Archive for October, 2009

‘Rise up!’ Pope Benedict tells Africa at Close of Synod – I encourage you with the words of the Lord Jesus: You are the salt and light of the beloved African land!

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

Pope Benedict XVI’s homily for the close of the Synod of Bishops for Africa concluded with him saying that the Lord of history does not tire of renewing oppressed humanity since the time of Moses. “Rise up, African continent, the land which received the Savior as a child had to flee with Joseph and Mary to Egypt so as to save his life from the persecution of King Herod,” Pope Benedict proclaimed.

Benedict XVI’s homily turned to Sunday’s first reading from Jeremiah. In the Book of Lamentations, there is an announcement of hope for the people of Israel, laid low by the invasion of the army of Nebuchadnezzar, the devastation of Jerusalem and the Temple and the deportation to Babylon.

In the Gospel, Jesus encounters Bartimaeus, who has lost his sight, along the road to Jerusalem. “God is light and creator of light,” the Pope explained. “Man is the son of light, made to see light, but has lost his sight and wanders.”

“Brothers, we give thanks because this ‘mysterious meeting of our poverty and the greatness’ of God is realized also in the Synodal Assembly for Africa, which today concludes,” he added. “God has renewed his call: ‘Courage! Rise up…”

“And also the Church in Africa, through the bishops, come from all the Countries of the Continent, from Madagascar and the other islands, has received the message of hope and light to walk the way leading to the Kingdom of God,” the Holy Father continued. “Bartimaeus becomes a witness to the light, giving a firsthand account of healing, renewal, regeneration.”

“This is the Church in the world, a community of persons reconciled, workers of justice and peace, ‘salt and light’ amid a society of men and nations… Moving testimony has demonstrated to us that even in these most dark moments of human history, the Holy Spirit is at work transforming the hearts of victims and persecutors so that they recognize brothers.”

The Pontiff directed the synod fathers to the example of the encyclical “Populorum progressio,” in which the Servant of God Pope Paul VI explained the principle of promoting a respectful development of local culture and locale. Pope Benedict added, “After more than forty years, this appears to be the only logic capable of freeing the African people from the slavery of hunger and sickness.”

Before the Angelus prayer, Pope Benedict spoke of the rich reality of the local Churches represented by the Synod Fathers. Animated by the Word of God and the Eucharist, he explained, the Church works so that “no one is without the necessities to live and so that all can have an existence worthy of a human being.”

Benedict XVI said he shared the joys of the Christian communities, “which continue to grow in quantity and quality.” He added, “Naturally, the actual problems of Africa and the great needs of reconciliation, justice and peace were immersed in the Assembly.”

“Today I desire to address all the African populations, especially those that share the Christian faith, so as to ideally entrust to them the ‘Final Message’ of the Synodal Assembly,” the Holy Father stated. “Dear brothers and sisters who hear me in Africa, I entrust in a special way to your prayers the fruit of this work of the Synod Fathers and I encourage you with the words of the Lord Jesus: You are the salt and light of the beloved African land!”

The Holy Father concluded by recalling next year’s Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, for which the “instrumentum laboris” will be presented during his visit to Cyprus.

After the Angelus prayer, the Pontiff extended his greeting to thousands of faithful who were gathered outside of Milan’s cathedral for the beatification of Father Carlo Gnocchi.

“Father Gnocchi worked ‘to restore the human person,’ gathering children orphaned and mutilated by the Second World War and offering them help and education. He gave his all until the very end and dying, donated his corneas to two blind children. His work has continued to develop and today the Father Gnocchi Foundation offers rehabilitation therapy to needy people of all ages. While I greet Cardinal Tettamanzi, Archbishop of Milan, and rejoice with the entire Ambrosian Church, I make my own the theme of this beatification: ‘Alongside life, forever.’”

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has responded today to the findings of a survey for the British Council, conducted by Ipsos Mori, which found that 54% Briton’s agreed with the view that “Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.”

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

British Humanist Watch (just keeping you up to date)

Recent related post:-

More than half of adults in a survey of 10 countries thought school science lessons should teach evolutionary theories alongside creationism.

From the BHA website this morning

No room for creationism in science lessons

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has responded today to the findings of a survey for the British Council, conducted by Ipsos Mori, which found that 54% Briton’s agreed with the view that “Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.”
Naomi Phillips, BHA Public Affairs Officer, said ‘The findings of this survey should be of concern to all of us. They demonstrate how seriously public authorities need to treat the growing threat to public education from creationism and associated pseudoscientific ideas. Schools and teachers need to ensure that scientific theories and religious myths are not conflated, there is no room for creationism in science.’

Gay hate crimes bill and the assault on evangelical belief

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Barrett Duke

WASHINGTON (BP)–With the House and Senate passage of the hate-crimes bill, liberals in Congress made further progress in their effort to normalize homosexual behavior in the United States. The bill extends special federal protections to homosexuals that are not available to most Americans.

It is distressing the bill’s congressional supporters chose to use our nation’s commitment to our military to advance this goal. While no one should engage in an act of violence against another person because that person is a homosexual, it stretches the meaning of germaneness into the absurd to suggest that the hate-crimes bill was germane to the issue of national defense. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives and Senate have done that very thing and passed the hate-crimes bill as an attachment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

What is even more distressing is the bill’s potential for chilling religious speech regarding homosexuality. The hate-crimes language creates the potential for federal prosecution of anyone whose speech “incites” an act of violence against someone who is, or is perceived to be, homosexual.

One sees immediately two problems here. First, the bill allows for federal prosecution of someone whose speech was “intended to” incite violence against homosexuals. The concern here is over how “intention” will be determined. No doubt, there will be instances where federal prosecutors will be scrutinizing sermons about homosexuality, parsing the language that is used and the inflection in the voice, to attempt to discern whether or not the speaker intended to incite violence. While the burden of proof will be on the government, it is likely that some pastors and other religious figures will be put in a position where they will be forced to defend their speech before federal prosecutors.

This will likely especially create a burden for speakers whose messages are carried over the radio or other mass communication media. They have no means to know who might be listening to their messages, but a malicious person could accuse them of inciting violence against a homosexual if the attacker happened to be exposed to that message by being in the same city where the message is broadcast. It would only take a couple of these instances actually occurring to result in a chilling effect on religious speech regarding homosexuality.

