eChurch Blog

Just for a larf OK, because I feel down…

Christianity Today

One could become wistful about the time in history when marriage was a settled affair, when everyone agreed on what it was, when no nation on the planet would have entertained the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage. But wistfulness is usually reserved for times long ago and places far away—not for a state of affairs that existed less than a decade ago.

In December 2000, the Dutch parliament became the first to pass legislation that gave same-sex couples the right to marry, divorce, and adopt children. On April 1 of the following year, the mayor of Amsterdam officiated, for the first time in human history, at the ceremonies of the first four gay couples. In the ensuing eight years, Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), and Norway (2008) followed the Netherlands’ lead, and Sweden may now not be far behind.

While we shake our heads at those libertine Dutch, traditional marriage was challenged in the U.S. even earlier, in 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriages amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. For the first time in U.S. history, a state supreme-court ruling suggested that gay couples may have the right to marry.

Social conservatives were galvanized into action and enacted a series of protective measures. Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (doma) in 1996. Three states soon adopted constitutional same-sex marriage bans: Alaska (1998), Nebraska (2000), and Nevada (2000).And in a few years, 42 states enacted statutes similar to doma (although three of those bans have since been overturned).

Gay marriage advocacy was given new life with Massachusetts’s historic 2003 high court ruling, which said that it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. It became clear that statutory bans were not enough; judges could throw out the laws if they felt the bans violated state constitutional rights. Over the next three years, voters in 23 states immediately amended their constitutions to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

Since then, the issue has ebbed and flowed, like trench warfare, with each side gaining only yards of territory with each new legislative or judicial assault. When the battle of Election 2008 had ended, it appeared that social conservatives had the momentum when constitutional amendments banning gay marriages passed in three more states.

But seemingly out of nowhere, gay marriage advocates have won stunning judicial, legislative, and social victories. Connecticut began granting marriage certificates to spouses of the same gender in November 2008. In April 2009, Iowa’s high court ruled that banning gay marriages was unconstitutional, and gay couples began lining up at Iowa court houses.The Vermont legislature legalized gay marriage that same month, while Maine and New Hampshire legalized gay marriage in May.

All the while, Rick Warren and Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean were hit hard for their public statements against gay marriage. To be against gay marriage now carries a social stigma. A recent poll of Massachusetts residents revealed that 36 percent of voters who oppose gay marriage agreed with the statement, “If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts you really have to watch your back because some people may try to hurt you.”

In short, traditional Christians feel like the armored tank of history is rolling over them, crushing traditional marriage under its iron treads, impervious to argument, the ballot box, or judicial logic. Even more disheartening has been to witness how, in each mainline denomination, and even in some evangelical seminaries, fellow Christians lobby hard for gay marriage.

The depressing feeling of inevitability is precisely what advocates of gay marriage want to instill in their opponents. But relying as many do on historical determinism—”Side with us because we’re going to win”—suggests that gay marriage advocates have run out of arguments. It also demonstrates historical amnesia. Arguments from historical inevitability have often been assumed by millions—to take two examples, the inevitability of Communism and the death of religion—and yet have proven to be wrong.

Still, we are at our wits’ ends about what to say next, impervious as the gay marriage juggernaut is. We know biblically and instinctively that “male and female he created them,” and that these complementary sexual beings are designed to become one flesh. We know that this spiritual instinct and biblical argument will not make much headway in the public square. So what do we say?

We can make secular arguments, of course, but the more we look at the strongest secular arguments we can muster, the more those arguments cut two ways. And one of the edges of those arguments will make evangelicals bleed, I’m afraid.

The Nonreligious Case

One way to get at the heart of an argument is to listen to allies who take the opposite view on this issue. There are some social conservatives, for example, who argue for gay marriage on conservative grounds.

Take The Atlantic’s foremost blogger, Andrew Sullivan, a Roman Catholic. He also happens to be gay, but his argument does not rest on his sexual preference. His case, as he asserted in a 2003 Time essay, is “an eminently conservative one—in fact, almost an emblem of ‘compassionate conservatism.’” He says the institution of marriage fosters responsibility, commitment, and the domestication of unruly men. Thus, “bringing gay men and women into this institution will surely change the gay subculture in subtle but profoundly conservative ways.” Growing up gay, he realized he would never have a family, and that it’s “the weddings and relationships and holidays that give families structure and meaning.” And thus, “when I looked forward, I saw nothing but emptiness and loneliness. No wonder it was hard to connect sex with love and commitment,” Sullivan wrote.

Or take the argument from the street, so to speak, from a common blogger in Algonquin, Illinois. He is a heterosexual who lives with a woman, and a political conservative who supports legalizing gay marriage. He says we must accept the fact that American society has moved on and “embraced different ways people choose to live and love.” And “when you take away all the legalisms, the moral quotient, the religious implications, and the needs of society,” he writes, “what we are left with is nothing more than how people choose to define their relationships where they feel love for another human being.”

These two writers—one from the center of American culture and the other from the heartland—summarize a privatized view of marriage. Marriage is about the fulfillment of the two people involved. It will help them to mature as human beings and to express more deeply their love for one another.

Marriage is inescapably connected to children and thus family, and family is inescapably connected to society.This, of course, strikes at the heart of how Christians have traditionally understood marriage. David Blankenhorn, president of the New York–based Institute for American Values and author of The Future of Marriage, argued this in a nonreligious way in a September 2008 Los Angeles Times op-ed. There is one constant in the constantly evolving understanding of marriage, he says: “In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.”

Further, he says, “Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.”

The argument is nuanced, and goes on to take into account heterosexual couples who will not or cannot have children. But he grounds marriage not in two people, but in two communities: the family and the state.

McGill University law professor Margaret Somerville, in a 2003 brief before Canada’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, argued in much the same way. She says that to form a society, we must create “a societal-cultural paradigm.” This is a constellation of “values, principles, attitudes, beliefs, and myths” by which a society finds value and meaning, both individually and collectively.

“Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life depends,” she says. “That is the primary reason why marriage is important to society.” Thus, it is crucial that societies protect marriage as a fact and as a symbol, as that institution that fosters human life, doing so in the context of family and society. “Even if a particular man and woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not damage this general symbolism.”

Again, the argument is involved and nuanced. Both Blankenhorn and Somerville ground marriage in something larger than two selves who wish to find fulfillment. Marriage is inescapably connected to children and thus family, and family is inescapably connected to society.

In a highly individualistic culture, this argument swims upstream, but conservative Christians recognize that it corresponds to their basic theological instincts. The narcissism of mutual self-fulfillment will never be a solid foundation for a particular marriage, let alone for the most fundamental institution in society. This is an argument we can press publicly as the opportunity arises.

