eChurch Christian Blog

More excellent and insightful thoughts from Professor Barry Rubin. Be sure to hop over to his blog to sign up for his real-time, original analysis on the Middle East and other issues.

by Professor Barry Rubin

The Obama Administration has no idea of what is about to happen. After all, it has won hasn’t it and done something positive for the Palestinians, right? It demanded that Israel freeze all construction on West Bank settlements. Israel agreed, save only that it finish the approximately 3000 units already begun. So the U.S. government can deem itself successful, having delivered something along the lines of what it promised originally to give the Palestinians.

Moreover, this agreement was ultimately gained without any corresponding Palestinian or Arab concessions. It will be remembered that for some months the United States tried to get the Arab side to give something. It failed. Nor did the U.S. government give anything to Israel in exchange for the freeze.

So objectively, what’s happened? Israel made a big concession; Israel got nothing; the Arab side gave nothing. Isn’t this a sort of Palestinian or Arab victory; proof of President Barack Obama’s leverage with Israel; an example of Israeli flexibility?

And, after all, when the current apartments being constructed are finished there will be a construction freeze. So all that’s necessary is to wait a few months, right?

Take a step back, clear your mind, look at it. Of course that’s what has happened. The Palestinians and the Arab states “should” be happy.

But this is the Middle East, a place where even if all Arab or Iranian demands are met, this only triggers anger, blame, complaint, and still more demands.

And you can’t solve the problem using Western rules. Hilary Clinton, stung by Arab criticism that she praised Israel’s plan too highly, does a bit of a turnaround two days after proclaiming Israel’s concession to be amazing:

“This offer falls far short of what we would characterize as our position or what our preference would be. But if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth.”

Nope, that won’t do it. You are saying a nice, rational, carefully callibrated Western-style statement: we want more but it’s a step in the right direction so it should be praised and it is a good thing. That isn’t how things work here. In the eyes of the Palestinian and Arab leadership Israel cannot ever do anything good. You can praise Palestinians, Muslims, and Arabs every day of the week but you aren’t allowed to ever say anything positive about Israel or do anything for that country.

As for Clinton saying it is a step in the right direction, this is also unacceptable. Israel can give endless concessions and show infinite flexibility but this can never be accepted as much. Each step is portrayed as a trick since not everything is surrendered at once. Every concession is just a reminder that not everything has been handed over.

And what, by this behavior of Hilary Clinton’s, is the U.S. government communicating to Israel,  when Israel makes a big concession and reaches agreement with the United States, if the PA or Arab states complain about the terms of the deal the U.S. government will then criticize their own deal! So how can Jerusalem trust Washington?

As if in proof, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the closest thing to an official PA newspaper, attacked Clinton with these words: “Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists pay you as a bribe?” The editorial went on to say that the secretary of state was wallowing in a swamp of lies and ran a cartoon showing Uncle Sam looking into a mirror to see a big-nosed Orthodox Jew wearing a hat with a Star of David on his hat, as nasty a cartoon as ever graced the pages of a Nazi newspaper in the 1930s.

Indeed, also on the hat is a globe surrounded by barbed wire, indicated that the international Jewish conspiracy holds the entire earth in its evil hands. And this is Fatah, the PA, the people who get all that U.S. aid, military training, and diplomatic support.

And this is not the Bush Administration they’re talking about either but the Obama Administration. You just can’t please some people. And that’s precisely the point.

If you want to understand how things work in the Middle East consider this story. Suppose someone says that they want to sell you a house. They demand $500,000. You offer $400,000. They say, “No.”

You offer $450,000, saying that if both sides give some that a mutually beneficial deal can be reached. Again they say, “No.”

Finally you offer $500,000, smug in the belief that you’ve made a purchase. And then they say once again: “No! How dare you! What a cheat! How about changing the financing to my benefit, putting the full amount down in cash, and buying me another house?”

You are incredulous. How could your reasonable, apologetic, empathetic, confidence-building, willing to give concessions strategy have failed?

Answer: They never intended to sell. For them, Palestine is Arab or Muslim or both forever. It’s not for sale at any price. Anyone who indicates a real interest in selling will be disgraced, or fired, or even killed. To sell your land is to be a sell-out.

And the fact that their title is questionable and they never actually had national ownership, that someone else who has a previous claim has long ago returned and built it up with all sorts of additions and improvements is irrelevant to this thinking.

So instead they prefer to wait. What matters the suffering? What matter the years? The deepest principle of blood, and honor, and religion, and right is at stake. So they wait. They wait for the other side, Israel, to collapse. Or for the West to throw Israel to the wolves, persuading themselves that this is happening. Or they wait for all Arabs—more recently the favored formulation is all Muslims—to unite and wipe out the evil usurper. Or perhaps when Iran gets the bomb or the Mahdi, the Islamic messiah, comes, or something will happen and then total victory will be theirs?

And if passers-by shout out: “Yes, you are in the right! Your suffering is intolerable and we want to help you!” that doesn’t erode but only reinforces their determination to remain steadfast. Obama’s speeches, UN votes, Goldstone report, leftist chants, growing Muslim migration to the West, Iran defiant and going nuclear, and Western concessions, do not inspire eagerness to compromise but an enthusiasm for fighting on.

Sound strange to you? Well it sounds normal for many millions in the Middle East. And even if part of their brains say something different–Israel is strong, Israel won’t go away, Arabs and Muslims always bicker among themselves, why continuing following a strategy that always fails, wouldn’t it be nicer to have higher living standards—the siren song of militancy overrides it.

At least that’s true in public, no matter how much privately many deride all these notions as pure foolishness, and even no matter how much publicly a few brave souls reject the whole mess and point out how it has in the past and will in future lead the Arabs to disaster.

But now Palestinians and Arabs need someone to blame. Of course, that someone is Israel. Yet also of course, as always, that someone will be the United States.

In this view, Obama has sold them out. He’s like all the others. He didn’t give them everything they wanted; everything they said they wanted and more; everything at no price whatsoever to themselves. He is, they say and will say more in the days to come, is just like all the other presidents who came before.

For they—the Arab dictatorships that need the conflict to stay in power; the Palestinian leadership that still believes in total victory; the Islamist oppositions that want to use the conflict to prove their enemies to be Western puppets and to use the Palestinian issue to seize state power—can never blame themselves.

To blame yourself a bit is the first step to fixing one’s world view and policy. Unfortunately, this possibility is rejected and there is no glimmer of hope that it will change over the next few years, dare I say decade or decades?

