Archive for October, 2009

Just a Few Thoughts on the Catholic Church, Anglicans and the Orthodox Church

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

What a busy and historic time the Catholic church is having at the moment!

We have had the astonishing news that the Pope had made a provision for disaffected Anglicans to easily slip into the Catholic fold, with their identity and traditions pretty much in tact.

I have read so much contradictory media analysis on the potential impact on Anglicanism as a result of this Papal offer, that frankly my head has been spinning and I have only learnt one thing with certainty, and that is nobody knows for sure what the impact will be. The conservative Anglicans are fearful that this will strengthen the liberal element of the church and visa-versa.

There is a small detail that most of the media seem to have overlooked however, and that is the impact on the Catholic church from this action. Most it would seem, have assumed little or no impact, as in terms of the numbers of Anglicans who may defect to the Papal home, this would represent nothing more than a tiny blip in the Catholic sea. However, I think there is a grander plan afoot.

It strikes me that all of those Catholic priests that have taken a vow of celibacy, may be more than a little ‘put out’ that married Anglican priests will be able to swan over to the Catholic church and be accepted as ‘kosher’ Catholic priests. Would this not cause a certain amount of resentment? Could this be the catalyst that provokes reform of the Catholic tradition of priestly celibacy?

The Pope who is an exceptionally intelligent man, would have figured all of this out in advance of course, so this leaves the question, why embark on this action, when lets face it, as stated before, the numerical numbers of defecting Anglicans will probably be negligible and the fallout within the Catholic church potentially explosive?

Whilst Anglicans think that this Papal move is all about them (and the media seems to agree), could there be a larger picture that most are missing. I would argue that this is really all about the Orthodox church.

For the first time in a millennium, the relationship between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church is thawing in a BIG way. The main division traditionally (and I confess that I am no expert) seems to have been around the infallibility of the Pope and celibacy of priests. Well, the infallibility of the Pope can be overcome as most accept that every man is fallible, but how do you overcome the problem of differing views on celibacy for the priesthood. Let’s face it, the Catholics couldn’t ask all of the married Orthodox priests to suddenly become celibate in order to have full communion and unity with the Catholic church. This leaves the option of the Catholics softening their stance on priestly celibacy.

The formal acceptance of married Anglican priests into the Catholic church is bound to cause friction from celibate Catholic priests, which ultimately may create the perfect fertile ground for reform. Once this is achieved and the Catholic church accepts non-celibate priests, what is to stand in the way of full unity and communion between the two largest churches on earth, namely, the Catholic and Orthodox churches!

The more that you read the words and view the actions of Pope Benedict, the more obvious it becomes that he is rightly theologically driven by the notion of Christian unity, (found especially in the discourse of Jesus at the last supper in the Gospel of John) consequently, I think it prudent to view his actions through this lens.

Just some thoughts.

Vatican row delays Anglo-Catholic text (New internet link – Times – 29/10)

EDITORS UPDATE

Following on from my comments above, relating to the media generally focused primarily on the impact on Anglicanism from the Papal announcements, it is lovely to read articles from Get Religion that offer a fresh counter-balance perspective, from the Catholic side of the fence.

Nasty ink about Anglo-Catholic move?

Related Recent Posts

Pope Benedict points to St. Augustine as source of unity with Orthodox

Will the “Third Rome” Reunite With the “First Rome”?

Relations Warms Between Russian Orthodox Church and Vatican

The Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches have improved relations under Pope Benedict XVI, and in a sign of a growing closeness, the Vatican announced today that Archbishop Hilarion, the Russian Orthodox head of External Church Affairs, is paying his first visit to Rome.

Russian Orthodox Consecrate Parish in Rome – The Vatican described a solemn ceremony on Sunday for the consecration of the first parish of the Moscow Patriarchate in Rome as a sign of further thawing of relations with the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Vatican has made it easier for Anglicans to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the election of openly gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The entry of anti-modernist Anglican dioceses and parishes into the Catholic Church has been announced. The ecumenism of Pope Ratzinger appears increasingly influenced by fidelity to tradition.

In an absolutely stunning announcement on the morning of October 20, 2009, the Holy See has, by Apostolic Constitution, provided the canonical vehicle for Anglican Christians to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church.

This is astonishing news. Pope Benedict XVI has created an entirely new Church structure for disaffected Anglicans that will allow them to worship together – using elements of Anglican liturgy – under the pastoral supervision of their own specially appointed bishop or senior priest.

Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, the leading Russian Orthodox ecumenical official, celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the catacombs and rued divisions among Christians, including the Protestant abandonment of fundamental principles.

The Papal Bull in the Anglican China Shop

Catholic and Orthodox leaders express ‘sadness’ at Swedish Lutherans’ same-sex union decision

CHARLES SPURGEON MERCY, OMNIPOTENCE, AND JUSTICE

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

“The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power,
and will not at all acquit the wicked.” Nahum 1:3

WORKS of art require some education in the beholder, before they can be
thoroughly appreciated. We do not expect that the uninstructed should at
once perceive the varied excellencies of a painting from some master hand;
we do not imagine that the superlative glories of the harmonies of the
Princes of Song will enrapture the ears of clownish listeners. There must be
something in the man himself, before he can understand the wonders either
of nature or of art. Certainly this is true of character. By reason of failures
in our character and faults in our life, we are not capable of understanding
all the separate beauties, and the united perfection of the character of
Christ, or of God, his Father. Were we ourselves as pure as the angels in
heaven, were we what our race once was in the garden of Eden,
immaculate and perfect, it is quite certain that we should have a far better
and nobler idea of the character of God than we can by possibility attain
unto in our fallen state. But you cannot fail to notice, that men, through the
alienation of their natures, are continually misrepresenting God, because
they cannot appreciate his perfection. Does God at one time withhold his
hand from wrath? Lo, they say that God hath ceased to judge the world,
and looks upon it with listless phlegmatic indifference. Does he at another
time punish the world for sin? They say he is severe and cruel. Men will
misunderstand him, because they are imperfect themselves, and are not
capable of admiring the character of God.

