this to make people flee from thinking about God or Christ. So if you have experienced this sort of attack, you have by experience proved at least the existence of evil spirits. The logical next step is to accept the corollary: the existence of God. The wise move then is to find out more about God and to reject evil and chose to align yourself with the all-good God.

Sunday, 30 July 2017

Angry Atheists

Angry Atheists

How can we tell the good news of God's reality, goodness and mercy to this first category of people: the angry atheists. There certainly seem to be many of them, or perhaps they are just being more strident or getting more favourable mention in the press. Either way, they are out there and we want to reach them for good even though they are trying to drive us from the public scene and eradicate all Christian influence in our societies. Of course what they want to replace Christian influence with is usually some variation of Rousseau's utopian vision. He thought that people are really all good, they just need to be educated better! This idea is counter-factual and wherever tried it has been a dismal failure. However I don't think this is a profitable line of attack. To be more precise I don't think attack is the best approach at all.

I think the key is understanding why they are angry. Why does the very thought of Christianity cause them inner pain.

Now an atheist by definition does not believe in God, or more positively does believe that God does not exist. Well I believe that UFO's (from outer space) do not exist. But I'm not angry about it. It does not cause my blood pressure to rise or my voice to become shrill and my conversation strident if I meet someone who does believe in UFO's. I don't agitate to have such conspiracy theorists silenced. And if a real UFO landed on my front lawn I would change my beliefs pretty smartly!

So why does Christianity or talk of God get angry atheists so riled up?

I can think of three reasons which I'll explain below. If you think of more, please let me know!

1. The “god” they have a mental picture of is a nasty being who really does not exist. Well think about it, they may have been influenced by people whose idea of God is a travesty.
To take an extreme case, a Jihadi believes in a “god” whose character is so warped, depraved and different to the character of the real God, that it is fair to say they believe in a god who does not exist. And we are very glad that this god does not exist!
History, and even the present is replete with people who worship a god made in their own image. They can call this god “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” but it is so different in character that one must say “No, that is a different god, and one which simply does not exist!” (OK some descriptions may be so depraved that we could say, “Yes what you call “god” does indeed exist: its real name is Satan! But the real God is good, mighty and has triumphed over this Satan”

Read C.S. Lewis' last Narnia book “The Last Battle” for a beautiful exposition of this in the final pages. Here a righteous man who though he served the abominable idol “Tash” meets Aslan and is accepted into heaven. The gist of what Aslan says is: “my character is wholly good: Tash's character is wholly evil. So those who say they worship me but love evil worship Tash even if they call their “god” by my name and those who love good do in fact worship me even if they call me by the vile name of Tash” As so often Lewis has managed to expound in simple terms both profound theology and university level philosophy in a children's book!

To such a person, if accorded a face-to-face dialogue I would proceed something like this. “describe to me the god you don't believe exists”. If, as likely, they said “How can I describe something that doesn't exist!” I would say something like, “well we both agree unicorn's don't exist, but I can still describe one.” And try to get them to spell out exactly what their conception of God is. If this produces as expected a false image of God, I can say, “Well I don't believe that god exists either!”
And perhaps slide over into talking about the character of the One who does exist.

2. They have a strong moral sense and are stung by feelings of guilt when we talk about God. As one psychologist I read put it: “they think, possibly sub-consciously, 'There had better not be a God or I'm for it at the judgement!'”
In Luke 5 we have the account of Peter after he sees Jesus bring about the miraculous catch of fish cry out: “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man” Yet he was probably a fairly upright citizen.
In our own experience, who of us driving along at the legal limit does not instinctively slow down when we see a police car – or as we have in Australia a police speed camera pretending to be an ordinary car parked innocently by the roadside!
So guilt feelings are quite understandable even in the absence of some particularly wicked deed.

3. Many of us who are devout Christians know what it feels like to be under attack by the spiritual forces belonging to the devil. One form can be a very real though spiritual-cum-mental pain. The “anger” of some atheists may indeed be that they are under such attack which manifests itself as an inexplicable inward pain at the very thought or mention of Christianity.

Causes 2 and 3 may be amenable to countering without the dialogue method of Cause 1. It may be something we can present in a blog like this or a YouTube video. So next I will try to formulate something of that kind.

Saturday, 22 July 2017

What Can We Do Next

What can we do next

Crying out to God is the essential first second and third steps!

However there are things we may also be required to do. If my initial thesis is correct namely that a revival of (real) Christianity is what is needed and if indeed this is part of God's answer to our prayers; then part of what we can do; or under God what we will be expected to do; is tell and persuade people of the truth about God.

Here I recall that Jesus both sent disciples to do this and also told them to “pray to the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest field.” So the telling activity may not be for everyone, but it may be for you!

