Archive for October, 2009

Lord Carey of Clifton has called on his successor as Archbishop of Canterbury to complain to the Pope in person about not being consulted over plans to admit disaffected Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church.

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent – Times

Lord Carey of Clifton has called on his successor as Archbishop of Canterbury to complain to the Pope in person about not being consulted over plans to admit disaffected Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church.

Lord Carey warned that the Pope’s strategy could damage relations with the Vatican. Lord Carey, who stepped down in 2002, urged Dr Rowan Williams to protest strongly when he visits the Pope in Rome next month.

Lord Carey was speaking after the joint press conference this week between Dr Williams and the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, to announce the move. Under an apostolic constitution decree, the Pope will set up personal ordinariates, or extra-geographical Roman Catholic dioceses, such as those that already exist in the military, to take in former Anglicans who oppose women bishops and accept the Petrine ministry of Rome.

Dr Williams appeared distressed when he said at the press conference, hosted by the Roman Catholic Church in Eccleston Square, that he had known nothing of the initiative until two weeks ago. He was notified formally only when Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, visited last weekend to fill in some of the detail.

The Times understands that the former Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, a former co-chairman of the AnglicanRoman Catholic International Commission, known as Arcic, tried unsuccessfully to stop the apostolic constitution being published. His protests and others’ concerns delayed its publication, intended for last February.

The two archbishops presented the constitution as “a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church”.

They said: “The announcement … brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such groups who have nurtured hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church.”

Lord Carey said that he, too, had been caught unawares by the development, which some insiders believe has dealt a death blow to 40 years of official ecumenical dialogue under the auspices of the Council for Christian Unity, if not to the Anglican Communion itself. The council was not involved in preparing the constitution.

He sought, however, to make the best of the development. “I give it a very cautious welcome,” he said. “It is worth considering because there are a number of deeply worried, anxious Anglo-Catholics who do not believe they have a constructive future in the Church of England with the ordination of women as bishops.

“I was pastorally concerned for them when I was Archbishop of Canterbury. I know Rowan is as well. So this could go a long way to helping.”

The Times has learnt it was reports of bishops emerging in tears from the General Synod meeting last July that rejected all provision for traditionalists that finally provoked Rome into offering them a home.

Lord Carey said that there were two positive aspects to the new Apostolic Constitution. “This initiatve is almost a back door ecumenical gesture. What we have seen is the failure of the final report of Arcic. Straightforward ecumenism at the theological level is going nowhere. This fresh initiative could have surprising consequences.”

George Austin, former Archdeacon of York, said: “Rome has done this cleverly because the Catholic bishops in England are liberal. The Pope has shown considerable leadership. That is what Popes do. What has surprised me is the sort of people, and number, who have said they will leave.”

FURTHER INTERNET RESOURCE

Lord Carey: Pope should not woo disaffected Anglicans – Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has criticised the Pope over the way he is attempting to woo disaffected Anglicans to Rome.

The Queen will stand up to Pope Benedict – When the Pontiff visits Britain next year he will meet his match, says Vicki Woods

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Telegraph

When Pope Benedict XVI dramatically announced on Tuesday that he was flinging open the doors of Rome to (possibly) thousands of disaffected Anglican priests, my neighbour the headhunter’s wife – a cradle Catholic – said: “He’s quite an old pope, isn’t he?” Yep – he’ll be 83 next April, deo volente. “He’s looking towards his legacy,” she said. “It’s a very clever move, corralling them in at a time of unrest.”

The procedures announced by the Vatican mean that not only priests but entire communities of Anglicans will be able to become Catholics via a “personal ordinariate”. The Archbishop of Canterbury looked a little headachey as he told a news conference that he didn’t see the Pope’s plans as “an act of aggression” by Rome. Heavens, no. Just part of the routine relationship between the two Churches. Sort of thing. Erm.

Yes, well. We’re all quite accustomed to our lipsticked Vicars of Dibley these days. While some of us are po-faced about women priests, some of us quite like them when we come across them. Especially at weddings, where the quality of motherliness can seem nicely appropriate. After one recent wedding, somebody said the service had been “so warm and wonderfully intimate, didn’t you think? The bride and groom thought she was lovely.” I said I couldn’t hear a word she’d said and I was only three pews back.

So I’m on the slightly po-faced side of women priests, but since I have lost faith and attend church only for: 1) rites of passage; 2) preserving the architectural fabric of the building for the village and
3) harvest festivals and Christingles in my capacity as a school governor, my face doesn’t matter. Women bishops, though… I have a little kernel of resistance against women bishops. And the open door to Rome is going to force the poor archbishop, who is clearly a very faithful servant of God, to either translate or not translate women into Anglican bishops pretty swiftly.

I was at my churchiest from 11 to 14, when I badly wanted to be a nun, perhaps one (as played by Audrey Hepburn) who could face down male carnality with the pure shining flame of her spirituality. The Army Garrison Church I attended in Singapore was very High, despite being converted from a lowly Nissen hut. I enjoyed the exalted language of the Book of Common Prayer, the sung psalms, the genuflecting and bobbing at the altar. And if I happened to have chosen a kneeler too close to a red ants’ nest, I accepted the ferocious stings with nunlike piety.

What depresses me now is having separate leaflets and bits of paper instead of a Prayer Book, and the vicar saying: “Now turn to the bottom of Page 3 in the separate leaflet for the alternative prayer…” So I understand the great raft of the Anglican faithful who don’t go to church any more, because it doesn’t give them what they seek (Exaltedness).

As to the clever Pope Benedict, who plans to visit Britain in 2010 (which is pretty soon, isn’t it? Another headache for the Archbishop of Canterbury) on what was apparently “the personal invitation of Gordon Brown during a private audience in February”, he should read Carla Powell’s diary in The Spectator: “Gordon Brown says he invited His Holiness, which if true would represent a gross breach of protocol. Only the Queen can invite a head of state to Britain.” And when he meets the head of state, he’ll have the singular experience of being addressed not just by his equal in worldly rank, but in godliness, too.

When Pope John Paul II met the Queen on his visit to Britain, he was for once wrong-footed. She spoke to him not as a fellow head of state but as a fellow head of the Church: Her Church. Her faith. Which she defends. He was quite taken aback.

WHERE is the hardest place in the world to be a Christian citizen? North Korea, perhaps? Saudi Arabia? Try Somalia.

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

The Economist

Somalia’s embattled Christians Almost expunged

Even Somalia’s supposedly moderate government is loth to protect them

WHERE is the hardest place in the world to be a Christian citizen? North Korea, perhaps? Saudi Arabia? Try Somalia. There are thought to be no more than a thousand Christians in a resident population of 8m people, with perhaps a few thousand more in the diaspora. The Islamist Shabab militia, which controls most of southern Somalia, is dedicated to hunting them down.

Christian men attend mosques on Fridays, so as not to arouse suspicion. Bibles are kept hidden. There are no public meetings, let alone a church. Catholic churches and cemeteries have been destroyed. The last nuns in the smashed capital, Mogadishu, were chased out in 2007. The year before, an elderly nun working in a hospital there was murdered. The only Christian believers left are local Somalis.

Catching and killing them is useful propaganda for the Shabab, not least for indoctrinating its young fighters and suicide-bombers in the belief that America, Britain, Italy, the Vatican, along with Ethiopia and Kenya, are all “crusaders” trying to convert Somalis to Christianity. The UN lurks nefariously behind. Israel, of course, is also doing its bit to undermine Islam.

