The Easter Anthems from the Anglican Liturgy
1 Corinthians 5.7b, 8; Romans 6.9–11; 1 Corinthians 15.20–22 (ESV)

Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
Let us therefore celebrate the festival,
  not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil,
  but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Christ, being raised from the dead,
  will never die again;
  death no longer has dominion over him.
For the death he died he died to sin, once for all,
  but the life he lives he lives to God.
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin
  and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Christ has been raised from the dead,
  the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
For as by a man came death,
  by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Glory to the Father and to the Son
  and to the Holy Spirit;
  as it was in the beginning is now
  and shall be for ever. 
Amen.

The news recently has been full of reports of the “suffering” of Russian oligarchs in Western countries due to the sanctions imposed on them in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s illegal and unjustifyable attack on Ukraine. Most of these reports assume a stance of moral outrage and ridicule at the complaints of these folks who suddenly are not able to live in the “state to which they had become accustomed”.

An example is this piece in the UK’s Daily Mirror quoting an anonymous “personal assistant to Russian oligarchs” who expresses his outrage at his clients’ whining and lack of concern for the people dying in Ukraine.

It’s hard to know what to make of this “personal assistant’s” moral outrage which causes him to hang up on his clients when they come with various demands—how much of his unwillingness to do their bidding is in fact due to their inability to pay him, with their accounts frozen due to sanctions?

After all, it was never a secret to any thinking person that the only way these Russians could suddenly acquire great wealth after the collapse of the Soviet Union was by corruptly grabbing the most lucrative pieces of the formerly state-owned Soviet economy, while the likes of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, etc. either looked the other way or actively assisted them. In other words, all of these oligarchs appropriated for themselves the most desirable pieces of Russia’s national wealth—they are simply thieves on a grand scale.

That did not seem to bother this “personal assistant” as long as his no doubt considerable salary was being paid; nor did it bother the many in the West, including individual politicians, political parties, and even governments, who made lots of good money doing business with these crooks, following the ancient motto, “pecunia non olet”.

For the past twenty years or so I have been using Google Mail, or Gmail, at various times both the consumer version (addresses xxx@gmail.com) and what used to be called Google Apps, G Suite, and now is called Google Workspace (addresses with your own domain name).  When Google Apps was introduced many years ago there was a paid edition for larger businesses, a special edition for educational institutions and non-profits, as well as a free edition for small organizations and families; I signed up for the free edition with my doulos.at domain and have been using it for both my non-profit consulting and for my family.

In 2012 Google stopped offering the free edition to new users but existing users continued as before, and then in January this year Google announced that the free edition would be discontinued and users would have to decide by May 1 which alternative they would like to purchase before the service would definitely be turned off by July 1, 2022. They offer to upgrade users to one of their business editions based on the services used in the free edition, at a cost of a minimum of $6/month per user. They have however hinted at a cheaper (but not free) alternative for people who use the free edition for personal and family use (i.e. not for business) only.

For this reason I have been encouraging my children to switch from using their @doulos.at address to some other e-mail provider and address; an obvious choice would be a standard consumer Gmail address, and I was looking for a way to transfer their content (i.e. old mails) from their @doulos.at account to their new account.1

Another reason for investigating Gmail backup solutions is the fact that while I find Gmail as well as other cloud offerings extremely useful, I do not like to rely entirely on them, and prefer to have a local copy as well.

Google Takeout was created in 2011 as a mechanism for folks who cancel their Google account to take their stuff with them. It is cumbersome and does not store the data in a very accessible way; and there seems little point to having all your e-mail data available locally if you cannot access it in a convenient, mail-like manner.

A few years ago I came across GMvault, a Python script for synchronizing Gmail data to a local repository, and exporting it to a number of different formats compatible with various e-mail clients, and started using it; but after a while it stopped working due to changes in the way Google handles authentication.