We’ll have to press it humbly, however, because as it turns out, we are very much complicit in the unrighteousness we decry.

Evangelical individualism

The thrust of the pro-gay-marriage argument rests on the assumption that the happiness of the individual is paramount, and that the state’s responsibility is to protect the rights of individuals to pursue whatever they think will make them happy, as long as no one gets hurt. The irony of radical individualism is that it will eventually hurt somebody. In practice, the happiness of one individual always runs into the happiness of another, and then only the strong survive. The weaker individual is no longer treated as fully human, and thus his or her right to happiness is compromised. In our nation, we see this in the way we treat individuals at both ends of life, in how expendable they are if they interrupt the happiness of the fully functioning—take the increasing acceptance of euthanasia, and the on-the-ground fact of abortions in the thousands every day.

Evangelicals are sensitive to this reality, but are less aware of how much we proactively participate in the culture of individualism. While stopping short of abortion, we have not given much thought to our easy acceptance of artificial contraception. I’m not arguing for or against contraception here, only pointing to the reality that contraception has separated sex from procreation. That, in turn, has prompted most couples, evangelicals included, to think that sex is first and foremost a fulfilling psychological and physical experience, that a couple has a right to enjoy themselves for a few years before they settle down to family life.

In essence, we have already redefined marriage as an institution designed for personal happiness. We see ancillary evidence of this at the other end of marriage: Though it is a difficult thing to measure, the rate at which evangelicals divorce is hard to distinguish from the larger culture’s, and the list of reasons for divorce seems no different: “We grew apart.” “We no longer met each other’s needs.” “Irreconcilable differences.” The language of divorce is usually about the lack of self-fulfillment.

Add to that our penchant for changing churches, usually because “I just wasn’t being fed,” as well as our need to test every church and pastor against our personal reading of the Bible—well, you can see why Protestants have managed in 500 years to create out of two traditions (Orthodox and Catholic) some 30,000 denominations. While the Baptists are known for their doctrine of “soul competency,” a version of the doctrine is woven into the fabric of broader evangelicalism, though it has morphed into sole competency. Thus, the death of mutual accountability and church discipline in our movement. Thus, the exaltation of worship in which the personal experience of the worshiper so often becomes more important than the object of worship. Thus, the continual proliferation of churches, parachurches, and movements because the group we belong to just doesn’t do it the way we think “the Lord is leading me” to do it.

We are, of all Christian traditions, the most individualistic. This individual emphasis has flourished in different ways and in different settings, and often for the good. It has challenged moribund religion (Reformation), prompted revival (Great Awakenings), ministered to the urban poor (Salvation Army), abolished slavery (William Wilberforce), and led to explosive worldwide church growth (Pentecostalism). But it is individualism nonetheless, and it cuts right to the heart of one of our best arguments against gay marriage.

We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. We cannot say that an institution, like the state, has a perfect right to insist on certain values and behavior from its citizens while we refuse to submit to denominational or local church authority. We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment when we, like the rest of heterosexual culture, delay marriage until we can experience life, and delay having children until we can enjoy each other for a few years.

In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue. Until we admit that, and take steps to amend our ways, our cries of alarm about gay marriage will echo off into oblivion.

Witnesses to Another

This does not mean we should stop fighting initiatives that would legalize gay marriage. Gay marriage is simply a bad idea, whether one is religious or not. But it’s bad not only because of what it will do to the social fabric, but because of what it signals has already happened to our social fabric. We are a culture of radical individualists, and gay marriage does nothing but put an exclamation point on that fact. We should fight it, because it will only make a bad situation worse.

That being said, we are as compromised as the next gay couple when it comes to radical individualism. This means that alongside our call to maintain traditional marriage, we should “bewail our manifold sins and wickedness,” as the Book of Common Prayer puts it. We should acknowledge how much Protestant culture has shaped American culture, how much we’ve collaborated in the flowering of individualism, and how we continue to do so even when the flower has become a weed that is choking off life.

We well may lose the marriage war. But we are called into the battle not because we are promised victory, but because we’re called to be witnesses of a greater battle. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has famously said that “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts.” In our time and place, it is a battle with the original temptation: to imagine we are gods, captains of our own souls and masters of our fate—a habitual unwillingness to submit to anything bigger than the self.

As we contend with gay marriage proponents, then, we contend as both prophets and penitents. Like Isaiah, we can announce to our culture the poisonous fruit of immorality, while saying, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:5, esv). Like Paul, we can forthrightly warn others of the horrific consequences of sin, but in the next breath acknowledge that we must admit we are “the chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).

What we bring to the public table, then, is not our righteousness or even our humility. We come in the name of the One who came into the world to save sinners of all political and social persuasions. We raise our voices on behalf of righteousness not in a way calculated to win the culture—for sometimes we will, sometimes we won’t—but as witnesses to the only Righteous One. We live in a culture that by all accounts is descending into darkness, and our job is to reflect the light of Christ. We speak for what he says is right, using the lingua franca of the culture to argue that as best we can, using the political and social instruments at our disposal to the best of our ability, acknowledging our own complicity in the sins we decry, and pointing to the One who must save us all.

Cramner

Debbie Purdy is fearfully and wonderfully made. The joy in her face is the thrilling exuberance of life: the ecstasy, the vibrancy, the vitality. It is life in all its beauty – the precious gift of the mysterious breath of God, still coursing through every vein and illuminating her eyes despite her debilitating multiple sclerosis.

She is ecstatic after a Law Lords’ ruling which paves the way for legally assisted suicide abroad, of which she says, apparently oblivious to the irony: ‘This has given me my life back’.

Assisted suicide is a curious life to get back.

Giving judgment yesterday – their final one from the red benches of the House of Lords – Lord Hope, sitting with Lords Phillips, Brown and Neuberger and Baroness Hale, said it was no part of the Law Lords’ function to decriminalise assisted suicide, which was up to Parliament. Their function was to say what the law is and, if uncertain, to clarify it. So this ruling has not changed the law on assisting suicide, which remains punishable by up to 14 years in jail. It relates specifically to ‘suicide tourism’, and now families who help terminally ill relatives to end their lives will be free from the risk of prosecution.

Is it not profoundly sad and disturbing that the final ruling of the Law Lords from the Chamber of the Upper House should be for death and destruction?