The shaky transitional government led by Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, whose writ runs weakly across the territory the Shabab does not yet run, is unlikely to speak up for any of its citizens caught with a bible. Though professing moderation, he promotes a version of sharia law whereby every citizen of Somalia is born a Muslim and anyone who converts to another religion is guilty of apostasy, which is punishable by death.

Every month several Somalis are killed for being Christian. Sometimes that is just a label that the jihadists stick on people they suspect of working for Ethiopian intelligence. But many are simple believers. According to Somali sources and Christian groups monitoring Somalia from abroad, at least 13 members of underground churches have been killed in the past few months. Most were Mennonites, evangelised by missionaries on the Juba river in southern Somalia. They include a 46-year-old woman shot dead near the town of Jilib after a Swahili-language bible was found in her shack; a 69-year-old man killed near a port south of Mogadishu after Shabab fighters found 25 Somali bibles in a bag he was carrying; and two boys, aged 11 and 12, who were beheaded by the Shabab after their father refused to divulge information about an underground church. Hundreds of Somalis may have been killed for being Christian since the Shabab arose in 2005.

Such atrocities—and reports that the Koran has been read over the victims even at the point of their beheading—are upsetting evangelical Christians in America. Mr Ahmed’s government sorely needs money to shore itself up. But if he fails even to hint that Christians should be tolerated, he may find America’s Congress increasingly loth to help bail him out.

On Friday, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago released what it described as “the most comprehensive analysis to date of global religious trends.”

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

By PETER STEINFELS

The world is growing more religious. Or maybe it’s not.

On Friday, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago released what it described as “the most comprehensive analysis to date of global religious trends.” Anyone studying its 9,000-word analysis and perusing 330 additional pages of references and tables will be quickly disabused of the idea that the currents of religious belief and practice are flowing in one or two or even a half-dozen clear directions.

“Religious change around the world is a complex phenomenon,” the report begins, in an almost comic understatement. “No simple description such as secularization, religious revival, or believing without belonging captures the complexity of the process.”

The report mines dozens of surveys by American and European social science researchers that measure religious trends over the last four decades in the United States, Western and Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.

The United States, as often noted, remains unusually religious among advanced industrial nations. Nearly 6 out of 10 Americans pray one or more times each day; high percentages report feeling close to God, experiencing God’s presence or guidance on most days. Faith in God, they say, is “very important” in their lives.

Nonetheless, belief in God has slipped a little, and more Americans, though still believing, acknowledge some uncertainty about God’s existence. A growing number of Americans no longer identify themselves with any particular religious group. Those who do belong are less likely to say they are strong members. Regular attendance at religious services has declined, and the numbers never worshiping have increased.

Yet more Americans believe in a life after death and pray daily than in the 1970s. And to complicate things, most of these trends have had their ups and downs, leaving open the possibility of future spurts or reversals.

“The tilt of religious change in the United States over the last half century has clearly been in the secular direction,” the report concludes, “but the pattern is complex and nuanced.”

Europe, already significantly secular in the 1970s, has undergone a further secular shift, but here the modest overall changes are far less striking than the dramatic differences from nation to nation.

One 1997 survey question found 1.9 percent of Greeks and 2.8 percent of Italians calling themselves atheists, compared with 24.3 percent of the French and 59.7 percent of East Germans. Those who said that they both believed in God and practiced their faith ranged from 5.5 percent in Denmark to 51.9 percent in Ireland.

One could surmise from this data a large historical drift continuing to push Europe away from religion, but much more important were all the swirls and countercurrents of local histories and circumstances distinguishing one nation from another.

The collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe 20 years ago opened a whole new landscape of religious change. After decades of repression, government constraints and ideological pressures on religion were lifted. Religion rebounded in some places; the drift away from it was merely slowed in others. Again, the report concludes, “there is no uniform post-Communist religious pattern.”

One 2005 survey found 90 percent of Romanians believing in a God understood as a “person,” compared with 16 percent of Estonians. A 2006 survey indicated that three out of four Poles prayed daily, compared to one out of eight Czechs. Poles are six times as likely to believe in an afterlife as East Germans.

The once-reigning assumption that religion necessarily declined with modernization has been dethroned, largely because of the American counterexample. But after looking at various measures of religiosity, on the one hand, and of per capita wealth, life expectancy and educational levels, on the other hand, the National Opinion Research Center report detects at least some life in this venerable “secularization thesis.”

“With more modernization in general and with more education in particular, religious beliefs and behaviors across countries do tend to decline,” the report states, and then promptly warns that these correlations are “moderate” and “many are not statistically significant.” Conclusion? “The relationship is neither overwhelming nor uniform across countries.”

Modernization is, of course, linked to scientific knowledge and progress.

The NORC report shows that compared with other college-educated workers, scientists, engineers and physicians are less likely to believe firmly in God, believe in an afterlife, pray daily and attend religious services weekly. But the report also points out that “the difference between them and those in nonscientific occupations is not especially large,” and in fact most of them remain religious, with large proportions believing in God, identifying with a religion, praying and attending services.

“In sum,” the report says, “the proposition that science leads people in general and scientists in particular away from religion is only weakly supported by the available evidence.”

Surveys of belief and practice are only one way of exploring religious change, but they have grown increasingly sophisticated. The NORC report comes on the heels of useful surveys examining in detail religious political activists on the right and the left; the growing number of Americans who do not identify with any religion; and congregations coping with declining church attendance and financial strains.

In the face of all this data, it is tempting to grasp for simplifying patterns: growth or decline, the religious United States or secular Europe, scientific modernity or traditional faith. The reports suggests that when it comes to tracking religious change, there is a strong case for suspending belief.

FURTHER INTERNET RESOURCE

Religious institutions may be waning in the U.S, but private religious practices like prayer are actually on the rise, a new University of Chicago report reveals.

Israel is concerned that Iran will use the current climate of international goodwill as a cover to pursue its goal of becoming a nuclear power, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Friday, after discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Jerusalem Post

Shalom: Iran may use deal to build bomb

Israel is concerned that Iran will use the current climate of international goodwill as a cover to pursue its goal of becoming a nuclear power, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Friday, after discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Shalom made the comment on the day that Iran announced it was still studying a UN-drafted plan to ship much of its uranium to Russia and France for further enrichment, a move seen as a way to delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran’s envoy to the UN nuclear agency said the government will respond to the offer next week.

“I told the secretary-general that we were very concerned that Iran will use the goodwill of the international community to continue to develop their real intentions – and it is toward nuclear power on the one end but on the other end to try to change the types of the regimes within the Middle East,” he said.

“We believe that Iran will never abandon their dream to become a nuclear power,” Shalom said. “They hide their real intentions in the past, and they will do it in the future.”

He singled out the recent disclosure about the nuclear facility at Qom.

“We know about many other things that they are trying to do,” he said. “They are trying to buy all the items that are needed in order to develop nuclear power. They are doing it while they are always lying about … their real intentions.”

Shalom expressed concern about what Iran would do before the date the uranium would be sent to Russia, which he said was January 15.

“We are very concerned from the possibility that Iran will try once again to develop its nuclear power while there is no inspection, or inspectors, or supervision of the international community,” he said.

“We are in a situation where we have to protect ourself from those who are trying to kill us,” he replied.

“If Iran will abandon its dream to have … nuclear power, it will bring more stability to the region because first and foremost those who are very, very concerned are Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,” he added.