The second concern with the hate crimes language is related to the bill’s focus on one’s attitude toward homosexuality. The bill leaves open the possibility that someone could be prosecuted for a hate crime on the basis of what he thought about homosexuality, whether this attitude motivated the attack or not. In this case, Congress has opened the door to special federal prosecution not only for the act of violence but for what the attacker thought about the victim at the time of the attack. It is likely that the attacker’s speech will still be used as the primary means for determining whether or not he attacked someone because the person was, or was perceived to be, homosexual, but the bill creates the possibility of federal scrutiny of one’s belief system as a means of determining whether or not bias was involved.

An evangelical Christian would likely find himself in greater jeopardy in this instance because of his belief in the Bible’s teaching regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. This belief could be used as a basis for accusing him of bias against homosexuality, which, an accuser could argue, predisposed him to act violently toward someone who was, or appeared to be, homosexual.

Whether or not these possibilities become realities is yet to be seen, but Congress has just extended special protections to homosexuals that are not available to most other Americans. It also has discouraged religious speech that is not affirming of homosexual behavior and created the opportunity for malicious people to harass those who hold religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.

Barrett Duke is vice president for public policy and research of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Previous Related Posts:-

US Previous Related Posts

The U.S. Senate sent a landmark bill Tuesday to President Obama that includes hate-crimes protections for homosexuals which critics say will infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders.

Supporters and opponents of legislation that will expand hate-crimes protections to homosexuals continue to wait on a Senate vote on a defense authorization bill that includes the controversial measure.

Despite objections that it would infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders, the U.S. House Thursday passed a defense bill that includes historic hate crimes protections for homosexuals.

UK Previous Related Post

Free speech is not hateful (Lord Waddington) – Civil liberty surely implies the freedom to express your own views, and with it a readiness to defend the right of others to express their views about you.

Petition and Prayer for Life and Free Speech

Miguel Hayworth a street preacher is at the centre of a row over freedom of speech after police threatened to arrest him for reading the Bible in public.

Victory on Euthanasia in the Coroners and Justice Bill

Bishops fight for right to criticise gay lifestyle

Coroners and Justice Bill will undermine both free speech and sanctity of life

Act Now for Free Speech: Coroners and Justice Bill in the Lords

Christian Response to Free Speech and Assisted Suicide: Bill Update

Christian councillor Alan Craig (leader of the Christian People’s Alliance) calls for free speech for Geert Wilders

Standing in solidarity with Anglican Christians throughout the world, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) has started the Anglican International Development for Relief and Change (AID) fund.

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Anglican Mainstream

Throughout the world, many faithful Anglicans are suffering through poverty and discrimination.

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in the UK andIreland, in addition to providing a spiritual home for Orthodox and Mainstream Anglicans, are also impassioned to encourage and envision global and local mission. So, standing in solidarity with Anglican Christians throughout the world, the FCA has started the Anglican International Development for Relief and Change (AID) fund.

Over the next few years, enabled by a supporter team, AID will be partnering with churches in education, healthcare and job creation through micro-finance projects, especially in regions where access to these basic needs have been restricted or denied to Christians due to deliberate discrimination and oppression.

Faith

As a priority, AID has begun to work in partnership with the Episcopal Church of Sudan (ECS). Since the country’s independence in 1956, the Sudanese people have endured more than twenty years of civil war between the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the north and the non-Muslim, non-Arabic speaking Sudanese in the south. During two decades of war more than two million were killed and more than four million people were displaced – devastating the lives of men, women and children. The fighting only briefly relented for a number of fragile peace accords to be signed. The latest, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 gave the southern Sudanese autonomy for six years, after which a referendum for independence is scheduled to be held in 2011.

Anglican Christians account for about a third of the population of southern Sudan. They have thus far survived the brutal onslaught of the military regimes who have favoured the Islamic-oriented government’s attempts to impose Sharia law on the country as a whole. So right now, while there is peace, there is a most urgent need to create long-term and sustainable economic development in the region so that beyond 2011 the southern Sudanese can retain autonomy in their day to day living.

Opportunity

Working in partnership with the Episcopal Church of Sudan, AID is setting up a micro finance  Project beginning in the Juba  Diocese but planned to cover all the dioceses of the province . Projects are typically agricultural and there is great scope for enabling people to make full use of the land that is available to them.

Typical investment could be chicken farming, ploughs, bed and breakfast or brick making which benefit from money being loaned to enterprising parishioners in the dioceses within the ECS.Finance for a project is
provided in the form of a loan, the donor can then track the sum of the loan directly to the beneficiary via a website and at the end of the agreed term the sum of the loan will be  re-invested in another micro business. The original donor will be kept informed about  the continuing impact of their gift. For example an Anglican womens’ group
has set up a small tea stall in Juba  and is doing well. They need capital to improve their business significantly.The profits go to support a nursery school programme.

Love

Aid has already conducted training programme for the key staff who will run the programme. A survey has been done and a business plan developed to make the project sustainable in three years. We will be happy to send a copy of the business plan to anyone who requests for it. As the Anglican Christian population begin to face up to the uncertainty of what their future could hold following the 2011 Referendum, the demand for many more similarly operated micro-finance projects is growing.

We want to do all we can to stand shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters living in southern Sudan. But time is short. Anglican Christians in southern Sudan need both your prayers and practical support today. So please will you ask God how you should respond to this urgent need for southern Sudan? The trained staff are
in place the business plan is ready and we need your support to implement it and give hope to many

I have included a list of points for prayer, which could be used at your church service, and on the reverse examples of the various micro-finance projects and their respective costs which AID have been asked to finance. With your help, Anglican Christian men and women throughout southern Sudan can create a long-term sustainable economic future for their families and for themselves.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Pratt
Treasurer for AID

Further information by emailing anglicanaid@gmail.com or by calling 01865-883388 or by visiting www.anglican-mainstream.net

Anglican International Development, 21 High Street, Eynsham, OX29 4HE

CHARLES SPURGEON ISRAEL IN EGYPT

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

“And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song
of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord
God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.”
Revelation 15:3

AT the outset, let us remark the carefulness of the Holy Spirit in guarding
the honor of our blessed Lord. This verse is often quoted as if it run thus
— “They sing the song of Moses and the Lamb.” This mistake has led
many weak minds to wonder at the expression, for they have imagined that
it divided the honor of the song of heaven between Moses and the
Redeemer. The clause — “the servant of God” — is doubtless inserted by
the Holy Spirit to prevent any error upon this point, and therefore it should
be carefully included in the quotation. I take it that the song of Moses is
here united with the song of the Lamb, because the one was a type and
picture of the other. The glorious overthrow of Pharaoh in the Red Sea
shadowed forth the total destruction of Satan and all his host in the day of
the great battle of the Lord; and there was in the song of Moses the
expression of the same feelings of triumph which will pervade the breasts
of the redeemed when they shall triumph with their Captain.