So next I want to look at and think about how we may effectively tell our generation about who God is, and what He has done for them in Jesus and what He invites them to become. I think the present decline in religion in the West is strong evidence that what we have been doing in recent years is not the answer. I expect that what was done in past generations may not be applicable directly to our generation. Of course the content is unchanging, but language, social mores and perhaps more importantly the mental world view of our people today is different from past generations.

So just how do we engage with people today for a start, and then how do we present these timeless truths in a form they can digest?

There is an old Anglican prayer “For all sorts and conditions of men”. OK in today’s language “mankind” or even “people” for a start! But people did come in many “sorts and conditions” even more so today, so I guess there will need to be a wide variety of basic forms and even these tweaked for different audiences.

For a start I will try an approach for what I think may be the easiest group to reach: the outspoken atheists.

You might think these are the most hardened but Wesley (I think it was) talked of “those who came to scoff but stayed to pray”. Those who were ardently against his message were at least engaging with it, and when they saw the truth in his message they changed sides! I think many of the very vocal atheists are engaging with the topic of God. Otherwise, if they simply had an absence of any belief or interest they would not bother to be vocal!

Also I sometimes feel their anger is of the right sort.
In one sense what a soldier would call “probing fire” - an attack to elicit a response if there is anyone there! Almost as though they are saying “there aught to be some truth in Christianity, but I can't see anyone who acts like there really is: come out and fight if you are there! Or perhaps “come out and tell me!”

In another sense I sometimes think their vitriol against Christian institutions may have an element of insight. True some of them do attack Christians for accurately reflecting some aspect of God's character that conflicts with the spirit of the age. That we cannot compromise on. But at other times their anger has been directed at genuine failures or evils in these institutions that even sincere Christians have failed to adequately address.

So for all these reasons I think atheists may be reachable and persuadable with the truth about God if it can be presented in a way they can come to grips with.

So next post I will try to formulate one way of engaging with angry atheists.

Saturday, 15 July 2017

God Save Our Nations

God save Our Nations

This brings us perhaps more in a spiral upwards than in a full circle.

I started with the idea that the only hope of saving the West was in a sweeping Christian revival. After looking at all the various problems facing us we come to the dismal conclusion that everything which made the West great is crumbling. This is happening close on the heels of a dramatic decline in Christian belief. Secularists ardently argue that what we had in the West was not a product of Christianity but apart from the inherent weakness of their arguments there is really strong cause-and-effect to these thinks evaporating from society and the decline of Christianity. So we come to the crunch: only God can save.

It is a very Biblical theme that God is a God who saves, and that there is no one and no thing else that can. We think of it in personal terms, which is fair enough, but in the Old Testament it tends to be broader: more often a national salvation.

So I must admit that yearning for revival I was missing a vital step! Reliance on God and crying out to Him to act is what really counts. Even if we are right in guessing that revival is the next step – the important thing which I for one had forgotten is that it would still be the next step!

Just as an little illustration of how much our society is sliding: Last nigh a friend was describing the problems they had experienced wit their aged father in a large and prestigious hospital. He was dying and had dementia. But staff left him all day without opportunity to go to the toilet, and when he eventually wet or soiled himself merely put it down to incontinence. He was deaf but staff would come up behind him and just shove a thermometer in his ear to take his temperature, and when he instinctively flicked his hand up to brush it away they said he was violent and had him restrained. (they were obviously not horse riders, or they would know what happens if you walk behind a horse without letting it know you are there!) One time the registered nurse went off to tea break at the time of taking all the blood pressures etc, and ordered a “personal carer” who had no medical training and had no idea of how to use the equipment to do it, under threat of losing their job!

This is just one cameo, but I think it illustrates just what happens people lose the work ethic, and cease to care about other people! How different when people live Jesus' command “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. And when people see whatever role they perform as a vocation they are putting their best into in order to please God!

This is the sort of dismal future our societies face without revival. Secularists, even if they arrive at the correct ethic – which they generally do not! - have no power to transform human lives from the inside. They can attempt to coerce – but human nature will continually confound their efforts! Only God working through his redeeming love and the power of his spirit in people's innermost beings can transform lives.

So we desperately need God to save us. Revival of faith in Him, as we saw looking through the Old Testament history of God stepping in to rescue his people is a pretty indispensable element. But the one Old Testament element I nearly forgot is that things got so bad that the people cried out to God to save them! Maybe I'm just “wishful thinking” but I really hope things don't have to get worse than they already are in the Western countries. Perhaps that depends on us - how soon we start crying out to God!

So if we are saddened by seeing bit-by-bit so many social institutions, precepts, customs and manners which have made human existence better in our countries being washed away by the tide of secularism. If we lament the immorality of our society – not out of prudery – but out of prudence recognising these behaviours call to fallen human nature like the mythical sirens - that the result now as then is shipwreck and the destruction of human happiness. If we are frustrated at the blindness of our national leaders – their failure to govern for the people – and their lemming march to national bankruptcies and ruin. Then it must start with us. We above all must cry out to God to save our nations.