Due to the need to migrate our data from the Google Workspace Free Edition I looked at it again, and they have caught up with Google’s authentication and now it works with application-specific passwords2. So I set up all my GMail accounts with two-factor authentication and an application password for GMvault, and am almost finished doing an initial backup of all my accounts. Once that is done I will get started on exporting the kids’ e-mail data, ready to export into their new accounts.

Here is how to install GMvault on your Windows computer; if you are a Linux or Mac user you probably are savvy enough to figure that out yourself or to read the instructions at the GMvault website:

1. Go to the GMvault website and click on the  Download GMvault  button.
2. You may have to confim downloading (or “keeping”) the file.
3. When it has finished downloading, double-click it to start the installation. By default it installs in your personal profile; you can change the install path to C:\Program Files\GMvault if you want to install for all users.
4. When the installation has finished you should have a GMvault folder in your Start Menu’s “All Apps” section; click on it and then on “gmvault-shell“.
5. You are now in a Powershell window with all paths and other environment variables set correctly for GMvault; once we have set up your GMail account to work with GMvault we will come back to this.

Here is how to set up your GMail account for backup via GMvault; this works both for the consumer GMail accounts and for Google Workspace accounts:

1. Using your web browser, log into your GMail account at gmail.com. If you have more than one GMail account, it is best to log out of all accounts and then log back into the account you want to set up.
2. Click on the Google Account icon in the top right corner of the browser window (it will either have your picture if you have set one in your Google account, or else an icon with the first letter of your name), then click on “Manage your Google account” below your name and e-mail address.
3. On the next page click “Security” in the sidebar on the left.
4. Scroll down to “Signing in to Google“, click on “2-Step Verification“, and then click on “Get Started“. Sign in again with your password when prompted and click on “Next“.
5. Provide your mobile phone number and check “Text message“, then click “Next“. Check your phone for a SMS text message from Google and enter the Google verification code starting with “G-” in the field provided and click on “Next“.
6. Finally, click the blue TURN ON button.
7. Now that you have enabled Two-Factor Authentication, every time you log into your Google account on a new device/browser combination you will have to provide a verification code sent to you per SMS in addition to your acount password. Depending on the phone you have, and whether that Google account is set up on your phone, you may also be prompted to confirm the login attempt on your phone instead.
8. Click the arrow pointing left at the top of your browser window  to get back to the “Security” section of the “Manage your Google Account” page.
9. In the “Signing on to Google” section, click on “App Passwords“. Verify your password again when prompted, then click on “Select app” and choose “Other (Custom name)“.  Enter “GMvault” in the field provided, then click on “Generate“.
10. Select and copy the password displayed in the yellow field (four groups of four characters) and paste it into an empty Notepad document to have it handy for the next step((There is no way to retrieve this password if you forget it before providing it to GMvault, but no worry: you can simply delete the app password and generate a new one in the “Signing in to Google” section by starting from point 10 above.
11. You can now close that browser window or tab.

Now we can start using GMvault to back up this GMail account.

1. Determine where exactly you want to store your GMail backup. By default it will get stored in your Windows profile directory (i.e. C:\Users\yourname) in a folder called gmvault-db. I put mine in D:\GMvault\xxxxx where xxxxx is a short form of the account name (since I have multiple accounts), because I have more space on D: than on C:.
2. Assuming that your GMail account is called john.doe@gmail.com, and that you have decided to store your GMail data in D:\GMvault\johndoe, go back to the GMvault Powershell window and type in this commandline to get started backing up your GMail data to your local hard disk:

   gmvault.bat sync johndoe@gmail.com -p –store-passwd -d D:\GMvault\johndoe   

   You will be prompted to enter your GMail password; do not use your normal password, but type in (or paste) the app password which you generated earlier and pasted into Notepad for safekeeping.

3. GMVault will start backing up your GMail data; this may take a very long time depending on how many months or years of e-mails you have in your account. You can stop the backup at any time by pressing Ctrl-C; in order to restart it later you will need to use a slightly different commandline, like this:

   gmvault.bat sync johndoe@gmail.com -p –resume -d D:\GMvault\johndoe

   Note that we have replaced –store-passwd with –resume: the password has already been stored, and we want to resume where we stopped last time, not restart again from the beginning.

