eChurch Blog

Associated Baptist Press – Bob Allen

John Piper says possible tornado a warning to Lutherans

MINNEAPOLIS (ABP) — A Baptist pastor and popular Calvinist author says it was no accident that tornado-force winds hit downtown Minneapolis the same week that the nation’s largest Lutheran group was meeting there to debate liberalizing its policies toward gays.

John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, wrote in an Aug. 20 blog that powerful winds that ripped through the city Aug. 19 were “a gentle but firm warning” to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

The storm, which has not yet been confirmed as a tornado, caused roof and water damage to the Minneapolis Convention Center, where the ELCA was holding its national convention. About 2,200 people were registered for the convention. People inside the building were taken to a safe location, and there were no reports of injury, according to the Associated Press.

Just across the street, winds damaged the steeple and shattered windows at Minneapolis’ Central Lutheran Church, which was also being used as an ELCA meeting venue. About 120 people were inside, a church spokesman told the AP.

Piper cited Bible passages to make the case that official church statements condoning sin dishonor God, Jesus Christ controls the wind and that everyone faces calamity unless they all repent.

Piper said God’s message to Lutherans is: “Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left- and right-wing sinners.”

On Aug. 19 the ELCA assembly adopted a statement agreeing to disagree on the morality of “lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships.”

On Aug. 21, delegates were expected to take up another volatile issue: whether to change the church’s existing policy that requires gays and lesbians in the ministry to remain celibate.

Piper, 63, is considered a chief spokesman for the resurgence of Calvinism among Baptists. Calvinism is the a name given to a Reformation set of doctrines emphasizing God’s sovereignty over human free will. He is a popular speaker and author of more than 30 books. His best-selling Desiring God has sold more than 275,000 copies.

Piper’s Desiring God Ministries conducts four annual conferences: A fall national conference in Minneapolis, a winter pastor’s conference and two regional conferences in other cities.

Piper has led Bethlehem Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the Baptist General Conference, since 1980.

Piper’s resurgent Calvinism is popular on a number of conservative evangelical campuses, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

“He only is my rock and my salvation.” Psalm 62:2

How noble a title. So sublime, suggestive, and overpowering. “MY
ROCK.” It is a figure so divine, that to God alone shall it ever be applied.
Look on yon rocks and wonder at their antiquity, for from their summits a
thousand ages look down upon us. When this gigantic city was as yet
unfounded they were grey with age; when our humanity had not yet
breathed the air, ‘tis said that these were ancient things; they are the
children of departed ages. With awe we look upon these aged rocks, for
they are among nature’s first-born. You discover, embedded in their
bowels, the remnants of unknown worlds, of which, the wise may guess,
but which, nevertheless, they must fail to know, unless God himself should
teach them what hath been before them. You regard the rock with
reverence, for you remember what stories it might tell, if it had a voice; of
how through igneous and aqueous agency, it has been tortured into the
shape it now assumes. Even so is our God pre-eminently ancient. His head
and his hair are white like wool, as white as snow, for he is “the ancient of
days,” and we are always taught in Scripture to remember, that he is
“without beginning of years.” Long ere creation was begotten, “from
everlasting to everlasting,” he was God.

“My rock!” What a history the rock might give you of the storms to which
it has been exposed; of the tempests which have raged in the ocean at its
base, and of the thunders which have disturbed the skies above its head;
while it, itself, has stood unscathed by tempests, and unmoved by the
buffettings of storms. So with our God. How firm hath he stood — how
steadfast hath he been — though the nations have reviled him, and “the
kings of the earth have taken counsel together!” By merely standing still he
hath broken the ranks of the enemy, without even stretching forth his hand!
With motionless grandeur like a rock he hath broken the waves, and
scattered the armies of his enemies, driving them back in confusion. Look
at the rock again: see how firm and unmoved it stands! It doth not stray
from place to place, but it abideth fast for evermore. Other things have
changed, islands have been drowned beneath the sea, and continents have
been shaken, but see, the rock stands as steadfast as if it were the very
foundation of the whole world and could not move till the wreck of
creation, or the loosening of the bands of nature. So with God: how
faithful he is in his promises! how unalterable in his decrees! how
unswerving! how unchanging!

The rock is immutable, nought hath been worn from it. Yon old granite
peak hath gleamed in the sun, or worn the white veil of winter snow — it
hath sometimes worshipped God with bare uncovered head, and at other
times the clouds furnished it with veiling wings, that like a cherub, it might
adore its Maker; but yet itself hath stood unchanged. The frosts of winter
have not destroyed it, nor have the heats of summer melted it. It is the
same with God. Lo, he is my rock, he is the same, and his kingdom shall
have no end. Unchangeable he is in his being, firm in his own sufficiency;
he keeps himself immutably the same; and “therefore ye sons of Jacob are
not consumed.” The ten thousand uses of the rock, moreover, are full of
ideas as to what God is. You see the fortress standing on a high rock, up
which the clouds themselves can scarcely climb, and up whose precipices
the assault cannot be carried, and the armed cannot travel, for the besieged
laugh at them from their eminence. So is our God a sure defense and we
shall not be moved if he hath “set our feet upon a rock, and established our
goings.” Many a giant rock is a source of admiration from its elevation; for
on its summit we can see the world outspread below, like some small map;
we mark the river or broadly spreading stream, as if it were a vein of silver
inlaid in emerald. We discover the nations beneath our feet, “like drops in a
bucket,” and the islands are “very little things” in the distance, while the
sea itself seems but a basin of water, held in the hand of a mighty giant.
The mighty God is such a rock; we stand on him, and look down on the
world, counting it to be a mean thing. We have climbed to Pisgah’s top,
from the summit of which we can race across this world of storms and
troubles to the bright land of spirits — that world unknown to ear or eye,
but which God’s truth revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. This mighty rock
is our refuge, and it is our high observatory, from which we see the unseen,
and have the evidence of things which as yet, we have not enjoyed. I need
not, however, stop to tell you all about a rock, we might preach for a week
upon it, but we give you that for your meditatation during the week. “He is
my rock.” How glorious a thought! How safe am I, and how secure: and
how may I rejoice in the fact, that when I wade through Jordan’s stream he
will be my rock! I shall not walk upon a slippery foundation, but I shall
tread on him who cannot betray my feet; and I may sing, when I am dying,
“He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.”

We now leave the thought of the rock, and proceed to the subject of our
discourse, which is this: that God alone is the salvation of his people.
“He ONLY is my rock and my salvation.”

We shall notice, first, the great doctrine, that God only is our salvation;
secondly, the great experience, to know and to learn that “he only is my
rock and my salvation; and, thirdly, the great duty, which you may guess
at, which is, to give all the glory and all the honor, and place all our faith
on him who “only is our rock and our salvation.”

I. The first thing is, THE GREAT DOCTRINE. — that God “only is our rock
and our salvation.” If any one should ask us what we would choose for our
motto, as preachers of the gospel we think we should reply, “God only is
our salvation.” The late lamented Mr. Denham has put at the foot of his
portrait, a most admirable text, “Salvation is of the Lord.” Now, that is just
an epitome of Calvinism, it is the sum and the substance of it. If any one
should ask you what you mean by a Calvinist, you may reply, “He is one
who says, salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other
doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. He only is my rock and my
salvation.” Tell me anything that departs from this and it will be a heresy,
tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from
this great, this fundamental, this rocky truth, “God is my rock and my
salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to
the perfect merits of Jesus Christ — the bringing in of the works of the
flesh, to assist in our justification? and what is that heresy of Arminianism
but the secret addition of something to the complete work of the
Redeemer? You will find that every heresy, if brought to the touchstone,
will discover itself here, it departs from this “He only is my rock and my
salvation.”

