Fri 31st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 30th Oct 2014 at 16:43pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

Is secularism a greater threat to Christianity than Islam?

At last night’s Spectator debate the panellists were hard to spot behind the straw men

By on Thursday, 30 June 2011

Tariq Ramadan, one of the speakers at last night's debate (PA photo)

Tariq Ramadan, one of the speakers at last night's debate (PA photo)

Is secularism a greater threat to Christianity than Islam? Before a debate on this question began at the Royal Geographical Society last night, I, along with 136 other members of the audience, supported the motion, while 67 disagreed. By the end of the evening opinion shifted quite significantly.

Speakers for the motion included the eloquent Dominican friar, Fr Timothy Radcliffe, and Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University. Both speakers at times made thoughtful and convincing contributions. Prof Ramadan’s assertion that religious communities deserve not just toleration, but respect, certainly made me pause for thought.

The most notable speech in favour of the motion came from Damian Thompson, editor of Telegraph blogs, who received warm applause both after and during his address. Perhaps his most popular observation was the rise of “toe-curling trendy hymns”, with “Shine Jesus Shine” marked as prime suspect for falling rates in church attendance. Beyond the rise of the Tambourine Form of the Roman Rite, Thompson noted that the erosion of Christianity was so advanced that it was even present within the Church itself, leading to a general dumbing down of Christian messages from some bishops and priests.

However, this dumbing down, he explained, is surely a result of secularism’s essence; contempt for religion manifest from the sneer around the secularised modern-day dinner table to the forced closure of Catholic adoption agencies.

Speakers against the motion were Nick Cohen of the National Secular Society, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, who converted from Islam to Christianity, and Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion.

I doubt a dissertation, let alone a blog, could do justice to the plethora of points the opposition raised last night, some of which were valid. There is no doubt that the incidents of Christian persecution by Muslims abroad, cited by Sookhdeo and Douglas Murray, were a powerful corroboration of the threat Islam might pose to Christianity.

But it was lamentable to witness the piety with which Douglas Murray deployed his attack, telling supporters of the motion that they were devoid of sense, reason or thought. I could barely see the panellists for the number of straw men Murray constructed during his 10-minute speech, squeaking at Thompson; how could he compare intimidation of a Catholic at a dinner party to a Christian being beheaded by a Muslim in Iraq? In light of these antics, it is depressing that the opposition still won the argument in the end by 59 votes.

All in all, the difference in opinion seemed to boil down to a question of priorities summarised by Sookhdeo, who reassured us: “Secularism does not pose a physical threat to Christianity, just a moral and spiritual one.”

Just moral and spiritual. Brilliant. Case closed.

  • Tim Tindal-Robertson

    Secularism has succeeded through a process of materialistic seduction where Communism failed because it used lies and physical violence to enforce its will on the people, or go to the Gulag.

    The answer to the threats facing the Church from any quarter is so simple, why has  the Church so far failed to see it and adopt it – the message Our Lady brought to three young children at Fatima in 1917, just before Communism erupted in Russia. At that time Portugal was run by a violently anti-clerical faction that was Communist in all but name and held the Church prostrate in its grip.  Our Lady asked for daily recitation of the Rosary, the people willingly complied, and within 15 years the situation was completely reversed. We don’t need endless debates about the threats facing Christianity, we need a well planned campaign to pray the Rosary. When that comes to pass, history has demonstrated that the Church will be resurrected and the threats will evaporate.

  • Andr3w

    In response to Sookhdo’s verdict about those who can harm the body one is inclined to refer to St Paul in saying that one should fear more those who can harm the spirit.

  • Anonymous

    Madeiline are you serious in agreeing with Rev Sookhdeo? No physical threat?

    Rendered speechless at such delusion….

  • Dio

    I don´t think it´s a question of which is the “bigger threat” – they are both threats, but of a different kind. If “the West” still were a christian society, we need not fear islam at all, because we would be immune to it. As it is – the one sickness weakens the immune-system just enough, to allow growth to the parasite.

  • ms catholic state

    I agree totally. 

  • ms catholic state

    Secularism and Islam are different sides of the same coin. Both work together to destroy Christian civilisation. While Secularism is self destructive and short-lived……Islam has proven to be the greatest smotherer of Christianity long term.  No atheist/pagan system has proven so detrimental to the survival of Christianity as Islam.