Rather like the legalisation of abortion, which was only ever intended to be performed in extremis, this will lead to all manner of unintended abuses. Miss Purdy’s lawyers are already talking of the eventual legalisation of assistance for suicide in certain circumstances. They said a distinction will now be drawn between maliciously encouraging someone to kill themselves, which would continue to be prosecuted, and compassionately supporting someone’s decision to die, which would not lead to legal action.

Can one not be compassionately malicious?

This is not just the thin end of a wedge. It is not even the tip of an iceberg. It is a legislative coup, driving a coach and horses through the Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1861 – a sovereign Act of Parliament – without reference to that Parliament. Effectively, they have declared that it is lawful for somebody to help a person to commit suicide abroad but not in the UK. This amounts to a change in primary legislation without any reference to Parliament. And it is an absurd and unsustainable distinction in any case, for British nationals should not be encouraged to legally pursue abroad what is illegal here: why not encourage cannabis smokers to journey to Amsterdam? Why not encourage paedophiles to journey to Thailand? To pretend that by permitting assisted suicide in Switzerland the UK somehow remains legislatively morally superior is perverse.

But of even greater significance, Miss Purdy also won on a second point – the Law Lords said she had the right to choose how she died, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR is now deemed to grant one the right to determine how and when one may die. The ECHR has become God.

Now people will have the ultimate power to choose how and when they end their life, and it is a human right.

And yet Cranmer cannot but think these Law Lords to be spiritually undiscerning and morally deficient. For what message does this send to the vulnerable, the disabled and the seriously ill? Perhaps they should all pack their bags and jet off to Geneva with their Dignitas vouchers courtesy of their caring, compassionate and supportive families.

The sad case of Miss Purdy sets a dangerous precedent as far as the state is concerned: if you have MS, it is better to just get it over with. You will no longer be a burden to your relations or to the state. The NHS could save billions by no longer keeping alive people who have all manner of ailments and diseases.

Why not just end all suffering, for surely it is an infringement of one’s human rights?

BBC

Quakers ‘to allow gay marriages’

One of the UK’s oldest Christian denominations – the Quakers – looks set to extend marriage services to same-sex couples at their yearly meeting later.

The church has already held religious blessings for same-sex couples who have had a civil partnership ceremony.

But agreeing to perform gay marriages, which are currently not allowed under civil law, could bring the Quakers into conflict with the government.

The issue of active homosexuality has bitterly divided other churches.

But the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the Quakers had been more prepared than other churches to reinterpret the Bible in the light of contemporary life.

Religious commitment

The Quakers – also known as The Religious Society of Friends – are likely to reach consensus on the issue of gay marriage without a vote at their annual gathering in York on Friday.

They will also formally ask the government to change the law to allow gay people to marry.

Quaker registrars, like rabbis and Church of England priests, have the authority to marry heterosexual couples on behalf of the state.

But many British Quakers feel it is wrong to exclude a religious commitment from civil partnerships and want the right to marriage extended to same-sex couples too.

The Quaker church has welcomed same-sex unions for more than two decades, allowing local groups to celebrate same-sex commitments through special acts of worship.

But within Britain’s Christian community more widely the issue of homosexuality has caused major confrontations.

Most recently, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, told a newspaper that homosexuals should “repent and be changed”.

“For the land whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land
of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed,
and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs; but the land
whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and
drinketh water of the rain of heaven; a land which the LORD thy
God careth for; the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it,
from the beginning of the year, even unto the end of the year.”
Deuteronomy 11:10,11,12

IT has generally been considered, that the passage of the Jordan by the
Israelites is typical of death, and that Canaan is a fitting representation of
heaven. We believe that in some sense it is true, and we do fondly cherish
the household words of those hymns which describe our passing through
Jordan’s billows, and landing safe on Canaan’s side; but we do think that
the allegory does not hold, and that Jordan is not a fair exhibition of death,
nor the land of Canaan a fair picture of the sweet land beyond the swelling
flood which the Christian gains after death. For mark you, after the
children of Israel had entered into Canaan, they had to fight with their
enemies. It was a land filled with foes. Every city they entered they had to
take by storm, unless a miracle dismantled it. They were warriors, even in
the land of Canaan, fighting for their own inheritance; and though each
tribe had its lot marked out, yet they had to conquer the giant Anakim, and
encounter terrible hosts of Canaanites. But when we across the river of
death we shall have no foes to fight, no enemies to encounter. Heaven is a
place already prepared for us; out of it the evil ones have long ago been
driven, there brethren shall await us with pleasing faces, kind hands shall
clasp ours, and loving words shall alone be heard. The shout of war shall
ne’er be raised by us in heaven; we shall throw our swords away, and the
scabbards with them. No battles with warriors there, no plains soaked with
blood, no hills where robbers dwell, no inhabitants with chariots of iron. It
is “a land flowing with milk and honey;” and it dreams not of the foeman of
Canaan of old. We think the church has lost the beauty of Scripture, in
taking Jordan to mean death, and that a far fuller meaning is the true
allegory to be connected with it. Egypt, as we have lately observed to you,
was typical of the condition of the children of God while they are in
bondage to the law of sin. There they are made to work unceasingly,
without wages or profit, but continually subject to pains. We said, again,
that the coming up out of Egypt was the type of the deliverance which
every one of God’s people enjoys, when by faith he strikes the blood of
Jesus on his lintel and his doorpost, and spiritually eats the paschal lamb;
and we can also tell you now, that the passage through the wilderness is
typical of that state of hoping, and fearing, and doubting, and wavering,
and inconstancy, and distrust, which we usually experience between the
period when we come out of Egypt, and attain unto the full assurance of
faith.

Many of you, my dear hearers, are really come out of Egypt; but you are
still wandering about in the wilderness. “We that have believed do enter
into rest;” but you, though you have eaten of Jesus, have not so believed
on him as -to have entered into the Canaan of rest. You are the Lord’s
people, but you have not come into the Canaan of assured faith,
confidence, and hope, where we wrestle no longer with flesh and blood,
but with principalities and powers in the heavenly places in Christ Jesuswhen
it is no longer a matter of doubt with us whether we shall be saved,
but we feel that we are saved. I have known believers who have existed for
years almost without a doubt as to their acceptance. They have enjoyed a
sweet and blessed reliance on Christ; they have come into Canaan; they
have fed on the good old corn of the land; they now “lie passive in his
hand, and know no will but his.” They have such a sweet oneness with
their blessed Lord Jesus, that they lay their head on his breast all day long,
and they have scarcely any nights; they almost always live in days; for
though they have not attained unto his perfect image, they feel themselves
so manifestly in union with himself that they cannot and dare not doubt.
They have entered into rest, they are come into Canaan. Such is the
condition of the child of God, when he has come to an advanced stage in
his experience, when God has so given him grace upon grace that he can
say, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will
fear no evil, for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”
We will read this passage again; and bear in mind what I understand it to
mean. It sets before us the Christian’s state, after he has attained to this
faith and confidence in God, when he is no longer careful about the things
of this life, when he does not water the ground with his foot, but has come
to a land that drinketh in the rain of heaven. “The land whither thou goest
in to possess it,” -the land of high and holy Christian privilege-”is not as
the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed,
and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs: but the land, whither
ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the
rain of heaven: a land which the Lord thy God careth for: the eyes of the
Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto
the end of the year.” We shall have this morning to note, first of all, the
difference between the Christian’s temporal condition and that of the
Egyptian worldling; and secondly, the special privilege vouchsafed to
those who have entered info Canaan- that the eyes of the Lord their God
are always upon their land, “from the beginning of the year, even unto the
end of the year.”