Shalom accused the Iranians of “trying to undermine the regimes of the moderate Arab countries,” citing the discovery of “a terrorist cell” of Hizbullah operatives, backed by Iran, in Egypt a few months ago.

On Thursday night, Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed Israel’s dissatisfaction with the deal even before Iran failed to respond to it, saying there was a need to halt all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.

“This agreement, if it is signed, will set Iran’s accumulation of enriched material back by about a year,” Barak said during a speech at President Shimon Peres’s Israeli Presidential Conference at the Jerusalem International Convention Center.

“However, if they don’t stop enrichment, then the only result will be that Iran has gained the legitimacy to enrich uranium on its soil for civilian purposes, in clear opposition to the interlocutors’ and our understanding that their true plan is to attain [military] nuclear capability,” he said.

“So, I repeat, what is required is a halt to enrichment in Iran, not just an export of the enriched material to build fuel rods,” the defense minister said.

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni echoed Barak, saying that Israel was troubled by the recent Iranian nuclear agreement.

She noted that “the world understands that we cannot permit a nuclear Iran, however to my regret, there is a gap between the understanding of the threat and action on the ground.

“Israel needs to be worried by what we are witnessing today and the reports of the agreement. We suspect that this is another attempt by Iran to buy time. Israel must rally the world as this is not solely Israel’s problem.”

Livni made the comments Friday when speaking at the annual meeting of the farmers’ union.

Pope Benedict’s ‘Impelling Duty’: Rebuild the Full and Visible Unity of the Church

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

‘To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church’.

On April 20, 2005 newly elected Pope Benedict XVI gave his first message at the end of a Mass he had concelebrated with the members of the College of Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel. He signaled his mission: “Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master’s supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Luke 22: 32). With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter’s current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty.”

The announcement of October 20, 2009 that an Apostolic Constitution will establish a “Personal Ordinariate” for Anglican Christians and their Clergy to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church while retaining elements of their distinctive Anglican identity is generating a lot of Press. Secular news sources have offered some interesting analysis. A Wall Street Journal article written by Stacy Meichtry was entitled ,“The Great Unifier?” Though worth reading, it is the Title which will endure. The question mark will fall away as this historic moment unfolds over the coming years. Pope Benedict XVI is indeed the “Great Unifier.” The writer claims “Few expected Pope Benedict to reach out to other Christian churches aggressively when he was elected in April 2005”. However, anyone aware of the writings, history and ecclesiology (theology of the Church) of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, knew this would happen. In fact, I believe he is only warming up.

A Wall Street Journal article written by Francis X. Rocca entitled “The Pope Lets a Thousand Liturgies Bloom” is also worth reading. The Vatican correspondent for the Religious news Service wrote: “It may seem ironic that Pope Benedict should be presiding over such diversification of worship. After all, as head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office for more than two decades prior to his 2005 election as pope, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger built a reputation as the church’s most vigilant guardian of orthodoxy, receiving the nickname “God’s Rottweiler.” Benedict is hardly permissive when it comes to liturgy. …Though even most Catholics are not aware of it, many sanctioned modes of worship have co-existed within the church over its 2,000-year history. The Ambrosian Rite, celebrated only in certain parts of northern Italy, with its own special prayers, vestments and type of chant, is one of the most ancient, dating back at least to the fourth century. Not to speak of the many Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome, which share a rich liturgical heritage with Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Some in the “religious” Press, like Rod Dreher who writes for Beliefnet, are zeroing in on the other implications. Dreher was impressed by the excellent piece written by European Catholic Journalist Sandro Magister entitled “Knock, and It Shall Be Opened to You. As Long As It’s According to Tradition.” He discusses Magisters claim in his own analysis entitled “Pope Benedict’s Brilliant Strategy.” However, it is more than a strategy by this Pope, it is a mandate. Dreher has just discovered that this Pope really believes that the authentic Christian Tradition is not only about preserving the past and protecting orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but also about securing the path to the future. Many who have observed his ministry for years have known it all along. What is most heartening is that Dreher, a convert to Orthodox Christianity, encourages another aspect of the work of unity undertaken by this Pope, the full communion of the “two lungs” of the Church, East and West.

Dreher writes: “What a blessing it would be if he and the Orthodox patriarchs could come to an understanding that could pave the way for reunion. Personally, I don’t see how it could be done, given the wide divergence between Orthodox and Catholic theology since the Great Schism. But with God, all things are possible — and I think as a purely secular matter (that is, for the sake of establishing a united front for the preservation and growth of the faith against a de-Christianizing world), re-establishing communion between Eastern and Western Christianity would be great for both. Long may this pope — and the ecumenism of tradition — live and prosper!” I say “Amen to that!”

The authentic ecumenical mission, the full and visible unity of the Church, was at the heart of Pope John Paul’s pontificate – and is at the heart of Pope Benedict’s – because it is in the center of the heart of the Lord. “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17: 20, 21) The Servant of God John Paul II released an Encyclical Letter bearing that scripture as its official name Ut Unum Sint. The implications of that Encyclical Letter have not been grasped by many Catholics. One of my favorite theologians, an Orthodox Layman named Oliver Clement, took up one of the challenges in the Encyclical and wrote a gem of a little book in 1997 entitled “You are Peter: An Orthodox theologians Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy.”

In Catholic theology we teach what the early fathers, Saints and Councils throughout the ages have all affirmed; to belong to Jesus is to belong to His Body. Our membership in the Church is a participation in the life of God; what the Apostle Peter referred to as a “participation in the Divine nature”. (2 Peter 1:4) We speak of our Christian friends in other Christian communities who have been validly baptized in accordance with a Trinitarian formula as already being in “imperfect communion” with the One Church. This is why Catholics do not “re-baptize” a Christian from another community who comes into the Catholic Church. We speak of them as coming into “full communion” because they are already joined to the one Church in an “imperfect” or incomplete communion.

The Church is not some “thing”, outside of us, which we try to “fix” or have our “issues” with. The Church is not some human organization we created so that we could meet to study the Bible, support one another and do good works – as commendable as each of those endeavors may be. The Church is God’s Plan. Jesus came to found that Church and begin the New Creation. It is a communion from above into which we enter through Jesus Christ. It is His Body. He is the Head and we are the members. Through our Baptism the Church becomes our home, our mother, the place in which we now live our lives in Christ. To perceive, receive and to live this reality requires a continuing and dynamic conversion brought about by grace, which is mediated to us through the Sacraments and, most especially through our Eucharistic communion. We are sons and daughters of the Church now. In living our lives within her we are enlisted in the mission of carrying forward in time the continuing work of Jesus Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing several ancient sources, states: “To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood. [St. Augustine, Serm. 96, 7, 9: PL 38, 588; St. Ambrose, De virg. 18, 118: PL 16, 297B; cf. already 1 Pet 3:20-21] [30, 953, 1219]” (#895)

This Church is both human and divine; thus her members still sin. Sometimes evil enters and rots her from within. Sadly, she has been divided, but that is not the Lord’s Plan. She is the means through which all men and women are invited to participate in the life of God and find true unity. She is, as the fathers were fond of saying, “the world reconciled” and a seed of the Kingdom to come. To her has been entrusted the Sacraments (Mysteries), the Word of God, and the gift of a Teaching Office (i>Magisterium through which Jesus Christ continues to speak through the Holy Spirit. The Church is not an optional “extra” that we add on to our lives, she is our life and we live our lives now in Christ. From His wounded side she was birthed at the tree of Calvary, the altar of the new world. Through faith we are invited into this mystery and by grace we come to more fully comprehend and live it as we respond to the ongoing call to conversion and newness of life.