May God the Holy Spirit enable me to exhibit the parallel which exists
between the condition of Israel when passing through the sea, and the
position of the church of Christ at the present day. Next, we shall compare
the triumph of the Lord at the Red Sea with the victory of the Lamb in the
great and terrible day of the Lord. And lastly, I shall point out certain
prominent features of the song of Moses, which will doubtless be as
prominent in the song of the Lamb.

I. First, it is our business to regard THE POSITION OF THE CHILDREN OF
ISRAEL AS EMBLEMATICAL OF OUR OWN. And here we observe, that like
the church of God the vast host of Israel had been delivered from bondage.
We, my brethren, who constitute a part of the Israel of God, were once the
slaves of sin and Satan; we served with hard bondage and rigour whilst in
our natural state; no bondage was ever more terrible than ours; we indeed
made bricks without straw, and labored in the very fire; but by the strong
hand of God we have been delivered. We have come forth from the prisonhouse;
with joy we behold ourselves emancipated — the Lord’s free men.

The iron yoke is taken from our necks; we no longer serve our lusts, and
pay obedience to the tyrant’s sin. With a high hand and an outstretched
arm, our God has led us forth from the place of our captivity, and joyfully
we pursue our way through the wilderness.

But with the children of Israel it was not all joy; they were free, but their
master was at their heels. Pharaoh was loth to lose so valuable a nation of
servants; and therefore with his chosen captains, his horsemen, and his
chariots, he pursued them in angry haste. Afrighted Israel beheld her
infuriated oppressor close at her rear, and trembled for the issue — the
hearts of the people failed them whilst they saw their hopes blighted and
their joys ended by the approach of the oppressor; even so it is with some
of you; you think you must be driven back again like dumb cattle, into
Egypt, and once more become what you were. Surely,” you say, “I cannot
hold on my way with such a host seeking to drive me back; I must again
become the slave of my iniquities.” And thus dreading apostacy, and
feeling that you would rather die than become what you were; you this
morning are filled with trepidation. You are saying, “Alas! for me! Better
that had died in Egypt than that I should have come out into this wilderness
to be again captured.” You have tasted for a moment the joys of holiness
and the sweets of liberty; and now again to go back to endure the bondage
of a spiritual Egypt, would be worse than before. This is the position of the
sacramental host of God’s elect; they have come out of Egypt, and they are
pursuing their way to Canaan. But the world is against them; the kings of
the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord
and against his people, saying, “Let us scatter them; let us utterly destroy
them.” From the fiery days of the stakes of Smithfield even until now, the
world’s black heart has hated the church, and the world’s cruel hand and
laughing lip have been for ever against us. The host of the mighty are
pursuing us, and are thirsty for our blood, and anxious to cut us off from
the earth. Such is our position unto this hour, and such must it be until we
are landed on the other side of Jordan, and until our Maker comes to reign
on the earth.

But once more: the children of Israel were in a position more wonderful
than this. They came to the edge of the Red Sea; they feared their enemies
behind; they could not fly on either hand, for they were flanked by
mountains and stupendous rocks; one course only was open to them, and
that course was through the sea. God commands them to go forward. The
rod of Moses is outstretched, and the affrighted waters divide; a channel is
left whilst the floods stand upright, and the waters are congealed in the
heart of the sea. The priests, bearing the ark, march forward; the whole
host of Israel follow. And now behold the wondrous pilgrimage. A wall of
alabaster is on either side, and myriads are in the pebbly depths. Like a wall
of glass the sea stands on either side of them, frowning with beetling cliffs
of foam; but still on they march; and until the last of God’s Israel is safe the
water stands still and firm, frozen by the lips of God. Such, my hearers, is
the position of God’s church now. You and I are marching through a sea,
the floods of which are kept upright only by the sovereign power of God.
This world is a world which is suddenly to be destroyed; and our position
in it is just the position of the children of Israel, for whose sake the floods
refused to meet until they were safely landed. O church of God! thou art
the salt of the earth: when thou art removed this earth must putrify and
decay. O living army of the living God! ye, like Israel, keep the floods of
providence still standing fast; but when the last of you shall be gone from
this stage of action, God’s fiery wrath and tremendous anger shall dash
down upon the ground whereon you now are standing, and your enemies
shall be overwhelmed in the place through which you now walk safely. Let
me put my thoughts as plainly as I can. Naturally, according to the
common order, the Red Sea should have flowed on in a level and even
manner, constant in its waves and unbroken in its surface. By the might of
God the Red Sea was divided into two parts, and the floods stood back.
Now mark. Naturally, according to the common course of justice, this
world, which groaneth and travaileth until now, ought, if we only consider
the wicked, to be utterly destroyed. The only reason why the Red Sea
afforded a safe passage for the host was this — that Israel marched
through it; and the only reason why this world stands, and the only reason
why it is not destroyed by fire, as it is to be at the last great day, is because
God’s Israel are in it; but when once they shall have passed through, the
parted floods shall meet their hands, and embrace with eager joy to clasp
the adverse host within their hands. The day is coming when this world
shall reel to and stagger like a drunken man. Every Christian may say, with
due reverence to God, “The world is dissolved; I bear up the pillars
thereof.” Let all the Christians that are in this world die, and the pillars of
the earth would fall, and like a wreck and a vision all this universe of ours
would pass away, never to be seen again. We are to-day, I say, passing
through the floods, with enemies behind, pursuing us who are going out of
Egypt up to Canaan.

II. And now the TRIUMPH OF MOSES was a picture of the ultimate triumph
of the Lamb. Moses sang a song unto the Lord by the sea of Egypt. If you
will turn to Holy Scripture you will find that my text was sung by the holy
spirits who had been preserved from sin and from the contamination of the
beast; and it is said that they sung this song upon “a sea of glass mingled
with fire.” Now the song of Moses was sung by the side of a sea, which
was glassy, and still; for a little season the floods had been disturbed,
divided, separated, congealed, but in a few moments afterwards when
Israel had safely passed the flood, they became as glassy as ever, for the
enemy had sunken to the bottom like a stone, and the sea returned to its
strength when the morning appeared. Is there ever a time, then, when this
great sea of Providence, which now stands parted to give a passage to
God’s saints shall become a level surface? Is there a day when the now
divided dispensations of God, which are kept from following out their
legitimate tendency to do justice upon sin — when the two seas of justice
shall commingle, and the one sea of-God’s providence shall be “a sea of
glass mingled with fire?” Yes, the day is drawing nigh when God’s enemies
shall no longer make it necessary for God’s providence to be apparently
disturbed to save his people, when the great designs of God shall be
accomplished, and therefore when the walls of water shall roll together,
whilst in their inmost depths the everlasting burning fire shall still consume
the wicked. Oh! the sea shall be calm upon the surface; the sea upon which
God’s people shall walk shall seem to be a sea that is clear, without a
weed, without an impurity; whilst down in its hollow bosom, far beyond all
mortal ken, shall be the horrid depths where the wicked must for ever
dwell in the fire which is mingled with the glass.