I. True religion makes a difference not only in a man, but in a man’s
condition; if affects not only his heart, but his state-not only his nature, but
his very standing in society. The Lord thy God cares not only for Israel, but
for Canaan, where Israel dwells. God has not only a regard to the elect, but
to their habitation, and not only so, but to all their affairs and
circumstances. The moment I become a child of God, not only is my heart
changed and my nature renewed, but my very position becomes different;
the very beasts of the field are in league with me, and the stones thereof are
at peace. My habitation is now guarded by Jehovah; my position in this
world is no longer that of a needy mendicant-I have become a gentlemanpensioner
on the providence of God, my position, which was that of a
bondslave in Egypt, is now become that of an inheritor in Canaan. In this
difference of the condition of the Christian and the worldling, we shall
mark three things.

First, the Christian’s temporal condition is different to that of the
worldling; for the worldling looks to secondary causes, the Christian looks
to heaven; he gets his mercies thence. Read the text. “The land, whither
thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye
came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as
a garden of herbs.” The land of Egypt has never had any rain from heaven,
it has been always watered from earthly sources. At a certain season the
river Nile overflowed its banks, and covered the land; a stock of water was
then accumulated in artificial reservoirs, and afterwards let out in canals,
and allowed to run in little trenches through the fields. They had to water it
as a garden of herbs. All their dependence was on the nether springs; they
looked to the river Nile as the source of all their plenty, and even
worshipped it. But the land to which you are coming is not watered from a
river; “it drinketh water of the rain of heaven.” Your fertility shall not come
from such artificial sources as canals and trenches; you shall be fed from
the water that descends from heaven! You see how beautifully this pictures
a worldling and a Christian. Look at the worldling; what is his dependence?
It is all upon the water below, he looks only to the water that flows from
the river of this world. “Who will show us any good?” Some rely upon
what they call chance -(a river the source of which, like the source of the
Nile, is never known;) and though continually disappointed, they still
persevere in trusting to this unknown stream. Others, who are more
sensible, trust to their hard work and honesty; they look to the source of
that river, and they trace it to a fountain of human erection, graced by a
statue of labor. Ah! that river may yet fall you; it may not overflow its
banks, and you may be starved. But, O Christian, what dost thou rely
upon? Thy land “drinketh water of the rain of heaven;” thy mercies come
not from the hand of chance; thy daily bread cometh not so much from thy
industry as from thy heavenly Father’s care; thou seest stamped upon every
mercy heaven’s own inscription, and every blessing comes down to thee
perfumed with the ointment and the spikenard, and the myrrh of the ivory
palaces, whence God dispenses his bounties. Here is the difference between
the assured Christian and the mere worldling: the one trusts to natural
causes-the other “looks through nature up to nature’s God,” and seeth his
mercies as coming down fresh from heaven.

Beloved, let us improve this thought, by showing you the great value of it.
Do you know a man who sees his mercies coming from heaven, and not
from earth? How much sweeter all his mercies are! There is nothing in the
world that tastes as sweet to the school-boy as that which comes from
home. Those who live at the school may make him ever such good things,
but he cares nothing for anything like that which comes from home. So will
the Christian. All his mercies are sweeter because they are home-mercies. I
love God’s favors on earth; for everything I eat and drink tastes of home.
And oh! how sweet to think. “That bread, my Father’s hand moulded, that
water, my Father droppeth out from his hand in the gentle rain.” I can see
everything coming from his hand. The land in which I live is not like the
land of Egypt, fed by a river; but it “drinketh water of the rain of heaven.”
All my mercies come from above. Don’t you like, beloved, to see the print
of your Father’s fingers on every mercy? You have heard of the haddock
having the mark of the thumb of Peter on it! it is a fiction, of course, but I
am sure all the fish that we get out of the sea of providence are marked by
Jesus’ fingers. Happy the lot of that man who receives everything as
coming from God, and thanks his Father for it all! It makes anything sweet,
when he knows it comes from heaven.

This thought, again, has a great tendency to keep us from an overwhelming
love of the world. If we think that all our mercies come from heaven, we
shall not be so likely to love the world, as we shall be if we think that they
are the natural products of the soil. The spies went to Eschol, and fetched
thence an immense cluster of the grapes which grew there, but you do not
find that the people said, “These are fine fruits, therefore will we stay
here.” No: they saw that the grapes came from Canaan, and thereupon they
said, “Let us go on, and possess them.” And so, when we get rich mercies,
if we think they come from the natural soil of this earth, we feel,

“Here I will for ever stay.”

But if we know that they come from a foreign clime, we are anxious to go

“where our dear Lord his vineyard keeps,
And all the clusters grow.”

Christian, then, rejoice, rejoice! Thy mercies come from heaven; however
small they be, still they are thy Father’s gift; not one comes to thee without
his knowledge, and his permission. Bless the Lord, therefore, that thou art
come to Canaan; where thy “land drinketh water of the rain of heaven!”