Let us now explain this doctrine fully. By the term “salvation” here, I
understand not simply regeneration and conversion, but something more. I
do not reckon that to be salvation which regenerates me, and then puts me
in such a position that I may fall out of the covenant and be lost; I cannot
call that a bridge which only goes half-way over the stream, I cannot call
that salvation, which does not carry me all the way to heaven, wash me
perfectly clean, and put me among the glorified who sing constant
hosannahs around the throne. By salvation, then if I may divide it into
parts, I understand deliverance, preservation continually through life,
sustentation, and the gathering up of the whole in the perfecting of the
saints in the person of Jesus Christ at last.

1. By salvation, I understand deliverance from the house of bondage,
wherein by nature I am born, and being brought out into the liberty
wherewith Christ makes us free, together with a putting “on a rock, and
establishing my goings.” This I understand to be wholly of God. And I
think I am right in that conclusion, because I find in Scripture that man is
dead; and how can a dead man assist in his own resurrection? I find that
man is utterly depraved, and hates the divine change. How can a man, then,
work that change which he himself hates, I find man to be ignorant of what
it is to be born again, and like Nicodemus, asking the foolish question,
“How can a man enter again into his mother’s womb, and be born?” I
cannot conceive that a man can do that which he does not understand: and
if he does not know what it is to be born again, he cannot make himself to
be born again. No. I believe man to be utterly powerless in the first work of
his salvation. He cannot break his chains, for they be not chains of iron, but
chains of his own flesh and blood, he must first break his own heart before
he can break the fetters that bind him. And how should man break his own
heart? What hammer is that which I can use upon my own soul to break it,
or what fire can I kindle which can dissolve it? Nay, deliverance is of God
alone. The doctrine is affirmed continually in Scripture; and he who doth
not believe it doth not receive God’s truth. Deliverance is of God alone;
“Salvation is of the Lord.”

2. And if we are delivered and made alive in Christ, still preservation is of
the Lord alone. If I am prayerful, God makes me prayerful: if I have
graces, God gives me graces; if I have fruits, God gives me fruits; if I hold
on in a consistent life, God holds me on in a consistent life. I do nothing
whatever towards my own preservation, except what God himself first
does in me. Whatever I have, all my goodness is of the Lord alone.
Wherein I sin, that is my own, but wherein I act rightly, that is of God,
wholly and completely. If I have repulsed an enemy, his strength nerved my
arm. Did I strike a foeman to the ground? His strength sharpened my
sword and gave me courage to strike the blow. Do I preach his word? It is
not I, but grace that is in me? Do I live to God a holy life? It is not I, but
Christ that liveth in me? Am I sanctified? I did not sanctify myself, God’s
Holy Spirit sanctifies me. Am I weaned from the world? I am weaned by
God’s chastisements. Do I grow in knowledge? The great Instructor
teaches me. I find in God all I want; but I find in myself nothing. “He only
is my rock and my salvation.”

3. And again: sustentation also is absolutely requisite. We need
sustentation in providence for our bodies, and sustentation in grace for our
souls. Providential mercies are wholly from the Lord. It is true the rain falls
from heaven, and waters the earth, and “maketh it bring forth and bud that
there may be seed for the sower, and bread for the eater;” but out of whose
hand cometh the rain, and from whose fingers do the dew drops distil? It is
true, the sun shines, and makes the plants grow, and bud, and bring forth
the blossom, and his heat ripens the fruit upon the tree; but who gives the
sun his light, and who scatters the genial heat from him? It is true, I work
and toil, this brow sweats; these hands are weary; I cast myself upon my
bed, and there I rest, but I do not “sacrifice to mine own drag,” nor do I
ascribe my preservation to my own might. Who makes these sinews
strong? who makes these lungs like iron, and who makes these nerves of
steel? “God only is the rock of my salvation.” He only is the salvation of
my body and the salvation of my soul. Do I feed on the word? That word
would be no food for me unless the Lord made it food for my soul, and
helped me to feed upon it. Do I live on the manna which comes down from
heaven? What is that manna, but Jesus Christ himself incarnate, whose
body and whose blood I eat and drink. Am I continually receiving fresh
increase of might? Where do I gather my might? My salvation is of him:
without him I can do nothing. As a branch cannot bring forth fruit except it
abide in the vine, no more can I except I abide in him.

4. Then if we gather the three thoughts in one. The perfection we shall
soon have, when we shall stand yonder, near God’s throne, will be wholly
of the Lord. That bright crown which shall sparkle on our brow, like a
constellation of brilliant stars, shall have been fashioned only by our God. I
go to a land, but it is a land which the plough of earth hath never upturned,
though it be greener than earth’s best pastures, and though it be richer than
all her harvests ever saw. I go to a building of more gorgeous architecture
than man hath builded; it is not of mortal architecture; it is “a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” All I shall know in heaven, will
be given by the Lord; and I shall say, when at last I appear before him, —

“Grace all the work shall crown
Through everlasting days;
It lays in heaven the topmost stone,
And well deserves the praise.”

II. And now, beloved, we come to THE GREAT EXPERIENCE. The greatest
of all experience, I take it, is to know that “he only is our rock and our
salvation.” We have been insisting upon a doctrine; but doctrine is nothing
unless proved in our experience. Most of God’s doctrines are only to be
learned by practice — by taking them out into the world, and letting them
bear the wear and tear of life. If I ask any Christian in this place whether
this doctrine is true, if he has had any deep experience, he will reply, “True
I ay, that it is; not one word in God’s Bible is more true than that, for
indeed salvation is of God alone.” “He only is my rock and my salvation.”
But, beloved, it is very hard to have such an experimental knowledge of the
doctrine that we never depart from it. It is very hard to believe that
“salvation is of the Lord.” There are times when we put our confidence in
something else but God, and sin by linking hand-in-hand with God —
something besides him. Let me now dwell a little upon the experience
which will bring us to know that salvation is of God alone.

The true Christian will confess that salvation is of God alone effectively;
that is, that “he works in him to will and to do of his own pleasure.”
Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of
God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but
the sun did light me. I did not commence my spiritual life — no, I rather
kicked and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when he drew me, for
a time, I did not run after him there was a natural hatred in my soul of
everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me — warnings were
cast to the wind — thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of his
love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I
am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, and of all who know the
Lord, “He only is my salvation, and your salvation too.” It was he who
turned your heart, and brought you down on your knees. You can say in
very deed, then —

“Grace taught my soul to pray,
Grace made my eyes o’erflow.”

And coming to this moment, you can say, —

“’Tis grace has kept me to this day,
And will not let me go.”