    Islam is more potent as it incorporates many of the strenghts and truths of Christianity ie belief in one God, prayer, fasting, self control and the importance of family and children.  This means it can endure where atheist/pagan societies fail.    

  • ms catholic state

    I agree…..but does the Church even admit to the threat that Islam poses to Christianity in the West..  If it did….then they might organise a Rosary Crusade.  As it is….it seems they happily believe in the fairy tale of all religions co-existing together in the West….while ignoring the harsh reality for Christians in the Islamic world.

  • Anonymous

    You need to define threat much more thoroughly. You portray violent attacks against Christians in non majority Christian countries as a threat. These are dreadful crimes, but could hardly be considered a threat to the integrity or popularity of Christianity.

    In the same respect as the bomb plots and arson attacks against Mosques in the United States – a majority Christian country, are also reprehensible, but do not damage Islam – rather the intolerance and character of the attackers in question.

  • John

    Secularism killed, censored and imprisoned 100s of millions of people around the world in the 20th century alone. From Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Sanger to Soros, secularism has shown itself to be the greatest threat, not just to Christianity but to humanity.

  • Mrs. Rene O’Riordan

    If you convert to Islam it destroys your Faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Secularism tempts you away from Christ and destroys your Faith. Hmm. it’s like a choice of poisons! I’ll let you know which one I’ll pick, I’m having difficulty choosing – Rene

  • Anonymous

    well done for calling Muslims parasites. That’s what I call respect. Care to retract, or are you willing to portray yourself as racist and ignorant?

  • ms catholic state

    He is using a metaphor ….can’t you see!

  • ms catholic state

    Why do we have to choose either?!

  • Anonymous

    Parasite or not Islam still seems to be changing the West irrevocably (that is in no way meant to be an insult) for the simple reason that Muslims are willing to speak out in public for their faith. Clearly secularists are unwilling to listen to either side but, out of modern political correctness, they will provide a vaguely rational and intellectual debate with Muslims whereas Christians (and particularly Catholics) are simply laughed away. If Christian intellectuals in Europe were willing to speak out more forcefully and with less desire to appear politically correct then we may get somewhere. In that regard Islam and secularism, while both being false, are less of a problem than a modern political correctness that stops Christians being Christians and teaching Christianity. This then leaves the way open for both secularism and Islam to do their damage.

  • ms catholic state

    Also we are not as ambitious or passionate for Catholicism as Muslims are for Islam.  Muslims would conquor the whole world for Islam if they could…..but not us Catholics.   

  • Anonymous

    Not as ambitious or passionate?  Speak for yourself, I hope we are just as ambitious and passionate in our desire to live and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ everywhere, even if we don’t want to physically conquer the world.

  • Anonymous

    True but few Catholics have the heart to say that anymore. If any Catholic does the shadow of the Crusades still seems to hang over the Church; the greatest challenge here is to carry on spreading the gospel but persuade everybody (including both Muslims and secularists.)

  • Joel Pinheiro

    Secularism leaves open the possibility of individuals converting to Christianity and spreading the message of Christianity to those who want to hear it. It doesn’t impose itself on the churches, which can continue their with their rites, practices and beliefs. Islam, at least in its most aggressive form, doesn’t allow such freedom.

    Secularism allows us to replace it with Faith by using persuasion and non-violent means. Islam, on the other hand, imposes itself with force, and condemns with death penalty any Muslim who converts to Christianity. One can be transformed and even replaced peacefully. The other imposes a perpetual state of war.I’m very glad, and I’m sure most readers here are too, to live in a secularist country rather than in an Islamic one.  I have great respect for what I see as the positive traits of Islam (belief in God, submission to His Will, piety, zeal for their faith, its sacred art, respect for Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary); but its darker, violent side must be acknowledged too. To join hands with Islam in battling secularism is a very dangerous move. 

  • Parasum

    “I could barely see the panellists for the number of straw men Murray
    constructed during his 10-minute speech, squeaking at Thompson; how
    could he compare intimidation of a Catholic at a dinner party to a
    Christian being beheaded by a Muslim in Iraq?”