My dearly beloved, just stop here, and console yourselves, if you are in
trouble. “Oh!” says one, “I know not what I shall do: where to turn myself
I cannot tell.” You are not like your brother, who is sitting near you; he has
a competency; he has a river of Egypt to depend on, you have not any;
nevertheless, there is the sky still. If you were to tell a farmer, “You have
no rivers to water your lands.” “Well,” he would say, “I don’t want them
either, for I have clouds up there, and the clouds are enough.” So,
Christian, if thou hast nothing to depend on down below, turn thine eyes
up there, and say, “The land, whither I-go in to possess it, is not as the land
of Egypt, from whence I came out, where I sowed my seed, and watered it
with my foot, as a garden of herbs: but the land, whither I go to possess it,
is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven.”
2. But now comes the second distinction, and that is, a difference in the
toilsomeness of their lives. The worldly man, just like the Israelites in
Egypt, has to water his land with his foot. Read the passage:-”For the land,
whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt, from
whence ye came out, where thou sowedet thy seed, and wateredst it with
thy foot as a garden of herbs.” This alludes, possibly to the practice,
amongst all eastern nations where the land is irrigated, of letting out a
certain quantity of water into a trench, and then having small gutters dug in
the gardens, to compel the water to run along different parts of the ground.
Sometimes one of these gutters might be broken; and then the gardener
would press the mould against it with his foot, to keep the water in its
proper channel. But I am inclined to think that the passage alludes to the
method which those eastern countries have of pumping up the water by a
tread-wheel, and so watering the land with their foot. However that may
be, it means that the land of Egypt was watered with extraordinary labor,
in order to preserve it from sterility. “But,” says Moses, “the land, to which
ye are going, is not a land which you will have to water with your foot.
The water will come spontaneously; the land will be watered by the rain of
heaven. You can sit in your own houses, or under your own vine, or under
your own figtree, and God himself shall be your irrigator. You shall sit still,
and ‘in quietness shall ye possess your souls.” “Now, here is a difference
between the godly and ungodly.-the ungodly man toils. Suppose his object
is ambition; he will labor and labor, and labor, and spend his very life, until
he obtains the desired pinnacle. Suppose it is wealth; how will he emaciate
his frame, rob his body of its heeded sleep, and take away the nourishment
his frame requires, in order that he may accumulate riches! And if it is
learning, how will he burn his eyes out with the flame of his hot desire, that
he may understand all knowledge; how will he allow his frame to become
weak, and weary, and wan, by midnight watchings, till the oil wherewith he
lighteth himself by night comes from his own flesh, and the marrow of his
bones furnisheth the light for his spirit! Men will in this way labor, and toil,
and strive. But not so the Christian. No: God “giveth his beloved sleep.”

His “strength is to sit still.” He knows what it is to fulfill the command of
Paul:-”I would have you without carefulness.” We can take things as God
gives them, without all this toil and labor. I have often admired the advice
of old Cineas to Pyrrhus. Old story saith, that when Pyrrhus, king of
Epirus, was making preparation for his intended expedition into Italy,
Cineas, the philosopher, took a favorable opportunity of addressing him
thus: “The Romans, sir, are reported to be a warlike and victorious people;
but if God permit us to overcome them, what use shall we make of the
victory?” “Thou askest,” said Pyrrhus, “a thing that is self-evident. The
Romans once conquered, no city will resist us; we shall then be masters of
all Italy.”

Cineas added-”And having subdued Italy, what shall we do next?” Pyrrhus
not yet aware of his intentions, replied, “Sicily next stretches out her arms
to receive us.” “That is very probable,” said Cineas, “but will the
possession of Sicily put an end to the war?” “God grant us success in that,”
answered Pyrrhus, “and we shall make these only the forerunners of
greater things, for then Libra and Carthage will soon be ours: and these
things being completed, none of our enemies can offer any further
resistance.” “Very true,” added Cineas, “for then we may easily regain
Macedon, and make absolute conquest of Greece; and when all these are in
our possession, what shall we do then?” Pyrrhus, smiling, answered, “Why
then, my dear friend, we will live at our ease, take pleasure all day, and
amuse ourselves with cheerful conversation.” “Well sir,” said Cineas, “and
why may we not do this now, and without the labor and hazard of an
enterprise so laborious and uncertain?” So, beloved, says the Christian. The
worldly man says, “Let – me go and do this; let me go and do that; let me
accumulate so many thousand pounds; let me get so rich; then I will enjoy
myself and take my ease.” “Nay, says the Christian, “I see no reason for
doing it; why should I not make God my refuge now? Why should I not
enjoy comfort and peace, and make myself happy now?” He does not want
to water his land with his feet; but he sits down quietly, and his land
“drinketh in water of the rain of heaven.” Do not say I am preaching
laziness. No such thing I am only saying it is vain for you to rise up early,
and sit up late, and eat the bread of carefulness, for, “Except the Lord build
the house, they labor in vain that build it.” But, if “he giveth his beloved
sleep,” they rest in him; they know not these toils; that is, if they have
attained to full assurance, and crossed into the Canaan of full confidence in
God. They do not care to go ranging the world to find their happiness; but
they say, “God is my ever present help; in him my soul is satisfied.” They
rest content in him. Their land is watered with the rain of heaven.

I remember a story of a young man who was a lawyer. In order to attain
fame in his position he was extremely anxious to understand all the
mysteries and tortuous windings of the law, and to acquire some power of
oratory, that he might be able to deliver himself eloquently before the
bench. For ten years did he live apart from other people, lest domestic
habits should wean him from his studies; he wrapped himself every night in
a blanket, and took one of his own volumes, and put it under his head; he
denied himself food, eating only so many morsels a day, lest indigestion
should impair his powers. Although he was an infidel he believed in God;
and he bowed his head so many times a day, and prayed that he might lose
anything rather than his intellectual powers. “Make a giant of me!” -that
was his expression. And although his poor mother begged him to make
himself more comfortable, he would not, but persisted in his course of
abstemiousness and self-denial. One day, in reading one of his books, he
saw this passage: “When all is gained, how little then is won! And yet to
gain that little, how much is lost!” He stamped his foot, and raved like a
maniac at the thought, that he had spent all these ten years, toiling and
wearying himself for nothing; he saw the vanity of his course; he was
driven to desperation, seized his axe, cut down the sign-board of his
profession, and said, “Here ends this business.” Turning to the same book,
he found that it recommended Christianity as the rest of the weary soul; he
found it in Christ, and attained to such an understanding of Christ, that he
became a preacher of the gospel, and might well have preached on this
text-”The land whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of
Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and
wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs: but the land, whither ye go
to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of
heaven: a land which the Lord thy God careth for: the eyes of the Lord thy
God are upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the
year”