Pope Benedict’s ‘Impelling Duty’ is to rebuild the full and visible unity of this Church. It will be forged through orthodoxy (right teaching) and orthopraxy (right practice) but it will be lived within a legitimate diversity of expression within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. What happened last week is just the beginning.

CHARLES SPURGEON ELIJAH’S APPEAL TO THE UNDECIDED

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

“How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: if
Baal, then follow him.” 1 Kings 18:21

IT was a day to be remembered, when the multitudes of Israel were
assembled at the foot of Carmel, and when the solitary prophet of the Lord
came forth to defy the four hundred and fifty priests of the false god. We
might look upon that scene with the eye of historical curiosity, and we
should find it rich with interest. Instead of so doing, however, we shall
look upon it with the eye of attentive consideration, and see whether we
cannot improve by its teachings. We have upon that hill of Carmel and
along the plain three kinds of persons. We have first the devoted servant of
Jehovah, a solitary prophet; we have, on the other hand, the decided
servants of the evil one, the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal; but
the vast mass of that day belonged to a third class — they were those who
had not fully determined whether fully to worship Jehovah, the God of
their fathers, or Baal, the god of Jezebel. On the one hand, their ancient
traditions led them to fear Jehovah, and on the other hand, their interest at
court led them to bow before Baal. Many of them, therefore, were secret
and half-hearted followers of Jehovah, while they were the public
worshippers of Baal. The whole of them at this juncture were halting
between two opinions. Elijah does not address his sermon to the priests of
Baal; he will have something to say to them by-and-by, he will preach them
horrible sermons in deeds of blood. Nor has he aught to say to those who
are the thorough servants of Jehovah, for they are not there; but his
discourse is alone directed to those who are halting between two opinions.
Now, we have these three classes here this morning. We have, I hope, a
very large number who are on Jehovah’s side, who fear God and serve him,
we have a number who are on the side of the evil one, who make no
profession of religion, and do not observe even the outward symptoms of
it; because they are both inwardly and outwardly the servants of the evil
one. But the great mass of my hearers belong to the third class — the
waverers. Like empty clouds they are driven hither and thither by the wind,
like painted beauties, they lack the freshness of life, they have a name to
live and are dead. Procrastinaters, double-minded men, undecided persons,
to you I speak this morning — “How long halt ye between two opinions?”
is the question be answered by God’s Spirit in your hearts, and may you be
led to ay, “No longer, Lord, do I halt; but this day I decide for thee, and
am thy servant for ever!”

Let us proceed at once to the text. Instead of giving the divisions at the
commencement, I will mention them one by one as I proceed.

I. First, you will note that the prophet insisted upon the distinction which
existed between the worship of Baal and the worship of Jehovah. Most of
the people who were before him thought that Jehovah was God, and that
Baal was god too, and that for this reason the worship of both was quite
consistent. The great mass of them did not reject the God of their fathers
wholly, nor did they bow before Baal wholly; but as polythiests, believing
in many gods, they thought both Gods might be worshipped and each of
them have a share in their hearts. “No,” said the prophet when he began,
“this will not do, these are two opinions, you can never make them one
they are two contradictory things which cannot be combined. I tell you that
instead of combining the two, which is impossible, you are halting between
the two, which makes a vast difference.” “I will build in my house,” said
one of them, “an altar for Jehovah here, and an altar for Baal there. I am of
one opinion, I believe them both to be God.” “No, no,” said Elijah, “it
cannot be so; they are two, and must be two. These things are not one
opinion, but two opinions. No, you cannot unite them.” Have I not many
here who say, “I am worldly, but I am religious too! I can go to the Music
Hall to worship God on Sunday! I went to the Derby the other day: I go,
on the one hand, to the place where I can serve my lusts; I am to be met
with in every dancing room of every description, and yet at the same time I
say my prayers most devoutly. May I not be a good churchman, or a right
good dissenter and a man of the world too? May I not, after all, hold with
the hounds as well as ran with the hare? May I not love God and serve the
devil too — take the pleasure of each of them, and give my heart to
neither? We answer — Not so, they are two opinions; you cannot do it,
they are distinct and separate. Mark Antony yoked two lions to his chariot;
but there are two lions no man ever yoked together yet — the lion of the
tribe of Judah and the lion of the pit. These can never go together. Two
opinions you may hold in polities, perhaps, but then you will be despised by
everybody, unless you are of one opinion or the other, and act as an
independent man. But two opinions in the matter of soul-religion you
cannot hold. If God be God, serve him, and do it thoroughly, but if this
world be God, serve it, and make no profession of religion. If you are a
worldling, and think the things of the world the best, serve them, devote
yourself to them, do not be kept back by conscience; spite your conscience
and run into sin. But remember, if the Lord be your God you cannot have
Baal too, you must have one thing or else the other. “No man can serve
two masters.” If God be served, he will be a master; and if the devil be
served he will not be long before he will be a master, and “ye cannot serve
two masters.” Oh! be wise, and think not that the two can be mingled
together. How many a respectable deacon thinks that he can be covetous,
and grasping in business, and grind the faces of the poor, and yet be a
saint! Oh! liar to God and to man! He is no saint; he is the very chief of
sinners! How many a very excellent woman who is received into church
fellowship amongst the people of God, and thinks herself one of the elect,
is to be found full of wrath and bitterness — a slave of mischief and of sin a
tattler, a slanderer, a busybody, entering into other people’s houses, and
turning everything like comfort out of the minds of those with whom she
comes in contact — and yet she is the servant of God and of the devil too!
Nay, my lady, this will never answer; the two never can be served
thoroughly. Serve your master, whoever he be. If you do profess to be
religious, be so thoroughly, if you make any I profession to be a Christian
be one, but if you are no Christian, do not pretend to be. If you love the
world, then love it but cast off the mask, and do not be a hypocrite. The
double-minded man is of all men the most despicable, the follower of
Janus, who wears two faces and who can look with one eye upon the (socalled)
Christian world with great delight, and give his subscription to the
Tract Society, the Bible Society, and the Missionary Society, but who has
another eye over there, with which he looks at the Casino, the Cole-hole,
and other pleasures, which I do not care to mention, but which some of
you may know more of than I wish to know. Such a man, I say, is worse
than the most reprobate of men, in the opinion of any one who knows how
to judge. Not worse in his open character, but worse really, because he is
not honest enough to go through with that he professes. Tom Loker, in
“Uncle Tom,” was pretty near the mark when he shut the mouth of Haley,
the slaveholder, who professed religion, with the following common sense
remark: — “I can stand most any talk of yours, but your pious talk — that
kills me right up. After all, what’s the odds between me and you? “Tan’t
that you care one bit more, or have a bit more feelin’ — its clean, sheer,
dog meanness, wanting to cheat the devil and save your own skin; don’t I
see through it? And your getting religious, as you call it, after all, is a deal
too mean for me, run up a bill with the devil all your life, and then sneak
out when pay time comes.” And how many do the same every day in
London, in England, everywhere else! They try to serve both masters; but
it cannot be; the two things cannot be reconciled; God and Mammon,
Christ and Belial, these never can meet; there never can be an agreement
between them, they never can be brought into unity, and why should you
seek to do it? “Two opinions,” said the prophet. He would not allow any of
his hearers to profess to worship both. “No,” said he, “these are two
opinions, and you are halting between the two.”