4. I would recommend creating a batch file (gmailbackup.bat or gmailbackup.cmd) with that second commandline in it, and running it either every evening, or once a week, however often you want to update your GMail backup with new mails.

Feel free to get in touch with any questions about this process; I cannot promise an answer but will do my best to help. Please note that I am not interested in a discussion of the wisdom or morality or ethics of using Google’s services; I have no illusions about Google but they have served me well, and if you are of a different opinion, feel free to not use them.

1. Another reason for making that switch is the fact that none of my kids, and certainly not my wife, are interested in computers and technology to the extent I am, and if anything happened to me the doulos.at domain will sooner or later go away. So encouraging my family members to switch to e-mail solutions that don’t depend on me seems to be a wise idea anyway.[↩]
2. Application-specific passwords are specific separate passwords for different third-party (i.e. non-Google) applications. They can be set up in the Security section of the “Manage your Google Account” page; they require two-factor authentication to be enabled[↩]

This post was prompted by three different things I came across in my reading in the past two days.

I am borrowing the title for this post from an article by Joe McKeever in Christianity Today’s ChurchLeaders website which I read yesterday. He lists a number of missteps by unidentified pastors which reflect well-publicized real-life events of recent months and years, and which resulted in an end to the ministry, career, and often the marriage of the pastor concerned, and in each case asks the poignant question, “Pastor, what were you thinking?”

Then during a period of insomnia very early this morning I came across Facebook posts and discussion threads from Australian friends which posted media reports first hinting at some major scandal breaking at Hillsong Church and then reporting on an all staff meeting at the church where the lead pastor revealed two incidents of inappropriate behavior by Hillsong founder Brian Houston:

• Ten years ago a Hillsong staffer quit her job after Houston sent her a series of inappropriate, sexually suggestive text messages; Houston acknowledged that he was at fault and when the staffer had trouble finding a new job apparently personally paid her two months’ salary. 
• Two years ago, at Hillsong’s annual conference, a group of conference attendees, including Houston, were in the bar drinking after the evening program. All of them seem to have been drinking too much, and Houston was also taking anxiety tablets at the time. When he went to go to his room he couldn’t find his key and knocked the door of another room where a woman was staying who was also drunk.  The woman has not accused Houston of anything, and Houston says nothing of a sexual nature happened, but Houston spent 40 minutes in the room of a woman other than his wife. This incident was investigated both under the auspices of Hillsong’s global board and then also by the church’s elders, and Houston was told to take three months off from ministry. He failed to abide by that instruction and also seems to have continued drinking alcohol.

The original Facebook post by my Australian friend talked of a scandal “worse than you can imagine”, and the ensuing discussion which focused mostly on the second, more recent, incident revolved around such things as whether “worse than you can imagine” was an accurate characterization of these two incidents; whether the reports were even true, whether Christians should post such reports, the lack of accountability on mega churches,  etc. What was notable by its absence in this discussion by Christians was any sense of scandal or outrage at the mere fact of Christian conference participants, including church leaders, getting drunk at the conclusion of a day focused, presumably, on issues of spiritual growth and other topics pertaining to the Christian life.

The final piece that inspired me to write this post was this piece in the Daily Mirror about a woman in the UK’s Greater Manchester area who, having had quite a lot to drink at a birthday party and after a discussion of the war in Ukraine, had the bright idea to try and book an Uber for a ride to Ukraine, so that, in case the UK should get involved in the war and her military boyfriend was deployed there, she could join him. Fortunately for her the booking didn’t go through because her credit card company refused the £4500 charge due to insufficient funds.

All of this caused me to reflect on the problem of drunkenness. 

I have  two confessions to make:

• I enjoy a glass of wine or two with or after a meal, or just sitting around with friends, and I have my glass of Kräuterlikör or Southern Comfort most evenings to help me go to sleep.1
• I have never gotten drunk. Not because of moral probity or because of religious or spiritual convictions, but because I am deathly afraid of what foolish things I might do if I lost control of my mind and my will.