Now, this is especially true with regard to certain lights and shadows in the
character of God, which he has so marvellously blended in the perfection of
his nature: that although we cannot see the exact point of meeting, yet (if
we have been at all enlightened by the Spirit) we are struck with wonder at
the sacred harmony. In reading Holy Scripture, you can say of Paul, that he
was noted for his zeal — of Peter, that he will ever be memorable for his
courage — of John, that he was noted for his lovingness. But did you ever
notice, when you read the history of our Master, Jesus Christ, that you
never could say he was noble for any one virtue at all? Why was that? It
was because the boldness of Peter did so outgrow itself as to throw other
virtues into the shade, or else the other virtues were so deficient that they
set forth his boldness. The very feet of a man being noted for something is
a sure sign that he is not so notable in other things; and it is because of the
complete perfection of Jesus Christ, that we are not accustomed to say of
him that he was eminent for his zeal, or for his love, or for his courage. We
say of him that he was a perfect character, but we are not able very easily
to perceive where the shadows and the lights blended, where the meekness
of Christ blended into his courage, and where his loveliness blended into
his boldness in denouncing sin. We are not able to detect the points where
they meet; and I believe the more thoroughly we are sanctified, the more it
will be a subject of wonder to us how it could be that virtues which seemed
so diverse were in so majestic a manner united into one character.

It is just the same of God; and I have been led to make the remarks I have
made on my text, because of the two clauses thereof which seem to
describe contrary attributes. You will notice, that there are two things in
my text: he is “slow to anger,” and yet he “will not at all acquit the
wicked.” Our character is so imperfect that we cannot see the congruity of
these two attributes. We are wondering, perhaps, and saying “How is it he
is slow to anger, and yet will not acquit the wicked?” It is because his
character is perfect that we do not see where these two things melt into
each other — the infallible righteousness and severity of the ruler of the
world, and his loving-kindness, his long suffering, and his tender mercies.
The absence of any one of these things from the character of God would
have rendered it imperfect; the presence of them both, though we may not
see how they can be congruous with each other, stamps the character of
God with a perfection elsewhere unknown.

And now I shall endeavor this morning to set forth these two attributes of
God, and the connecting link. “The Lord is slow to anger,” then comes the
connecting link, “great in power.” I shall have to show you how that “great
in power” refers to the sentence foregoing and the sentence succeeding.
And then we shall consider the next attribute — “He will not at all acquit
the wicked:” an attribute of justice.

I. Let us begin with the first characteristic of God. He is said to be “SLOW
TO ANGER.” Let me declare the attribute, and then trace it to its source.
God is “slow to anger.” When mercy cometh into the world, she driveth
winged steeds; the axles of her chariot-wheels are glowing, hot with speed;
but when wrath cometh, it walketh with tardy footsteps; it is not in haste to
slay, it is not swift to condemn. God’s rod of mercy is ever in his hands
outstretched. God’s sword of justice is in its scabbard: not rusted in it — it
can be easily withdrawn — but held there by that hand that presses it back
into its sheath, crying, “Sleep, O sword, sleep; for I will have mercy upon
sinners, and will forgive their transgressions.” God hath many orators in
heaven, some of them speak with swift words. Gabriel, when he cometh
down to tell glad tidings, speaketh swiftly: angelic hosts when they descend
from glory, fly with wings of lightning, when they proclaim, “Peace on
earth, good will towards men;” but the dark angel of wrath is a slow
orator; with many a pause between, where melting pity joins her languid
notes, he speaks, and when but half his oration is completed he often stays,
and withdraws himself from his rostrum giving way to pardon and to
mercy; he having but addressed the people that they might be driven to
repentance, and so might receive peace from the scepter of God’s love.
Brethren, I shall just try to show you now how God is slow to anger.
First, I will prove that he is “slow to anger,” because he never smites
without first threatening. Men who are passionate and swift in anger give a
word and a blow, sometimes the blow first and the word afterwards.

Oftentimes kings, when subjects have rebelled against them, have crushed
them first, and then reasoned with them afterwards; they have given no
time of threatening, no period of repentance; they have allowed no space
for turning to their allegiance; they have at once crushed them in their hot
displeasure, making a full end of them. Not so God: he will not cut down
the tree that doth much cumber the ground, until he hath digged about it,
and dunged it; he will not at once slay the man whose character is the most
vile; until he has first hewn him by the prophets he will not hew him by
judgments; he will warn the sinner ere he condemn him; he will send his
prophets, “rising up early and late,” giving him “line upon line, and precept
upon precept, here a little and there a little.” He will not smite the city
without warning; Sodom shall not perish, until Lot hath been within her.
The world shall not be drowned, until eight prophets have been preaching
in it, and Noah, the eighth, cometh to prophesy of the coming of the Lord.
He will not smite Nineveh till he hath sent a Jonah. He will not crush
Babylon till his prophets have cried through its streets. He will not slay a
man until he hath given many warnings, by sicknesses, by the pulpit, by
providence, and by consequences. He smites not with a heavy blow at
once; he threateneth first. He doth not in grace, as in nature, send
lightnings first and thunder afterwards, but he sendeth the thunder of his
law first, and the lightning of execution follows it. The lictor of divine
justice carries his axe, bound up in a bundle of rods, for he will not cut off
men, until he has reproved them, that they may repent. He is “slow to
anger.”

But again God is also very slow to threaten. Although he will threaten
before, he condemns, yet he is slow even in his threatening. God’s lips
move swiftly when he promises, but slowly when he threatens. Long rolls
the pealing thunder, slowly roll the drums of heaven, when they sound the
death-march of sinners; sweetly floweth the music of the rapid notes which
proclaim free grace, and love, and mercy. God is slow to threaten. He will
not send a Jonah to Nineveh, until Nineveh has become foul with sin, he
will not even tell Sodom it shall be burned with fire, until Sodom has
become a reeking dunghill, obnoxious to earth as well as heaven, he will
not drown the world with a deluge, or even threaten to do it, until the sons
of God themselves make unholy alliances and begin to depart from him. He
doth not even threaten the sinner by his conscience, until the sinner hath
ofttimes sinned. He will often tell the sinner of his sins, often urge him to
repent; but he will not make hell stare him hard in the face, with all its
dreadful terror, until much sin has stirred up the lion from his lair, and
made God hot in wrath against the iniquities of man. He is slow even to
threaten.