I remember, when I was coming to the Lord, I thought I was doing it all
myself and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was
seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. One
day when was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about
the man’s sermon for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, “How did
you come to be a Christian?” I sought the Lord. “But how did you come to
seek the Lord?” The thought flashed across my mind in a moment — I
should not have sought him unless there had been some previous influence
in my mind to make me seek him. I am sure you will not be many weeks a
Christian, certainly not many months, before you will say, “I ascribe my
change wholly to God.” I desire to make this my constant confession. I
know there are some who preach one gospel in the morning, and another at
night — who preach a good sound gospel in the morning, because they are
preaching to saints, but preach falsehood in the evening, because they are
preaching to sinners. But there is no necessity to preach truth at one time
and falsehood at another. “The word of the Lord is perfect, converting the
soul.” There is no need to put anything else in it, in order to bring sinners
to the Savior. But, my brothers, you must confess that “Salvation is of the
Lord.” When you turn back to the past, you must say, “My Lord, whatever
I have, thou gavest it me. Have I the wings of faith? I was a wingless
creature once. Have I the eyes of faith? I was a blind creature once; I was
dead, till thou madest me alive, blind, till thou openedst my eyes, my heart
was a loathsome dunghill, but thou puttest pearls there, if pearls there be,
for pearls are not the produce of dung hills, thou hast given me all I have.”
And so, if you look at the present, if your experience be that of a child of
God, you will trace all to him; not only all you have had in the past, but all
you have now. Here you are, sitting in your pew this morning, now, I just
want you to review where you stand. Beloved, do you think you would be
where you are now if it were not for divine grace? Only think what a
strong temptation you had yesterday; they did “consuls to cast you down
from your excellency,” perhaps you were served like I am sometimes. The
devil sometimes seems to drag me right to the edge of a precipice of sin by
a kind of enchantment, making me forget the danger by the sweetness
which surrounds it; and just when he would push me down, I see the
yawning gulph beneath me, and some strong hand put out, and I hear a
voice, saying, “I will preserve him from going down into the pit; I have
found a ransom.” Do you not feel, that ere this sun goes down you will be
damned, if grace does not keep you? Have you anything good in your heart
that grace did not give you? If I thought I had a grace that did not come
from God, I would trample it beneath my feet, as not being a godly virtue;
I would guess it to be but a counterfeit, for it could not be right if it did not
come from the mint of glory. It may look ever so much like the right thing,
but it is certainly bad unless it came from God. Christian! canst thou say, of
all things past and present, “He only is my rook and my salvation?”
And now look forward to the future. Man! think how many enemies thou
hast; how many rivers thou hast to cross, how many mountains to climb,
how many dragons to fight, how many lions’ teeth to escape, how many
fires to pass through, how many floods to wade. What thinkest thou man?
Can thy salvation be of anything except of God! Oh! if I had not that
everlasting arm to lean upon, I would cry, “Death! hurl me anywhere;
anywhere out of the world.” If I had not that one hope, that one trust, bury
me ten thousand fathoms deep beneath creation, where my being might be
forgotten! Oh! put me far away, for I am miserable if I have not God to
help me all my journey through. Are you strong enough to fight with one
of your enemies without your God? I trow not. A little silly maid may cast
a Peter down, and cast you down too, if God do not keep you. I beseech
you, remember this; I hope you know it by experience in the past; but try
to remember it in the future, wherever you go, “Salvation is of the Lord.”
Do not get looking at your heart, do not get examining to see whether you
have anything to recommend you, but remember, “Salvation is of the
Lord.” “He only is my rook and my salvation.”

Effectively, it all comes of God; and I am sure we must add, meritoriously.
We have experienced that salvation is wholly of him. What merits have I?
If I were to scrape together all I ever had, and then come to you and beg
all you have got, I should not collect the value of a farthing among you all.
We have heard of some Catholic, who said that there was a balance struck
in his favor between his good works and his bad ones, and therefore he
went to heaven. But there is nothing of the sort here; I have seen many
people, many kinds of Christians, and many odd Christians, but I never yet
met with one who said he had any merits of his own when he came to close
quarters. We have heard of perfect men, and we have heard of men
perfectly foolish, and we have thought the characters perfectly alike. Have
we any merits of our own? I am sure we have not, if we have been taught
of God. Once we thought we had; but there came a man called Conviction
into our house one night, and took away our gloryings. Ah! we are vile
still. I don’t know whether Cowper said quite right, when he said, —

“Since the dear hour that brought me to thy foot
And cut up all my follies by the root
I never trusted in an arm but thine —
Nor hoped but in thy righteousness divine!”

I think he made a mistake, for most Christians get trusting in self at times,
but we are forced to own that “salvation is of the Lord,” if we consider it
meritoriously.

My dear friends, have you experienced this in your own hearts? Can you
say “amen” to that, as it goes round? Can you say, “I know that God is my
helper?” I dare say you can, most of you; but you will not say it so well as
you will by-and bye, if God teach you. We believe it, when we commence
the Christian life, we know it afterwards; and the longer we live, the more
we find it to be the truth — “Cursed is ha that trusteth in man and maketh
flesh his arm, but blessed is he who trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope
the Lord is.” In fact, the crown of Christian experience is to be delivered
from all trust in self or man, and to be brought to rely wholly and simply on
Jesus Christ. I say, Christian, thy highest and noblest experience is not to
be groaning about thy corruption, is not to be crying about thy wanderings,
but is to say —

“With all my sin, and care, and woe,
His Spirit will not let me go.”

“Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” I like what Luther says “I would
run into Christ’s arms if he had a drawn sword in his hands.” That is called
venturesome believing, but as an old divine says, there is no such thing as
venturesome believing, we cannot venture on Christ, it is no venture at all,
there is no hap-hazard in the least degree. It is a holy and heavenly
experience, when we can go to Christ, amid the storm, and say, “Oh! Jesus,
I believe I am covered by thy blood,” when we can feel ourselves to be all
over rags, and yet can say, “Lord, I believe that through Christ Jesus,
ragged though I am, I am fully absolved.” A saint’s faith is little faith when
he believes as a saint, but a sinner’s faith is true faith when he believes as a
sinner. The faith, not of a sinless being but the faith of a sinful creature —
that is the faith which delights God. Go, then Christian; ask that this may
be thy experience, to learn each day, “He only is my rock and my
salvation.”

III. And now, in the third place, we speak of THE GREAT DUTY. We have
had the great experience, now we must have the great duty.

The great duty is–it God only be our rock, and we know it, are we not
bound to put all our trust in God, to give all our love to God, to set all our
hope upon God, to spend all our life for God, and to devote our whole
being to God? If God be all I have, sure, all I have shall be God’s. If God
alone is my hope, sure, I will put all my hope upon God, if the love of God
is alone that which saves, sure he shall have my love alone. Come, let me
talk to thee, Christian, for a little while, I want to warn thee not to have
two Gods, two Christs, two friends, two husbands, two great fathers; not
to have two fountains, two rivers, two suns, or two heavens, but to have
only one. I want to bid thee now, as God hath put all salvation in himself,
to bring all thyself unto God. Come, let me talk to thee!

In the first place, Christian, never join anything with Christ. Wouldest thou
stitch thy old rags into the new garment he giveth? Wouldest thou put new
wine into old bottles? Wouldst thou put Christ and self together? Thou
mightest as well yoke an elephant and an emmet; they could never plough
together. What! wouldst thou put an archangel in the same harness with a
worm, and hope that they would drag thee through the sky! How
inconsistent! how foolish! What! thyself and Christ? Sure, Christ would
smile, nay, Christ would weep, to think of such a thing! Christ and man
together? CHRIST AND CO? No, it never shall be, he will have nothing of
the sort; he must be all. Note how inconsistent it would be to put anything
else with him; and note, again, how wrong it would be. Christ will never
bear to have anything else placed with him. He calls them adulterers and
fornicators that love anything else but him, he will have thy whole heart to
trust in him thy whole soul to love him, and thy whole life to honor him.
He will not come into thy house, till thou puttest all the keys at his girdle,
he will not allow thee to give him all the keys but one; he will not come till
thou gives him garret, parlor, drawing-room, and cellar too. He will make
thee sing —

“Yet if I might make some reserve,
And duty did not call,
I love my God with zeal so great,
That I should give him all.”

Mark thee, Christian, it is a sin to keep anything from God.

Again, Christ is very grieved if you do it. Assuredly you do not desire to
grieve him who shed his blood for you. Surely there is not one child of God
here who would like to vex his blessed elder Brother. There cannot be one
soul redeemed by blood who would like to see those sweet blessed eyes of
our best beloved bedewed with tears. I know ye will not grieve your Lord;
will ye? But I tell you ye will vex his noble spirit if ye love aught but him;
for he is so fond of you, that he is jealous of your love. It is said,
concerning his Father, that he is “a jealous God,” and he is a jealous Christ
you have to deal with; therefore, put not your trust in chariots, stay not
yourselves in horses, but say, “He only is my rock and my salvation.”
I beg thee, mark also, one reason why thou shouldest not look at anything
else, and that is, if thou lookest at anything else thou canst not see Christ
so well. “Oh!” thou sayest, “I can see Christ in his mercies.” but thou canst
not see him so well there, as if you viewed his person. No man can look at
two objects at the same time, and see both distinctly. You may afford a
wink for the world, and a wink for Christ; but you cannot give Christ a
whole look and a whole eye, and the world half an eye too. I beseech thee,
Christian, do not try it. If thou lookest on the world, it will be a speck in
thine eye, if thou trustest in anything but him, betwixt two stools thou wilt
come to the ground, and a fearful fall wilt thou have. Therefore, Christian,
look thou only on him. “He only is my rock and my salvation.”