So, on the one hand I do not look at this woman in the UK or at Brian Houston or others in my immediate circle of family and acquaintances who do on occasion drink too much with a sense of “holier than thou” but rather with pity and incomprehension, echoing Joe McKeever’s question, “What in the world were you thinking?”

On the other hand I wonder what the lack of outrage at the idea of drunkenness at a Christian conference says about our Christian subculture.

For the past ten years and until the Covid-19 pandemic and my own health issues put a stop to it I regularly attended a twice-yearly Christian conference where, after the evening meeting, we would gather for fellowship over a glass of wine or a beer; but I have never seen anyone get drunk on those occasions, and I cannot imagine the conference organizers tolerating it had it happened. So I am rather puzzled by the situation which resulted in Houston’s drunken incident: both that this group was drinking so much, and also that in discussing the incident on Facebook,  commenters from a variety of Christian traditions all seemed to focus on Houston’s 40 minutes in that room, but didn’t seem fazed by the idea of a group of Christian conference participants getting drunk together. The question I would like to ask the conference organizers, as well as the commenters, is, “What in the world were you thinking?”

It seems pretty clear to me that in all of these situations the answer is: people were not thinking, or if they were, it wasn’t with the brain God has given them for the purpose.

1. Unlike most Austrians I don’t drink beer; I just never acquired the taste[↩]

The Catholic News Agency reports that on March 25 Pope Francis will consecrate the Ukraine and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,  and in another article explains what exactly this means.

In recent decades many Protestant denominations have abandoned, revised or relativized essential aspects of the Christian faith as attested by the Bible. This, together with the emergence of renewal movements within the Catholic Church whose spirituality is very close to that of evangelical Christians, has led to an increasing approachment between the Catholic Church and the Evangelical movement, with the realization that our two traditions can at least both recite the ancient creeds1 without reservation.

As an Evangelical with Roman-Catholic roots, and with both family and many friends in the Catholic Church this planned act saddens me because it underlines the major disagreements which still divide our traditions.

In view of what the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews says about the cloud of witnesses which surrounds us2 even as an Evangelical I don’t have too many problems with the notion of asking the saints, i.e. believers who have preceded us in earthly death and whom the Church recommends to us as examples of a faithful Christian life, for their intercession; this does not seem too different to me from the practice common among us Evangelicals of asking for the intercession of believers who still live among us.

But I cannot find any support or justification in Scripture for a piety focussed on the saints which credits them, including the mother of the Lord, with miracles; which considers prayers to the saints more efficacious than prayers to God himself; and I particularly cannot find any justification for consecrating people or countries to anyone other than God himself. As far as I can see this skates perilously close to the line between honoring  exemplary men and women on the one hand, and worshipping God on the other; a line which, when crossed, results in idolatry. And we have not yet even addressed whether the heart of Mary is indeed immaculate (sinless) when Scripture clearly suggests otherwise3.

I find this planned act all the more regrettable as we have come together during the pandemic to pray across denominational boundaries for our countries, both in Germany (Deutschland betet)) and Austria (Österreich betet gemeinsam), and are just coming to the end of a week of Europe-wide, cross-denominational prayer for peace in Ukraine and Russia (Europe prays together). This act will break this unity: some will commend these two countries to God himself, while others will commend them to the mother of Jesus, as if she were on a par with the Trinity.

And this act suggests something else: that in the Catholic Church the supposed revelation of Mary in Fatima has primacy over the revelation of God in Scripture.

Sad.

1. even if reciting the creed is not a standard part of most evangelical worship services[↩]
2. Heb. 12:1[↩]
3. Mark 10:18; Romans 3:10-12[↩]

On social media, in addition to many positive posts and comments of support for Ukraine, and the rather annoying comments from Putin’s defenders, there are unfortunately also comments which condemn and castigate “the Russians” and hold them responsible for the disaster happening in Ukraine.