3. This brings us to the third and last difference that we will note this
morning; and that is, that the unbeliever, he who has not crossed the
Jordan and come to full confidence, does not understand the universality
of God’s providence, while the assured Christian does. You will see that in
my text in a minute. In Egypt the ground is almost entirely flat; and where
it is not flat, it is impossible, of course, to grow anything, unless the ground
is watered at considerable difficulty by some method of artificial irrigation,
which shall force the water on to the high places. “But,” says Moses, “the
land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys.” The
Egyptians could not get the water up on the hills, but you can; for the
mountains drink in the rain, as well as the valleys. Now look at a worldling.
Give him comforts, give him prosperity: oh; he can be so happy. Give him
everything just as he likes it; make his course all a plain, all a dead valley
and a flat; he can fertilize that, and water it; but let him have a mountainous
trouble, let him lose a friend, or let his property be taken from him-put a
hill in his way, and he cannot water that, with all the pumping of his feet;
and all the force he strives to use. But the Christian lives in “a land of hills
and valleys;” a land of sorrow as well as joys; but the hills drink the water,
as well as the valleys. We need not climb the mountains to water their
heads, for our God is as high as the hills. High as our troubles, and
mountainous as are our difficulties sometimes, we need not climb up with
weary foot to make them fertile, for they are all made to work together for
our good. Go, Egyptian; live thou in thy flat country, and enjoy its luxuries;
thou hast thy papyrus, and thou writest mercies upon it, but it shall be the
food of worms; we have no lotus, but we have a flower that blooms in
paradise; and we write our mercies on rocks, and not on rushes. Oh! sweet
Canaan, heavenly land, where I dwell, and where you dwell, my brother
Christians a land which “drinketh water of the rain of heaven!”

II. We must consider a little time, THE SPECIAL MERCY. The eyes of the
Lord are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end
of the year.” We must now turn away altogether from the allegoric, and
come to this special mercy, which is the lot only of God’s people.
“The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of
the year even unto the end of the year:” that is, upon the lot of all
Christians individually. We have come now, beloved, to the end of another
year-to the threshold of another period of time, and have marched another
year’s journey through the wilderness. Come, now! In reading this verse
over, can you say Amen to it. “The eyes of the Lord thy God are always
upon you, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.”
Some of you say. “I have had deep troubles this year.” “I have lost a
friend,” says one. “Ah!” says another, “I have been impoverished this
year.” “I have been slandered,” cries another. “I have been exceedingly
vexed and grieved,” says another. “I have been persecuted,” says another.
Well, but, beloved, take the year altogether-the blacks and the whites, the
troubles and the joys, the hills and the valleys altogether, and what have
you to say about it? You may say, “Surely goodness and mercy have
followed me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the
Lord for ever.” Do not pick out one day in the year, and say it was a bad
day, but take all the year round, let it revolve in all its grandeur; let all the
signs of the Zodiac come before you. Do not say, “I have been in Cancer
so long a time,” but run through them all, and then get into Libra, and
judge between things that differ; and then what will you say? “Ah! bless the
Lord! he hath done all things well; my soul, and all that is within me, bless
his holy name!” And you know why all things have been well. It is because
the eyes of the Lord have been upon you all the year. Oh! if those awful
eyes had been shut for a single moment, by night or day, where should we
have been? Why, we had not been at, all, but swept away, like airy dreams,
into nihility. God watches over every one of his people, just as if there
were only that one in the world; and he has been watching over you, so
that when a trouble came, God said, “Trouble, avaunt!” “There shall no
temptation happen to you but such as is common to man.” And when your
joys would have cloyed upon you, and around you, God has said, “Stand
back, joy! I will not have you fondle him too much; he will be deceived by
thee.” “The eyes of the Lord “have been upon you continually, “from the
beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.” “Well,” says one, “I
cannot say so much of my year. Then I cannot say so much of you. I was
speaking to the Christian; and if you cannot say of your year, “surely
goodness and mercy have followed it all,” I am afraid you are not a child of
God, for methinks a child of God will say, when he reviews it all, “not one
good thing hath failed of all the Lord God hath promised, but all hath come
to pass.”

Then, my brethren, might I not say a word to you concerning the eyes of
the Lord having been upon us as a church? Ought we to let this year pass
without rehearsing the works of the Lord? Hath he not been with us
exceeding abundantly, and prospered us? It is during this year that we met
together in the great assembly-during this year that these eyes have seen
the mighty gatherings of men who listened to our words on the Sabbathday.
We shall not soon forget our sojourn in Exeter Hall-shall we? During
those months the Lord brought in many of his own elect, and multitudes
who were unsaved up to that time were called by divine mercy, and
brought into the fold. How God protected us there! What peace and
prosperity hath he given to us! How hath he enlarged our borders, and
multiplied our numbers, so that we are not few, and increased us, so that
we are not weak! I do think we were not thankful enough for the goodness
of the Lord which carried us there, and gave us so many who have not
become useful to us in our church! Remember in how many places ye have
worshipped God this year, This place has been enlarged, so that more can
be held within its walls: now we can receive more to listen to the voice of
the Gospel than we could before; and God seems to say, “Go, forward, go
forward still.” The goodness of the Lord has increased as we have gone
along. I have often feared, lest the people should desert the house, and that
when we made it larger we should not have enough to fill it: but the Lord
still sends an overwhelming congregation, and still gives us grace to preach
his gospel. How thankful should we be! Surely, “the eyes of the Lord”
have been upon this church, “from the beginning of the year even unto the
end of the year.” We have had peace: not a rotten peace, I trust, but the
peace of God. Nothing has arisen that should disturb our equanimity. The
church has been kept by the grace of God faithful to the doctrines of grace.
Ah! what a blessing it is, that our members have been kept from falling into
sin! What a glorious thing that we are carried through another year safely!
Some old writer has said, “Every hour that a Christian remains a Christian
is an hour of miracle.” It is true; and every year that the church is kept an
entire church is a year of miracle.