But, best of all, when God threatens, how slow he is to sentence the
criminal! When he has told them that he will punish unless they repent,
how long a space he gives them, in which to turn unto himself! “He doth
not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men for nought,” he stayeth
his hand, he will not be in hot haste, when he hath threatened them, to
execute the sentence upon them. Have you ever observed that scene in the
garden of Eden at the time of the fall? God had threatened Adam, that if he
sinned he should surely die. Adam sinned: did God make haste to sentence
him? ‘Tis sweetly said, “The Lord God walked in the garden in the cool of
the day.” Perhaps that fruit was plucked at early morn, mayhap it was
plucked at noon-title; but God was in no haste to condemn; he waited till
the sun was well nigh set, and in the cool of the day came, and as an old
expositor has put it very beautifully, when he did come he did not come on
wings of wrath, but he “walked in the garden in the cool of the day.” He
was in no haste to slay. I think I see him, as he was represented then to
Adam, in those glorious days when God walked with man. Methinks I see
the wonderful similitude in which the unseen did veil himself: I see it
walking among the trees so slowly — ay, if it were right to give such a
picture — beating its breast, and shedding tears that it should have to
condemn man. At last I hear its doleful voice: “Adam, where art thou?
Where hast thou cast thyself, poor Adam? Thou hast cast thyself from my
favor, thou hast cast thyself into nakedness and into fear; for thou art
hiding thyself: Adam, where art thou? I pity thee. Thou thoughtest to be
God. Before I condemn thee I will give thee one note of pity. Adam, where
art thou?” Yes, the Lord was slow to anger, slow to write the sentence,
even though the command had been broken, and the threatening was
therefore of necessity brought into force. It was so with the flood: he
threatened the earth, but he would not fully seal the sentence, and stamp it
with the seal of heaven, until he had given space for repentance. Noah must
come, and through his hundred and twenty years must preach the word; he
must come and testify to an unthinking and an ungodly generation; the ark
must be builded, to be a perpetual sermon; there it must be upon its
mountain-top, waiting for the floods to float it, that it might he an every
day warning to the ungodly. O heavens, why did ye not at once open your
floods? Ye fountains of the great deep, why did ye not burst up in a
moment? God said, “I will sweep away the world with a flood:” why, why
did ye not rise? “Because,” I hear them saying with gurgling notes,
“because, although God had threatened, he was slow to sentence, and he
said in himself, ‘Haply, they may repent; peradventure they may turn from
their sin;’ and therefore did he bid us rest and be quiet, for he is slow to
anger.”

And yet once more: even when the sentence against a sinner is signed and
sealed by heaven’s broad seal of condemnation, even then God is slow to
carry it out. The doom of Sodom is sealed; God hath declared it shall be
burned with fire. But God is tardy. He stops. He will himself go down to
Sodom, that he may see the iniquity of it. And when he gets there guilt is
rife in the streets. ‘Tis night, and the crew of worse than beasts besiege the
door. Does he then lift his hands? Does he then say, “Rain hell out of
heaven, ye skies?” No, he lets them pursue their riot all night, spares them
to the last moment, and though when the sun-was risen the burning hail
began to fall, yet was the reprieve as long as possible. God was not in haste
to condemn. God had threatened to root out the Canaanites, he declared
that all the children of Ammon should be cut off; he had promised
Abraham that he would give their land unto his seed for ever, and they
were to be utterly slain, but he made the children of Israel wait four
hundred years in Egypt and he let these Canaanites live all through the days
of the patriarchs; and ever; then, when he led his avenging ones out of
Egypt, he stayed them forty years in the wilderness, because he was loth to
slay poor Canaan. “Yet,” said he, “I will give them space. Though I have
stamped their condemnation, though their death warrant has come forth
from the Court of King’s Beneh, and must be executed, yet will I reprieve
them as long as I can:” and he stops, until at last mercy had had enough,
and Jericho’s melting ashes and the destruction of Ai betokened that the
sword was out of its scabbard, and God had awaked like a mighty man,
and like a strong man full of wrath. God is slow to execute the sentence,
even when he has declared it.

And ah I my friends, there is a sorrowful thought that has just crossed my
mind. There are some men yet alive who are sentenced now. I believe that
Scripture bears me out in a dreadful thought which I just wish to hint at.
There are some men that are condemned before they are finally damned;
there are some men whose sins go before them unto judgment, who are
given over to a seared conscience, concerning whom it may be said that
repentance and salvation are impossible. There are some few men in the
world who are like John Bunyan’s man in the iron cage, can never get out.
They are like Esau — they find no place of repentance, though like him
they do not seek it, for if they sought it they would find it. Many there are
who have sinned “the sin unto death,” concerning whom we cannot pray;
for we are told, “I do not say that ye shall pray for it.” But why, why, why
are they not already in the flame? If they be condemned, if mercy has shut
its eye for ever upon them, if it never will stretch out its hand to give them
pardon, why, why, why are they not cut down and swept away? Because
God saith, “I will not have mercy upon them, but I will let them live a little
while longer, though I have condemned them I am loth to carry the
sentence out, and will spare them as long as it is right that man should fire;
I will let them have a long life here, for they will have a fearful eternity of
wrath for ever.” Yes let them have their little whirl of pleasure; their end
shall be most fearful. Let them beware, for although God is slow to anger,
he is sure in it.

If God were not slow to anger, would he not have smitten this huge city of
ours, this behemoth city? — would he not have smitten it into a thousand
pieces, and blotted out the remembrance of it from the earth? The iniquities
of this city are so great, that if God should dig up her very foundations, and
cast her into the sea, she well deserveth it. Our streets at night present
spectacles of vice that cannot be equalled. Surely there can be no nation
and no country that can show a city so utterly debauched as this great city
of London, if our midnight streets are indications of our immorality. You
allow, in your public places of resort, — I mean you, my lords and ladies
— you allow things to be said in your hearing, of which your modesty
ought to be ashamed. Ye can sit in theatres to hear plays at which modesty
should blush, I say nought of piety. That the ruder sex should have listened
to the obscenities of La Traviata is surely bad enough, but that ladies of
the highest refinement, and the most approved taste, should dishonor
themselves by such a patronage of vice is indeed intolerable. Let the sins of
the lower theatres escape without your censure, ye gentlemen of England,
the lowest bestiality of the nethermost hell of a play-house can look to your
opera-houses for their excuse. I thought that with the pretensions this city
makes to piety, for sure, they would not have so far gone and that after
such a warning as they have had from the press itself — a press which is
certainly not too religious — they would not so indulge their evil passions.
But because the pill is gilded, ye suck down the poison: because the thing
is popular, ye patronize it: it is lustful, it abominable, it is deceitful! Ye take
your children to hear what yourselves never ought to listen to. Ye
yourselves will sit in gay and grand company, to listen to things from when
your modesty ought to revolt. And I would fain hope it does, although the
tide may for a while deceive you. Ah! God only knoweth the secret
wickedness of this great city; it demandeth a loud and a trumpet voice; it
needs a prophet to cry aloud, “Sound an alarm, sound an alarm, sound an
alarm,” in this city; for verily the enemy groweth upon us, the power of the
evil one is mighty, and we are fast going to perdition, unless God shall put
forth his hand and roll back the black torrent of iniquity that streameth
down our streets. But God is slow to anger, and doth still stay his sword.
Wrath said yesterday, “Unsheath thyself, O sword;” and the sword
struggled to get free. Mercy put her hand upon the hilt, and said, “Bestill!”
“Unsheath thyself, O sword!” Again it struggled from its scabbard. Mercy
put her hand on it, and said “Back!” — and it rattled back again. Wrath
stamped his foot, and said, “Awake O sword, awake!” It struggled yet
again, till half its blade was outdrawn; “Back, back!” — said Mercy, and
with manly push she sent it back rattling into its sheath: and there it sleeps
still, for the Lord is “slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.”