Folks, please keep in mind that Russia is still not a true, functioning democratic country; that despite the fact that there seem to be relatively free elections, the operative word is “relatively” and information in the run-up to these elections is very much restricted, and candidates are randomly excluded or sent to prison camps on various pretexts.

And unlike in our western countries, once elected the Russian president is subject to hardly any checks of his power and he can pretty much do as he pleases.

The war in Ukraine was started and is controlled by Vladimir Putin and a relatively small inner circle of influential people; a wider circle including many of the well-known oligarchs supports this system because they have used it to accumulate their millions.

Ordinary Russian citizens, including most of the soldiers on the ground in Ukraine, have no influence at all on these decisions; if they speak out against them they risk their livelihood and a prison sentence.

For all these reasons we should be really careful not to blame “the Russians”. And the Ukrainians demonstrate this.

In this photo taken from a video clip circulated on Telegram and Twitter, a captured young Russian soldier is seen sipping tea and eating a snack as he tries to compose himself. A woman standing next to him is trying to connect a video call to his home. Soon the call connects and the soldier breaks into tears. He looks too stunned to speak but he blows kisses to the camera, as people pat him on his back to calm him down.  In the video a bystander can be heard saying in the video, “These young men, it’s not their fault. They don’t know why they are here.” Another person joins him and says, “They are using old maps, they are lost.”

In the days since the beginning of Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine I have come across some comments from fellow Christians which leave me scratching my head. I want to address two ideas from these comments.

The End Times Scenario

This is the idea that the war in Russia is part of the scenario for the End Times predicted in the Bible, and that therefore it is (a) fruitless and (b) contrary to God’s will for us to pray for an end to that war. It’s been prophesied, it’s happening, and there is no point praying.

Folks, that is cynical, unbiblical, un-Christian nonsense!

Scripture tells us that God does not desire the death of the sinner; it tells us that Jesus is the Prince of Peace and that we should be peace makers. And while we should always be prepared and ready for Christ’s return we are to avoid idle speculations about its timing.

Therefore it is never wrong to pray for an end to war, suffering, poverty, etc; rather, it is the sacred responsibility of all who claim to be Jesus followers.

What God does in response to our prayers, how He hears and answers them, is another question; but there is no doubt that we may and should pray—and help in practical ways as we are able.

The God’s Punishment Scenario

Some Christians have advanced the idea that Putin’s invasion is God’s punishment for the Ukraine’s liberal abortion legislation and the many unborn children who die there every day – and who are we to pray against God’s punishment?

I think that is selfrighteous nonsense, a private interpretation which cannot be justified either biblically or by other facts.

For one thing, many more abortions are taking place in Russia than in Ukraine; for another, both countries have inherited their abortion legislation from the Soviet Union where laws were not arrived at democratically, by any stretch of the imagination.

Our “western” countries, on the other hand, are democratically moving to ever more “liberal” laws, not only regarding abortion but also assisted suicide and euthanasia.

So, if there is a country that has deserved such drastic punishment from God, it is hardly Ukraine; and proclaiming some catastrophic event a punishment from God is not only arrogant but also contravenes the biblical injunction not to judge.

And Putin as the defender of Christian values is a truly perverse notion.

Yesterday, First Things magazine published a “Web Exclusive” by Theopolis Institute president, Peter Leithart, entitled Theology Is Not Archeology, He describes today’s impressive and edifying attempts by theologians to recover, explain, and defend traditional creedal and theological formulae, doing away with arrogant caricatures of pre-modern theology and revealing its impressive subtlety.

It is great article, with one caveat.

Quoting from the article:

Having retrieved with all possible care, theologians must reflect on what they have retrieved, and be willing to criticize and refine hallowed creedal and confessional formulae if they are … incomplete …

Retrieval is a theological good, but there must be life beyond retrieval.

Now I am not for one minute suggesting that Peter Leithart intended this, but the suggestion that creedal formulae must be complete implies that theology is valid only insofar as it penetrates every mystery, or to the extent that nothing remains hidden from it so  it can come up with complete formulations of truth. It ignores the fact that while God is infinite we are but finite, which in turn implies that anything we say or think about God will not completely do justice to His reality.