Well, I now want to show you why it was that Moses triumphed, and why
it ill that by-and-by we shall triumph. One reason why Moses sung his song
was because all Israel were safe. They were all safely across the sea. Not a
drop of spray fell from that solid wall until the last of God’s Israel had
safely planted his foot on the other side of the flood. That done,
immediately the floods dissolved into their proper place again, but not till
then. Part of that song was, “Thou hast led thy people like a flock through
the wilderness.” Now, in the last time, when Christ shall come upon earth,
the great song will be — “Lord, thou hast saved thy people; thou hast led
them all safely through the paths of providence, and not one of them has
fallen into the hands of the enemy.” Oh! it is my strong belief, that in
heaven there shall not be a vacant throne. I rejoice that all who love the
Lord below must at Last attain to heaven. I do not believe with some that
men may start on the road to heaven, and be saved, and yet fall by the hand
of the enemy. God forbid! my friends!

“All the chosen race
Shall meet around the throne,
Shall bless the conduct of his grace,
And make his glories known.”

Part of the triumph of heaven will be, that there is not one throne that is
unoccupied, As many as God hath chosen as many as Christ hath
redeemed, as many as the Spirit hath called, as many as believe, shall arrive
safe across the stream. We are not all safely landed yet.

“Part of the host have crossed the flood,
And part are crossing now.”

The vanguard of the army have already reached the shore. I see them
yonder.

“I greet the blood-besprinkled bands
Upon th’ eternal shore.”

And you, and I, my brethren, are marching through the depths. We are at
this day following hard after Christ, and walking through the wilderness.
Let us be of good cheer: the rearguard shall soon be where the vanguard
already is; the last of the chosen shall soon have landed; the last of God’s
elect shall have crossed the sea, and then shall be heard the song of
triumph, when all are secure. But oh! if one were absent — oh! if one of
his chosen family should be cast away — it would make an everlasting
discord in the song of the redeemed, and cut the strings of the harps of
paradise, so that music could never be distilled from them again.
But, perhaps, the major part of the joy of Moses lay in the destruction of
all the enemies of God. He looked upon his people the day before.

“He looked upon his people,
And the tear was in his eye;
He looked upon the foeman
And his glance was stern and high.”

And now to-day he looks upon his people, and he says, “Blessed art thou,
O Israel, safely landed on the shore;” and he looks not upon the foeman,
but upon the foeman’s tomb; he looks where the living were protected by
the shield of God from all their enemies; and he sees — what? A mighty
sepulcher of water; a mighty tomb in which were engulphed princes,
monarchs, potentates.” The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the
sea.” Pharaoh’s chariots also are drowned therein. And soon, my hearers,
you and I shall do the same. I say that now we have to look abroad on
hosts of enemies. What with the wild beasts of Rome, what with the
antichrist of Mahomet, what with the thousands of idolatries and false
gods, what with infidelity in all its myriad shapes, many are the enemies of
God, and mighty are the hosts of hell. Lo, you see them gathered together
this day; horseman upon horseman, chariot upon chariot, gathered together
against the Most High. I see the trembling church, fearing to be
overthrown; I mark her leaders bending their knees in solemn prayer, and
crying, “Lord, save thy people, and bless thy heritage.” But mine eye looks
through the future with telescopic glance, and I see the happy period of the
latter days, when Christ shall reign triumphant. I stall ask them where is
Babel? where is Rome? where is Mahomet? and the answer shall come —
where? Why, they have sunk into the depths; they have sunk to the bottom
as a stone. Down there the horrid fire devours them, for the sea of glass is
mingled with the fire of judgment. To-day I see a battle-field: the whole
earth is torn by the hoofs of horses; there is the rumble of cannon and the
roll of drum. “To arms! to arms!” both hosts are shouting. But you wait
awhile, and you shall walk across this plain of battle, and say, “Seest thou
that colossal system of error dead? There lies another, all frozen, in ghastly
death, in motionless stupor. There lieth infidelity; there sleepeth secularism
and the secularist; there lie those who defied God. I see all this vast host of
rebels lying scattered upon the earth.” “Sing unto the Lord, for he hath
triumphed gloriously; Jehovah has gotten unto himself the victory, and the
last of his enemies are destroyed.” Then shall be the time when shall be
sung “the song of Moses and of the Lamb.”

III. Now, turning to the song of Moses, I shall conclude my address to
you by noticing some interesting particulars in the song which will
doubtless have a place in the everlasting orchestra of the redeemed, when
they shall praise the Most High. Oh! my brethren, I could but wish that I
had stood by the Red Sea, to have heard that mighty shout, and that
tremendous roar of acclamation! Methinks one might well have borne a
servitude in Egypt, to have stood in that mighty host who sung such
mighty praise. Music hath charms; but never had it such charms as it had
that day when fair Miriam led the women, and Moses led the men, like
some mighty leader, beating time with his hand. “Sing unto the Lord, for
he hath done gloriously.” Methinks I see the scene; and I anticipate the
greater day, when the song shall be sung again, “as the song of Moses and
of the Lamb.”

Now, just notice this song. In the 15th chapter of Exodus you find it, and
in divers of the Psalms you will see it amplified. The first thing I would
have you notice in it is, that from beginning to end it is a praise of God,
and of nobody else but God. Moses, thou hast said nothing of thyself. O
great lawgiver, mightiest of men, did not thine hand grasp the mighty rod
that split the sea — that burned its fair breast, and left a scar for a while
upon its bosom? Didst not thou lead the hosts of Israel? Didst not thou
marshal their thousands for battle, and like a mighty commander lead them
through the depths? Is there not a word for thee? Not one. The whole
strain of the song is, “I will sing unto the Lord,” from beginning to end. It
is all praise of Jehovah; there is not one word about Moses, nor a single
word in praise of the children of Israel. Dear friends, the last song in this
world, the song of triumph, shall be full of God, and of no one else. Here
you praise the instrument, to-day you look on this man and on that, and
you say, “Thank God for this minister, and for this man.” To-day you say,
“Blessed be God for Luther, who shook the Vatican, and thank God for
Whitfield, who stirred up a slumbering church;” but in that day you shall
not sing of Luther, nor of Whitfield, nor of any of the mighty ones of
God’s hosts; forgotten shall their names be for a season, even as the stars
refuse to shine when the sun himself appeareth. The song shall be unto
Jehovah, and Jehovah only; we shall not have a word to say for preachers
nor bishops, not a syllable to say for good men and true; but the whole
song from first to last shall be, “Unto him that loved us, and hath washed
us from our sins in his own blood, unto him be glory forever and ever.
Amen.”

