Feedback

REVIVAL AND THE REFERENDUM

The ‘First Word’ in the August issue really resonated with me. Around the time of the referendum vote I believe God told me about a coming prairie fire, and the word ‘nadir’ came to mind.

The nadir in question is the lowest level of Christian faith and activity, which we are experiencing now. I believe slowly but surely Christian faith and activity will start to rise again.

I believe we are going to come into something that will grow slowly all over the nation into a spiritual reawakening. It will be like a slow-growing prairie fire with just a few isolated sparks to begin with, then a few puffs of smoke, then a small area will actually catch fire and it will begin to spread and get hotter.

It’s no coincidence that it is starting now. For about 200 years, faith in God in this nation has been in decline, and it has just reached its lowest ebb. Now it will  start to climb. People will start to think of God once again and revival will break out in places.

It’s probably too early to comment with any degree of certainty, but I wonder if what’s happening in Reading (News, August) is the first tiny spark?

Alan Willis

I read, with great interest, your commentary on the outcome of June’s referendum. From Justin Brierley’s ‘First Word’ to Sam Hailes’ ‘News Analysis’, the overwhelming statement in the last issue was one of unity in the face of division. Perfect.

So to get to the ‘In my opinion’ columns and read: ‘I know, I know. Not all Leave voters were racists, just like not all Muslims are ISIS sympathisers’, on one side, and the implication that the EU takes an almost Herodian stance on abortion on the other, can only go to undermine the Christ-like attitude your magazine was trying to foster. I appreciate that opinion is exactly that, but if unity is the message your magazine wants to send, perhaps columnists should be kept from the type of sensationalism that led to the division we now face?

Jonathan Palmer

STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND

I have read through the article by that great evangelical man, RT Kendall, on ‘yesterday’s man’ (August) twice, but I am still at a loss as to its meaning.

Kendall expresses his deep concern about a drift away from unspecified truth by some unspecified evangelical leaders, whom he describes as ‘yesterday’s men and women’, whom the rest of us are in danger of blindly following. How the history of kings of Israel, Saul and David, relates in any way to drifting evangelical leaders who are keeping newer, younger, sounder ministers from their ministry, or what should be done about it, is beyond me. Such veiled hints and forebodings surely don’t enlighten anyone.

Dorothy McQuaker

Roger writes …

Dear editor,

Some things simply shouldn’t go together. I had a pizza once, and was stunned to notice that someone had made the mistake of putting pineapple on it. Someone else recently told me that they put chilli in chocolate. I am convinced someone will present a Black Forest gâteau inside a roast chicken before too long. It’s not specifically mentioned in scripture, but I’m sure this is a sign of the end times.

Another sign of the end times must be the discussion of atomic structure in an article about the Trinity (August). Science has no place in our minds at all! This should be obvious! Why should we keenly observe and measure the world  around us when the Bible tells us everything we need to know? I have always thought this, ever since I invoked Balaam’s donkey during my biology ‘O’ level. It seems quite reasonable to me to suggest that animals are capable of independent speech in the right circumstances. Apparently, the examiner did not see it that way.

You can use atomic structure all you like to argue that we might be oversimplifying the Trinity, but answer me this: if science can help us unlock the answer to the unknowable mystery of the Trinity, then why is it not capable of explaining the enduring popularity of Mrs Brown’s Boys? I rest my case.

Yours simply

Rev Roger D Votional