Of course theology must be more than archeology, of course there must be theological life beyond retrieval, but that life can and must include the recognition that we can only know about God what He has revealed to us, and that while we live this side of eternity, this revelation, and thus our theological formulae, have gaps; that whatever we have learned about and experienced of God, we need to hold in an open hand, knowing that it is likely incomplete.

As St. Paul says, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12 CSB)

Every now and then, accusations of censorship are tossed around, recently with regard to a video clip from a John McArthur sermon on “biblical sexuality”, and currently with regard to several prominent artists removing their material from Spotify over the presence of the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast on the streaming service.

But what is censorship? Here is the introductory paragraphs from the Wikipedia entry:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient”. Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

That is a good starting point because it points out that censorship is not always illegitimate. Typically, in our Western democracies, constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression impose limits on government censorship, with exceptions, but private individuals and organizations typically have more freedom to suppress unwelcome speech and expressions. Thus, while the government may not prohibit a poster proclaiming, “God is not real”, the private owner of a billboard is not required to allow this poster to be put up on his billboard; while the government may not prohibit someone from talking to people about his atheism, you are not required to invite that person into your home and allow them to talk to your family or guests about his atheism. Nor is a church required to allow this atheist to preach his views from their pulpit, or to allow anything at all which contradicts their doctrines to be preached from their pulpit.

When it comes to YouTube removing material from its site, such as a John McArthur clip proclaiming, “‘There is no such thing as transgender. You are either XX or XY. That’s it.”, the big question is, to what extent is YouTube a public space? The same thing is true of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. These are, after all, private companies, huge though they are, and their platforms correspond to private venues. Additionally, when you sign up to put content on these platforms you typically have to agree to their Terms and Conditions which usually incorporate content guidelines. If their content guidelines prohibit “hate speech”, and their definition of “hate speech” includes the denial of the reality of transgender, or the denial of the legitimacy of various sexual orientations, or the denial of same-sex marriage, then they are fully within their right to remove content that contravenes their guidelines.  And this is not really censorship, because they are not suppressing your right to speak or express your opinions, they simply refuse to provide a venue for certain types of speech. It’s the same as your church prohibiting someone preaching atheism or Buddhism or Islam in their sanctuary.

In the matter of artists removing their materials from Spotify because they disagree with Joe Rogan’s speech in his podcast hosted on the streaming service, the argument is somewhat different. Those who accuse the artists of censorship do so because in their view the artists are are trying to persuade Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. That may well be what they are trying to do, but I would say that  there are a number of reasons which make it perfectly legitimate for these artists to want to leave Spotify, and the economic reality is that their decision will not sway Spotify anyway:

1. Spotify started out,  and signed these musicians, as a music streaming service, and is now, because of the greater profits they expect, morphing in a podcast platform where the more controversial the views, the greater the revenue. These artists signed up for a music platform; should they be expected to remain with a controversy-focussed podcast platform?
2. There is a huge discrepancy between what Spotify pays musicians (peanuts) and what they are willing to pay podcasters like Joe Rogan or former British royals Meghan and Harry (millions). I don’t think Spotify is evil for acting doing what they do but neither are the musicians who are not willing to put up with this and are pulling their music — both sides are exercising their freedom.
3. The artists also raise the question of being affiliated  or associated with Joe Rogan and the views he is willing to tolerate on his podcast. This is ultimately a question of personal conscience. There’s a parallel with COVID-19 vaccines. Some people feel they cannot accept a vaccine because fetal cell lines from an aborted baby may have been involved in the development, testing, or production of the vaccine. Others are either not bothered by that at all or  they agree with the Vatican that while that may indeed be the case, the distance to that initial abortion is so great that it can be discounted. We do well, both with the vaccines and with Spotify, to respect people’s consciences, even where our conscience directs us differently.
4. And finally, censorship presupposes that the one accused of censoring has some kind of obligation to the one they are censoring, to permit, finance, or facilitate their freedom of speech. I would say that while Neil Young et al may have an obligation to not actively hinder Spotify’s or Joe Rogan’s free speech, they certainly have no obligation to facilitate it by continuing to do business with Spotify. And publicly announcing WHY they are pulling their music falls under their own right to free speech.