II. In the second place, the prophet calls these waivers to an account for
the amount of time which they had consumed in making their choice.
Some of them might have replied, “We have not yet had an opportunity of
judging between God and Baal, we have not yet had time enough to make
up our minds;” but the prophet puts away that objection, and he says,
“How long halt ye between two opinions? How long? For three years and a
half not a drop of rain has fallen at the command of Jehovah; is not that
proof enough? Ye have been all this time, three y-ears and a half,
expecting, till I should come, Jehovah’s servant, and give you rain, and yet,
though you yourselves are starving, your cattle dead, your fields parched,
and your meadows covered with dust, like the very deserts, yet all this time
of Judgment, and trial, and affliction, has not been enough for you to make
up your minds. How long, then,” said he, “halt ye between two opinions?”
I speak not, this morning, to the thoroughly worldly; with them I have now
nothing to do; another time I may address them. But I am now speaking to
you who are seeking to serve God and to serve Satan, you, who are trying
to be Christian worldlings, trying to be members of that extraordinary
corporation, called the “religious world,” which is a thing that never had an
existence except in title. You are endeavoring, if you can, to make up your
mind which it shall be; you know you can not serve both, and you are
coming now to the period when you are saying, “Which shall it be? Shall I
go thoroughly into sin, and revel in the pleasures of the earth, or become a
servant of God?” Now, I say to you this morning, as the prophet did, “How
long halt ye?” Some of you have been halting until your hair has grown
grey; the sixtieth year of some of you is drawing nigh. Is not sixty years
long enough to make your choice? “How long halt ye?” Perhaps one of
you may have tottered into this place, leaning on his staff, and you have
been undecided up till now. Your eightieth year has come, you have been a
religious character outwardly, but a worldling truly; you are still up to this
date halting, saying, “I know not on which side to be.” How long, sirs, in
the name of reason, in the name of mortality, in the name of death, in the
name of eternity, “How long halt ye between two opinions?” Ye middle
aged men, ye said when ye were youths, “When we are out of our
apprenticeship we will become religious; let us sow our wild oats in our
youth and let us then begin to be diligent servants of the Lord.” Lo! ye
have come to middle age, and are waiting till that quiet villa shall be built,
and ye shall retire from business, and then ye think ye will serve God. Sirs,
ye said the same when ye came of age, and when your business began to
increase I therefore solemnly demand of you, “How long halt ye between
two opinions?” How much time do you want? Oh! young man, thou saidst
in thine early childhood, when a mother’s prayer followed thee, “I will seek
God when I come to manhood,” and thou hast passed that day, thou art a
man, and more than that and yet thou art halting still. “How long halt ye
between two opinions?” How many of you have been church-goers and
chapel-goers for years! Ye have been impressed, too, many a time; but ye
have wiped the tears from your eyes, and have said, “I will seek God and
turn to him with full purpose of heart;” an you are now just where you
were. How many more sermons do you want? How many more Sundays
must roll away wasted? How many warnings, how many sicknesses, how
many toilings of the bell to warn you that you must die? How many graves
must be dug for your family before you will be impressed? How many
plagues and pestilences must ravage this city before you will turn to God in
truth? How long halt ye between two opinions?” Would God you could
answer this question, and not allow the sands of life to drop, drop, drop
from the glass, saying, “When the next goes I will repent,” and yet that
next one findeth you impenitent, You say, “When the glass is just so low, I
will turn to God.” No, sir, no; it will not answer for thee to talk so; for
thou mayest find thy glass empty before thou thoughtest it had begun to
run low, and thou mayest find thyself in eternity when thou didst but think
of repenting and turning to God. How long, ye grey heads, how long, ye
men of ripe years, how long, ye youths and maidens, how long will ye be in
this undecided, unhappy state? “How long halt ye between two opinions?”
Thus we have brought you so far. We have noted that there are two
opinions and we have asked the question, how long time you want to
decide. One would think the question would require very little time, if time
were all if the will were not biassed to evil and contrary to good, it would
require no more time than the decision of a man who has to choose a halter
or life, wealth or poverty; and if we were wise, it would take no time at all;
if we understood the things of God, we should not hesitate, but say at
once, “Now God is my God, and that forever.”

III. But the prophet charges these people with the absurdity of their
position. Some of them said, “What! prophet, may we not continue to halt
between two opinions? We are not desperately irreligious, so we are better
than the profane; certainly we are not thoroughly pious, but, at any rate, a
little piety is better than none, and the mere profession of it keeps us
decent, let us try both!” “Now,” says the prophet, “how long halt ye?” or,
if you like to read it so, “how long limp ye between two opinions?” (how
long wriggle ye between two opinions? would be a good word if I might
employ it.) He represents them as like a man whose legs are entirely out of
joint; he first goes on one side, and then on the other, and cannot go far
either way. I could not describe it without putting myself into a most
ludicrous posture, “How long limp ye between two opinions!” The prophet
laughs at them, as it were. And is it not true, that a man who is neither one
thing or another is in a most absurd position? Let him go among the
worldlings; they laugh under their sleeve, and say, “That is one of the
Exeter Hall saints,” or “That is one of the elect.” Let him go among the
Christian people, those that are saints, and they say, “However a man can
be so inconsistent, however he can come in our midst one day, and the next
be found in such-and-such society, we cannot tell.” Methinks even the devil
himself must laugh at such a man in scorn. “There,” says he, “I am
everything that is bad; I do sometimes pretend to be an angel of light, and
put on that garb; but you do really excel me in every respect, for I do it to
get something by it, but you do not get anything by it. You do not have the
pleasures of this world, and you do not have the pleasures of religion
either; you have the fears of religion without its hopes; you are afraid to do
wrong and yet you have no hope of heaven; you have the duties of religion
without the joys; you have to do just as religious people do, and yet there
is no heart in the matter: you have to sit down, and see the table all spread
before you, and then you have not power to eat a single morsel of the
precious dainties of the gospel.” It is just the same with the world; you
dare not go into this or that mischief that brings joy to the wicked man’s
heart; you think of what society would say. We do not know what to make
of you. I might describe you, if I might speak as the Americans do, but I
will not. Ye are half one thing and half the other. You come into the
society of the saints, and try to talk as they talk; but you are like a man
who has been taught French in some dayschool in England; he makes a
queer sort of Frenchified English, and Englishised French, and every one
laughs at him. The English laugh at him for trying to do it, and the French
laugh at him for failing in it. If you spoke your own language, if you just
spoke out as a sinner, if you professed to be what you are, you would at
least get the respect of one side, but now you are rejected by one class, and
equally rejected by the other. You come into our midst, we cannot receive
you; you go amongst worldlings, they reject you too; you are too good for
them, and too bad for us. Where are you to be put? If there were a
purgatory, that would be the place for you; where you might be tossed on
the one side into ice, and on the other into the burning fire, and that for
ever. But as there is no such place as purgatory, and as you really are a
servant of Satan, and not a child of God, take heed, take heed, how long
you stay in a position so absurdly ridiculous. At the day of judgment,
wavering men will be the scoff and the laughter even of hell. The angels
will look down in scorn upon the man who was ashamed to own his master
thoroughly, while hell itself will ring with laughter. When that grand
hypocrite shall come there — that undecided man, they will say, “Aha! we
have to drink the dregs, but above them there were sweets, you have only
the dregs. You dare not go into the riotous and boisterous mirth of our
youthful days, and now you have come here with us, to drink the same
dregs, you have the punishment without the pleasure.” Oh! how foolish
will even the damned call you, to think that you halted between two
opinions! “How long limp ye, wriggle ye walk ye in an absurd manner,
between two opinions?” In adopting either opinion, you would at least be
consistent; but in trying to hold both, to seek to be both one and the other,
and not knowing which to decide upon, you are limping between two
opinions. I think a good translation is a very different one from that of the
authorized version — “How long hop ye upon two sprays?” So the
Hebrew has it. Like a bird, which perpetually flies from bough to bough,
and is never still. If it keeps on doing this, it will never have a nest. And so
with you; you keep leaping between two boughs, from one opinion to the
other; and so between the two you get no rest for the sole of your foot, no
peace, no joy, no comfort, but are just a poor miserable thing all your life
long.