And next will you please to note, that this song celebrated something of the
fierceness of the enemy. Do you observe how, when the songster describes
the attack of Pharaoh, he says, “The enemy said, I will pursue, I will
overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will
draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.” A song is made out of the
wrath of Pharaoh. And it shall be so at the last. The wrath of a man shall
praise God. I believe the last song of the redeemed, when they shall
ultimately triumph, will celebrate in heavenly stanzas the wrath of man
overcome by God. Sometimes after great battles, monuments are raised to
the memory of the fight; of what are they composed? They are composed
of weapons of death and of instruments of war which have been taken from
the enemy. Now, to use that illustration as I think it may be properly used,
the day is coming when fury, and wrath, and hatred, and strife, shall all be
woven into a song; and the weapons of our enemies, when taken from
them, shall serve to make monuments to the praise of God. Rail on, rail on,
blasphemer! Smite on, smite on, tyrant! Lift thy heavy hand, O despot;
crush the truth, which yet thou canst not crush; knock from his head the
crown — the crown that is far above thy reach — poor puny impotent
mortal as thou art! Go on, go on! But all thou doest shall but increase his
glories. For aught we care, we bid you still proceed with all your wrath and
malice. Though it shall be worse for you, it shall be more glorious for our
Master; the greater your preparations for war, the more splendid shall be
his triumphal chariot, when he shall ride through the streets of heaven in
pompous array. The more mighty your preparations for battle, the more
rich the spoil which he shall divide with the strong. Oh! Christian, fear not
the foe! Remember the harder his blows, the sweeter thy song; the greater
his wrath, the more splendid thy triumph; the more he rages, the more shall
Christ be honored in the day of his appearing. They sung the song of
Moses and the Lamb.

And then will ye note, in the next place, how they sang the total overthrow
of the enemy. There is one expression in this song, which ought to be and I
believe is, when set to music, very frequently repeated. It is that part of the
song, as recorded in the Psalms, where it is declared that the whole host of
Pharaoh were utterly destroyed, and there was not one of them left. When
that great song was sung by the side of the Red Sea, there was, no doubt, a
special emphasis laid upon that expression, “not one.” I think I hear the
hosts of Israel. When the words were known by them, they began and they
proceeded thus — “There is not one of them left;” and then in various
parts the words were repeated, “Not one, not one.” And then the women
with their sweet voices sang, “Not one, not one.” I believe that at the last,
a part of our triumph will be the fact, that there is not one left. We shall
look abroad throughout the earth, and see it all a level sea; and not one
foeman pursuing us — “not one, not one!” Raise thyself never so high, O
thou deceiver, thou canst not live; for not one shall escape. Lift thy head
never so proudly, O despot, thou canst not live for not one shall escape. O
heir of heaven, not one sin shall cross the Jordan after thee; not one shall
pass the Red Sea to overtake thee; but this shall be the summit of thy
triumph — “Not one, not one! not one of them is left.”

Just let us note again, and I will not detain you too long, lest I weary you.
One part of the song of Moses consisted in praising the case with which
God destroyed his enemies. “Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea
covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters.” If we had gone to
work to destroy the hosts of Pharaoh, what a multitude of engines of death
should we have required. If the work had been committed to us, to cut off
the hosts, what marvellous preparations, what thunder, what noise, what
great activity there would have been. But mark the grandeur of the
expression. God did not even lift himself from his throne to do it: he saw
Pharaoh coming; he seemed to look upon him with a placid smile; he did
just blow with his lips, and the sea covered them. You and I will marvel at
the last how easy it has been to overthrow the enemies of the Lord. We
have been tugging and toiling all our life-time to be the means of
overthrowing systems of error: it will astonish the church when her Master
shall come to see how, as the fee dissolveth before the fire, all error and sin
shall be utterly destroyed in the coming of the Most High. We must have
our societies and our machinery, our preachers and our gatherings, and
rightly too; but God will not require them at the last. The destruction of his
enemies shall be as easy to him as the making of a world. In passive silence
unmoved he sat; and he did but break the silence with “Let there be light;
and light was.” So shall he at the last, when his enemies are raging
furiously, blow with his winds, and they shall be scattered; they shall melt
even as wax, and shall be burned like tow; they shall be as the fat of rams;
into smoke shall they consume, yea, into smoke shall they consume away.
Furthermore, in this song of Moses you will notice, there is one peculiar
beauty. Moses not only rejoiced for what had been done, but for the future
consequences of it. He says — “The people of Canaan, whom we are
about to attack, will now be seized with sudden fear; by the greatness of
thy arm they shall be as still as a stone.” Oh! I think I hear them singing
that too, sweetly and softly — “as still as a stone.” How would the words
come full, like gentle thunder heard in the distance — “as still as a stone!”
And when we shall get on the other side the flood, see the triumph over
our enemies, and behold our Master reigning, this will form a part of our
song — that they must henceforth be “as still as a stone.” There will be a
hell, but it will not be a hell of roaring devils, as it now is. They shall be “as
still as a stone.” There will be legions of fallen angels, but they shall no
longer have courage to attack us or to defy God: they shall be “as still as a
stone.” Oh! how grand will that sound, when the hosts of God’s redeemed,
looking down on the demons chained, bound, silenced, struck dumb with
terror, shall sing exultingly over them! They must be as still as a stone; and
there they must lie, and bite their iron bands. The fierce despiser of Christ
can no more spit in his face; the proud tyrant can no more lift his hands to
oppress the saints; even Satan can no more attempt to destroy. They shall
be “as still as a stone.”