    Surely this is a good question. To compare the dangers to which Christians in Iraq or Egypt or elsewhere are frequently exposed, to the mild irritations with which Christians in Britain meet, borders on the indecent. MOst, possibly all, of the troubles of the Churches in the West, are self-inflicted – it beggars belief that others are being blamed for them. No Muslim or member of the NSS was to blame for the behaviour of the authorities in the CC towards its most vulnerable members – that wound is entirely self-inflicted. And no Muslim or member of the NSS is responsible for the state of the Liturgy, or for any other example of the Church’s self-harm. The Church is in a mess in large part because of the bishops & other clergy – not because of Muslims or other outsiders. The failure of the Papacy to adopt the Council’s idea that the Church was better represented as a series of concentric rings than as a pyramid has not helped; the result has been the restoration of an autocratic Papal style of Papacy that V2 seemed to have buried.

  • Parasum

    The Church is full of secularism – which is not outside only, but inside too. And one of its manifestations was the perversion of priorities that put the safe-guarding of the reputation of the Church among men above caring for children & other minors. To flirt with right-wing tyrannies in Latin America was secular. The endless failure more recently of Vatican apparatchiks to stop blaming everyone but themselves for the unforgiveable crimes against minors, is secular to the core. There has not been a single expression of repentance from them – only a total refusal to accept responsibility. Regret is *not* repentance. Rome is rotten with secularism of this kind :( 

  • Anonymous

    The crusades should be seen in perspective as a minor episode in the long struggle between Islam and the West that started off with the Arab invasion and conquest of most of the southern Mediterranean, and cumulated in the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna by the Turks. And while we should be sorry for the past sins of Catholics during that struggle, that is no reason to give up proclaiming the Gospel.

  • Anonymous

    There is a difference between separating church from state (secularism) and immorality. Church and state can be immoral whether separated or not, but if the state follows the principle of secularism, then at least it will not act against any group on religious grounds for as long as the group does not harm others in the practice of its religion.

    That, to me, is a flaw in secularism because some religions are so dangerous that they need to be controlled by the state as pre-emptive protection against the implied aims of fundamentalist followers. If secularism kills, then it does so indirectly by giving religion undue freedom, but it cannot be as culpable as the religions that encourage killing in the first place.

    What secularism does threaten are the special privileges accorded to particular religions. It prevents the state favouring one religion over another religion or over the non-religious. Yet this may give a tactical advantage to Islam because religions of unequal merit may be regarded as equal by the state.

  • ms catholic state

    I don’t think so.  It’s like we have 2 masters….privately we are devout Catholics…..but in the public arena we are good secularists and secular democrats.  Muslims are completely for Islam…..and that is not to say they are all bearded fanatics.  Not at all….yet they are completely for Islam.

  • ms catholic state

    Western secularism certainly does favour Islam.  It is tilted against Christianity and for Islam.  And to think we Christians are the architects of the West!!

  • Peter D. Williams

    Good grief, Paul, you really do need to develop a better sense of irony. Madeleine’s final paragraph is *sarcastic*. Honestly, do try reading these things before you comment daftly and make yourself look silly. Talk about ‘delusion’…

  • Peter

    Given the latest scientific knowledge, it is irrational for secularists to reject a creative omnipotence.  Simply put, if there are an infinite number of universes, the power which keep those in existence must be infinite.  Maybe its the realisation of this that makes them so hostile.

    As for Muslim persecution, didn’t Tertullian say that the sufferings of the persecuted are the seed of the Church?  Without their suffering, would the Church still exist? 

  • Anonymous

    My point exactly; the difference remains that nobody else seems to know that but they simply remember the crusades and the atrocities thereof. If one adds up the amount of blood spilled on both sides, given the battles of Lepanto, Malta, Cyprus and Vienna I would not be surprised if Muslims had spilled more blood; the problem is that if one says that from a Christian view then one is simply laughed away.

  • Anonymous

    Quite so but no other Church is any better. Islam may not be secular but is false (I say that from a historical perspective as well as a religious one) while all other Churches seem infected with secularism. The good news about Rome is that it holds to its views on contraception, homosexuality and abortion in the face of modern secular opposition; as such there may still be hope for Rome but most other Churches (most prominently the Church of England) seem to become simple social groups with a vague mention of Christianity thrown in there somewhere.