Indeed, $2 billion in annual U.S. aid to Egypt buys no leverage. Knowing that they tremble in fear of a nuclear Iran buys no leverage either. Liberating Kuwait from the hands of Iraq and Iraq from the fists of Saddam Hussein doesn’t solve the problem either. Remember the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? The elite didn’t reduce its truffle consumption and just told the masses that they were suffering due to America. Ditto for Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And the Western left will agree with them.

Equally, no matter how many apologies, how many statements made about the glories of Islam and the sufferings of the Palestinians that Barack Hussein Obama makes, it will not matter. Now he is the enemy.

Does that sound bleak? Well, sorry, reality is bleak, bleakest of all for the Arabs themselves—and pity for the victims of this system—who follow that path. Why do you think there is so much hatred, violence, miscomprehension, tyranny, and pure stagnation in this region?

Meanwhile, Israel goes on developing its society, pioneering in technology and science, maintaining democracy, showing flexibility, and surviving the hatred and slander that’s all-too-common in today’s world both inside and outside the area.

Mr. President, welcome to the real Middle East.

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.

Firstly the bad news:-

By Hilary White

Czech Republic Leader Signs Lisbon – No More Barriers to New European Superstate

PRAGUE, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, signed the Lisbon Treaty at 3 p.m. Central European Time today, the last leader of the European Union’s 27 members states to do so. This removes the last barrier to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, the document that is said to be effectively identical to the European Constitution that was defeated by public votes in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

Klaus, the eurosceptic leader of the former Soviet bloc country, has warned repeatedly against Lisbon’s encroachments on national sovereignty and democracy, calling the project of a “united Europe” a return to a leftist tyranny. Since the start of the battle over Lisbon, Klaus has warned that ratification of the Treaty would signal the end of his and all European countries as independent sovereign states.

After the Yes vote in last month’s Irish referendum, Klaus’ opposition to Lisbon was the last barrier to the full implementation of the agreement that pro-life advocates have warned will likely result in the loss of the right of countries to pass laws protecting the unborn and elderly from abortion and euthanasia. Pro-life leaders in Ireland warned that under the Treaty the laws of member states will be interpreted not through that state’s courts, but by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that is under no legal obligation to consider any other law besides EU law.

Today the anti-Christian, secularist leanings of the EU’s institutions were illustrated when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that crucifixes must be removed from Italian state schools. In response to a complaint from an Italian woman in Padua, the Strasburg court ruled, “The presence of the crucifix … could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion.”

The court ruled that the Italian state is to “refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it.” Campaigners have warned that this type of ruling under Lisbon’s terms would become binding on all member states, ushering in the effective repression in all of Europe of public expressions of Christianity or any other belief that opposes the prevailing official European secularism.

In a 2005 speech, Klaus wondered if the former communist countries were not risking falling into “another blind alley of regulated society, of unproductive welfare state, of brave new world of European social democratism and of empty and artificial Europeanism.”

Klaus’s capitulation was anticipated at last week’s EU summit, when French President Nicholas Sarkozy said, “The Lisbon Treaty will enter into force doubtless as early as December 1.”

This is the most excellent Cranmer’s first thoughts on this:-

Prague Autumn – the fall of the Czech Republic

It is all over.

With the final signature upon the Lisbon Treaty, Europa – the whore that rides the beast – has her constitution at last, after eight years of tortuous posturing, negotiation and renegotiation, irrespective of whether or not the ‘constitutional concept’ has been abandoned.

Prague has a thousand years of proud history behind her: so significant was the city that it was the seat of two Holy Roman Emperors, and thus the capital of the Holy Roman Empire.

But with the stroke of a pen, she is reduced to vassal status within the renascent Holy European Empire, and her sovereignty has been removed. Forty years after the Prague Spring which heralded new life and democracy, President Klaus has signed the document he has long resisted, and we witness a Prague Autumn of dormancy and decay.

Perhaps as early as next week, we will know the identity of our first Emperor of the reunited Europe.

All of which makes it very interesting for David Cameron as he expounds what he actually meant by ‘We will not let matters rest there’.

His Grace will post his thoughts upon that matter tomorrow.

I shall ensure that I put the link on this page, when we get the full thoughts on this matter from Cranmer.

But now for the only silver lining:-

By Hilary White

Blair’s Chances as Euro President Recede as Lisbon Treaty Signed

ROME, November 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Now that the last barrier has fallen to implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, reports are increasing that Tony Blair’s chances of getting the top spot in the soon-to-be-constituted super-nation of Europe are fading fast.

After eight years of battling against it, Czech President Vaclav Klaus has signed the Lisbon Treaty, the last national leader of the EU’s 27 member states to do so. Attention now goes towards filling the new leadership jobs of president and foreign minister of Europe.

Opposition to the former British PM’s bid for the new EU Presidency – which has previously been considered a shoo-in - grew across Europe after an EU summit in Brussels last week, with former supporters in France and Germany giving Blair thumbs down.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that their two centre-right countries, considered the most powerful members of the EU, would work together to propose a candidate.

Open Europe (OE), one of the leading Euro-watch groups, said that the rejection of Blair is the result of a deal between socialist governments and a group of “centre-right” countries. Under this deal, OE says, the left would nominate for the post of EU foreign minister, and the centre-right governments would nominate the president.

Sarkozy was the first European leader to name Blair as a candidate for the presidency in 2007. But OE reports that Jean-David Levitte, Sarkozy’s foreign policy adviser, said this weekend it was unlikely that France would support a presidential candidate from the UK.

Some European papers are speculating that it is the British desire to preserve the country’s parliamentary sovereignty through various ‘opt-outs’ from Lisbon, negotiated by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that has put the European leaders off a British candidate. Prime Minister Jose Zapetero was quoted by the Times as saying, “I want a real European president who wants to strengthen the union. He has to be in favour of the union and of the common policies.”

Critics of the post say that under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, the new EU president will have no democratic mandate whatsoever, being appointed by the leaders of the EU in a process that will neither require nor allow any input from the public.

The leader of Britain’s Conservative party, David Cameron, who is likely to become the next Prime Minister and will therefore have a key role in the newly united Europe, has said that Blair would be “unacceptable” to the British people as EU president. But Cameron said his party objects not only to Blair’s appointment, but to the whole notion of a president of the “state of Europe.”

“We think that Europe is supposed to be an association of member states, not a country called Europe,” Cameron told the BBC. Cameron noted the loss of support by the Labour government for reneging on its previous promise of a referendum on Lisbon.

This weekend, however, David Cameron signaled that should his party form the next government, it will not give the public a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty post-ratification as promised.

Cameron’s Treaty promise has been a key component of his party’s rise in popularity after the ruling Labour party refused the referendum. In the run up to the last general election all of Britain’s major political parties promised a plebiscite on Lisbon.