And last of all the song concludes by noticing the eternity of God’s reign;
and this will always make a part of the triumphant song. They sang —
“The Lord shall reign forever and ever.” Then I can suppose the whole
band broke out into their loudest strains of music. “The Lord shall reign for
ever and ever.” Part of the melody of heaven will be “The Lord shall reign
for ever and ever.” That song has cheered us here. — ”The Lord reigneth;
blessed be my rock!” And that song shall be our exultation there. “The
Lord reigneth for ever and ever.” When we shall see the placid sea of
providence, when we shall behold the world all fair and lovely, when we
shall mark our enemies destroyed, and God Almighty triumphant, then we
shall shout the song —

“Hallelujah! for the Lord
God Omnipotent shall reign
Hallelujah! let the word
Echo round the earth and main.”

Oh! may we be there to sing it!

I have one remark to make, and I have done. You know, my friends, that
as there is something in the song of Moses which is typical of the song of
the Lamb, there was another song sung by the waters of the Red Sea which
is typical of the song of hell. “What mean you, sir, by that dread thought?”
Oh! shall I use the word music? Shall I profane the heavenly word so much
as to say, ‘twas doleful music which came from the lips of Pharaoh and his
host? Boldly and pompously, with roll of drum and blast of trumpet they
had entered into the sea. On a sudden their martial music ceased; and ah!
ye heavens and ye floods what was it? The sea was coming down upon
them, utterly to devour them. Oh! may we never hear that shriek, that
awful yell of hideous agony, that seemed to rend the sky, and then was
hushed again, when Pharaoh and his mighty men were swallowed up, and
went down quick into hell! Ah! stars, if ye had heard it, if the black pall of
waters had not shut out the sound from you, ye might have continued
trembling to this hour, and mayhap ye are trembling now; mayhap your
twinklings by night are on account of that terrible shriek ye heard, for sure
it were enough to make your tremble on for ever. That dreadful shriek, that
hideous moan, that horrible howl, when a whole army sank into hell at
once, when the waters swallowed them up!

Take heed, my friends, take heed, lest you should have to join in that
terrible miserere; take heed, lest that horrible howl should be yours, instead
of the song of the redeemed. And remember, so must it be, unless ye be
born again, unless ye believe in Christ, unless ye repent of sin and renounce
it wholly, and with trembling hearts put your confidence in the man of
sorrows, who is soon to be crowned the King of kings and Lord of lords.
May God bless you, and give you all to taste of his salvation, that you may
stand upon the sea of glass, and not have to feel the terrors of the mingled
fire in the lower depths thereof! God Almighty bless this vast assembly, for
Jesus’ sake!

There are few topics as fiercely debated in the science/religion dialogue as the so-called “God-of-the-gaps”. The ongoing furor over intelligent design, with its apparently gap-friendly concepts like “irreducible complexity” and “directed contingency” has only added more fuel to this often fiery debate.

Monday, October 26th, 2009

By Randal Rauser | Christian Post Contributor

There are few topics as fiercely debated in the science/religion dialogue as the so-called “God-of-the-gaps”. This phrase refers to the tendency to invoke God’s action in the world wherever our attempts at a natural explanation seem to fail. The ongoing furor over intelligent design, with its apparently gap-friendly concepts like “irreducible complexity” and “directed contingency” has only added more fuel to this often fiery debate.

According to the critics of the God-of-the-gaps approach, one of the problems is that it seems to limit God’s action to what we don’t know. And this implies that once we do come to understand how something occurs naturally, this excludes a supernatural dimension. As one can imagine, the God-of-the-gaps method spells trouble for theology. The problem is simple: since our scientific understanding keeps expanding, the putative areas in which God can be viewed as active in the world keeps shrinking. Thus it would seem that in principle the growth of science could lead to the complete exclusion of God’s action from the world. The dilemma was well stated decades ago by theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat.

On this point I agree with Bonhoeffer. To locate God’s action in gaps of our understanding is bad theology.

But God-of-the-gaps theology is not only mistaken because it tends to shrink the conceptual space in which God can act. In addition, I believe it depends on the flawed assumption that a natural explanation for a given phenomenon excludes the need for a supernatural explanation. It shall be my task here to argue why this assumption is flawed.

In order to make my argument I’ll develop a little thought experiment. Imagine that in twenty years meteorology has made extraordinary advances in understanding weather systems. Indeed weather prediction is so improved that the meteorologist can make completely accurate weather forecasts a day in advance. (Yes, I know this contradicts current chaos theory.) These predictions are so detailed that a forecast can accurately predict the exact place that every rain drop, snowflake, or hail pellet will hit the ground over the next 24 hours.

Now the forecast for tomorrow comes in and alas, cumulus thunderheads are on their way promising a violent thunderstorm. With the forecast comes a complete description of staggering complexity projecting the point at which each golf ball sized hail pellet over the forecast area will hit the earth.

Since my birthday is tomorrow and I am planning a backyard party, I take special note of the forecast over my house. With that in mind I go to weather.com, type in the coordinates for my house, and in moments I receive my own personal and completely accurate forecast. With relief I see that no hail pellets will hit the tent or stage. However I then discover with considerable amazement, that a couple dozen large hail pellets will hit my lawn in such a way that they will perfectly spell out “Happy Birthday Randal!” As predicted, the storm rolls in the next day on schedule. Then as the band plays the hail hurtles down from the sky as if on cue and spells out “Happy Birthday Randal!” in front of my shocked guests.

One can imagine the amazed guests saying things like “How extraordinary!” and “It’s a miracle!” And those would indeed be natural responses. So then imagine one party guest, a skeptical curmudgeon, objecting that there is nothing miraculous about the event at all. According to this fellow, since scientific laws predicted with accuracy the exact position of the hail falling, we must chalk up the “birthday greeting” to mere chance.

I suspect that such a response would convince few if any other guests. Most of us would recognize that, natural scientific explanation or not, something else was going on here. Indeed, it would seem most reasonable to conclude that a higher intelligence, perhaps even God, was acting precisely through the supple operation of the laws of nature to wish me a happy birthday.

Admittedly the story is fanciful, but that is beside the point. To sum up the central lesson, even if we have a complete scientific prediction and explanation in advance of a given phenomenon, that need not undermine the conclusion that God is also specially active in that event. God, it would seem, is to be found acting as much in what we do know as in what we do not.

Randal Rauser is associate professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Canada and was granted Taylor’s first annual teaching award for Outstanding Service to Students in 2005.

Statement by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali – Bishop Michael is not becoming a Roman Catholic.

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Anglican Mainstream

Press statement:

Bishop Michael is not becoming a Roman Catholic. He intends to continue as a bishop in the Church of England and to encourage orthodox people, evangelical and catholic, in the world-wide Anglican Communion. As a long standing member of both ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission) and IARCCUM (International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission), he prays for principled unity based on the Bible and theological agreement between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. He believes that such unity may be achieved through continuing dialogue.