  • Martin

    For what it is worth…………
    There are actually three threats to the Gospel rather than simply the two you have mentioned.
    The secular world, which is doing its best silence the Gospel at all costs and push it out of the public arena.
    The Muslim threat which openly denies the Son of GOD and backs that up with the desire to spread its dominion by ANY means necessary . There is no such thing as a neutral position. Islam only looks like an option for individuals in a country were muslims are collectively weaker than the local populous.  As soon as they take the majority, the others suffer. And suffer they do…Egypt, Iran, and Iraq is but a small example.
    The church itself.
    We have reduced the Bible to a secular book, we are doing our best to reconcile any passage we can’t naturally explain as a myth or story. (We don’t want to be embarrassed by non believers do we)? We are destroying ourselves MORE than any of the two subjects above. Nothing can be relied upon as Fact, it is now subjective and means lots of things to lots of people. For instance, if Adam was not who he was as depicted in Genesis, how do you explain Romans 5.12 – 21. If Adam was not really an individual who sinned as he did, then Christ could not be the second Adam, (as the first didn’t exist). In the same way, the bible would be wrong in saying that Sin entered the world through one man (Adam).  Jesus had to come to save us from the results of Adam’s sin, if Adam had never committed it because he never truly existed, then Christ came for no reason at all. AND died for no reason! Well done God… seem to have messed up there…..The whole argument for Jesus coming was based on a real historical event. If it was something other than fact, we can truly trust nothing the Apostles have written.  
    Why are we here on earth? The bible says one thing, the atheist says another, how many people here accept the atheist/secular view of Creation (with a God twist) over the bibles view of creation? Already you are being manipulated by people who do not believe in Christianity, because they seem to hold the high ground on science you are being geared to seek their approval. It is also likely that you view any viewpoint other than Darwinism as being presented by crackpots or fanatics…Creationist for instance do not have different evidence than anyone else, they simply look at it through a different lens than a atheist would. Both sides have PHD’s to argue their positions.
    How many doubt the virgin birth?
    How many doubt that Jesus REALLY died and REALLY rose again from the DEAD?
    How many doubt the ascension?
    How many doubt the Holy Spirit really exists?
    How many doubt a literal second coming of Jesus in the flesh?
    How many explain away miracles?
    How many explain away prophecy?
    How many put mans law above the Gospel?
    How many are terrified to speak out unless they get into trouble?
    Hmmmmm …..No, Christianity has more to worry about from itself (spiritually) than anything else and it is THEN that the doubt of secularism and the impending violence of Islam comes into effect.
    If we sorted out our own house first, then regardless of what the other two forces ended up doing, the end result would (even in the case of persecution) always be Christian growth. The bible declares this, History confirms it.
    We don’t need to be arguing against the other two, just  living real Christianity!

  • Martin

    I dont agree, i think Christians would…….but not by sending suicide bombers into crowded areas in order to terrorize people into accepting it.

    They bring the message of Islam and Force.

    We present people with life or death, light or darkness, Christ or Satan, Heaven or Hell, Mercy over Judgement, love over hate, the right to choose to submit, not be forced to submit. We present the Truth. Not subjective truth but THE truth. We stand on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as being the Way the truth and the life. We state with Jesus, that NO ONE comes to the father (GOD) except through him.

    This is the ONLY militant thing we are called to do as disciples of Jesus.

    The message and means of presenting the message are not comparible.

    we conquer one soul at a time by the grace of God and the blood of Christ……or at least we should. NOT by the barrel of a Gun.

  • Anonymous

    You can’t blame secularism for everything you do not like in the Church.
    In what respect did secularism play in creating the failure of safe-guarding, or the flirting with tyrannies in Latin America?

    Secularism is a lack of religion, but it cannot be used as a scapegoat for the poor decisions of the Church; as there is no connection.

  • Anonymous

    In your dream world, perhaps.

  • Anonymous

    Well I know some very moderate Muslims, who break the rules of their faith all the time. As do Catholics.
    The majority I think do not keep strictly to the Koran in every respect, in the same way that many Jews are willing to eat pork, and do not fulfil all the details of their faith.

  • ms catholic state

    Yeah…..but we still support secularism!

  • Anonymous

    You see the problem now then? The problem of political correctness both prevents us from preaching our faith to anybody other than other Christians and from teachings the younger generation the faith (I know that as I haven’t been taught a thing about my faith and have never even had access to anything other than a Protestant Bible.) We are constantly told that we cannot teach children the faith as we “indoctrinate” them so that they cannot make their own decisions; this criticism is directed at all religions but everybody else seems also to have a right of expression which seems denied to us. If we are ever to spread the faith again then there must first be serious Christians in Parliament who will allow it and the influence of the media and its anti-Christian (and particularly anti-Catholic) attitude must be removed or quietened. In other words we need to have Christians in high places to spread the word to anybody who has yet to hear it.