Conservative Home, the blog aggregate site for the Tory party, says that “conversations with a dozen good sources” in the party have confirmed that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified when the party reaches power next year, the Conservative leadership will say that there will be no attempt to “unratify it” via a referendum. Instead there will be negotiations with the EU to repatriate “key powers from Brussels.”

The Times reports that Cameron will only pledge to create laws prohibiting any British Government to push through any future European treaty without a referendum.

The Observer’s Peter Oborne said that Cameron’s pulling back from what he called his “ironclad” promises on Lisbon is a “cop-out and a betrayal” and said it is “exactly the kind of post-democratic politics which defined, debased, and finally destroyed, the Blair premiership.”

Further Internet Links

EU reform treaty passes last test – The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has signed the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, the final step in the charter’s ratification.

Previous related Posts:-

Breaking news: Yaakov Teitel arrested in Ami Ortiz case

Potential breakthrough in Ami Ortiz case

Why did Yaakov Teitel terrorise Christians and Messianic Jews?

Cross-posted from the Rosh Pina Project

From Israel National News:

Police on Tuesday night arrested Yosef Spinoza, a neighbor and acquaintance of Yaakov Teitel, who was arrested Sunday on charges of having conducted a decade-long terror campaign against Arabs and leftists. Like Teitel, Spinoza is a resident of Shvut Rachel. Police did not say what connection, if any, Spinoza had with the case against Teitel, or whether he participated in any of the attacks Teitel is suspected of carrying out.

From Haaretz:

Israeli security forces on Tuesday arrested a man suspected of serving as an accomplice to alleged Jewish terrorist Yaakov (Jack) Teitel.

The newest suspect, Yosef Aspinoza, is a close friend of Teitel’s and his neighbor in the West Bank settlement outpost Shvut Rachel. Police detained Aspinoza for questioning about two weeks ago, but released him after a few hours.

Security forces investigating the allegations against Teitel believe he may have committed a number of murders in addition to those he admitted in his interrogation.

Teitel, 36 allegedly planted several explosives and murdered two Palestinians. He was arrested three weeks ago and has confessed to a majority of the allegations against him.

The Shin Bet security service is now trying to prove he was behind other unsolved murder cases in Jerusalem and the West Bank, although he has denied them.

The Shin Bet and police are also trying to link Teitel to the terror attack on the Tel Aviv gay center Bar Noar, although his alibi for that night was checked and found solid. Security forces suspect he is covering for another person whom he sent to carry out the attack.

Investigators believe Teitel, whose command of Hebrew is limited, had an accomplice who helped him write hate notices in Hebrew, without knowing of Teitel’s widespread terrorist activity.

From YNet News:

A neighbor of “Jewish terrorist” Yaakov (Jack) Teitel was arrested Tuesday evening at the Shvut Rachel settlement in the Binyamin region. Investigators of the Judea and Samaria District’s central unit took the man to a Shin Bet facility in Petah Tikva. He is suspected of having known about some of Teitel’s actions.

According to local residents, four policemen arrived at the community and detained 47-year-old Yosef Spinoza, a father of two, for questioning. Spinoza was also detained for questioning about two weeks ago, but was released several hours later.

The residents said Spinoza suffered from a chronic illness and had been treated by Teitel in the past.

Attorney Adi Keidar of the Honenu organization said that the police were preventing Spinoza from meeting with a lawyer.

Teitel underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the Geha Psychiatric Hospital in Petah Tikva and was found to be fit to stand trial. According to Attorney Keidar, who represents Teitel as well, the examination was thorough and lasted only 15 minutes.

According to the lawyer, Teitel was asked to state his name and the place he lives in, but was not asked about the acts he is suspected of committing. Keidar plans to demand from the court to order another psychiatric evaluation by an expert appointed by the suspect.

On Sunday it was cleared for publication that Teitel, 35, had been arrested for allegedly carrying out a series of domestic acts of terror over the past few years.

Yeze over at the over at the Rosh Pina Project had already identified suspicions that Yaakov Teitel may not have been working alone earlier today:-

Did Yaakov Teitel work alone?

And this was an earlier update on Ami Oritz:-

Ami Update November 3 2009

I was just running through the headlines for the Church of England today, here is a sample:-

The atheists are right to be worried by this move by the ‘Organization of the Islamic Conference’ to introduce a U.N. Resolution banning “defamation” of religion. I know I’m worried by it and all Christians should be frankly.

This will only favour Islam ultimately and anyone should be free to defame a religion if they so choose and religious folks should be grown up enough and secure in their identity and beliefs to rise above it (and that goes for everyone by the way). I never imagined that I would find myself siding with the atheists and Hilary Clinton, but in this instance they are spot on.

Previous related posts:-

The so-called “defamation of religions” U.N. resolutions, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, would create a “global blasphemy law,” the chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom warned on Wednesday.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized on Monday an attempt by Islamic countries to prohibit defamation of religions, saying such policies would restrict free speech.

A ministry working with persecuted Christians launched a campaign Tuesday against a U.N. resolution (The Defamation of Religions Resolution) that many human rights groups say can be manipulated to oppress Christian minorities living in Muslim-majority countries.

Opposing View by American Atheists

An Atheist civil rights group today expressed concern that a proposed U.N. Resolution banning “defamation” of religion threatens civil liberties and gives religious groups “special rights” at the expense of free speech and intellectual inquiry.

The proposed measure is backed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and encourages member states of the UN to enforce measures prohibiting “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists described the proposal as “overly broad and a clear threat to anyone who questions religion or is critical of religion.”

“Publications and books that raise doubts concerning God and religion could easily be censored, along with movies, art and theater if a believer is ‘offended’ by the content,” said Buckner. He cited the publication of Salman Rush die’s novel “The Satanic Verses” and the more recent cartoons in the Danish press that contained unflattering depictions of Islam and its prophet Mohammed.

“What happens if a Christian is ‘offended’ by a copy of the Koran, or a Muslim objects to a book by Atheist Richard Dawkins,” Buckner continued. “This resolution would result in widespread government surveillance and censorship wherever opinions about religion are expressed.”

Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists, said that the proposed measure “could result in a collision between the UN and the Bill of Rights.”

“This proposal creates ’special rights’ for organized religion at the expense of the First Amendment,” Kagin added. “It immunizes religion from any criticism or questioning. That is something our country was established to prevent.”

The measure is expected to reach the floor of the UN General Assembly later this month. The U.S. Department of State has already spoken out against the proposal, as have a number of European governments.