26.10.09

Distributed by Andrew Boyd
Press Secretary to Bishop Michael

CBN Report: Messianic Jews persecuted in Beer Sheva

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Previous related Post

BEERSHEVA, Israel – A long-awaited trial is underway in Israel that brings Light to Treatment of Messianic Jews

From the Rosh Pina Project

“the feeling we have as believers here in the country is that we have no voice when it comes to the legal system” – Howard Bass, pastor of the Nachalat Yeshua congregation in Beer Sheva.

Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future – Reflections on the Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.

Monday, October 26th, 2009

1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the ‘Covenant for a Communion in Mission’ as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.

2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially ‘descriptive’ is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.

3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.

4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations of a Christian body which has courageously supported them.

5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion’s life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.

6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.

7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.

8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.

9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)

10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.

11. The second issue is the broader one of how a local church makes up its mind on a sensitive and controversial matter. It is of the greatest importance to remember this aspect of the matter, so as not to be completely trapped in the particularly bitter and unpleasant atmosphere of the debate over sexuality, in which unexamined prejudice is still so much in evidence and accusations of bad faith and bigotry are so readily thrown around.

12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.

13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that ‘what affects the communion of all should be decided by all’ is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in ‘intensity, substance and extent’ it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.

14. Sometimes in Christian history, of course, that wider discernment has been very fallible, as with the history of the Chinese missions in the seventeenth century. But this should not lead us to ignore or minimise the opposite danger of so responding to local pressure or change that a local church simply becomes isolated and imprisoned in its own cultural environment.

15. There have never been universal and straightforward rules about this, and no-one is seeking a risk-free, simple organ of doctrinal decision for our Communion. In an age of vastly improved communication, we must make the best use we can of the means available for consultation and try to build into our decision-making processes ways of checking whether a new local development would have the effect of isolating a local church or making it less recognisable to others. This again has an ecumenical dimension when a global Christian body is involved in partnerships and discussions with other churches who will quite reasonably want to know who now speaks for the body they are relating to when a controversial local change occurs. The results of our ecumenical discussions are themselves important elements in shaping the theological vision within which we seek to resolve our own difficulties.

16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy. Neither of these practices has been given straightforward official sanction as yet by any Anglican authorities at diocesan or provincial level, but the innovative practices concerned have a high degree of public support in some localities.

17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of ‘recognisability’ once again arises.

18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent ‘community of Christian communities’.

19. As Anglicans, our membership of the Communion is an important part of our identity. However, some see this as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way. They would see this as the only appropriate language for a modern or indeed postmodern global fellowship of believers in which levels of diversity are bound to be high and the risks of centralisation and authoritarianism are the most worrying. There is nothing foolish or incoherent about this approach. But it is not the approach that has generally shaped the self-understanding of our Communion – less than ever in the last half-century, with new organs and instruments for the Communion’s communication and governance and new enterprises in ecumenical co-operation.

20. The Covenant proposals of recent years have been a serious attempt to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation. They seek structures that will express the need for mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralisation but about mutual responsibility. They look to the possibility of a freely chosen commitment to sharing discernment (and also to a mutual respect for the integrity of each province, which is the point of the current appeal for a moratorium on cross-provincial pastoral interventions). They remain the only proposals we are likely to see that address some of the risks and confusions already detailed, encouraging us to act and decide in ways that are not simply local.

21. They have been criticised as ‘exclusive’ in intent. But their aim is not to shut anyone out – rather, in words used last year at the Lambeth Conference, to intensify existing relationships.

22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a ‘covenanted’ Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces.

23. This has been called a ‘two-tier’ model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a ‘two-track’ model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the ‘covenanted’ body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.

24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both ‘tracks’ should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.

25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.

26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right. But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.

+ Rowan Cantuar:

From Lambeth Palace, Monday 27 July 2009

Police May Have a Confession in the Ami Ortiz Case

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Previous related Post

Potential breakthrough in Ami Ortiz case

Cross post from the excellent Rosh Pina Project

The following report is gleaned from open U.S. and Israeli news sources and from nationalist-religious settlers blogs – a source I don’t usually look to but these are the only sources leaking information in an arrest that Israeli Security Forces have placed a 21-day gag order on.

Since the right-wing religious activists are ramping up to pressure Israeli officials in this matter, I thought it wise to pass along those details for believers to begin to pray over. The arrest earlier this month of a religious-nationalist has been linked to the 2008 bombing of Ami Ortiz.

Here are the details we have been able to glean from sources readily available on the web – if one knows where to look. - Donna Diorio, October 25, 2009

On Wednesday October 7th, the Israeli Security Services arrested a Jewish American Israeli citizen in an apartment in the religious Har Nof community located on the western-most hill of Jerusalem.

When security forces broke down the barricaded apartment door to arrest “Y.T.” – (whose name we will keep out of this report for the sake of the on-going Israeli investigation) – officers found several explosives which they later detonated according to a report on israeljustice.com.

In his family home apartment in Shvut Rahel, police found 4 M16 rifles which undoubtedly will have undergone ballistics testing to shots fired in the August shooting spree on the Tel Aviv gay youth club attack.

The man who is described by nationalistic-religious sites as a 36-year old former marine with dual U.S. – Israeli citizenship, is a father of 4 who lives in the Shvut Rahel settlement in Samaria/West Bank some 28 miles north of Jerusalem.

The fact of “Y.T.’s” dual citizenship may be the reason the American Consulate in Jerusalem obtained information of the arrest and why they were able to make first notification to the Ortiz family of an arrest linked to their son’s case. The Ortiz family of Ariel also holds dual Israel-U.S. citizenship.

Ami pre-bomb photo

Israeli officials did not notify the Ortiz family of a break in the case, but it is a locked tight conclusion that if both the victim and the perpetrator hold dual citizenship, the American Consulate would be informed at least of the fact of the arrest.

“Y.T.’s” defense attorney Adi Kedar is reported in an Israeljustice.com article dated 10/14/09 as saying, “Everything is classified. I don’t know anything. The case has even been to the Supreme Court. The judges know but I don’t know anything” – apparently in reference to the evidence and charges against his client.

Early Israeli media reports indicated Security Services had a confession from “Y.T.” according to Shmuel Meidad, who is the head of the Honenu Legal Aid Organization which defends the religious nationalist settlers against charges.