Now I am to trace this attribute of God to its source: why is he slow to
anger?

He is slow to anger, because he is infinitely good. Good is his name;
“good”-God. Good in his nature; because he is slow to anger.

He is slow to anger, again, because he is great. Little things are always
swift in anger, great things are not so. The silly cur barks at every passerby,
and bears no insult; the lion would bear a thousand times as much; and
the bull sleeps in his pasture, and will bear much, before he lifteth up his
might. The leviathan in the sea, though he makes the deep to be hoary
when he is enraged, yet is slow to be stirred up, whilst the little and puny
are always swift in anger. God’s greatness is one reason of the slowness of
his wrath.

II. But to proceed at once to the link. A great reason why he is slow to
anger is because he is GREAT IN POWER. This is to be the connecting link
between this part of the subject and the last, and therefore I must beg your
attention. I say that this word great in power connects the first sentence to
the last; and it does so in this way. The Lord is slow to anger, and he is
slow to anger, because he is great in power. “How say you so?” — says
one. I answer, he that is great in power has power over himself; and he that
can keep his own temper down, and subdue himself, is greater than he who
rules a city, or can conquer nations. We heard but yesterday, or the day
before, mighty displays of God’s power in the rolling thunder which
alarmed us; and when we saw the splendor of his might in the glistening
lightning, when he lifted up the gates of heaven and we saw the brightness
thereof, and then he closed them again upon the dusty earth in a moment
— even then we did not see anything but the hidings of his power,
compared with the power which he has over himself. When God’s power
doth restrain himself, then it is power indeed, the power to curb power, the
power that binds omnipotence is omnipotence surpassed. God is great in
power, and therefore doth he keep in his anger. A man who has a strong
mind can bear to be insulted, can bear offenses, because he is strong. The
weak mind snaps and snarls at the little: the strong mind bears it like a
rock; it moveth not, though a thousand breakers dash upon it, and cast
their pitiful malice in the spray upon its summit. God marketh his enemies,
and yet he moveth not; he standeth still, and letteth them curse him, yet is
he not wrathful. If he were less of a God than he is, if he were less mighty
than we know him to be, he would long ere this have sent forth the whole
of his thunders, and emptied the magazines of heaven; he would long ere
this have blasted the earth with the wondrous mines he hath prepared in its
lower surface, the flame that burneth there would have consumed us, and
we should have been utterly destroyed. We bless God that the greatness of
his power is just our protection, he is slow to anger because he is great in
power.

And now, there is no difficulty in showing how this link unites itself with
the next part, of the text. “He is great in power, and will not at all acquit
the wicked.” This needs no demonstration in words; I have but to touch
the feelings and you will see it. The greatness of his power is an assurance,
and an insurance that he will not acquit the wicked. Who among you could
witness the storm on Friday night without having thoughts concerning your
own sinfulness stirred in your bosoms? Men do not think of God the
punisher, or Jehovah the avenger, when the sun is shining and the weather
calm; but in times of tempest, whose cheek is not blanched? The Christian
oftentimes rejoiceth in it; he can say, “My soul is well at ease amidst this
revelry of earth. I do rejoice at it; it is a day of feasting in my Father’s hall,
a day of high-feast and carnival in heaven, and I am glad.

“The God that reigns on high,
And thunders when he please,
That rides upon the stormy sky
And manages the seas,
This awful God is ours
Our Father and our love,
He shall send down his heavenly powers
To carry us above.”

But the man who is not of an easy conscience will be ill at ease when the
timbers of the house are creaking, and the foundations of the solid earth
seem to groan. Ah! who is he then that doth not tremble? Yon lofty tree is
riven in half; that lightning flash has smitten its trunk, and there it lies for
ever blasted, a monument of what God can do. Who stood there and saw
it? Was he a swearer? Did he swear then? Was he a Sabbath breaker? Did
he love his Sabbath breaking then? Was he haughty? Did he then despise
God? Ah! how he shook then. Saw you not his hair stand on end? Did not
his cheek blanch in an instant? Did he not close his eyes and start back in
horror when he saw that dreadful spectacle, and thought God would smite
him too? Yes, the power of God, when seen in the tempest, on sea or on
land, in the earthquake or in the hurricane, is instinctively a proof that he
will not acquit the wicked. I know not how to explain the feeling but it is
nevertheless the truth, majestic displays of omnipotence have an effect
upon the mind of convincing even the hardened, that God, who is so
powerful, “will not at all acquit the wicked.” Thus have I just tried to
explain and make bare the link of the chain.