IV. We have brought you thus far, then, we have shown you the absurdity
of this halting. Now, very briefly, the next point in my text is this. The
multitude who had worshipped Jehovah and Baal, and who were now
undecided, might reply, “But how do you know that we do not believe that
Jehovah is God. How do you know we are not decided in opinion?“ The
prophet meets this objection by saying, “I know you are not decided in
opinion, because you are not decided in practice. If God be God, follow
him; if Baal, follow him. You are not decided in practice.” Men’s opinions
are not such things as we imagine. It is generally said now-a-days, that all
opinions are right, and if a man shall honestly hold his convictions, he is,
without doubt, right. Not so; truth is not changed by our opinions, a thing
is either true or false of itself, and it is neither made true nor false by our
views of it. It is for us therefore, to judge carefully, and not to think that
any opinion will do. Besides, opinions have influence upon the conduct,
and if a man have a wrong opinion, he will, most likely, in some way or
other, have wrong conduct, for the two usually go together. “Now,” said
Elijah, “that you are not the servants of God, is quite evident, for you do
not follow him, that you are not thoroughly servants of Baal either, is quite
evident, for you do not follow him.” Now I address myself to you again.
Many of you are not the servants of God, you do not follow him; you
follow him a certain distance in the form, but not in the spirit; you follow
him on Sundays, but what do you do on Mondays? You follow him in
religious company, in evangelical drawing-rooms, and so on, but what do
you do in other society? You do not follow him. And, on the other hand,
you do not follow Baal, you go a little way with the world, but there is a
place to which you dare not go, you are too respectable to sin as others
sin, or to go the whole way of the world. Ye dare not go the utmost
lengths of evil. “Now,” says the prophet, twitting them upon this — “if the
Lord be God, follow him. Let your conduct be consistent with your
opinions; if you believe the Lord to be God carry it out in your daily life; be
holy, be prayerful, trust in Christ, be faithful, be upright, be loving give
your whole heart to God and follow him. If Baal be God, then follow him;
but do not pretend to follow the other.” Let your conduct back up your
opinion; if you really think that the follies of this world are the best, and
believe that a fine fashionable life, a life of frivolity and gaiety, flying from
flower to flower, getting honey from none, is the most desirable, carry it
out. If you think the life of the debauched is so very desirable, if you think
his end is to be much wished for, if you think his pleasures are right, follow
them. Go the whole way with them. If you believe that to cheat in business
is right, put it up over your door — ”I sell trickery goods here” or if you
do not say it to the public, tell your conscience so; but do not deceive the
public; do not call the people to prayers, when you are opening a “British
Bank.” If you mean to be religious, follow out your determination
thoroughly; but if you mean to be worldly, go the whole way with the
world. Let your conduct follow out your opinions. Make your life tally
with your profession. Carry out your opinions whatever they be. But you
dare not; you are too cowardly to sin as others do, honestly before God’s
sun; your conscience will not let you do it; and yet you are just so fond of
Satan, that you dare not leave him wholly and become thoroughly the
servants of God. Oh! do let your character be like your profession; either
keep up your profession, or give it up: do be one thing or the other.
V. And now the prophet cries, “If the Lord be God, follow him; if Baal,
then follow him, and in so doing he states the ground of his practical
claim.” Let your conduct be consistent with your opinions. There is
another objection raised by the crowd. “Prophet,” says one, “thou comest
to demand a practical proof of our affection; thou sayest, Follow God.
Now, if I believe God to be God, and that is my opinion, yet I do not see
what claim he has to my opinions.” Now, mark how the prophet puts it: he
says, “If God be God follow him.” The reason why I claim that you should
follow out your opinion concerning God IS, that God is God; God has a
claim upon you, as creatures, for your devout obedience. One person
replies, “What profit should I have, if I served God thoroughly? Should I
be more happy? Should I get on better in this world? Should I have more
peace of mind?” Nay, nay, that is a secondary consideration. The only
question for you is, “If God be God follow him.” Not if it be more
advantageous to you; but, “if God be God follow him.” The secularist
would plead for religion on the ground that religion might be the best for
this world, and best for the world to come. Not so with the prophet; he
says, “I do not put it on that ground, I insist that it is your bounder duty, if
you believe in God, simply because he is God, to serve him and obey him. I
do not tell you it is for your advantage — it may be, I believe it is — but
that I put aside from the question; I demand of you that you follow God, if
you believe him to be God. If you do not think he is God; if you really
think that the devil is God, then follow him; his pretended godhead shall be
your plea, and you shall be consistent; but if God be God, if he made you, I
demand that you serve him; if it is he who puts the breath into your
nostrils, I demand that you obey him. If God be really worthy of worship,
and you really think so, I demand that you either follow him, or else deny
that he is God at all.” Now, professor, if thou sayst that Christ’s gospel is
the gospel, if thou believest in the divinity of the gospel, and puttest thy
trust in Christ, I demand of thee to follow out the gospel, not merely
because it will be to thy advantage, but because the gospel is divine. If thou
makest a profession of being a child of God, if thou art a believer, and
thinkest and believest religion is the best, the service of God the most
desirable, I do not come to plead with thee because of any advantage thou
wouldst get by being holy; it is on this I round that I put it, that the Lord is
God; and if he be God, it is thy business to serve him. If his gospel be tree,
and thou believest it to be true, it is thy duty to carry it out. If thou sayest
Christ is not the Son of God, carry out thy Jewish or thy infidel
convictions, and see whether it will end well. If thou dost not believe Christ
to be the Son of God, if thou art a Mahometan, be consistent, carry out thy
Mahometan convictions, and see whether it will end well. But, take heed,
take heed! If however, thou sayest God is God, and Christ the Savior, and
the gospel true; I demand of thee, only on this account, that thou carry it
out. What a strong plea some would think the prophet might have had, if
he had said, “God is your father’s God, therefore follow him!” But no, he
did not come down to that; he said, “If God be God — I do not care
whether he be your father’s God or not — follow him.” “Why do you go
to chapel?” says one, “and not to church?” “Because my father and
grandfather were dissenters.” Ask a churchman, very often, why he attends
the establishment. “Well, our family were always brought up to it; that is
why I go.” Now, I do think that the worst of all reasons for a particular
religion, is that of our being brought up to it. I never could see that at all. I
have attended the house of God with my father and my grandfather; but I
thought, when I read the Scriptures that it was my business to judge for
myself. I know that my father and my grandfather take little children in
their arms, and put drops of water on their faces, and say they are baptized.
I took up my Bible, and I could not see anything about babes being
baptized. I picked up a little Greek; and I could not discover that the word
“baptized” meant to sprinkle; so I said to myself, “Suppose they were good
men, they may be wrong; and though I love and revere them, yet it is no
reason why I should imitate them!” And they counted me right, when they
knew of my honest conviction; and it was quite right for me to act
according to my conviction; for I consider the baptism of an unconscious
infant is just as foolish as the baptism of a ship or a bell; for there is as
much Scripture for one as the other. And therefore I left them, and became
what I am to-day, a Baptist minister, so called, but I hope a great deal
more a Christian than a Baptist. It is seldom I mention it; I only do so by
way of illustration here. Many a one will go to chapel, because his
grandmother did. Well, she was a good old soul but I do not see that she
ought to influence your judgment. “That does not signify,” says one, “I do
not like to leave the church of my fathers.” No more do I; I would rather
belong to the same denomination with my father; I would not wilfully differ
from any of my friends, or leave their sect and denomination; but let God
be above our parents; though our parents are at the very top of our hearts,
and we love them and reverence them, and in all other matters pay them
strict obedience, yet, with regard to religion, to our own Master we stand
or fall, and we claim to have the right of judging for ourselves as men, and
then we think it our duty, having judged, to carry out our convictions.
Now I am not going to say, “If God be your mother’s God, serve him,”
Though that would be a very good argument with some of you; but with
you waverers, the only plea I us is, if God be God, serve him;” if the gospel
be right, believe it; if a religious life be right, carry it out; if not, give it up.
I only put my argument on Elijah’s plea — “If God be God, follow him:
but if Baal, then follow him.”