Radio report from Premier Media:-

Listen to report from Premier’s Marcus Jones

I am the only Christian who despairs at this country?

The Christian Institute

Interesting article from Wales Online. Personally none of this takes me by surprise, does it you?

Church not in crisis, insists Archbishop

MORE people in Wales are believed to be attending evangelical services every week than are going to traditional services in the Church in Wales, according to a TV programme which airs tonight

BBC Wales’ current affairs programme Week In Week Out says that although there is no precise figure for the number of evangelical worshippers, estimates from the Evangelical Alliance in Wales put the figure at up to 60,000 every week.

In contrast, those attending a Church in Wales service numbered fewer than 50,000 last year, down from more than 62,000 in 1990.

The Archbishop of the Church in Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, denies claims the church is in crisis, despite the numbers who regularly attend services continuing to fall across the country.

He said: “The fact of the matter is, things ebb and flow. People were writing off the 17th and 18th century churches, and saying it’s so corrupt; it’s so in decline; its buildings are falling down; people who go there don’t really want to be there. It’s bound to disappear. It’s still here. It will still be here.”

But Professor Robert Warner, the former head of theology at Lampeter University now at Chester University, warned the church it needs to take action to ensure its long-term survival.

He said: “The only thing the Church in Wales cannot afford to do is to sweep the crisis under the carpet. It must be faced. If it’s faced, there is plenty of opportunity, I think, for the Church in Wales to reinvent itself. It’s lost so many people and so much influence, the worst thing it could do now is to go into denial.”

Week In Week Out airs at 10.35pm tonight on BBC One Wales.

Original Article

Could this be our first example of the day of Christianophobia? Is the European Court of Human Rights Christianophobic?

It’s OK, I know that our EU rulers, in general, seethe and pulsate with anti-Christian sentiment, I’m just looking for opportunities to use my new words.

Catholic Culture

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italian schools have violated the rights of their students and their parents by displaying crucifixes on classroom walls. The court ordered Italy to pay €5,000 ($7,400) in “moral damages” to a mother who had complained about the presence of the crucifix in her children’s classrooms.

Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, declined an opportunity to criticize the court’s ruling. He said: “I believe reflection is needed before commenting.”

And from the BBC

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child’s right to freedom of religion.

The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a secular education.

But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move “shameful”.

The Strasbourg court found that: “The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions.”

It also restricted the “right of children to believe or not to believe”, the seven judges ruling on the case said in a statement quoted by AFP news agency.

[....]

But many politicians in Italy have reacted angrily.

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said the crucifix was a “symbol of our tradition”, and not a mark of Catholicism.

One government minister called the ruling “shameful”, while another said that Europe was forgetting its Christian heritage.

[.....]

Some conservatives have already complained about schools dropping nativity plays to avoid upsetting Muslim children.

Read Entire Article

Further Internet Links

Court Rules Against Crucifixes in Italian Public Schools

European Court of Human Rights Bans Crucifixes in Italian Schools

No crosses in school, Europe court (ANSA)

European court: No crucifixes in Italian schools (AP)

Vatican’s fury as EU court bans crucifixes in Italian classrooms because they ‘breach religious rights of children’

CRUCIFIXES: FINI, NO SECULAR NEGATION OF CHRISTIANITY

Italy vows to fight court ruling against crucifixes

Wow, further to my recent post on ‘Christianophobia‘, it looks we might be able to add the new term of ‘environmentalistophobia’ or perhaps ‘climatechangeophobia’.

A judge in an employment tribunal has declared that Tim Nicholson can take his former employer to court for discrimination, because his beliefs on climate change amount to a ‘belief system’ or ‘philosophical belief’ and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.

This all raises an interesting question. When churches give their undying support to the alarmist mantra of climate change (as embarrassingly they so often do), is this a case of one religion backing and siding with another religion? Is this acceptable from a Christian perspective, personally I think not.

Here is a previous post for some background:-

Climate change beliefs ‘like religion’

And here is a response to this ruling from one of my favourite blogs:-

Biased BBC

This was regarded as so important that it was on the BBC News website front page

A man has been told he can take his employer to tribunal on the grounds he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change.

Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford, was made redundant in 2008 by Grainger Plc in Didcot, as head of sustainability.

He said his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair.

But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political.

After the hearing on Monday, Mr Nicholson said he was delighted by the judgement for himself and other people who may feel they are discriminated against because of their views on climate change.

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

Naturally the BBC is delighted. For years they have been shilling for the likes of Monbiot and Gore, pushing man made global warming as a political message and doing their best to ignore or demean anyone who questioned the theory. With judges veering towards the classification of the theory as a “belief” it could mean that critics could be identified as “climate change deniers”. From that it would only be a short step to the creation of denial as an offence against the “believers” and – hey presto – more money for Carter-Ruck and Schillings.

Stay tuned for the man made global warming message to become even more fervent as the true believers do their best to ratchet it up to messianic levels. Doubters will be demonised as servants of the great beast Anthropogenor (I’m not making that up – you’ve seen the end of days doomsday prediction that cost £6 million of your money) and cast out into the darkness –or, more likely sacked, fined or jailed.

Normally, of course, the BBC’s heart usually bleeds for people punished by the courts – but there are certain crimes that strike at everything the BBC holds dear so don’t hold your breath for any Newsnight features pimping sympathy for climate change deniers being hit by the full force of m’learned friends…..

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS

Court Ruling on Environment – the New Religion – is a clear sign of ‘social, moral and legal chaos’

A legal step towards chaos

The Christian world is constantly accused of ‘phobias’ of one kind or the other, whether it be Islamophobia or Homophobia or some such derogatory term. Well, yesterday I came a across the superb word ‘Christianophobia’, which seems to have passed me by. I have been awaiting the perfect opportunity to use this term in a blog post, but can’t wait any longer.

Whilst terms such as ‘Homophobia’ and ‘Islamophobia’ are recorded in online dictionaries, I can’t find an official definition of the term ‘Christianophobia? I note with interest that my spell checker is picking up only the ‘Christian phobic’ terms that I am using in this post.

Why is this?

I have even found the term ‘Christianophobia’ used in a BBC article and the Telegraph. There is even a website called christianophobia.eu,  and the National Secular Society have used the term themselves (dare I say it) in a very Christianophobic way.

So why can’t I find an online official definition of this word?

In my quest for the truth, I happened upon a website called TakeHeed, and it would seem that the author spotted this anomaly some time ago, here are some extracts:-

In recent years two particular ‘phobias’ have been increasingly highlighted in this supposedly ever-so ‘politically correct’ world that we are now living in. These two phobias are ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Homophobia’.