III. The last attribute, and the most terrible one, is, “HE WILL NOT AT ALL
ACQUIT THE WICKED.” Let me unfold this, first of all, and then let me,
after that, endeavor to trace it also to its source, as I did the first attribute.
God “will not acquit the wicked;” how prove I this? I prove it thus. Never
once has he pardoned an unpunished sin; not in all the years of the Most
High, not in all the days of his right hand, has he once blotted out sin
without punishment. What! say you, were not those in heaven pardoned?
Are there not many transgressors pardoned, and do they not escape
without punishment? Has be not said, “I have blotted out thy
transgressions like a cloud, and like a thick cloud thine iniquities?” Yes,
true, most true, and yet my assertion is true also — not one of all those
sins that have been pardoned were pardoned without punishment. Do you
ask me why and how such a thing as that can be the truth? I point you to
yon dreadful sight on Calvary; the punishment which fell not on the
forgiven sinner fell there. The cloud of justice was charged with fiery hail;
the sinner deserved it; it fell on him; but, for all that, it fell, and spent its
fury; it fell there, in that great reservoir of misery; it fell into the Saviour’s
heart. The plagues, which need should light on our ingratitude did not fall
on us, but they fell somewhere and who was it that was plagued? Tell me,
Gethsemane; tell me, O Calvary’s summit, who was plagued. The doleful
answer comes, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!“ “My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?” It is Jesus suffering all the plagues of sin. Sin is still
punished, though the sinner is delivered.

But, you say, this has scarcely proved that he will not acquit the wicked. I
hold it has proved it, and proved it clearly. But do ye want any further
proof that God will not acquit the wicked? Need I lead you through a long
list of terrible wonders that God has wrought — the wonders of his
vengeance? Shall I show you blighted Eden? Shall I let you see a world all
drowned — sea monsters whelping and stabling in the palaces of kings?
Shall I let you hear the last shriek of the last drowning man as he falls into
the flood and dies, washed by that huge wave from the hill top? Shall I let
you see death riding upon the summit of a crested billow, upon a sea that
knows no shore, and triumphing because his work is done; his quiver
empty, far all men are slain, save where life flows in the midst of death in
yonder ark? Need I let you see Sodom, with its terrified inhabitants, when
the volcano of almighty wrath spouted fiery hail upon it? Shall I show you
the earth opening its mouth to swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram?
Need I take you to the plagues of Egypt? Shall I again repeat the death
shriek of Pharaoh, and the drowning of his host? Surely, we need not to be
told of cities that are in ruins, or of nations that have been cut off in a day;
ye need not to be told how God has smitten the earth from one side to the
other, when he has been wrath, and how he has melted mountains in his hot
displeasure. Nay, we have proofs enough in history, proofs enough in
Scripture, that “he will not at all acquit the wicked.” If ye wanted the best
proof however, ye should borrow the black wings of a miserable
imagination, and fly beyond the world, through the dark realm of chaos on,
far on, where those battlements of fire are gleaming with a horrid light — if
through them, with a spirit’s safety, ye would fly, and would behold the
worm that never dies, the pit that knows no bottom, and could you there
see the fire unquenchable, and listen to the shrieks and wails of men that
are banished for ever from God — if, sirs, it were possible for you to hear
the sullen groans and hollow moans, and shrieks of tortured ghosts, then
would you come back to this world, amazed and petrified with horror, and
you would say, “Indeed he will not acquit the wicked.” You know, hell is
the argument of the text, may you never have to prove the text by feeling
in yourselves the argument fully carried out, “He will not at all acquit the
wicked.”

And now we trace this terrible attribute to its source. Why is this?
We reply, God will not acquit the wicked, because he is good. What! doth
goodness demand that sinners shall be punished? It doth. The Judge must
condemn the murderer, because he loves his nation. “I cannot, let you go
free; I cannot, and I must not; you would slay others, who belong to this
fair commonwealth, if I were to let you go free; no, I must condemn you
from the very loveliness of my nature.” The kindness of a king demands the
punishment of those who are guilty. It is not wrathful in the legislature to
make severe laws against great sinners; it is but love towards the rest that
sin should be restrained. Yon great floodgates, which keep back the torrent
of sin, are painted black, and look right horrible, like horrid dungeon gates,
they affright my spirit; but are they proofs that God is not good? No sirs; if
ye could open wide those gates, and let the deluge of sin flow on us, then
would you cry, “O God, O God! shut-to the gates of punishment again, let
law again be established, set up the pillars, and swing the gates upon their
hinges; shut again the gates of punishment, that this world may not again
be utterly destroyed by men who have become worse than brutes.” It needs
for very goodness’ sake that sin should be punished. Mercy, with her
weeping eyes (for she hath wept for sinners) when she finds they will not
repent, looks more terribly stern in her loveliness than Justice in all his
majesty; she drops the white flag from her hand, and saith — “No; I called,
and they refused; I stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; let them
die, let them die,” — and that terrible word from the lip of Mercy’s self is
harsher thunder than the very damnation of Justice. Oh, yes, the goodness
of God demands that men should perish, if they will sin.

And again, the justice of God demands it. God is infinitely just, and his
justice demands that men should be punished, unless they turn to him with
full purpose of heart. Need I pass through all the attributes of God to
prove it? Methinks I need not. We must all of us believe that the God who
is slow to anger and great in power is also sure not to acquit the wicked.
And now just a home thrust or two with you. What is your state this
morning? My friend, man, woman, what is thy state? Canst thou look up to
heaven, and say, “Though I have sinned greatly, I believe Christ wee
punished in my stead,

‘My faith looks back to see,
The burden he did bear,
When hanging on the cursed tree,
And knows her guilt was there?’”

Can you by humble faith look to Jesus, and say, “My substitute, my refuge,
my shield; thou art my rock, my trust; in thee I do confide?” Then beloved,
to you I have nothing to say, except this, — Never be afraid when you ace
God’s power; for now that you are forgiven and accepted, now that by
faith you have fled to Christ for refuge, the power of God need no more
terrify you, than the shield and sword of the warrior need terrify his wife or
his child. “Nay,” saith the woman, “is he strong? He is strong for me. Is his
arm brawny, and are all his sinews fast and strong? Then are they fast and
strong for me. Whilst he lives, and wears a shield, he will stretch it over my
head; and whilst his good sword can cleave foes, it will cleave my foes too,
and ransom me.” Be of good cheer; fear not his power.