It is a year of miracles. Tell it to the wide, wide world; tell it everywhere.
“The eye of the Lord” hath been upon us, “from the beginning of the year
even unto the end of the year.” Two hundred and ten persons have this
year united with us in church fellowship; about enough to have formed a
church. One half the churches in London cannot number so many in their
entire body; and yet the Lord has brought so many into our midst. And still
they come; still they come. Whenever I have an opportunity of seeing those
who are converted to God, they come in such numbers that many have to
be sent away. Still they come, still they come; and well I am assured, that I
have as many still in this congregation, who will during the present year
come forward to put on the Lord Jesus Christ. How often has the sacred
pool of baptism been opened this year! How sweetly have we assembled
round the Lord’s table! What precious moments we have had at the
Monday evening prayer meetings! And how glorious it has been when we
have recognized brother after brother, sister after sister publicly, by giving
them the right hand of fellowship! In all our ways we hope we have
acknowledged him, and he has directed our paths. Sing unto the Lord, for
he hath done wonders; bless his name, for he has worked miracles; praise
his grace, for he hath highly exalted his people; unto him be honor, for ever
and ever. And mark you, brethren, this church has blown what it is to come
out of Egypt. We have not toiled with our feathers. I hope there has been
no desire to draw unfit persons into the church, I have had no toiling with
my feet, I am sure, in preaching the gospel-no legal preaching-none of your
exciting preaching-none of all that toiling with your feet; but we have had
nothing but the rain from heaven. We have not labored to excite carnal
passions, nor to preach sermons with a view of driving you into religious
fevers. Sturdy old Calvinism will not let us do that. We cannot preach such
sermons as Arminians can. The land has been watered by the rain of
heaven. We have not had any of those fatal pestilential mists that
sometimes gather round the church. It is proverbial, that wherever the
revivalists go, they always carry desolation; before them is an Eden; behind
them is a desert; wherever they go they search the land like firebrands;
though hundreds seem to be converted to God, they are converted to ten
times blacker sins than before, and the last end of them is worse than the
first. The revivalists since this period have been usually true preachers of
the gospel with whom have the fullest sympathy. Our remarks were
intended for certain American Arminian ravers who had done much
mischief. We want not the getting up of a little feverish passion by
appealing to the natural man; it is the drinking water of the rain of heaven
that does the good. I trust it has been so here, and that “the eyes of the
Lord” have been upon you “from the beginning of the year even to the end
of the year.”

So, beloved, I can say that, as a minister, the eyes of the Lord have been
upon me this year. It has been my privilege, many times this year to preach
his word. I think, more than four hundred times have I stood in the pulpit
to testify his truth, add the eyes of the Lord have been upon me. Blessed be
his name! whether it has been in the north, in the south, in the east, or in
the west, I have never lacked a congregation; nor have I ever gone again to
any of the places I have preached at, without hearing of souls converted. I
cannot remember a single village, or town, that I have visited a second time
without meeting with some who blessed God that they heard the word of
truth there. When I went to Bradford last time I stated in the pulpit that I
had never heard of a soul being converted through my preaching there; and
the good pew-opener came to Brother Dowson, and said, “Why didn’t you
tell Mr. Spurgeon that such-a-one joined the church through hearing him:”
and instantly that dear man of God told me the cheering news. We have
met with much opposition this year. Thanks to our brethren in the ministry,
we have not had very much assistance from them. We have been enabled to
say to them all, “I will not take from you, from a thread to a shoe-latch,
lest ye should say, I have made him rich.” But how much of that bigotry
which formerly existed has subsided! How much of that sneer, which was
at one time so common, has now gone away! I am now, rather more afraid
of their smiles than their frowns-though I do not think I feel much of either.
Cedo nulli, was my motto at the beginning, and I take it once more. I yield
to none; but by the grace of God I preach his truth, and still, if he help me,
will I hold on my way. And to the Three-one God, be eternal honor. Amen.

United Methodists Oppose Restructuring, Opening Membership to ‘All’

Most of the 62 U.S. regional bodies of the United Methodist Church have voted on proposed amendments to the church’s constitution. And so far, about 60 percent are opposed to making the U.S. church one of several regional bodies around the world, according to the United Methodist News Service.

Votes from member churches in Africa, Europe and the Philippines have not come in and won’t be known until next year.

The 2008 General Conference, the top legislative body, had approved 32 amendments, many of which were on reorganizing the 11.5 million-member denomination so it does not appear to be U.S.-centered.

The proposals seek to make the United States, which claims nearly 8 million United Methodist members, a regional conference or regional conferences, similar to the seven conferences outside the country (Africa, Central and Southern Europe, Congo, Germany, Northern Europe, Philippines, and West Africa).

Those seven conferences are currently organized much like the five jurisdictions – Northeastern, Southeastern, North Central, South Central and Western – in the United States.

If approved by two-thirds of the voting members worldwide, the reorganization would create a uniform United Methodist church structure, provide a venue for the U.S. members to address issues unique to their nation, and allow more equitable representation from around the globe, proponents say.

But some have expressed concerns that the restructuring proposal comes with no detailed plan in terms of implementation. Also, the creation of a regional conference in the United States may lead to an inward focus and create greater distance in the relationship between the U.S. church and the United Methodist Church in other parts of the world, according to the West Ohio Conference of the UMC.

Members around the world are also considering an amendment that states “all” people, upon declaring a relationship to Jesus Christ, are eligible to become professing members in any local church. In the United States, most have voted against the proposal, fearing that it could be used to overturn the church’s positions on homosexual practice.

The current statement in UMC’s Book of Discipline describes homosexual practice as “incompatible with Christian teaching” and bans noncelibate gay pastors.

Official results of the votes from conferences worldwide are expected to be announced in May 2010.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster

If my life has no objective value, then why should anyone else care for it Archbishop Vincent Nichols has said

‘We have seen a significant defeat in Parliament for proposals to legalise assisted suicides, and learnt of the joint suicides at the Dignitas apartment in Switzerland of the eminent conductor Sir Edward Downes, and his wife, Lady Downes. While there are many ethical, medical and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide, at its heart lies the notion that we have an absolute moral entitlement to have whatever kind of death we choose. This is surely the triumph of the philosophy that proclaims individual rights above all other considerations and the relativist insistence that what is good is a matter of personal judgment.’

‘The consequences of this attitude lie at the root of the weakening of social structures, including the decline of the family as the core unit, the rise of anti-social behaviour, the pursuit of profit at all cost and the increasing intolerance of non-materialist, philosophical or ethical views. It can be summarised as the age of convenience; the pursuit of what we want despite its cost and impact on others.Once life is reduced to the status of a product, the logical step is to see its creation and disposal in terms of quality control. This raises important questions: Who is to decide? What value is to be put on suffering that is borne with patience, or on enduring love and care for those in distress and pain?’

‘If my life has no objective value, then why should anyone else care for it? The notion of an absolute right to choose ‘a good death’ may sound libertarian but it undermines society’s commitment to support fellow members in adversity. And it encourages the abandonment of the ailing.’

‘Once life is entirely subject to human decision in its beginnings and endings, then the horizon of hope is dramatically reduced. I may hope to be the agent of that decision. But the likelihood is that someone else will either take it for me, or guide me towards taking it. Once the coin of sovereignty over death has been minted, then it will be claimed by not a few.’

‘Better by far to acknowledge the spiritual dimension of every human being; the capacity to go beyond the present, to search for and to cherish self-giving in love and to recognise that our better selves are formed and nurtured in a community, and not always one of our own choosing. This spiritual dimension enables us to recognise, in a way not visible to technological eyes, every human life as a gift to be cherished from its beginnings to its natural end. When we do this, we grow in our humanity, rather than lose it.’