I believe that we simply have to live with the fact that Google, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify etc., are private, secular organizations whose management is dominated by people who are not favorable to the Christian faith (or most other faiths, for that matter), and who are motivated primarily by money. They tolerate Christian content to the extent that it does not offend their own views too much, or is unlikely to get them into trouble with influentual segments of their clientel, or makes enough money for them. The same is true with regard to Joe Rogan and other contriversial podcasters: what motivates them is the money they hope to make by hosting these podcasts. But they have no commitment to freedom of speech and expression on their platform, and our legal systems do not require them to have such a commitment. Add to that the fact that most of us, both content providers and content consumers, use the services provided by these companies without a paid contract, and the reality is simply that they have no obligation to us.

(Sorry, video is in German only)

These parents, Camelia and Petru Furdui from Romania, who now live in Walsrode in northern Germany, must feel themselves transported to their homeland during the time of Communism which they probably only know from their own parents’ stories –but they are living in that model member state of the European Union, Germany!

On April 26, 2021 local Child Protective Services removed their seven children, David, Naomi, Estera, Natalia, Ruben, Albert, and Lea from their care without advance warning and placed them with foster families and in children’s homes. At that point Lea was just over a year old; she recently celebrated her second birthday without her parents and siblings.

After the initial reason given for this drastic measure, an accusation of child abuse, proved to be without basis in fact, the new charge now is that the children’s religious upbringing (the parents are members of a Pentecostal church) is “out of step with the values of the majority society.” A charge like that is clearly a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and of the right to bring up one’s children. The “Basic Law”, the German constitution, says in Article 6,

(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.

(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.

An upbringing that is “out of step with the values of the majority society” is conspicuously absent as a legitimate reason for separating children from their parents.

Of course one may wonder whether this description of events by the parents Furdui corresponds to the facts, or whether there’s not more to the story — after all, CPS are usually very circumspect when it comes to the removal of children. In this context I note with interest that when one googles “Furdui Walsrode” there are dozens of media reports, mostly from secular media in fact, which bascically tell the same story as the Furduis. I find it hard to believe that no secular journalist could find a legitimate reason for removing those children — if such a legitimate reason were to in fact exist.

Based on other reports about the treatment of Christian parents by German authorities and about the causes of conflicts between Christian immigrants to Germany and the German school system and CPS a very likely scenario would involve one or more of the Furdui school children speaking up in school against some of those values of the majority society which in German schools are increasingly being communicated across the curriculum, such as the full equivalence and legitimacy of all sexual inclinations and expressions. Combined with the immigrant status of the Furdui family I can see CPS taking such action, for examle after a complaint by the school about those maladjusted immigrant children.

And after all, this buzz phrase about being out of step with the values of the majority society fits in very well with this scenario, coming as it does about from a segment of academia which equates conservative Christianity with fundamentalist Islam and paints the horror scenario of parallel societies which the state has to combat.

Mind you, I am not even imputing malicious intent to the CPS officials. In the modern, “progressive” view religion is not just unnecessary, but many aspects of a traditional Christian view of mankind and the world are considered wrongheaded and even immoral (such as the insistance of lifelong marriage between one man and one woman, the disapproval of sex before or outside of such marriage, the condemnation of abortion, the insistance that men and women cannot be arbitrarily exchanged and that a person cannot change his or her sex (or “gender”) at will, etc.). And children have to be protected from wrongheaded and immoral opinions. However, Germany claims to be a country governed by democratically defined laws, and in such a country the standard for measuring the legitimacy of any government action has to be the law, not officials’ individual sense of morality.

If you want to contribute to the family’s legal costs, please use this GoFundMe link.