VI. And now I make my appeal to the halters and waverers, with some
questions, which I pray the Lord to apply. Now I will put this question to
them: “How long halt ye?” I will tell them; ye will halt between two
opinions, all of you who are undecided, until God shall answer by fire. Fire
was not what these poor people wanted that were assembled there. When
Elijah says, that “The God that answereth by fire let him be God,” I fancy I
hear some of them saying, “No; the God that answereth by water let him be
God; we want rain badly enough.” “No,” said Elijah, “if rain should come,
you would say that it was the common course of providence; and that
would not decide you.” I tell you, all the providences that befall you
undecided ones will not decide you. God may surround you with
providences; he may surround you with frequent warnings from the deathbed
of your fellows; but providences will never decide you. It is not the
God of rain, but the God of fire that will do it. There are two ways in
which you undecided ones will be decided by-and-by. You that are decided
for God will want no decision; you that are decided for Satan will want no
decision; you are on Satan’s side, and must dwell for ever in eternal
burning. But these undecided ones want something to decide them, and
will have either one of the two things; they will either have the fire of
God’s Spirit to decide them, or else the fire of eternal judgment, and that
will decide them. I may preach to you, my hearers; and all the ministers in
the world may preach to you that are wavering, but you will never decide
for God through the force of your own will. None of you, if left to your
natural judgment, to the use of your own reason, will ever decide for God.
You may decide for him merely as an outward form, but not as an inward
spiritual thing, which should possess your heart as a Christian, as a believer
in the doctrine of effectual grace. I know that none of you will ever decide
for God’s gospel, unless God decide you; and I tell you that you must
either be decided by the descent of the fire of his Spirit into your hearts
now, or else in the day of judgment. Oh! which shall it be? Oh! that the
prayer might be put up by the thousand lips that are here: “Lord, decide me
now by the fire of thy Spirit; oh I let thy Spirit descend into my heart, to
burn up the bullock, that I may be a whole burnt offering to God; to burn
up the wood and the stones of my sin; to burn up the very dust of
worldliness; ah, and to lick up the water of my impiety, which now lieth in
the trenches, and my cold indifference, that seek to put out the sacrifice.”

“O make this heart rejoice or ache’ —
Decide this doubt for me;
And if it be not broken, break
And heal it, if it be.
“O sovereign grace, my heart subdue;
I would be led in triumph too;
A willing captive to my Lord
To sing the triumphs of his word.”

And it may be, that whilst I speak, the mighty fire, unseen by men, and
unfelt by the vast majority of you, shall descend into some heart which has
of old been dedicated to God by his divine election, which is now like an
altar broken down, but which God, by his free grace, will this day build up.
Oh! I pray that that influence may enter into some hearts, that there may be
some go out of this place, saying —

“‘Tis done, the great transaction’s done,
I am my Lord’s, and he is mine;
He drew me, and I followed on
Glad to obey the voice divine.”

Now rest my undivided heart, fixed on this stable center rest. Oh! that
many may say that! But remember, if it be not so, the day is coming — dies
ir3/4, the day of wrath and anger, when ye shall be decided of God; when
the firmament shall be lit up with lightnings, when the earth shall roll with
drunken terror, when the pillars of the universe shall shake, and God shall
sit in the person of his Son, to judge the world in righteousness. You will
not be undecided then, when, “Depart ye cursed” or “Come, ye blessed,”
shall be your doom. There will be no indecision then, when ye shall meet
him with joy or else with terror — when, “rocks hide me, mountains on me
fall,” shall be your doleful shriek; or else your joyful song shall be, “The
Lord is come.” In that day you will be decided; but till then, unless the
living fire of the Holy Spirit decide you, you will go on halting between
two opinions. May God grant you his Holy Spirit, that you may turn unto
him and be saved!

Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans Could Keep Orthodox Anglicans within the Church – A group of maligned orthodox Anglicans believe they have found a solution to keeping the Anglican Communion from splitting.

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

By David W. Virtue

A group of maligned orthodox Anglicans believe they have found a solution to keeping the Anglican Communion from splitting.

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, led by the Rev. Dr. Chris Sugden, Dr. Vinay Samuel and the Rev. Paul Perkin in the UK, say they can keep “Orthodox” Anglicans from defecting to Rome.

“The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans could turn out to be the ‘glue’ which the Archbishop could use to hold the Church together,” said the Rev. Paul Perkin, vicar of St Mark’s Church, Battersea Rise in London, and Chairman of FCA (UK and Ireland).

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans have been denounced by liberals and members of FULCRUM, a liberal left-of-center evangelical blog, for “splitting” a charge they vigorously deny.

“There are now apparently two options for Anglicans concerned about the liberal revisionist drift: leave and go to Rome, or stay and work together with Lambeth for an internal solution: a single provision to cover a range of concerns,” said Perkins.

Following the Vatican’s historic announcement this week at joint Press Conferences in Rome and London, which took Dr Rowan Williams by surprise, Perkins said “The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, which some thought was a group which could split Anglicanism, after this week’s announcement, could really help the Archbishop of Canterbury to keep Anglicans together. The open letter from the Primates Council of the FCA to orthodox Anglicans in the UK and Ireland http://tinyurl.com/yh8qqjn indicates that there is an alternative to the proposal from the Roman Catholic Church – namely that appropriate oversight be found for those who want to remain Anglican.”

The Primates wrote, “We are encouraged by your commitment to work for an internal solution that can address these deep concerns. Steps taken early enough to make provision to address them can preserve good order. We firmly support your efforts to ensure the provision of appropriate oversight, and if this is not forthcoming, to provide it.”

Commented Perkin, “It is strongly to be hoped that the Archbishop of Canterbury, having welcomed dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church who are now providing “cross-boundary oversight” for Anglicans who wish to leave, might continue dialogue with those who want to stand and stay. If he is determined to keep faithful, orthodox Anglicans within the church, then FCA could offer a tangible solution for unity. The offer is there.”