Mark thee, again, Christian, I would bid thee never put anything else with
Christ; for as sure as ever thou dost, thou wilt have the whip for it. There
never was a child of God who harbored one of the Lord’s traitors in his
heart, but he always had a charge laid against him. God has sent out a
search warrant against all of us: and do you know what he has told his
officers to search for? He has told them to search for all our lovers, all our
treasures, and all our helpers. God cares less about our sins as sins, than he
does about our sins, or even our virtues, as usurpers of his throne. I tell
thee, there is nothing in the world thou settest thy heart upon that shall not
be hung upon a gallows higher than Haman’s. If thou lovest anything but
Christ, he will make it to do penance, if thou lovest thy house better than
Christ, he will make it a prison to thee; if thou lovest thy child better than
Christ he will make it an adder in thy breast to sting thee; if thou lovest thy
daily provisions better than Christ he will make thy drink bitter and thy
food like gravel stones in thy mouth, till thou comest to live wholly on him.
There is nothing which thou hast, which he cannot turn into a rod, if thou
lovest it better than him; and rest assured he will do so, if thou makest it
anything to rob thy Christ.

And, mark thee, once again, if thou lookest at anything save God, thou wilt
soon go into sin. There was never a man who kept his eye on anything save
Christ, who did not go wrong. If the mariner will steer by the pole-star he
shall go to the north; but if he steers sometimes by the pole-star, and
sometimes by another constellation he knoweth not where he shall go. If
thou dost not keep thine eye wholly on Christ thou wilt soon be wrong. If
thou ever dost give up the secret of thy strength, namely, thy trust in
Christ; if thou ever dalliest with the Delilah of the world, and lovest thyself
more than Christ, the Philistines will be upon thee, and shear thy locks, and
take thee out to grind at the mill, till thy God give thee deliverance by
means of thy hair growing once more, and bringing thee to trust wholly in
the Savior. Keep thine eye, then, fixed on Jesus; for if thou dost turn away
from him, how ill wilt thou fare! I bid thee, Christian, beware of thy graces;
beware of thy virtues; beware of thy experience, beware of thy prayers;
beware of thy hope; beware of thy humility. There is not one of thy graces
which may not damn thee, if they are left alone to themselves. Old Brooks
saith, when a woman hath a husband, and that husband giveth unto her
some choice rings, she putteth them on her fingers; and if she should be so
foolish as to love the rings better than her husband; if she should care only
for the jewels and forget him who gave them; how angry would the
husband be, and how foolish she would be herself! Christian! I warn thee,
beware of thy graces, for they may prove more dangerous to thee than thy
sins. I warn thee of everything in this world; for everything has this
tendency, especially a high estate. If we have a comfortable maintenance,
we are most likely not to look so much to God. Ah! Christian, with an
independent fortune, take care of thy money, beware of thy gold and silver;
it will curse thee if it comes between thee and thy God. Always keep thine
eye to the cloud, and not to the rain, — to the river, and not to the ship
that floateth on its bosom. Look thee not to the sunbeam, but to the sun;
trace thy mercies to God, and say perpetually, “He only is my rock and my
salvation.”

Lastly, I bid thee once more to keep thine eye wholly on God, and on
nothing in thy self, because what art thou now, and what wast thou ever,
but a poor damned sinner if thou wert out of Christ! I had been preaching
the other day all the former part of the sermon, as a minister; presently I
thought I was a poor sinner, and then, how differently I began to speak!
The best sermons I ever preach are those I preach, not in my ministerial
capacity, but as a poor sinner preaching to sinners, I find there is nothing
like a minister recollecting that he is nothing but a poor sinner, after all. It
is said of the peacock, that, although he has fine feathers he is ashamed of
his black feet: I am sure that we ought to be ashamed of ours. However
gay our feathers may appear at times, we ought to think of what we should
be if grace did not help us. Oh! Christian keep thine eye on Christ, for out
of him thou art no better than the damned in hell; there is not a demon in
the pit but might put thee to the blush, if thou art out of Christ. Oh that
thou wouldest be humble! Recollect what an evil heart thou hast within
thee, even when grace is there. Thou hast grace — God loves thee, but
recollect, thou hast a foul cancer in thy heart still. God has removed much
of thy sin, but still the corruption remains. We feel that though the old man
is somewhat choked, and the fire some what damped by the sweet waters
of the Holy Spirit’s influence, yet it would blaze up worse than before, if
God did not keep it under. Let us not glory in ourselves, then. The slave
need not be proud of his descent: he has the brand-mark upon his hand.
Out upon pride! Away with it! Let us rest wholly and solely upon Jesus
Christ.

Now, just one word to the ungodly — you who do not know Christ. You
have heard what I have told you, that salvation is of Christ alone. Is not
that a good doctrine for you? For you have not got anything, have you?
You are a poor, lost, ruined sinner. Hear this, then, sinner: thou hast
nothing, and thou dost not want anything, for Christ has all. “Oh!” sayest
thou, “I am a bond slave.” Ah! but he has got the redemption. “Nay,”
sayest thou, “I am a black sinner.” Ay, but he has got the bath that can
wash thee white. Sayest thou, “I am leprous?” Yes but the good Physician
can take thy leprosy away. Sayest thou, “I am condemned?” Ay, but he has
got the acquittal warrant signed and sealed, if thou dost believe in him.
Sayest thou, “But I am dead?” Ay, but Christ has life and he can give thee
life. Thou wantest nothing of thine own — nothing to rely on but Christ,
and if there be a man, woman, or child here, who is prepared to say
solemnly after me, with his or her heart, “I take Christ to be my Savior,
with no powers and no merits of my own to trust in. I see my sins, but I
see that Christ is higher than my sins, I see my guilt, but I believe that
Christ is mightier than my guilt;” — I say, if any one of you can say that,
you may go away and rejoice, for you are heirs of the kingdom of heaven.
I must tell you a singular story, which was related at our church meeting,
because there may be some very poor people here who may understand the
way of salvation by it. One of the friends had been to see a person who was
about to join the church; and he said to him, “Can you tell me what you
would say to a poor sinner who came to ask you the way of salvation?”
“Well,” said he, “I do not know — I think I can hardly tell you; but it so
happened that a case of this sort did occur yesterday. A poor woman came
into my shop, and I told her the way; but it was in such a homely manner
that I don’t like to tell you.” “Oh, yes, tell me; I should like to hear it.”
Well, she is a poor woman, who is always pawning her things, and by-andbye
she redeems them again. I did not know how to tell her better than
this. I said to her: — ’Look here; your soul is in pawn to the devil: Christ
has paid the redemption money; you take faith for your ticket and so you
will get your soul out of pawn.’” Now, that was the most simple, but the
most excellent way of imparting a knowledge of salvation to this woman. It
is true our souls were pawned to Almighty vengeance; we were poor, and
could not pay the redemption money; but Christ came and paid it all, and
faith is the ticket which we use to get our souls out of pawn. We need not
take a single penny with us; we have only to say, “Here, Lord, I believe in
Jesus Christ. I have brought no money to pay for my soul, for there is the
ticket, the money has been paid long ago. This is written in thy word: ‘The
blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.’” If thou takest that ticket, thou wilt
get thy soul out of pawn; and thou wilt say, “I’m forgiven, I’m forgiven,
I’m a miracle of grace.” May God bless you, my friends, for Christ’s sake.

UK Nurses Assisted Suicide Stance Changed to Neutral – Christian Nurses Respond

By Hilary White

LONDON, August 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A British Christian nursing and midwives association has reacted to the announcement last month by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) to drop their opposition to assisted suicide, saying that it sends the “wrong signals to the vulnerable.” Late last month the College announced it has changed its policy towards assisted suicide from opposition to one of neutrality. Christian Nurses and Midwives (CNM), however, says the College had canvassed only half its members and made the decision based on less than one quarter of one per cent of its membership’s wishes.