According to reports on a Hareidi website, Hadrei Hareidim, (a source we take with a grain of salt), the judge in the first remand hearing in Petah Tikva told defense lawyer Adi Kedar,

“Don’t try to appeal because until now there hasn’t been a case with so much clear evidence that links the suspect to the serious acts that he committed.”

The early press reports that appeared online were redacted when a gag order was swiftly placed by authorities on details of the arrest. However, israeljustice.com reports that news correspondents had linked “Y.T.” to the pipe bomb that lightly wounded Professor Zeev Sternhell in September 2008, and to the shooting attack on a Tel Aviv gay youth bar that left 2 dead and 10 injured in August 2009.

One linkage the religious news sites have not mentioned is the attempted murder of the Ortiz family during the 2008 Purim season when 15-year old Ami Ortiz was gravely wounded by a bomb planted in a gift basket.

Ami lay dying on the family kitchen floor

Honenu head Meidad, however, is claiming, “They have accused him of every murder from Arlosorov (a murder in 1933) to the murder in the gay bar.”

The attempted murder of the Ortiz family is the ‘Most Likely to Be Suppressed’ charge against the religious activist, “Y.T.” This is something that must be monitored carefully as the charges against “Y.T.” and his co-conspirators are made public. The gag order is due to be lifted on Wednesday, October 28th.

One thing is for certain, if “Y.T.” is the person who actually carried out placing the bomb-laden Purim gift basket at the door of the Ortiz family home, Israeli officials have video security surveillance footage that shows the religious-garbed man placing it there. If “Y.T.” has confessed his involvement in these cases, the confession may have rested on the strength of the security tape from the Ortiz home and ministry.

“Y.T.’s” wife was reportedly arrested on October 21st two weeks after her husband’s arrest although it is not clear why she was arrested. The wife was en route to a hearing in Petah Tikvah where her husband was being held. Her temporary arrest is being painted as a political arrest and a “kidnapping” by the religious-nationalist settlers activists including Women in Green spokesperson Nadia Matar.

A Picture Emerging of Religious Right Wing Violence

The investigation of potential co-conspirators in the case is likely related to recent Israeli news reports on several right-wing activists who have been recently barred from reentering the West Bank for six months.

One report noted that the IDF Spokesman’s Office said “in light of information about the two settlers’ involvement in violent and illegal acts” – (Akiva HaCohen and Ariel Groner) – “and in light of the real danger posed by them to security and public order,” the two are banned from the territories for security reasons.

Both HaCohen and Groner, are young family men – aged 25 and 24 respectively. The fathers of four are also well known to security forces and judges as religious activists in the territories.

Fellow right wing advocates are stirring up protests on behalf of the men whose family homes are located in West Bank settlements near the family home of the arrested “Y.T.” Those areas are where the Shin Bet security service have been investigating the distribution of fliers a year ago on how to make bombs and weapons.

Women in Green, Land of Israel Faithful and other advocates of HaCohen and Groner have attempted to accuse authorities of a pre-emptive expulsion of their leaders before eviction and demolition of outposts, but news reports indicate the investigation really revolves around Jew on Jew violence by the activists.

This is an important point for believers outside of Israel to take note of.

Leaflets instructing in explosive and weapons making were found in the Adi Ad outpost near the home of “Y.T” in Shvut Rachel. A similar flier was distributed in 2006 prior to the Gay Pride Parade, according to a report in Haaretz.

The “Death to Sodomites” flier became big news in Israel, as it instructed how to make Molotov cocktails and other improvised weapons that could be used against lesbians and homosexuals. There was particular public outrage over a two-page pamphlet that offered a reward of 20,000 shekels to anyone who caused the death of “one of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Haaretz is asking “Will arrest of key rightist further inflame settler extremism?

Reporter Chaim Levinson notes that Ariel Gruner – a key activist in Honenu – is a familiar person to the Shin Bet security service agents who deal with suspected right-wing extremists, and to the judges and lawyers involved in their cases:

“Anytime someone is brought to court for right-wing activity, Gruner is there too – to counsel the detainees on their rights, arrange money for bail, or find host families for those put under house arrest.”

What do Israeli Jews who believe in Jesus have in common with gays, Leftist professors and the Palestinians? They are all targeted by hate crimes from the religious right wing nationalist zealots.

Even Israeli police and security are concerned with the threat of Jew on Jew crime according to this report: “Jewish underground may be emerging“.

Officials have repeatedly attempted to dismiss media reports that the bombing of Ami Ortiz was tied to the violent acts against other groups targeted by religious threats. Israeli police officials have been trying to dodge that linkage that had been acknowledged in first reports to coming out of the bombing of Professor Sternhell.

A Jerusalem Post article sought to tamp down an earlier linkage to the bombing of Ami Ortiz at the time of the Sternhell bombing, reporting:

“According to the security officials, the investigation has also explored possibility that those who perpetuated the attack were also responsible for a series of bombings over the past two years, including one against a Messianic Jewish family in Ariel earlier this year, in which a boy was seriously wounded.

“However, Judea and Samaria police spokesman Danny Poleg on Sunday denied reports that a possible link existed between the Sternhell attack and the Ariel bombing. ‘I have no comment about it, except that as far as I know, it’s not true,’ Poleg said.”

Professor Sternhell was reported in a Haaretz article to blame the attack on his life to apathy to settler violence. “Society does not respond,” he said during the radio interview, adding that when someone does in fact respond it is “positively or with a wink.”

I certainly believe it will pan out that these same key figures were intricately involved with the 2008 bomb-laden Purim basket that was left for the Messianic Jewish Ortiz family in Ariel.

But for the grace of God who orchestrated miracles of immediate medical intervention from a skilled medic who happened to be passing the residence, Ami Ortiz would have died on the floor of the ministry family home. His case deserves justice and for the facts to be made public.

Hopefully, believers around the world will not be guilty of the same thing Professor Sternhell accused Israeli society of – apathy, and a willingness to turn a blind eye to evil done by the religious-nationalist settlers.

Please keep these events in prayer. That the attempted murder of Ami Ortiz will not be buried or under-reported in light of the potential that one group has participated in violent acts against not only Jews who believe in Jesus, but also against gays, Peace Now activists and Palestinians. Pray for justice to prevail in the case of Ami Ortiz – as well as justice for all the other victims of religious violence.

This is a case that will try the wisdom of the soul of Israel, as a similar test tried the soul of the church in Nazi Germany. May Israelis remember and take to heart the poem made famous in post-Holocaust Germany by Pastor Niemoller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me
—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Switch to our mobile site