  • ms catholic state

    I agree….Catholic politicians must firstly be Catholics…and not secularists.  They must quietly work for the restoration of Catholicism…..not the continuation of a so-called secular state.  You don’t find secular politicians working for Catholicism!  What a con. 

  • Anonymous

    Even by that definition Islam still constitutes something of a threat. We have seen Islamic extremists in Europe and America doing far more than suicide attacks. The presence of men such as Anjem Choudary in Britain shows that fanatical Muslims, while mercifully being a minority, are still very much real and do not intend to let Christians be Christians. Such men are also worryingly common in Palestine and I cannot see Christians being allowed to stand by their faith if Islamic rule comes to Jerusalem (as many Palestinians are determined that it will.) If fanatical Islam continues to spread at the rate that it is doing then it is as great a threat to Christianity as Islam has ever been.

  • ms catholic state

    But I bet every one of those lax Muslims dreams of the day when the UK becomes an Islamic nation…..peacefully.  As for Catholics…….do we dare dream of a Catholic UK and plan for it?  No….we settle for secular democracy and our own religious freedom in our own little square.  In fact….this very secularism we support is now turing and taking our freedom from us.

    We have to think a little bigger……

  • Ed-words

      WARNING: Thinking May Be Hazardous to Your Faith! 

    ( “Case closed”? No. Mind closed.)


  • Ed-words

     The “secular world” is NOT pushing Christianity out of the public arena,.

     just the tax-supported public arena, which is not supposed to take sides


  • Ed-words

      Replacing your faith with Reason is a poison? How do you think we escaped the Dark Ages?

  • Ed-words

     Reason is always a threat to superstition!

  • ms catholic state

    Where moderate Islam goes…….there too goes extremist Islam.  You cannot separate them.

  • Martin

    Agreed, although i would caveat that with, i support society in the sense that i want Christian values to seep into the secular. Not support secularism at the expense of Christian values, teaching ect.

    i would believe we have common ground here?

  • Martin

    Spot on! 

  • magna

    Stuart Reid  Charterhouse  quotes in his feature article ( Catholic Herald June 24th ), from the  ‘admirable’  Fr. Ray Blake:
    ”Just because someone is anti-abortion, anti-marriage…….doesn’t necessarily mean they are pro Christ, or ……. Orthodox Catholics:  that depends on the acceptance of Christ himself and the teaching of his church.”
    The corollary of this is that because someone is pro abortion and gay marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that they are anti Christ or Catholicism:that depends upon the acceptance of the ‘ easy ‘ secular society that Mr. Chartehouse and Father Blake so glibly surrender to.
    But I suppose its pretty easy really to go along with the destruction of 200,000 unborn per year in the UK alone and not have our comfortable lifestyles disturbed.
    yours sincerely

  • Martin

     Yet people should be free to choose what they want to put their trust in. We are (therefore) all accountable to God for our actions which we will be judged for in the light of Jesus Christ.

    I agree that some groups are VERY dangerous, however a view on what is dangerous and what is not will never be clear cut or black and white. It will be based on your religious or none religious view point.

    Christianity from Islams view is unexeptable as it would be a false religion and would lead to the loss of salvation if rejected (the key message of christianity), Islam from Christianities view is also a false religion (and violent) and from the secular atheistic perspective, they are all the source of troubles that should be stamped out as belonging to Myth and fantasy!

    Atheistic Secularism (which it is) is hardly the protector of wars from religion…..they have killed many more by comparision from their own faith viewpoint! 

    I think you are also comparing scenarios that are not the same:

    Christianity is supposed to be spreading the Gospel and preparing people for the return of Christ….not building a earthly kingdom that is to be protected by walls or armies. (regardless if a nation as a whole accepts it).
    Islam however DOES intend to create a earthly kingdom by earthly domination.

    We dont fight with the same tactics and shouldnt have to fight them on their terms.