The College in their statement claimed that the decision had come following “an extensive and detailed consultation process.” Calling assisted suicide a “complex and highly emotive subject” on which there is “no overwhelming support” either for or against legalizing assisted suicide, the College announced July 24th that it “neither supports nor opposes a change in the law.”

The College said that in its three month consultation, it received 1200 responses to its survey, out of a total membership of over 400,000. Nevertheless, the policy was changed based on the findings, of which the majority, 49 per cent, supported assisted suicide and 40 per cent opposed.

RCN chief executive Dr. Peter Carter said, “What has changed is that the college will now be able to engage in a debate, understanding that our members are broadly split 50:50 on this.”

But CNM Secretary Steve Fouch said that fewer than one per cent of half the College membership responded to the survey and fewer than half of respondents wanted the shift in policy.

“This seems,” Fouch said, “a somewhat tenuous basis for realigning the College’s stance. Overall there is scant evidence of a sea change among nurses to favour assisted suicide.”

He continued, “CNM does not feel the profession should step back from actively opposing legal changes that would loosen safeguards for vulnerable patients, or change the role of the nurse to one which actively aids the death of a patient.

“This would fundamentally change the nature of the nurse/patient relationship and would be detrimental to the care of dying, disabled, and elderly patients. At a time when there is growing anxiety about how we will care for the elderly and severely disabled in the future, this policy shift sends the wrong signals to the vulnerable.”

This position was upheld by the Royal College of GPs whose spokesman, Professor Steve Field, told the BBC, “We believe that better palliative care, better pain control and better support for patients is the way forward.”

Vicky Robinson, a consulting nurse and a spokesman for the group Care not Killing, told the BBC, “I see my professional body as that body that is responsible to uphold the law of the land.”

“To say that they are now neutral based on less than one per cent of a vote from its members, I think is a political act. And it leaves me very very cold and worried about what is going on in RCN Council,” Robinson said.

Robinson’s concerns about political motives in the RCN is bolstered by the organization’s recent history of support for a variety of “progressivist” issues. In 2005, the RCN issued a statement supporting the proposal to legalise prostitution, saying that doing so would eliminate the stigma associated with the “sex trade.”

Currently the law in Britain can levy a 14-year prison sentence against someone convicted of assisting a person to commit suicide, but the public prosecutor’s office has said that it will not prosecute relatives and loved ones who accompany patients to Switzerland to the Dignitas suicide facility. Last month the Law Lords instructed the prosecutor to “clarify” the status of the law in response to a lawsuit by pro-euthanasia campaigners.

While the British Medical Association remains opposed to legalizing assisted suicide, public opinion is swaying in favor. A recent poll by the Populus group found that six in 10 people in Britain now want to end prosecutions for assisting suicides, and 74 per cent want it to be legal for doctors to help people to kill themselves.

This is the press release from the Lutheran Church.

ELCA Assembly Adopts Social Statement on Human Sexuality
LWF President Underscores Focus on Church Witness

MINNEAPOLIS, United States of America/GENEVA, 20 August 2009 (LWI) – The 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has adopted a social statement on human sexuality, “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” with a vote of 676 (66.67 percent) to 338 (33.33 percent). Its adoption on 19 August required a two-thirds vote.

“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” is the denomination’s 10th social statement. Social statements assist Lutherans in their moral deliberation, govern the ELCA’s institutional policies and guide the church’s advocacy work. The statement addresses a spectrum of topics relevant to human sexuality from a Lutheran perspective.

The ELCA Churchwide Assembly is taking action on two separate documents this week. In addition to the social statement, a proposal on ministry policies could lead to policy changes allowing gay and lesbian pastors in committed, same gender relationships to officially serve on the roster of the 4.6 million member church.

Prior to the assembly vote, speakers opposed to the social statement said they believed endorsing the document would abandon the church’s reliance on the Bible and separate the Lutheran denomination from the majority of Christendom. But those favoring the document insisted that a greater acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church and its ministry is consistent with the command to care for one’s neighbor and to build trusting relationships.

Speaking earlier at a 17 August news conference as the ELCA opened its eleventh biennial assembly, Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson said a respectful discussion on sexuality by the church would demonstrate that while Lutherans may not be “of one mind,” they can still be “united in faith and in our shared mission together.”

Hanson is also president of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), to which the ELCA belongs.

“We have an opportunity this week to bear witness in a culture that often wants to polarize and see all questions in their polar opposites,” Hanson noted. The bishop said he was confident that the church could learn to live with its differences.

Questioned about his own preference on the sexuality issues facing the ELCA, Hanson said he believed his call was to “shepherd this church” through the discussion and, as LWF president, represent Lutherans worldwide, including those who are strongly opposed to the changes being discussed by the ELCA.

The ELCA will also vote on a proposal to establish full communion with the United Methodist Church, allowing for combined congregations and exchange of clergy and members, among other actions.

Addressing the assembly, Hanson asked “What shall be our witness this week?” He suggested 15 ways the church might answer the question over the next eight years. These included increased scriptural fluency, a fully implemented strategy on HIV and AIDS, a totally green assembly in 2013, a social statement on justice for women, and a commitment to mission by all congregations, among other points.

He invited listeners to “think ahead eight years … looking back from 2017,” the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation, on “what … we want our witness to have been.”

“This assembly’s discussions and decisions will shape our witness,” Hanson said. “So, too, will responses that are made to our actions,” he added.

Lutherans Narrowly Adopt New Sexuality Statement

By Joshua A. Goldberg – Christian Post Reporter

The chief legislative authority of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) adopted a new social statement on human sexuality Wednesday with exactly the number of votes needed to pass it.

“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” the denomination’s tenth social statement, was passed on a 676-338 vote that met the two-thirds vote requirement on the dot.

The statement – which emphasizes two principles, trust and bound conscience – addresses a spectrum of topics relevant to human sexuality from a Lutheran perspective, including social structures, cohabitation, sexual exploitation, abuse, and homosexuality, the latter of which has drawn the most attention and controversy.

Opponents of the statement argue that adopting the statement would constitute abandonment of Scripture, as the Bible does not support homosexual behavior. Supporters, however, say the document maintain that it is consistent with the biblical command to care for one’s neighbor and build trusting relationships.

Before adopting the statement, assembly delegates had to consider 13 proposed amendments, including one that sought to replace a section of the social statement about “lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships” with one that asserts the “practice of homosexual erotic behavior as contrary to God’s intent.”

In a 667-303 vote, the assembly opted against the aforementioned change, following the recommendation of an ad hoc committee that advised against the amendment’s adoption since the position articulated implies “a consensus that no longer exists.”

After considering 6 of the 13 proposals, voting members moved to accept the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on all other amendments and moved to consider the adoption of the social statement.

Following the statement’s adoption, the Rev. Peter Strommen, who served as chair of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, said it was “quite stunning” to have witnessed an exactly two-thirds vote.

“I doubt very much that I’ve ever been present at an election with that many votes cast coming out exactly two-thirds,” he said. “We’re naturally very glad that it passed.”

The Rev. Rebecca S. Larson, executive director of ELCA Church in Society, meanwhile, said she was “very proud of this church” but noted that it was a time of “diminished joy.”

“We know there is suffering all around on this issue,” she said at a news conference.

On Friday, delegates are expected to vote on another hotly debated and highly publicized proposal – one that would allow non-celibate people living in committed same-gender relationships to be on the professional rosters of ELCA.

Unlike the statement on human sexuality, however, the change in the denomination’s policies on the hiring of church leaders will require only a simple majority after delegates voted Monday against requiring a two-thirds majority to approve the change.

According to an in-depth national study of mainline Protestant clergy by Public Religions Research, a majority (54 percent) of ELCA clergy says that gay and lesbian people should be eligible for ordination with no special requirements and a plurality (46 percent) supports performing same-sex marriages in states where they are legal.