A search using the word ‘HOMOPHOBIA’ revealed three entries, defined as follows -

First entry:-

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behaviour based on such a feeling.

The source for this definition was listed as The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Second entry:-

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

The source for this definition was listed as Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Third entry:-

prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality.

[.....]

A search using the word ‘CHRISTIANOPHOBIA’ produced this message –

No entry found for Christianophobia. No suggestions were found.

So, according to this website there is no suitable word to define -

‘Fear of or contempt for Christians. Behaviour based on such a feeling. Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Christianity or Christians. Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) Christian people and Christianity’.

That being the case perhaps I may be permitted to officially coin the word ‘CHRISTIANOPHOBIA’ and ascribe to it the official definition of –

‘Fear of or contempt for Christians. Behaviour based on such a feeling. Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Christianity or Christians. Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) Christian people and Christianity’.

Read Entire Article

Well, isn’t this strange. There seems to be an official ‘phobia’ word for just about anything you can think of, except for Christians and Christianity?

Perhaps it’s time for Christians to start using the words ‘Christianophobia’ and ‘Christianophobic’ with as much force and regularity as ‘phobic’ terms are thrown at us. Who knows, they may even end up in the dictionary and become enshrined in the ‘equality’ and ‘incitement to hate’ laws, with as much vigour as all the other ‘phobic’ terms.

Or maybe I could potentially be the first person to coin the phrases, ‘Anti-Christianism’ or ‘Anti-Christianist’

Could these Christian phobic terms become part of the politically correct ‘newspeak‘….yeah right!

I found this an interesting read:-

New York Times

Creationism is growing in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Pakistan to Indonesia, international academics said last month as they gathered here to discuss the topic.

But, they said, young-Earth creationists, who believe God created the universe, Earth and life just a few thousand years ago, are rare, if not nonexistent.

One reason is that although the Koran, the holy text of Islam, says the universe was created in six days, the next line adds that a day, in this instance, is metaphorical: “a thousand years of your reckoning.”

By contrast, some Christian creationists find in the Bible a strict chronology that requires a 6,000-year-old Earth and thus object not only to evolution but also to much of modern geology and cosmology, which say the Earth and the universe are billions of years old.

“Views of scientific evolution are clearly influenced by underlying religious beliefs,” said Salman Hameed, who convened the two-day conference here at Hampshire College, where he is a professor of integrated science and humanities. “There is no young-Earth creationism.”

But that does not mean that all of evolution fits Islam or that all Muslims happily accept the findings of modern biology. More and more seem to be joining the ranks of the so-called old-Earth creationists. They do not quarrel with astronomers and geologists, just biologists, insisting that life is the creation of God, not the happenstance consequence of random occurrences.

The debate over evolution is only now gaining prominence in many Islamic countries as education improves and more students are exposed to the ideas of modern biology.

The degree of acceptance of evolution varies among Islamic countries.

Read Entire Article

Previous related Post:-

Can a True Christian Believe the Prosperity Gospel?

I enjoyed this article from Chuck Colson on the ‘History Channel’.

Actually, on reflection ‘enjoyed’ is the wrong word, perhaps ‘morbidly fascinating’ is a better term to describe my experience of reading about folks who will feed their minds with any old crap, rather than the truth. Having said that, Chuck does have a rather dry sense of humour, which always makes for a better read.

From the Christian Post

If you are the credulous type, there has never been a better time to treat yourself to some luxuries, at least if the terms of the deal are right. If the merchant or manufacturer says “no payments or interest through 2012,” go for it.

At least that what you conclude watching the History Channel.

For many years, the network was nicknamed the “Hitler Channel” because of all the shows it ran on World War II and the Nazis. Today, a better nickname would be the “Nostradamus Channel.” Hardly a day goes by without at least one show touting some doomsday scenario and how it was foretold.

At the center of this programming strategy lies Nostradamus, the 16th-century French apothecary whose devotees claim foresaw everything from the rise of Napoleon to 9/11. Everyone who has ever written book on Nostradamus gets extended face time on the History Channel, where their claims are treated with the utmost seriousness.

It isn’t only Nostradamus. Name a doomsday prediction made by some long-dead person or group and chances are the Nostradamus Channel has given it a respectful airing, no matter how unhinged the claims might be.

The latest and greatest example is the new series The Nostradamus Effect. That’s the name the producers have given to the “convergence” of “doomsday prophecy” and “current events.”

We are told that for “5,000 years, prophets around the world”-including, of course, Nostradamus-“have predicted the end of days.” Operating “independently,” they have concluded that 2012 will be a “time of extraordinary shift.”

One so-called expert told viewers that “we’re on the verge of the biggest riot of all time.” Another said that “we are reaching a confluence of tipping points.” These tipping points include climate change, financial upheaval, political unrest, crop failures, terrorism, and nuclear war, to name but a few.

That sounds ominous. Of course, nobody can cite anything that sounds like an actual prediction, such as, “In 2012, the world blows up.” It’s speaking nonsense, rank speculation.

It’s not much to go on, but then again, this isn’t about facts or reason-it’s about fear. It’s about understandable anxiety made worse because in rejecting Christianity, the West has rejected the basis of its hope. A world in which God’s purposes are being fulfilled for our good has been replaced by one that leaves man in charge, mostly for ill.

The world has become literally senseless to us. We live in, as theologian Robert Jensen once put, a meaningless world wishing we could believe in something-the more we succumb to superstition and irrationality. And of course there’s always a media conglomerate ready to sell the credulous what they crave.

There’s no better example than the subject of tomorrow’s commentary, which will give you the date of December 21, 2012. Please tune in. And in the meantime, please pay your bills on time.

On the subject of doomsday, am I the only Christian that gets a pang of disappointment when someone says, ‘hey, don’t worry, it’s not the end of the world’?  I know, I know, I’ll try and get some help

Encouraging, edifying, up-building and desperately needed words from Bill Muehlenberg:-

Lessons From the Fall of the Berlin Wall

As things continue to decline spiritually, morally, culturally, politically and ideologically, we need more than ever men and women willing to stand up, go against the tide, and provide some hearty resistance. We need, in other words, men and women with some backbone.

But such is often not the case, even among God’s people. We see believers everywhere cowering, wringing their hands, and opting out of the struggle. We see believers who would rather run than fight. We see believers who have simply hoisted the white flag of surrender, without even firing a shot.

In a war this is just not good enough. Indeed, it is treasonous. No one has the luxury of sitting on the fence in the face of battle. To seek for some sort of neutrality in a time of war is really to go over to the enemy side. ‘He who is not for me is against me.’