    We are salt and light

  • ms catholic state

    All people need to protect their nations from takeover by another…..(even though this doesn’t guard against civil war).  Or do you think Britain should have let Hitler just walk right in?!  As Christians we have to deal with earthly matters too.  I bet you do!  And creating a new Christendom is also a way of strenghtening the Faith ….and protecting believers.

    That’s life in the earthly world.

  • ms catholic state

    Yes of course…..we must as the Pope said….resist the tide of secularism…and not forget our Christian roots.  But this then must be translated into concrete action.

  • Martin

    Ok, i will try to expand a bit:
    I have no issue with ANY country’s right to self defence. Regardless of religion ect. I am totally happy about Christians serving in the services of any country that they live in as long as the government is in the main benevolent .
    The problem between our two views is “what defines a Christian nation or a collective of them i.e Christendom” and probably our view of eschatology.
    For you I believe Christendom is where the majority of a country/group of nations have signed up to the Christian Code (in this case Catholic) and the Church deals with spiritual matters and the Government earthly. (I may not be totally right, but I don’t think i am too far in saying this)?
    Your reason for wanting this is that in your view, (not too different from mine) is that the present system we live under is less than it could be (i’m being polite) with the Government totally losing its way on morality (the unborn, orphans, wars overseas, and the influence of Christianity in the public arena)….we could expand the list…..but i’m being nice.
    So, having a failed government and you seek to replace it… the only real solution to your issue is a new Christendom.  It is here that i agree AND disagree with you in the same breath.
    Whilst i would love this to happen i see the same happening as last time. People who are NOT Christian or rather less than committed Christians would weasel their way into key positions and work for nothing but their own gain. They would end up oppressing others but justifying it in God’s Name and influencing the Church in order to go down paths it may not want to go…a sort of example may be as in the CofE with Government getting involved with who is and who isnt a Bishop.
    Likewise, everytime a government wants to carry out an action, it will inevitably say that it has the churches backing (because it will be so tied up with it). Nowadays the leaders simple say “I prayed about this” before carrying out an action that they would have done anyway!  They would do the same under Christendom. Whilst it may protect Christians it would simply 180 the situation with others suffering. It would not actually achieve anything.
    So do i accept the present governments are any better than a proposed Christendom….no. I think that it is the only choice.
    My view, based on my understanding of a straight forward reading of the New testament (one i agree doesn’t stand with the current magisterium but was always held by the early church).
    I believe we are going to see a falling away of Christian’s from the Church and fall to atheism. I believe that the current trend in our schools ect is no accident and that it is being orgastrated either deliberately or without key individuals being aware that they are being manipulated. I believe there will be a joining of the EU into state status and it will (whilst being the solution to common economic issues) be the launch pad for THE Anti-Christ to emerge from. I believe that through this period, we will undergo large scale persecution (as will anyone of other faiths) and we will initially be forced (on pain of prison or death) to accept the establishment of a one world religion and government. (i know it sounds too bad to be true, but i believe that the bible is clear on this). Eventually,  after a period of tribulation  Jesus himself will return and claim back earth for himself. (whilst missing out the detail you may be familiar with the Post Tribulation view)? I understand that it is after this period that Christendom truly comes into effect with Jesus himself ruling with his saints for a period of 1000 years .
    As i said i know it is not the current church’s position, but it definitely used to be, and it is the only Christendom that i believe will work.
    So where does that leave us now? do we just give up and accept what comes. Totally not, we keep spreading the gospel and spending our resources on gathering people into the Church fully understanding what faith is and the truth of the belief they hold.  
    What if Jesus delays longer? Well, it simply gives us more time to reach out. As i said before, the bible is clear that there will be a falling away from the faith. The Catholic church and Protestant churches in Europe seem to me to be definitely in that place at the moment and nature seems to be beginning to back up the other warnings that things are about to get interesting.
    If however there are people reading this that have strong views against what i have written…relax, i am more than happy to be wrong!

    At least you will understand why i have issues with a Christendom.

    1.   I dont think that the time we have left allows of it – happy to be wrong.
    2.   Based on the fact that the UK, UN and EU are doing everything they can to remove christianity we need to evangualise like we believe in what we say before it becomes to late.
    3.   Christ is the only way that Christendom can about without being corrupted.
    4.   All nations seem to be leaning in the direction of the view above and would not go for Christendom anyway……….not unless we effect point 2 and convert on a large scal and Christ delays.