About one-third (32 percent), meanwhile, says that gay and lesbian people should be eligible for ordination only if they are celibate, and only 14 percent say gay and lesbian people should not be eligible at all.

CAMERA

Marcus Brauchli became the Washington Post‘s executive editor last January and, among other things, reinvigorated the newspaper’s formal commitment to timely corrections. It reportedly has led to a reduction in the backlog of hundreds or more requests, months- and in some cases years-old. The paper’s July 16th correction of its June 26th description of Gilo, a Jerusalem neighborhood, as a West Bank settlement, was a welcome example.

But there are certain types of errors that are still typically left uncorrected — those that uphold the Palesitnian narrative. Editors often ignore or discount relevant facts that negate this narrative. Letters-to-the editor that point this out are not published — even when they were suggested or solicited by Post editors in the first place as alternatives to corrections. (It is noteworthy that Post policy calls for errors to be corrected by the paper itself.

(Journalism standards traditionally call for direct and timely corrections, frowning on factual errors being “corrected” by letters to the editor.)

Below are two cases in point:

1) In “Israeli Minister’s Visit Aims to Calm Settlements Dispute (June 2), Post staff writer and diplomatic correspondent Glenn Kessler reported that “there are more than 120 settlements in the occupied West Bank that are legal under Israeli law but not internationally.”

The still-relevant international law on the subject is the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine. Article 6 calls for “close Jewish settlement on the land, including State lands not required for public use.” This describes virtually all the Israeli-government authorized settlements built since 1967. Further, the mandate was continued by the United Nations, Article 80 of the U.N. Charter stating that “nothing in the Charter shall be construed . to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.”

CAMERA noted that the article in question attempted to support the assertion that West Bank settlements “‘are legal under Israeli law but not internationally’” by adding that “‘the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified in 1951, forbids an occupying power from transferring ‘parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies,’ but Israel disputes that this provision applies to settlements.’”

But Israel did not simply “dispute that this provision applies to settlements.” Rather, prominent, non-Israeli legal scholars have pointed out the Fourth Geneva Convention’s inapplicability to the disputed territories. These have included Prof. Julian Stone, author of Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations; Prof. Stephen Schwebel, a former judge on the International Court of Justice, including in “What Weight to Conquest,” American Journal of International Law, 64, 1970; and former U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow, in “Bricks and Stones,” The New Republic, April 23, 1990, and elsewhere.

Essentially, the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids forcible transfer of populations into or out of territories belonging to parties to the convention that were captured in aggressive wars. None of that applies to the West Bank. Israeli Jews were not forcibly transferred in nor Arabs out, the land was captured by Israel in a war of self-defense and it was not the sovereign territory of any country party to the Geneva Conventions. Rather, pending an agreement negotiated according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 and related documents, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is disputed territory in which, the sources noted, Jews as well as Arabs have claims.

The correction request was copied to Kessler, as well as to Managing Editor Elizabeth Spayd, Brauchli, Ombudsman Andrew Alexander and Assistant Managing Editor for Personnel Peter Perl, whose job also includes expediting corrections. No reply was received and no correction published.

On June 28th, The Post‘s Outlook section published an 838-word article headlined “Want to Stop Israeli Settlements? Follow the Dollars.” Writer Ronit Avni claimed that Jewish West Bank “settlements are widely considered a violation of international law.” She added that “thirty years ago, a U.S. State Department legal adviser issued an opinion that called the settlements ‘inconsistent’ with the Fourth Geneva convention.”

“Outlook” is The Post‘s Sunday opinion, analysis and book review section. Avni was correct to note that “settlements are widely considered a violation of international law.” But accuracy on her part and The Post‘s required the observation that such consideration is erroneous and that the 1979 opinion by the State Department’s legal advisor was overturned two years later by President Ronald Reagan.

Since “Outlook” emphasizes opinion, CAMERA did not request a correction. Instead, in a June 29th letter to section editor John Pomfret it proposed a short commentary citing “specific relevant law, legal authorities and U.S. government statements, demonstrating the legality of the settlements under international law [and] the flaw in the 1979 State Department opinion ..”

Pomfret replied that “this sound like a letter to the editor” and suggested it be submitted as such.

The following day CAMERA submitted a letter to the editor. It pointed out that “regardless of assertions to the contrary, settlements are both legal and encouraged under the relevant international law.” Regarding the 30-year-old State Department opinion invoking the Fourth Geneva Convention, the letter stressed, among other things, that “Prof. Julius Stone, a leading legal theorist referred to in State’s opinion, maintained that the effort to designate Israeli settlements as illegal was a ‘subversion of basic international law principles.’”

CAMERA’s letter was not published. Post readers, relying only on the newspaper, could not learn that Israeli West Bank settlements are illegal under international law and that the Fourth Geneva Convention is inapplicable.

2) Post reluctance if not refusal to contradict the Palestinian Arab “narrative,” facts be damned, manifested itself in a similar manner regarding the issuance of building permits in eastern Jerusalem. In May, CAMERA’s seven months’ effort to correct a simple but fundamental factual error was denied.

It is almost impossible to get an Israeli permit to build a home in East Jerusalem, and tens of thousands of homes have been ordered demolished.

CAMERA requested a correction, pointing out that according to the Jerusalem mayor’s office, “so far this year, 133 permits have been issued for eastern Jerusalem. This continues a trend since at least 2002, when the total was 159. Between 2003 and 2007, the number of permits issued ranged between 100 and 150.

Further, a study for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs “showed roughly 3,000 permits granted in eastern Jerusalem” between 1967 and 1997. It indicated “a virtually identical approval rate for applications for permits from [Jewish] western and [majority Arab] eastern Jerusalem.”

A separate clarification was requested regarding Gradstein’s statement that “tens of thousands of homes have been ordered demolished.” Relatively few demolitions of illegally built structures take place in either western or eastern Jerusalem, regardless of the volume of orders issued and even though the eastern section has experienced an epidemic of illegal building.

Scott Wilson, then foreign editor, responded. He ignored the information provided by CAMERA. Instead, adducing no facts in support, Wilson claimed that “Linda’s characterization is correct .. There will not be a correction.”

On December 4th, CAMERA responded that it had provided The Post with figures from an identified source in the Jerusalem mayor’s office indicating that the paper had erred and cited two relevant studies on permits and building and illegal construction and demolitions. It asked for the basis of the paper’s insistence that Gradstein was correct.

The foreign desk made no reply so on December 8th, CAMERA asked outgoing Ombudsman Deborah Howell to pursue the foreign desk’s refusal. She found that editors were adamant they would not correct Gradstein’s false statement “it is almost impossible to get an Israeli permit to build a home in East Jerusalem.”

For 2008: western Jerusalem, 2,439 permits requested, 1,278 granted; eastern Jerusalem, 346 permits requested, 152 granted.

For 2009, from January 1 to April 22: western Jerusalem, 266 requests, 230 granted; eastern Jerusalem, 29 requests, 26 granted.

The letter also noted that a Post article (“Clinton Criticizes Israel’s Eviction, Demolition Plans,” March 5) echoed the original error, telling readers that “Israel says the houses were built without permits, but Palestinians say that permits are impossible to obtain ..” CAMERA pointed out as well that a follow-up dispatch (“Israeli Spurns Criticism From Clinton; Jerusalem Mayor Calls Comment on Park Imperiling Palestinian Homes ‘a Lot of Air’,” March 6) paraphrased Arabs as saying “Jerusalem city officials left them little choice over the years [but to build illegally] by failing to issue permits needed to accommodate natural population growth in Arab neighborhoods.”

Witte did not reply and The Post published no correction.

Then, without acknowledging the previous error, The Post‘s new Jerusalem bureau chief, Howard Schneider, in “U.N. finds 60,000 Palestinians Risk Eviction in East Jerusalem,” May 2, reported that “the number of building permits issued to Palestinians in East Jerusalem has remained stable at about 100 to 150 per year ..”