But hast thou never fled to Christ for refuge? Dost thou not believe in the
Redeemer? Hast thou never confided thy soul to his hands? Then, my
friends, hear me; in God’s name, hear me just a moment. My friend, I
would not stand in thy position for an hour, for all the stars twice spelt in
gold! For what is thy position? Thou hast sinned, and God will not acquit
thee, he will punish thee. He is letting thee live, thou art reprieved. Poor is
the life of one that is reprieved without a pardon! Thy reprieve will soon
run out; thine hour-glass is emptying every day. I see on some of you death
has put his cold hand, and frozen your hair to whiteness. Ye need your
staff, it is the only barrier between you and the grave now, and you are, all
of you, old and young, standing on a narrow neck of land, between two
boundless seas — that neck of land, that isthmus of life, narrowing every
moment, and you, and you, and you, are yet unpardoned. There is a city to
be sacked, and you are in it — soldiers are at the gates; the command is
given that every man in the city is to be slaughtered save he who can give
the password. “Sleep on, sleep on; the attack is not to-day, sleep on, sleep
on.” “But it is to-morrow, Sir.” “Ay, sleep on, sleep on, it is not till tomorrow
sleep on, procrastinate, procrastinate.” “Hark! I hear a rumbling at
the gates, the battering ram is at them; the gates are tottering.” “Sleep on,
sleep on; the soldiers are not yet at your doors; sleep on, sleep on; ask for
no mercy yet; sleep on, sleep on!” “Ay, but I hear the shrill clarion sound,
they are in the streets. Hark, to the shrieks of men and women! They are
slaughtering them, they fall they fall, they fall!” “Sleep on; they are not yet
at your door.” “But hark, they are at the gate; with heavy tramp I hear the
soldiers marching up the stairs!” “Nay, sleep on, sleep on, they are not yet
in your room.” “Why, they are there, they have burst open the door that
parted you from them, and there they stand!” “No, sleep on, sleep on, the
sword is not yet at your throat, sleep on, sleep on!” It is at your throat; you
start with horror. Sleep on, sleep on! But you are goner “Demon, why
toldest thou me to slumber! It would have been wise in me to have escaped
the city when first the gates were shaken. Why did I not ask for the
password before the troops came? Why, by all that is wise why did I not
rush into the streets, and cry the password when the soldiers were there?
Why stood I till the knife was at my throat? Ay, demon that thou art, be
cursed; but I am cursed with thee for ever!” You know the application, it is
a parable ye can all expound, ye need not that I should tell you that death is
after you, that justice must devour you, that Christ crucified is the only
password that can save you, and yet you have not learnt it — that with
some of you death is nearing, nearing, nearing, and that with all of you he
is close at hand! I need not expound how Satan is the demon, how in hell
you shall curse him and curse yourselves because you procrastinated —
how, that seeing God was slow to anger you were slow to repentance —
how, because he was great, in power, and kept back his anger, therefore
you kept back your steps from seeking him; and here you are what you are!
Spirit of God, bless these words to some souls that they may be saved!
May some sinners be brought to the Saviour’s feet, and cry for mercy. We
ask it for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists’ question

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Oh this just gets better and better tonight. Who would have thought it could be so much fun on YouTube watching Richard Dawkins clips :-

:lol: Classic :lol:

Previous clip:-

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Oh this is just dynamite :shock: :-

:lol: So if I get this right, it’s all down to a technologically advanced alien civilisation with higher intelligence, although Dawkins has no idea where they may have come from of course :lol:

Next Clip

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists’ question

In the Middle East: Slanders Outrun Apologies Every Time

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

By Barry Rubin (Don’t forget to visit his blog and sign up for updates!)

Eric Severeid, one of the greatest American journalists of the twentieth century, once said that it is impossible to protect your reputation against someone determined to misinterpret you. That is also true in international affairs. There are honest misunderstandings, and then there’s deliberate slander or at least the predisposition to hate and lie.

These reflections arise from what is, in its own terms, a small story about an Afghan protest against an alleged desecration of the Koran by U.S. troops. What makes it particularly interesting was that the march ended by burning an effigy of President Barack Obama.

Obama, of course, has done everything possible to be popular among Muslims. Yet the best-laid lands of mice and men often go awry. What goes wrong?

–People who have limited sources of information, highly politicized and sensationalist media or are used to getting data through word of mouth are more likely to believe wild rumors without checking them further. In contrast to Western authority figures, who usually promote more moderate behavior among those they influence, opinionmakers in Muslim majority countries are often ideological militants or demagogues who encourage militancy.

–Those having conflicts of interest with you and/or ideological predispositions are more likely to believe bad things about you on limited or no evidence.

–Forces that hate you and want to defeat and perhaps destroy you will tell deliberate lies to manipulate others, cleverly formulated so that the others believe them.

–When there are profound cultural gaps people cannot understand how you behave, your motives, and what makes sense or is ridiculous. How would the average Afghan or Palestinian have any notion about how the American system works or how Americans behave?

–Societies lacking the scientific method, Western-style critical education, and Enlightenment values won’t do basic things like comparing sources, examining a story for internal contradictions, demanding specifics and documentation, etc.

Now this is not true only of Third World societies. It is not hard to discuss parallel things in Western countries—especially in history (witch trials, for example)—or ideas—belief in superstition amd myths–yet this proves the argument.

First, such events took place in past times when modern Western society and its institutions were less developed.

Second, they most often take place among people with little power or influence over national governments or major decisionmaking.

Third, opinionmakers try to combat false information and extremism. Efforts are made to check the facts accurately.

Fourth, institutions like the media, schools, and others promote tolerance and moderation. Of course, these things are not always true—Nazi Germany being the foremost example—but they generally prevail in 2009.

Indeed, despite hysteria over “Islamophobia,” the treatment of diverse groups and immigrants, in the United States at least and generally speaking in Europe has been remarkably tolerant given what might be expected or what could have happened.

Yet despite Political Correctness ignores the fact that these problems are far more present in Third World—and especially in Muslim-majority societies than they are in contemporary Western ones.

This is hardly the first lynch mob situation set off by rumors. Indeed, such things have been happening for centuries, previously around such claims as that a Christian or Jew had cursed Muahmmad, defiled some Muslim text or object, attacked or insulted an individual Muslim, or kidnapped a Muslim woman.

The reason why such stories are almost always false is that even if a Christian or Muslim had been inclined to do any such thing he would have been too afraid to ever do such a thing knowing that the outcome would be mass violence against his community and his own death. Indeed, these communities with few exceptions—the Christians of Lebanon being one of the few—had completely adapted themselves to always showing deference and keeping a low profile, in practice accepting dhimmi status.

When such outbreaks did occur, however, the situation could end in a pogrom or forced conversion (the alternative being death) by the victims. In more recent times—often in Egypt–one sees many cases in which a Coptic Christian man is accused of dating a Muslim woman or some other rumor spreads which leads to anti-Christian riots. What usually follows is that the police don’t interfere and then arrest as many Christians as Muslims, followed by media reports (echoed in the Western press) that both sides started the fighting.