The Bible of course speaks often and clearly about such themes. Courage is enjoined upon God’s people throughout Scripture. Moses could exhort the Israelites, “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of [your enemies], for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deut. 31:6).

Jesus often told the wavering disciples to “fear not”.  Or as Paul reminded us, “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong” (1 Cor. 16:13). Our courage of course comes from the Lord, yet we are constantly commanded to be courageous and not fear.

Indeed, this is a serious matter: fearfulness is in fact sinful. One very sobering passage in this regard is Rev. 21:8. There we have a list of the sinful who will be consigned to a lost eternity. At the very top of the list are “the fearful”.

The previous verse helps to put this into context: “He that overcomes will inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he will be my son”. The question is, are we overcomers? Or are we underachievers? Do we have the requisite backbone to make a difference for Christ and His Kingdom, or are we wallowing in timidity, self-pity, and fear?

Remember, “God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7). In these very dark days we need to rise up in that power, and take on the many challenges facing us. Now is not the time to retreat, or to opt out with a negotiated settlement.

And if courage is desperately needed in the church today, it is especially needed among its leaders. We have too many timid and compromising leaders who would rather earn the praises of men than the approval of God. Too many religious leaders simply want to live a comfortable life, not rock the boat, and not make any enemies.

As A. W. Tozer reminds us, “It is true that the church has suffered from pugnacious men, but she has suffered more from timid preachers who would rather be nice than right. The latter have done more harm if for no other reason than that there are so many more of them. I do not think, however, that we must make our choice between the two. It is altogether possible to have true love and courage at the same time.”

Courage and the collapse of the Berlin Wall

Twenty years ago (on November 9) the world witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall. This was the very powerful image of the defeat of the evil empire: godless Communism. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe finally came undone, after seventy-plus years of tyranny and oppression.

Four men and women of courage, vision, commitment and perseverance can be mentioned as in large measure being responsible for the death of the Soviet colossus: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa.

These four deserve a world of credit for their role in bringing down the Iron Curtain, and liberating millions of oppressed peoples. They lived in tough times, but they responded with a toughness and a resolve that put many of us to shame.

But because of their courage and determination, they helped to bring an end to one of the most monstrous regimes of human history. We can all rejoice that they held the course, fought the good fight, and did not let the word “surrender” enter into their vocabulary.

Each one could be singled out for honourable mention. Let me just briefly mention US President Ronald Reagan, and share a few words said about him at his funeral by Margaret Thatcher:

“As prime minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles – and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively.

“When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew ‘the Old Man’ would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding.

“So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation.”

The world desperately needs such men and women today. But many of our political leaders are into appeasement and political correctness. In fact many of them seem intent upon undermining their own nations. And sadly, many of our spiritual leaders seem to be into personal empire building, wealth accumulation, making a good name for themselves, and winning popularity contests.

Jesus of course offered a different path. And that is a path we all must recover today. The challenges are too great, and the attacks on our faith too many to do otherwise. We need resolve, we need firmness, we need principle, and we need courage.

This does not mean that the battles won’t seem overwhelming at times. And this does not mean that we will win every battle. As Winston Churchill rightly said, “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”

Let us all pray for the courage to continue.

“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:13

IT has been said by an eminent divine that many of us in preaching the
word suppose too great knowledge in our hearers. “Very often,” says this
divine, “there are in the congregation persons who are totally unacquainted
with the great science of divinity. They are entire strangers to the whole
system of grace and salvation.” It is proper, then, that the preacher should
address himself to his hearers sometimes as if they were totally ignorant of
his message, and tell it to them as a new thing, going over the whole of it
as if he believed them to be ignorant of it; “For,” says this good man, “it is
better to suppose too little knowledge, and so to explain the thing clearly,
to the meanest comprehension, than to suppose too much, and thus to let
the ignorant escape without a word of instruction.”

Now, I think, I shall not this morning err in his point of view, for I shall
assume that some of my congregation, at least, are totally unacquainted
with the great plan of salvation. And you that know it well, and have tried
its preciousness, will bear with me, I am sure, whilst I try in the simplest
words that human lips can put together to tell out the story of how men are
lost, and how men are saved according to the words of my text by calling
upon the name of the Lord.

Well then, we must begin at the beginning. And we must first tell our
hearers, that inasmuch as our text talks of men being saved, it implies that
men need saving, and we tell them that if men had been as God created
them, they would have needed no saving. Adam in the garden wanted no
salvation, he was perfect, pure, clean, holy, and acceptable before God. He
was our representative, he stood as the representative for all the race, and
when he touched the forbidden fruit, and ate of the tree of which God had
said, “Thou shalt not eat thereof, or thou shalt surely die.” When he so
transgressed against God, he needed a Savior and we, his offspring through
his sin, are born into this world, each of us needing a Savior. We, who are
now present, must not however throw blame on Adam; no man was ever
yet damned for Adam’s sin alone. Children dying in infancy are, without
doubt, saved by sovereign grace through the atonement which is in Christ
Jesus. No sooner do they close their eyes to earth than being innocent of
any actual sin they at once open them on the bliss of heaven. But you and I
are not children. We need not talk just now of Adam’s sins. We have our
own to a count for, and God knoweth they are enough. Holy Scripture tells
us that we all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, and
conscience beareth witness to the same truth. We have all broken the great
commands of God, and in consequence thereof the just God is bound in
justice to punish us for the sins we have committed. Now, my brethren, it is
because you and I have broken the divine law, and are subject to the divine
wrath, that we stand in need of mercy. Every one of us therefore — every
one of us if we would be happy, if we would dwell in heaven with God for
ever, must be saved.

But there is great confusion in the minds of men as to what being saved is.
Allow me, then, just to say, that salvation means two things. It means in
the first place, our escaping from the punishment of sins committed; and it
means in the next place, the escaping from the habit of sin, so that in future
we shall not live as we have lived. The way in which God saves you is
twofold: he finds man a sinner breaking his law, he says, “I forgive you, I
will not punish you. I have punished Christ instead of you — you shall be
saved.” But that is only half the work. He says in the next place — ”Man, I
will not let you go on sinning as you have been wont to do; I will give you
a new heart, which shall subdue your evil habits. So that whereas you have
been the slave of sin, you shall be free to serve me. Come away, you are
not going to serve that black master of your’s any more, you must leave
that demon, I will have you to be my child, my servant. Thou sayest, ‘I
cannot do so.’ Come, I will give thee grace to do it; I give thee grace to
break off drunkenness, grace to renounce thy swearing, grace to give up
Sabbath-breaking; I give thee grace to run in the ways of my
commandments, and to find them to be a delightful road.” Salvation, then,
I say, consists of two things — deliverance on the one hand from the habit
of living in enmity with God; and, on the other hand, from the punishment
annexed to transgression.