On May 5th, CAMERA wrote Deputy Foreign Editor Griff Witte. In a letter copied to Executive Editor Brauchli, Managing Editor Elizabeth Spayd, then Asst. Managing Editor for Foreign News David Hoffman, Ombudsman Alexander and others it pointed out that the paper’s May 2nd dispatch “implicitly rebuts The Post‘s November 10 claim that ‘it is almost impossible to get an Israeli permit to build a home in East Jerusalem.’ It implicitly supports our correction request ….

Therefore, CAMERA reiterates its request for publication of a correction noting that it is not impossible, or given approval rates in eastern and western Jerusalem, even unlikely for Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem who apply to receive building permits.

Witte did not reply. CAMERA then asked Assistant. Managing Editor Perl to pursue the matter. He did, eventually telling CAMERA that, had he edited it, the original erroneous phrase, “it is almost impossible to get an Israeli permit to build a home in East Jerusalem” would not have been used. Nevertheless, he said The Post would not publish a correction. Perl suggested a CAMERA letter to the editor instead.

When it comes to the legality of Jewish communities in the disputed territories, building permits issued to Arabs in eastern Jerusalem, or actual demolition of illegal structures in east and west Jerusalem, The Washington Post — new emphasis on corrections regardless — has yet to inform readers accurately and fully of relevant facts that contradict the Palestinian Arab line.

Troubling stuff from over the pond! A sign of things to come for us here in the UK.

Christian News Wire

Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, 540-538-4741, 202-547-1735

Is this the future of all those who disagree with the President?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 /Christian Newswire/ — Agents came to the home of the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition to question him and “gather intelligence” about his laying roses at the Chinese Embassy on June 4th.

On June 4th, Rev. Mahoney and his daughter Kaitlin held a prayer vigil and peacefully laid roses in front of the Chinese Embassy on the 20th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

(View the pictures here.)

The purpose of the vigil was to honor and remember the heroic students who were brutalized in Tiananmen Square and to pray that the Chinese government would protect and honor human rights and religious liberty.

The Christian Defense Coalition is troubled that an American citizen would be visited and questioned at his home by federal agents for simply praying in the public square and peacefully exercising his First Amendment rights.

What makes the situation even more disturbing is the fact that Rev. Mahoney has led over 40 peaceful demonstrations outside of the Chinese Embassy for the past 20 years and has never been questioned by any federal or local law enforcement officials.

The Christian Defense Coalition has asked the American Center for Law and Justice to file a Freedom of Information Act request in an attempt to get the bottom of why the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent agents to the home of an American citizen to gather intelligence about protected First Amendment activities.

Rev. Mahoney wants to stress his concerns are not with the agents who questioned him, they were professional and courteous.  Rather, his struggles are with those who ordered the agents to his house.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states,

“I was deeply troubled last week when I answered the door of my home around 10:00 A.M. and had two agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation saying they wanted to talk with me.  They stated the purpose of their visit was to question me and ‘gather intelligence’ about my activities at the Chinese Embassy on June 4th.

“Those activities included holding a prayer vigil and laying roses at the Embassy to honor the students who were killed in the Tiananmen Square massacre 20 years ago.  We also wanted to pray that the Chinese government would honor and protect human rights and civil liberties in their country.

“I was stunned to have federal agents show up at my door to question me and gather intelligence about protected First Amendment activities and for the simple act of laying flowers in the public square.

“I have led over 40 peaceful demonstrations at the Chinese Embassy during the past 20 years and never had any visits or questions from law enforcement officials.  Why now and why didn’t they just call?

“There are several key questions that must be addressed:

• Who ordered the agents to come to my house and question me and why?
• Why would they come now when all I did was lay flowers and pray in front of the Embassy?
• Why would the FBI want to gather intelligence and question an American citizen who was peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights?
• Was there any political agenda to the visit?

“It is our desire to get to the bottom of this through our Freedom of Information Act request.

“My prayer is that I was not visited and questioned because I have been an outspoken critic of President Obama’s lack of commitment to human rights around the world especially in China and Iran, his failure to reach out to the poor and needy of this nation and embrace social justice, his disregard for civil liberties and his failure to protect America’s innocent unborn children.

“President Obama you were once a community activist.  I hope you will embrace that legacy and not the one of Richard Nixon.”

Classic stuff from our Greenpeace (man can save us and the planet and be god) friends and their unscientific man-made global warming paradigm. I wish the church could see the truth and didn’t keep getting sucked into this nonsense.

Stand Firm

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

By Martin Beckford, Social Affairs Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 17 Aug 2009

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is given £70 million of taxpayers’ money a year, says all households should be asked by the state if they are homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.

A new business plan published on Friday says its stated priorities include: “Continue to lobby for a question on sexual orientation to be included in the 2011 census.”

The quango, which has lost six of its 18 commissioners in recent months in rows over Trevor Phillips’s leadership, believes the intrusion is necessary to improve support to homosexuals.

Its former chief executive, Nicola Brewer, said earlier this year: “One of the most egregious omissions in our entire equalities landscape is the lack of adequate data giving a clear picture of the lesbian, gay and bisexual population. And if you cannot quantify inequalities, how one earth can you address them?”

But the Office for National Statistics, which is planning the £500 million survey of all households in England and Wales, decided more than three years ago not to include the controversial question about residents’ private lives.

Back in March 2006 the ONS published a response to a consultation on the topic, which concluded: “The ONS view remains that such questions are not suitable for the 2011 Census.

“ONS has significant concerns surrounding the issues of privacy, acceptability, accuracy, conceptual definitions and the effect that such a question could have on the overall response to the Census.”

Last December, when detailed proposals for the 2011 poll were produced, the ONS reaffirmed that it would not ask people their sexual orientation.

It said the data would not be accurate because many would refuse to answer, while it might cause embarrassment in some families.

However homosexuals will be allowed to stipulate that they are “in a registered same-sex civil partnership” for the first time.

In addition, the ONS has agreed to include questions about sexual identity in its Integrated Household Survey, which will be published in 2010.

The equality watchdog’s business plan makes almost no reference to its internal problems and it even includes the names of several commissioners who have already resigned.

One paragraph says that it plans to “strengthen our organizational, leadership and management capability”.

Chiesa Espresso Repubblica

Hilltop Youth. Report from Judea and Samaria

A trip among the new generation of Israeli settlers. Anarchical and visionary, they are defying the prohibitions of their government and the hostility, not only of the Arabs, but of the world. “We are the people of the Bible. We have come back home.” A major on-site investigation

by Sandro Magister

ROME, August 20, 2009 – They are the children and grandchildren of the first settlers sent by the Israeli government to “make the desert bloom” in the territories disputed after the Six-Day War in 1967. Bible in hand and rifle on shoulder, many children, a life of sacrifices, a nationalist soul and a religious one.

There are about three hundred thousand settlers in all, and American president Barack Obama, in his speech in Cairo, called them the main obstacle on the road to peace between “two peoples and two states,” which is also the objective of Vatican policy.

For three fourths of them, the obstacle does not appear insurmountable. They live not far from the Green Line of the old armistice between between Israel and Jordan, east of Jerusalem and in the big settlements of Ariel, Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim, Givat Zeev, and Latrun, not covering more than five percent of the disputed territories, and negotiable.

And then there are the others. The fifty thousand who live in small or even tiny settlements of a few hundred or a few dozen inhabitants. Or in the outposts.

The outposts, in the most inaccessible and isolated places, are the new reality of the settlements. There are now about one hundred of them. They have multiplied in recent years, together with the Hilltop Youth, the new generation of settlers. All of the outposts are illegal. The young people build them, and the Israeli army dismantles them. But new ones are always springing up.