By the way, what’s it called if someone gathers together lots of people who hate you, lie about you, and want to see you dead; let’s them talk without criticism or investigation of their wild, contradictory, and unproven claims; and then uses this testimony to condemn you? Answer: the Goldstone Commission report.

In this latest Afghan case, U.S. officials denied that any Koran desecration occurred and instead—probably accurately–accused the Taliban of deliberately spreading lies to make people hate America. Nonetheless, demonstrators insisted that they believed that U.S. troops had desecrated a Koran in some place near the capital even though they didn’t have a specific time, place, or details of the event.

By the way, the demonstration began at Kabul University, which makes it likely many of the participants were college students, not uneducated peasants.

The beliefs that Westerners or Israelis hate and want to destroy Islam; are deceitful enemies, and similar such things have been deeply inculcated by families, religious training, and political indoctrination. It is not easy or lightly overcome. If American soldiers sacrifice to liberate Iraq from a dictatorship or help Afghanistan; if the United State provides massive economic aid or development assistance or diplomatic support, these efforts will not be seen as generous but imperialistic.

There is simply no way to overcome such perceptions. Even those most directly benefitting from assistance—say the Egyptian political elite—will not only denounce the United States or West frequently but in fact have an even greater need to do so precisely to “prove” they are not Western or American lackeys and to mobilize mass support for themselves.

The idea that a concerted effort to show respect—generally unreciprocated—act unselfishly, praise Islam, gain popularity, or follow policies that will satisfy such populations is going to have a major effect in changing the behavior of Middle Eastern countries or peoples is quite naïve.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse strategies or that it is futile to try to build links, but respect for strength, strategic credibility, and material leverage are going to be far more important than gratitude.

Finally, there is the basic diplomatic reality that any decision will inevitably lead to hostility. No matter how much U.S. policy tries to distance itself from Israel, it won’t be far enough for many or most. Whether the United States leaves or stays to fight in Afghanistan will make enemies. Consider how little strategic or military benefit the United States has received from saving Kuwait in 1991; saving Saudi Arabia from Iran in the 1980s and Iraq in 1991; becoming patron of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority; or pouring billions of dollars into Egypt in aid.

How many more times will Obama be burnt in effigy by the very people he has bent over double-backwards to please, appease, or apologize to so often?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Joint Statement from Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York on the European Parliamentary and local elections

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

“The European Parliamentary and local elections on June 4th will take place at a time of extraordinary turbulence in our democratic system.  It is a time for great vigilance over how to exercise our democratic right to vote.

“The temptation to stay away or register a protest vote in order to send a negative signal to the parties represented at Westminster will be strong. In our view, however, it would be tragic if the understandable sense of anger and disillusionment with some MPs over recent revelations led voters to shun the ballot box.

“Those whom we elect to local councils and the European Parliament will represent us and our collective interests for many years to come.  It is crucial to elect those who wish to uphold the democratic values and who wish to work for the common good in a spirit of public service  which urgently needs to be reaffirmed in these difficult days.

“There are those who would exploit the present situation to advance views that are the very opposite of the values of justice, compassion and human dignity are rooted in our Christian heritage.

“Christians have been deeply disturbed by the conscious adoption by the BNP  of the language of our faith when the effect of those policies is not to promote those values but  to foster fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or racial background.

“This is not a moment for voting in favour of any political party whose core ideology is about sowing division in our communities and hostility on grounds of race, creed or colour; it is an opportunity for renewing the vision of a community united by mutual respect, high ethical standards and the pursuit of justice and peace.

“We hope that electors will use their vote on June 4th to renew the vision of a community united by the common good, public service and the pursuit of justice.”

Recent related BNP posts:-

If the Bible took place in Europe, and if the BNP were in power…

The frenzy over the participation of BNP leader Nick Griffin on Question Time this week has been a classic case of failing to identify the real elephant in the room.

British National Party (BNP) & Nick Griffin

As the dust settles over the Question Time BNP appearance, one thing is certain – the programme’s editors broadcast an atypical programme that was designed to attack Nick Griffin rather than explore (as it usually does) the issues of the day.

BNP members banned from joining Methodist Church

The British National Party (BNP) candidate styles himself as Rev.

Church Leaders and Christian Reaction to British National Party BNP Success

Israel has refuted accusations in an Amnesty International report claiming that the Palestinians do not have access to an adequate supply of water. The Israel-Palestinian water policy is based on an interim agreement between the two parties, Israel said.

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Amnesty International is so disgracefully biased against Israel it beggars belief at times. View these below links to see just a couple of recent example:-

Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli incursion into Gaza, prompted Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, two prominent human rights groups, to accuse Israel of committing Phosphorus war crimes. Both organizations habitually charge Israel with war crimes after major military operations.

Amnesty International UK: Going Out In The Cold

This is a terrible and damaging accusation of the lowest sort and has been plastered all over the [biased] BBC website today and firmly rebuffed by Israel, as they rightly question Amnesty’s motivation:-

Israel: Amnesty charges don’t hold water

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israel has refuted accusations in an Amnesty International report claiming that the Palestinians do not have access to an adequate supply of water.

The Israel-Palestinian water policy is based on an interim agreement between the two parties, Israel said.

“Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity,” according to a statement issued Tuesday by the Foreign Ministry. “The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling and handling of sewage.”

The Amnesty report released Monday accuses Israel of denying the Palestinians the right to access adequate water by maintaining total control over the shared water resources and pursuing discriminatory policies.

The report claims that Palestinian daily water consumption is about 70 liters a day, compared to 300 liters per day for Israelis — a figure disputed by Israel. It also says that  180,000 to 200,000 Palestinians living in rural communities have no access to running water, and that the Israeli army often prevents them from collecting rainwater.

Israel in the report is taken to task for restricting supplies going into the Gaza Strip that could help with the building of water and sanitation projects.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry questioned the motivation of the human rights organization in releasing the report.

“The authors of the report chose to ignore Israeli data, papers and reports, although they contain verifiable facts presented with total transparency,” the ministry said. “This questionable approach, which consists of systematically disregarding Israeli material while relying exclusively on Palestinian allegations, raises doubts as to the real intentions of the report’s authors and of the organization itself.”

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS

The Water Authority slammed Amnesty International on Monday for failing to allow it to make any sort of presentation to Amnesty’s researchers or react to the organization’s findings on water allocation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before the publication of its new critical report on Tuesday morning.