The great subject of this morning, which I shall attempt to dwell upon in
very plain language; attempting no flights of oratory whatever — is, how
men may be saved. That is the one great question. Let them remember
what to be saved is. It is to be made Christians, to have new thoughts, new
minds new hearts, and then, it is to have a new home for ever at God’s
right hand in bliss. How may they be saved? “What must I do to be saved?”
is a cry springing from many lips here this morning. The answer of my text
is this — “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
I shall first try to explain the text a little — explanation. Secondly, I shall
try to clear the text from some errors about salvation, which are very
popular — that will be refutation. And then, thirdly, I shall press the
usefulness of my text upon your minds: that will be exhortation.
Explanation, refutation, exhortation, you will remember the points, and
may God impress them upon your minds!

I. First, then, EXPLANATION — What is here meant by calling upon the
name of the Lord? And I tremble at this very moment, when I try to
explain my text, for I feel it is very easy to darken words without
knowledge.” Full many a time has a preacher rendered Scripture dark by
his explanations, instead of making it brighter. Many a preacher has been
like a painted window, shutting out the light, instead of admitting it. There
is nothing whatever puzzles me more, and tries my mind more, than the
answer to that simple question, What is faith? What is believing? What is
calling upon the name of the Lord? In order to get the true sense of this, I
turned to my concordance, and looked out the passages where the same
word is employed; and, so far as I can judge, I may state from the authority
of Scripture, that the word “call” signifies worship, so that I might translate
it thus — “Whosoever worships God shall be saved.” But you must let me
explain that word “worship” according to the Scripture signfication of it
which must be received, in order to explain the word “call.”

To call upon the name of the Lord, in the first place, signifies to worship
God. You will find in the book of Genesis that, “when men began to
multiply upon the face of the earth, then began men to call upon the name
of the Lord.” That is they began to worship God, they builded altars in his
name, they certified their belief in the sacrifice that was to come, by
offering a typical sacrifice upon the altar they had reared, they bowed their
knee in prayer; they lifted their voice in sacred song, and cried, “Great is
Jehovah, Creator, Preserver, let him be praised, world without end.” Now,
whosoever — whoever he may be in the wide, wide world, who is enabled
by grace to worship God, in God’s way, shall be saved. If you worship him
by a Mediator, having faith in the atonement of the cross, if you worship
him by humble prayer and hearty praise, your worship is a proof that you
shall be saved. You could not thus worship, unless you had grace within
your heart, and your faith and grace are a proof that you shall have glory.
Whosoever, then in lowly devotion, on the green sward, beneath the widespreading
branches of a tree, beneath the vault of God’s heaven, or in
God’s house, or out of it — whosoever shall worship God with a pure
heart fervently, looking for acceptance through the atonement of Christ,
and meekly casting himself upon the mercy of God, shall be saved. So
stands the promise.

But lest any man should run away with a mistaken idea of what worship is,
we must just explain a little further. The word “call,” in holy Scripture
meaning, signifies prayer. You remember the case of Elijah: when the
prophets of Baal roughs to get rain from the false god, he said, “I will call
upon God” — that is to say, “I will pray to God that he may send the rain.”
Now, prayer is a sure sign of divine life within. Whosoever prayeth to God
through Christ, with sincere prayer shall be saved. Oh, I can remember
how this text cheered me once. I felt the weight of sin, and I did not know
the Savior. I thought God would blast me with his wrath, and smite me
with his hot displeasure! From chapel to chapel I went to hear the word
preached, but never a gospel sentence did I hear; but this one text just
preserved me from what I believe I should have been driven to — the
commission of suicide through grief and sorrow. It was this sweet word —
“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Well, I
thought, I cannot believe on Christ as I could wish. I cannot find pardon,
but I know I call upon his name, I know I pray, ay, and pray with groans
and tears and sighs day and night; and if I am ever lost, I will plead that
promise — “Oh God thou saidst, he that calleth upon thy name shall be
saved; I did call; wilt thou cast me away? I did plead thy promise; I did lift
up my heart in prayer; canst thou be just, and yet damn the man who did
really pray?” But mark that sweet thought: prayer is the certain forerunner
of salvation. Sinner, thou canst not pray and perish; prayer and perishing
are two things that never go together. I ask you not what your prayer is; it
may be a groan, it may be a tear, a wordless prayer, or a prayer in broken
English, ungrammatical and harsh to the ear: but if it be a prayer from the
inmost heart, thou shalt be saved; or else this promise is a lie. As surely as
thou prayest whoever thou mayest be whatever thy past life, whatever the
transgressions in which thou hast indulged, though they be the foulest
which pollute mankind, yet if from thine heart thou hast learned to pray —

“Prayer is the breath of God in man
Returning whence it came”

And thou canst not perish with God’s breath in thee. “Whosoever shall call
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved!”

But the word “call” signifies a little more, it signifies trust. A man cannot
call upon the name of the Lord, unless he trusts in that name. We must
have reliance upon the name of Christ, or else we have not called aright.
Hear me, then, poor tried sinner; thou hast come here this morning sensible
of thy guilt, awakened to thy danger; here is thy remedy. Christ Jesus the
Son of God, became a man; he was “born of the virgin Mary, suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.” He did this to save
sinners such as thou art. Wilt thou believe this? Wilt thou trust thy soul to
it? Wilt thou say “Sink or swim, Christ Jesus is my hope; and if I perish I
will perish with my arms around his cross, crying —

‘Nothing in my hands I bring
Simply to the cross I cling?’

Poor soul, if thou canst do that, thou wilt be saved. Come, now, no good
works of thine own are needed — no sacraments, all that is asked of thee is
this, and that he gives thee. Thou art nothing; wilt thou take Christ to be
everything? Come, thou art black, wilt thou be washed? Wilt thou down on
thy knees, and cry, “Lord, have mercy upon me, a sinner, not for anything I
have done, or can do, but for his dear sake, whose blood streamed from his
hands and feet, in whom alone I trust?” Why sinner the solid pillars of the
universe shall totter rather than thou shouldst perish; ay heaven should
weep a vacant throne, and an extinguished Godhead, rather than the
promise should be violated in any case in the world. He that trusteth in
Christ, calling on his name, shall be saved.