Who are these Hilltop Youth? How do they live? What biblical vision motivates them? Why do they venture out there? Will they agree to leave?
__________

“Our job is to build little paradises”

“We have come back home,” proclaims the placard at the entrance to Givat Assaf, an Israeli outpost named after a Jewish settler killed by the Palestinians. The leader of the community, Benny Gal, explains their presence: “On this exact spot, 3,800 years ago, the land of Israel was promised to the Hebrew people. If they take us away from here, the Ben Gurion international airport will be in danger.”

Givat Assaf is one of the key members of the “Hilltop Youth,” the second generation of settlers who are organizing the resistance to the evacuation of the settlements ruled to be illegal, the so-called “outposts,” at the center of negotiations between Israeli prime minister Netanyahu and the Obama administration.

For these young people, the Jewish resurgence comes, as it did at the beginning of the twentieth century, through a toe-to-toe confrontation with the Arabs. The rules of the peace process do not seem to hold any weight with them. The Israeli soldiers, whose brigades and uniform the settlers share, have to drag them away by force when the evacuation order comes from Jerusalem. Those who stay live a whisper’s distance from death. Last April, one of these young people was killed with an ax. In case of conflict, what counts is not the law of the state, but the law of the Lord. It’s like the American frontier of the Wild West.

No one should think this is a phenomenon of the extreme right, a category that has no meaning in Israel. With Ariel Sharon as prime minister, 44 outposts were created. Another 39, according to the data of Peace Now, were built under Rabin, Peres, and Barak, the participants in the Oslo negotiations. The Labor governments have done almost nothing to prevent the multiplication of the outposts. Israel does not consider them rebel enclaves, at least judging from the significant security forces sent to protect them. Some of them have paved roads, bus stops, synagogues, even sports fields. The houses range from simple containers placed at the top of a hill, or a few rows of barracks, to genuine settlements made with the kind of prefabricated buildings that are used to rebuild after an earthquake. For prayers on the sabbath, there needs to be a minyam, the necessary quorum of ten men. That’s all it takes to make an outpost. Like the ten families of Peruvian converts to Judaism at an outpost just outside of the settlement of Efrat, between Bethlehem and Hebron.

David Ha’ivri, originally from Long Island, is one of the leaders of the Hilltop Youth, and lives with his wife and children in Kfar Tapuach. The village is famous for the honey produced there, but above all for the fact that it is mentioned in the Bible, in chapter 12 of the book of Joshua. It is one of the thirty cities conquered by the Hebrews at their arrival thousands of years ago. Today it is one of the most prominent settlements in the West Bank, which the settlers call by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria. The members of Hilltop Youth are the young people born and raised in the settlements who have decided to leave their parents’ homes in the huge conglomerates to go nest in the hills. The synagogues they pray in are often made of baked clay. They build their homes with their own hands, they are single or recently married with young children. They believe they are the new vanguard of the settlements. Their motto is, “We will build, and the permission will come.” They live a stone’s throw from the Arabs. They get around on horseback or by donkey. It is a new generation imbued with a mystical nationalism combined with a pioneering, ascetic spirit; it rejects the consumerism of the big cities on the coast, and lives by ideology and zeal. The women wear the mitpahat, the Jewish equivalent – less concealing and more delicate – of the Islamic chador. The men have tousled hair with long sidelocks, and plaid shirts.

“They are young people who embody the ideology of the Torah and self-sacrifice,” explains Ha’ivri. “The salvation of Israel and of the Jewish people cannot come from politicians who think that the battle for the land is a tactical game. We began to create outposts ten years ago. They are very young couples who have decided to be pioneers like their parents, they believe in Zionism, they are idealists, ready to leave any comfortable existence in the big cities or in the big settlements. They want to be self-sufficient, with all the limitations that this involves.”

Shani Simkovitz directs the Gush Etzion Foundation. She is American, and has five children. “This is disputed land, to be negotiated, not occupied land,” she explains. “More than three thousand years ago our fathers gave us a land, which is not Rome, it is not New York, but this: the Jewish land. They sent us here to build, to plant, to live, they have always supported us, especially Rabin, Peres, and the other Labor leaders. Up until today. My children were born here, but there is no more land on which to build legally, for a long time the government has not given us permission for homes, and this has led to the creation of the outposts. The outposts are extensions of the existing community. But the same thing happens in Jerusalem, where thousands of Israelis live on the other side of the Green Line.”

Another leader of the hillside settlements lives in a cluster of trailers clinging to the side of Mount Artis, called Pisgat Yaakov, which means Jacob’s hill. It snows so much in the winter that the area is cut off. The thirty families there include that of Yishai Fleischer. Yishai is the founder of Kumah, an organization that promotes alyah, meaning Jewish immigration into Israel, and he hosts a very popular radio program. “We have an idyllic, naturalistic life, this is a beautiful area, in the middle of the mountains,” Yishai says. “Our fathers walked here three thousand years ago. We’re a little bit like the new hippies. We work the land. There’s a lot of music, religion, it’s a happy life. We pray, we meditate, we live a spiritual existence. We are the aboriginal people. I was in New York, as a student I believed in Zionism, and I decided that this would be the place where I had to live. We have what we need. We feel like pioneers, we are true Zionists. Many of my friends are extremely religious, and work in the high-tech sector. Our children are growing up with authentic values.” It is, Yishai admits, a very dangerous life. “I go around armed. I hate guns, it doesn’t mean I have to use them, but I have to protect my family. Our village is mentioned a number of times in the Bible, and for this reason it attracts many people. You live in Rome, a city that is sacred to your people, mine were born and raised in Israel. Here  you feel part of the land and the sky. We have grown up knowing that the next step would be our own.”

Yishai is well aware that the settlers are not loved by the Israelis who live on the coast. “We are isolated in public opinion, but we try every day to improve that. Today nationalism is not ‘cool’, it is not politically correct. I do not expect to win the hearts of people who do not live here. It is simple: this is our land. According to international norms, according to the Bible, according to history. We live in exciting times, in which the Jewish people are returning home. When we wake up in the morning, we are not thinking about peace, but about living a life that is happy, dignified, and full of love. We must be vigilant, there are people here who want to kill us because we are Jews. They have the same ideology as the Nazis. The Europeans were not interested in the fate of the Jews sixty years ago, so they should stay far away from us now. We know why we are here, we have a mission that we carry forward every day. Our place is here.”

This is how David Ha’ivri describes the Hilltop Youth: “Many of them are farmers or shepherds, there are students, all of them pioneers living in deserted places, empty, without inhabitants, there are no Palestinians to be deprived of anything. The settlers plant trees, they work the land, they bring water, food, electricity. In the large settlements security is well-organized, but in these communities of a few families the burden of security is enormous. The second generation is much more attached to the land than the first, they were born here, their blood comes from here. They are even more religious than their parents.”

Many of these outposts have been created over the years in the places where the Palestinians had killed a settler. Itay Zar lives in an outpost named after his brother, who was killed. Twenty families, a dozen metal boxes, forty children, and a corral for the horses. “We didn’t come here to have fun. This was desert, today the land is blooming.” The spiritual leader of the outpost, Ariel Lipo, says that their job is to build “little paradises.”

Maoz Esther, an outpost of seven corrugated metal barracks and five families, not far from Ramallah, was the first outpost targeted by Netanyahu after he came to power. It has been removed three times. And rebuilt three times. Most recently a few days ago. The leader of the community, Avraham Sandack, came to this hill straight from one of the settlements in Gaza that had been dismantled by Ariel Sharon. He is studying to become a rabbi, and in the meantime he does the cleaning at a synagogue. “Our spirit is the same as that of our fathers,” Avraham says. “Two years ago on the feast of Hannukah, we left a nearby settlement and built a stone house. One mother, alone with her three little daughters, moved to the hillside for two months. They had no electricity or water. But they knew that they belonged to the land of Israel. In the Bible, this land is spoken about in the prophecies about the kingdom of God. That gives us strength to continue forward. Yesterday we began to rebuild what the army has destroyed. Here we are able to be at peace with our souls. There is something metaphysical here. God is not in heaven or somewhere else. God is part of us, he is in our whole life.”