‘It is, perhaps, in matters of life and death that these issues stand out most starkly. Are we really masters of our destiny? Is human life just something we produce, whether by sexual intercourse or in a laboratory, and ultimately to be created, aborted or disposed of at will? Are the senses of wonder at new-born life, or of duty towards the weak in sickness and old age, misguiding instincts that we must overcome if they conflict with our own convenience? Consequently, are we losing the capacity and skills to care for others, especially the vulnerable elderly?’

‘Dying is the most important step a person takes, for it is a step towards the ultimate fulfilment of our innate spiritual nature, our capacity to know God, to know the fullness of the mystery of all things. We have been created with this capacity and our best guide for living is to do nothing to dent, pervert or deaden it. The poet Lucretius said that ‘life is given to no one as freehold, we all hold it on leasehold’. Accepting that life is a gift is a good start. Sadly these centuries-old truths about the nature of humanity are no longer common currency. But we can surely all of us recognise, whether we approach our lives with or without a transcendental faith, the serious ethical and social dangers to which the doctrine of unfettered personal autonomy is leading us.’

Lutheran World

“ACT Alliance” to Be Launched in 2010

GENEVA, 30 July 2009 (LWI) – The head of the Department for World Service (DWS) at the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) says the establishment of a unified church-based emergency and development global network is an important step toward closer cooperation between churches and their related agencies.

“The ACT Alliance is a unique chance to enhance ecumenical cooperation, and thereby the efficiency and visibility of the churches’ development and humanitarian work,” said DWS director Rev. Eberhard Hitzler, commenting on the forthcoming March 2010 launch of “ACT Alliance,” one of the world’s biggest church networks. ACT stands for Action by Churches Together.

The ACT Development General Assembly decided at its May 2009 meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to unify with the ACT International emergency network, whose governing board had approved the unification in April in Geneva. The new ACT Alliance hopes to bring together nearly 150 churches, agencies and other faith-based organizations from the North and South. It will have a combined income of more than USD 2 billion and a staff of 40,000 including volunteers.

Hitzler expressed his satisfaction with the decision to unite the Geneva-based networks. “We now have to make the cooperation real and use the ACT Alliance actively,” said the DWS director, who represents the LWF on the ACT Development governing body. The LWF is a founding member of both ACT International and ACT Development.

The LWF and ACT International cooperate closely in several countries including Chad, Colombia and Myanmar. Through emergency appeals, ACT International coordinates humanitarian operations all over the world, and has been recently active also in Afghanistan, Gaza, India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

ACT Development focuses on long-term development issues and coordinates work in areas such as aid effectiveness, impact assessment and malaria initiatives.

The director of ACT International, Mr John Nduna, says the new movement will be a professional and Christian alliance working on emergency and development. ACT saves thousands of lives every year, he added.

Christian Concern for our Nation

House of Lords Creates Right to Die in English Law

In a landmark decision the House of Lords today created a right to die in English Law. This is a further departure from the Christian principle that ensured in the past the protection of the vulnerable.

Charles Foster, Counsel for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, argued that the European Court had not gone so far as to recognise that Article 8 was engaged because of the curious and elliptical choice of language in the previous case of Diane Pretty who wanted an assurance that her husband could help her end her life without fear of prosecution. Mr Foster’s argument was rejected and a distinction was drawn between the case of Diane Pretty, who could not end her life on her own, and Ms Purdy who could.

The European Convention on Human Rights was originally drafted to enshrine the rights to live and be protected from abuse and harm by others. It has now been interpreted to protect the right to die – the very antithesis of the founders’ intentions. In 1950, when the Convention came into existence, suicide was a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. Suicide was decriminalised in 1961 but that was very different from recognising a right to commit suicide as the House of Lords has done today in England and Wales.

This judgment represents a further departure from the biblical worldview which regards all human beings as made in God’s image and for that reason worthy of protection. It is the State’s duty to protect God’s creation and not to facilitate its destruction which is the effect of today’s judgment.

Professor William Wagner from the US, speaking on behalf of the Christian Legal Centre said: “When the positive value of life becomes an immorally relative individual choice, very bad things always follow. Minutes after the law lords published their decision, the CEO of Dignity in Dying called on parliament to expand the scope of assisted killing in this nation. The grave implications for the United Kingdom accompanying such a choice are clear.”

Click here to see commentary on eradication of the Law Lords from the Upper House

Politics.co.uk

By Alex Stevenson

Certainly the atmosphere was one of constrained anticipation before the big event. The public gallery was packed, with the queue stretching off and away through the ghostly Palace of Westminster. Inside the chamber, the usually deserted one-row galleries to the sides were full to brimming with as many people as possible seeking to see this little piece of history. There was no vulgar shouting or barging, just polite interest. Utterly British.

Proceedings began as they always have, and will no longer. In trooped the clerks, bewigged and be-robed. Perhaps you could get them to judge whether the latter is a word. In any case they wasted no time in getting proceedings underway, with all rising for the lord chairman to take his seat on the woolsack.

It is with deep shame that this journalist confesses a lack of knowledge to all but the final case. The usual formulas passed by, with each law lord revealing their opinions as they and their predecessors have since – how long? The chief clerk, solemnly bowing between each pronouncement, fiddled absent-mindedly with his white bow-tie. To all intents and purposes it looked like just another day in the office.

But that wasn’t quite true, was it? For prowling the edges of the chamber, appearing insidiously on the steps of the throne and in various galleries, photographers snapped voraciously away. The noble and learned lords studiously ignored their presence as they recorded the demise of parliament’s centuries-old judicial role. Were they ignoring their impending doom? It looked an awful lot like it.

Finally, they came to the Debbie Purdy case, a major news story in its own right. The law lords involved solemnly revealed their intention to force the director of public prosecutions to publish “offence-specific policy” about the case of the right-to-die claimant. There was something fitting about their final judgment resulting in a real shift in the law. It was the law lords at their best.

But it was now over. “My lords, we have delivered our last judgment,” one uttered. “Sadly, our time has come to an end.”

And sad it was indeed, as smiles played over the faces of the wise, implacable ones. This was to be no ground-shaking work of oratory, merely a simple passing away into history. We were told the clerk above the bar had beneath him a Latin inscription to the effect that all things must wrap up.

“We could prolong this session a little longer but the fact is there is nothing left that I can do,” the Last Law Lord bleated.

And that was that: the law lords in the House of Lords rose for the last time, trooping out of the chamber for the final time.

The official sitting in front of me scratched his head thoughtfully, musing on this magnificently understated moment in British history. “I wonder if they’re selling it on DVD?” he pondered.