The Church of England is at a cross roads. Anglo-Catholics are a minority and growing smaller Their seminaries are dwindling in size. Liberals, revisionists and women priests have shown little or no ability to make churches grow. The main seminaries and theological colleges in the UK, like Ridley Hall Cambridge, Oak Hill, London, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, St. John’s Nottingham and Trinity College, Bristol, are filled with the next generation of Evangelicals. The future of the Church of England resides with them.

The Archbishop of Canterbury may be forced, in the end, to listen to Evangelicals. They might just save him and the Church of England.

Australian ‘human rights charter’ could jeopardize religious liberty, Church leaders warn

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Nicola Berkovic – The Australian

Clergy unite over human rights charter

THE nation’s most powerful church leaders have united in a bid to scuttle efforts to create a national charter of human rights, warning the Rudd government it could curtail religious freedoms and give judges the power to shape laws on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Catholic cardinal George Pell led a delegation of about 20 church leaders to Canberra to raise strong concerns about the impact of a charter on religious freedoms.

The leaders, representing major churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist and Pentecostal, warned that a charter of rights could restrict the ability to hire people of faith in churches, schools and welfare bodies. Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen did not attend the meeting with Attorney-General Robert McClelland on Wednesday because of a synod meeting but said he staunchly backed the delegation’s views.

“We strongly support human rights, but we don’t think a charter such as this is necessary or even effective in protecting the rights of the most vulnerable people in our community. It may in all likelihood make things worse, particularly in the area of religious freedom,” he said.

Cardinal Pell said there was no doubt a charter of rights would be used against religious schools, hospitals and charities by other people who did not like religious freedom and thought it should not be a human right.

“If these protections are to be revised, it should be done by MPs answerable to the people, not by judges or human rights commissars,” Cardinal Pell writes in The Australian today.

It is understood the Uniting Church was the only major church not to take part in the delegation because it did not support opposing a charter.

The meeting with Mr McClelland came after the government’s hand-picked human rights committee led by Jesuit priest Frank Brennan recommended the government adopt a charter of human rights and give the High Court the power to declare laws incompatible.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis warned if rights such as the right to found a family were enshrined in a charter, as recommended by the committee, this could allow the courts to shape laws on issues such as gay marriage and adoption.

Senator Brandis, who also met the church leaders to hear their concerns, said such issues should be resolved directly by parliament and not via the “elliptical way” of expanding court powers.

“The agenda of the human rights lobby in Australia is a secular agenda and that fact has been somewhat masked by the fact the chairman of the government’s human rights consultation committee is himself a priest,” Senator Brandis said.

“It’s a Trojan horse for the secular leftist human rights agenda.”

A spokesman for Mr McClelland said the church leaders had raised a number of issues which the government would “give careful consideration to”.

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace said church leaders had spent almost two years fighting the Victorian government’s review of the church’s exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, born out of the Victorian charter of rights and responsibilities.

He said no measures could alleviate the church’s concerns about a charter of rights.

“We think it’s a bad idea and the government should not go down that path,” he said.

He said the church was also adamant the government should not establish a human rights charter through the “back door”, for example by changing the law so that courts were forced to interpret legislation with regard to specific human rights.

Australian Federation of Islamic Councils member and former senior legal adviser Haset Sali said he was concerned the nation was headed to receive a rights charter.

“My concern is that statutes quite often reduce rights rather than add to them,” he said. “Overall, I think we’ve got a pretty good situation in Australia at the current time.”

The Great Synagogue of Sydney’s Jeremy Lawrence said the Jewish community was passionately involved in the debate but did not have a consensus view.

However, Rabbi Lawrence said: “I’m always hesitant to lock certain values in writing to the exclusion of others, thereby disadvantaging people whose core tenets become abrogated through omission.”

Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty chairman Rocco Mimmo said experience in Britain showed that a human rights charter could be used to limit religious freedoms.

Practicing Science–With or Without Religion?

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Dan Agin – Author/Neuroscientist – Huffington Post

America is one of the few places in the world with an ongoing public debate about the interface (conflict?) between science and religion. One of the problems with this debate is that debaters too often cook up questions and issues that serve their views without contributing to any enlightenment.

For example, there’s the confusion between deism and religion. We might all be better served if the two terms were kept separated. They are not equivalent. The term “deism” should be used to refer to a belief in God (or Gods) and “religion” to refer to a social group with a particular doctrine about God (or Gods). The difference is critical, because many people are essentially deists without belonging to any particular religion. It’s maybe unfortunate that too many people ask if science is compatible with religion when what they really mean is the question whether science is compatible with a belief in God (or Gods).

The problem for the working scientist is that the essence of science is a self-conscious and mandatory objectivity–which means dogma and doctrine are essentially antithetical to science, not so much on philosophical grounds but on actual procedural grounds. In plain words, science requires objectivity and dogma is by definition an absolute enemy of objectivity–and therefore an enemy of science.

In this context, the main source of dogma as an enemy of science is not deism, it’s religion. A mere belief in the existence of God (or Gods) without any dogma about the natural world deriving from that belief is no practical enemy of science. In contrast, a strong dogma (doctrine) about the natural world derived from religion is nearly always antithetical to the practice of science.

We need to say “nearly always” because it depends on which science is in practice. Most religious dogma says very little directly about physics or chemistry. A particle physicist or a quantum theorist or an organic chemist who is a member of a religion usually has no religious dogma that constitutes an enemy of objectivity. The same is true of the engineering sciences. In contrast, a biologist, a psychologist, a social scientist, a medical scientist, are all very much aware of the conflict between religious dogma and the practice of their science. In general, the further removed a particular science is from human affairs, the less relevant to practice is any religious dogma.

A particle physicist does not need to make moral and religious value judgments about protons and gluons. In contrast, a psychiatrist in practice may have a difficult time separating his religious beliefs from his dealings with his patients.

So the question whether “science” is compatible with religion is a bad construction because in the context of the question the term “science” is ambiguous. Nevertheless, if we say adherence to any dogma is incompatible with any science (which is my own view), then the question is answered. My own view is that there is no room for any dogma in science–no room at all.

In general, most scientists are professed atheists–no belief in God (or Gods), although I’m not certain how the surveys handle the difference between deism and religion. About 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are apparently atheists. Richard Dawkins is a celebrated public scientist-atheist. Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers of America, was a celebrated politician-atheist. In contrast Francis Collins, our new chief at the National Institutes of Health is a practicing Catholic, and there are many thousands of scientists in America and elsewhere who label themselves as members of some religion.

What’s usually missing in discussions about these questions are calm voices. The other day I received in the mail a book on the subject written in a calm voice. Fred Grinnell is an accomplished cell biologist who gives us a very readable little book: Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. The first half of the book is about the daily practice of science, and the second half is about the interface between science and society, in particular the interface (conflict?) between science and religion. It’s an intelligent and very readable book in a calm voice, and it certainly should be read by anyone interested in the ongoing (and raging) dispute about the compatibility of science and religion. Fred Grinnell is completely opposed to both Creationism and Intelligent Design, but he argues that science and religion are indeed compatible–room for both. That’s a viewpoint, and although I disagree with it, his book is a smart book with a decent argument that deserves attention.

Frederick Grinnell: Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Switch to our mobile site