Israel’s Water authority on Monday blasted Amnesty International for failing to allow it to comment on or correct figures presented in an Amnesty report on water usage between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs that was released on Tuesday.

Amendment to change law on assisted suicide fails in the House of Lords. Thank you for your prayers.

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

This is truly wonderful news, just released by Christian Concern for our Nation

Assisted suicide

Thank you for your prayers and action. Last night Lord Alderdice’s amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill was withdrawn. The amendment sought to remove the possibility of prosecution for those who help a person to die where that person has an incurable and disabling illness and a coroner has certified that the person has a free and settled wish to die.

This would be wrong in principle and open to massive abuse. The amendment was opposed by a majority of those Lords who spoke in the debate.

In giving concluding remarks, Lord Bach said that their ‘firm view remains that the Coroners and Justice Bill has never been, and is not now the appropriate vehicle for change in the criminal law as it applies to assisted suicide.’

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton expressed her concerns with the amendment. She said:

‘If we support this amendment today, we say that terminally ill and severely disabled people do not deserve the very best forum and process to deliberate their life and death choices. The amendment has profound, far-reaching consequences, which strike fear — I am afraid it is fear — and apprehension into the lives of those who struggle to make society recognise that their lives have value and should be supported.’

Lord Tebbit said that the law provides that we, as individuals, have no right to take life except in self-defence.

‘It provides that the state, in acting for society, may take life or license the taking of life only in defence of the state or society itself. In short, the right or obligation to take life, or to license the taking of life, is strictly fettered and confined, and I believe that it should be so,’ he said.

‘Many of those who regard humankind as no more than elevated animals are no less wary of fraying and fretting at those constraints than those who believe that life is God-granted and that the taking of life is to infringe on divine territory.

‘I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, really has his heart in this. The expression, ‘bring their life to a close’, has about it a taint of weasel words to avoid the use of the more accurate words ‘kill themselves’.

‘The plain fact is that there have been no prosecutions of people who have facilitated suicide by delivering those for whom life has become an excessive burden to the suicide factories in Switzerland. The fact that there could be such a prosecution may have deterred — indeed, I am sure that it has deterred — the compassionate from assisting the act of suicide in that way. Far more important, it has also deterred those who might have exerted pressure on a weak, ill and vulnerable person from whose death they might profit. In my view, the law is working perfectly well, or in some cases not working at all perfectly well, and we should leave it alone.’

Blasphemy

The House of Lords will debate on Wednesday Lord Lester’s clause inclusion in the Coroners and Justice Bill to abolish blasphemy in Northern Ireland. It would be completely unacceptable for the House of Lords to make a decision which would affect the religious culture of Northern Ireland without proper discussion and without involving Northern Ireland’s elected representatives.

Please pray that the Northern Ireland representatives would have the opportunity to voice their concerns to the Government and that the clause would be defeated.

FURTHER INTERNET LINK

An 11th hour bid to legalise assisted suicide failed in the House of Lords last night after the amendment was withdrawn. Lord Alderdice tabled his amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill last week. It would have allowed the assisted suicide of people with an incurable illness provided they had a signed certificate from a coroner confirming that they had a “free and settled” wish to die.

Is being a Jew a matter of bloodline or religious practice? The UK’s new Supreme Court is debating the subject this week, in a case that could have a wider impact on faith schools

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

There is a fascinating and profound appeals court case happening, centering on the issue of how you define someones religion. This case is specifically about the Jewish community in regard to school admission policy, but potentially has a far reaching application into all faith schools.

Times:-

Today it would seem that the entire British Jewish community is in the Supreme Court. To be precise, the United Synagogue (the mainstream Orthodox body), the Board of Deputies (the representative body of the Jewish community), a North West London comprehensive school, JFS and the representatives of a child known as ‘M’. Not to mention the Equality & Human Rights Commission, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools & Families and the British Humanist Association. All are involved in an appeal to be heard over three days by no less than nine Supreme Court Judges. It would appear to be a big deal and, in a sense, it is.

This case began originally because a Chief Rabbi turned down a child of a believing, practicing Jewish family, for admission into a Jewish school, because the Chief Rabbi did not accept the child’s Jewish status as the mother isn’t biologically Jewish, but practices Judaism.

In this instance the crux of the issue is whether religion is based on descent or conversion.  Another issue is how do you define faith and how do you prove that you are sufficiently ‘religious’ for a faith school to accept your child’s admission.

I personally know of Vicars that suddenly see an influx of new families into church, around a certain time of the year and after a short period they are  handed the school admissions form, for them to sign that the child is appropriately ‘religious’!

Good luck with this one Supreme Court! Rather you than me!

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS

Faith tests do not fit Judaism – The Supreme Court will meet leading members of the Jewish Community this week in the JFS appeal

What defines your religion?

Spain’s Roman Catholic bishops have urged parents not to allow their children to dress up at Halloween labelling it an “occult and anti-Christian” custom.

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Halloween seems to be causing quite a stir this year in the Christian world.

First we had the Rev Jonathan Campbell, from Newbuildings Independent Methodist Church, launching an online petition to stop the Halloween event in Derry, which made national news and disgruntled many folk. Now we have Spanish Bishops bemoaning the fact that the popularity of Halloween is overshadowing the Christian festival of All Saints’ Day.

Telegraph

Father Joan Maria Canals, the director of committee on Liturgy, said the emphasis had shifted from worshipping the saints to celebrating death.

“Children dress as witches, vampires, ghosts, corpses and skeletons and parents favour this type of festivities focusing on elements of death.” He said.

Instead families should use the holiday to visit the graves of loved ones in a “festival that encourages life and not death”, he said.

“Christian piety recommends a visit to the cemetery to pray for them and for the families who experience the pain of human separation. For pedagogical reasons, it is necessary for children to discover the value of life and goodness, and not promote death.”

The Bishop of Siguenza-Guadalajara, Jose Sanchez, joined the attack saying Halloween “was not an innocent festivity” because it “has a background of the occult and anti-Christianity”.

There is a growing “risk” that due to commercial interests “pagan” customs which have been “imported” to Spain will “replace Christian customs like devotion to saints and praying for the dead,” he said.

The irony for me personally, is that I was always taught that Christianity originally hijacked pagan festivals in Roman times and so perhaps this is the pagans ‘kicking back’ :)

Switch to our mobile site