But once more, and then I think I shall have given you the whole scripture
meaning of this. Calling on the name of the Lord signifies professing his
name. You remember what Ananias said to Saul, afterwards called Paul,
“arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of
the Lord.” Now, sinner if thou wouldst be obedient to Christ’s word,
Christ’s word says, “He that believeth, and is immersed, shall be saved.”
Mark, I have translated the word. King James would not have it translated.
I dare not be unfaithful to my knowledge of God’s word. If it means
sprinkle, let our brethren translate it “sprinkle.” But they dare not do that;
they know they have nothing in all classical language that would ever
justify them in doing that, and they have not the impudence to attempt it.
But I dare translate it — “He that believeth, and is immersed, shall be
saved.” And though immersion is nothing, yet God requires of men who
believe that they should be immersed, in order to make a profession of their
belief. Immersion is nothing, I repeat, in salvation, it is the profession of
salvation; but God requires that every man that puts his trust in the Savior
should be immersed, as the Savior was, in order to the fulfillment of
righteousness. Jesus went meekly down from Jordan’s shore, to be
immersed beneath the wares; and so let every believer be baptized in his
name. Now some of you draw back from the thought of making a
profession. “No,” you say, “we will believe and be secret Christians.” Hear
you this then — “If any man be ashamed of me, and of my words in this
generation; of him will I be ashamed, when I shall come in the glory of my
Father, with all his holy angels.” I will repeat a truism; not one of you in
your lives ever knew a secret Christian, and I will prove it to
demonstration. For if you knew a man to be a Christian, it could not be a
secret; for if it had been a secret how came you to know it? Then, as you
never knew a secret Christian, you are not justified in believing there ever
is such a one. You must come out and make a profession. What would Her
Majesty think of her soldiers, if they should swear they were loyal and true,
and were to say — “Your Majesty, we prefer not to wear these
regimentals; let us wear the dress of civilians! We are right honest men and
upright; but we do not care to stand in your ranks, acknowledged as your
soldiers, we had rather slink into the enemy’s camp, and into your camps
too, and not wear anything that would mark us as being your soldiers!”
Ah! some of you do the same with Christ. You are going to be secret
Christians, are you, and slink into the devil’s camp, and into Christ’s camp,
but acknowledged by none? Well, ye must take the chance of it, if ye will
be so; but I should not like to risk it. It is a solemn threatening, “of him will
I be ashamed when I come in the glory of my Father, and all his holy angels
with me!” It is a solemn thing, I say, when Christ says, “Except a man take
up his cross and follow me, he cannot be my disciple.” Now, then, I claim
of every sinner here whom God has awakened to feel his need of a Savior,
obedience to the command of Christ, in this point, as well as in every other.
Hear the way of salvation: worship, prayer, faith, profession. And the
profession, if men would be obedient, if they would follow the Bible, must
be done in Christ’s way, by a baptism in water, in the name of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. God requireth this; and though men are
saved without any baptism, and multitudes fly to heaven who are never
washed in the stream, though baptism is not saving, yet if men would be
saved, they must not be disobedient. And inasmuch as God gives a
command, it is mine to enforce it. Jesus said, “Go and preach the gospel to
every creature: he that believeth, and is immersed, shall be saved; he that
believeth not shall be damned.”

Here, then, is the explanation of my text. No churchman here can object to
my interpretation. The Church of England holdeth dipping. It only saith, if
children be weak they are to be sprinkled; and it is marvellous what a many
weakly children there have been born lately. I am astonished to find any of
you alive, after finding that so much weakness has everywhere existed! The
dear little ones are so tender, that a few drops suffice instead of the dipping
which their own church enforces. I would that all churchmen were better
churchmen; if they would be more consistent with their own articles of
faith, they would be more consistent with Scripture, and if they were a little
more consistent with some of the rubrics of their own church, they would
be a little more consistent with themselves. If your children are weak, you
can let them be sprinkled; but if you are good churchmen you will immerse
them, if they can bear it.

II. But now, the second point is REFUTATION. There are some popular
errors with regard to salvation, which need to be cured by refutation. My
text says, “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Now, one idea which conflicts with my text is this, that a priest or a
minister is absolutely necessary to assist men in salvation. That idea is
current in other places besides the Romish Church; there are many, alas!
too many who make a dissenting minister as much their priest as the
Catholic makes his priest his helper. There are many who imagine that
salvation cannot be accomplished except in some undefinable and
mysterious way — and the minister and the priest are mixed up with it.
Hear ye then, if you had never seen a minister in your lives, if you had
never heard the voice of the bishop of the church, or an elder thereof, yet if
ye did call on the name of the Lord your salvation would be quite as sure
without one as with one. Men cannot call upon a God they do not know.
The necessity of a preacher lies in telling what the way of salvation is, for
how can they hear without a preacher, and how can they believe in him of
whom they have not heard? But the preacher’s office goes no further than
just the telling of the message, and after we have told it, God, the Holy
Spirit, must apply it; for further we cannot go. Oh, take care of priestcraft,
take care of mancraft, of ministercraft, of clergycraft. All God’s people are
clergy, we are all God’s cleros, all his clergy, if we have been anointed
with the Holy Spirit, and are saved. There never ought to have been a
distinction between clergy and laity. We are all clergy who love the Lord
Jesus Christ, and you are as much fit to preach the gospel, if God has given
you the ability, and called you to the work by his Spirit as any man alive.
No priestly hand, no hand of presbyterian — which means priest written
large — no ordination of men is necessary; we stand upon the rights of
manhood to speak what we believe, and next to that we stand upon the call
of God’s Spirit in the heart bidding us testify his truth. But, brethren,
neither Paul, nor an angel from heaven, nor Apollos, nor Cephas can help
you in salvation. It is not of man, neither by men, and neither Pope, nor
Archbishop, nor bishop, nor priest, nor minister, nor any one hath any
grace to give to others. We must each of us go ourselves to the fountainhead,
pleading this promise — “Whosoever calleth on the name of the
Lord Jesus, shall be saved.” If I were shut up in the mines of Siberia, where
I could never hear the gospel, if I did call upon the name of Christ the road
is just as straight without the minister as with him, and the path to heaven
is just as clear from the wilds of Africa, and from the dens of the
prisonhouse and the dungeon, as it is from the sanctuary of God.

Nevertheless for edification, all Christians love the ministry, though not for
salvation; though neither in priest nor preacher do they trust, yet the word
of God is sweet to them, and beautiful on the mountains are the feet of
them that bring glad tidings of peace.”

Another very common error is, that a good dream is a most splendid thing
in order to save people. Some of you do not know the extent to which this
error prevails. I happen to know it. It is received among many persons, that
if you dream that you see the Lord in the night you will be saved, and if
you can see him on the cross, or if you think you see some angels, or if you
dream that God says to you, “You are forgiven, all is well;” but if you do
not have a very nice dream you cannot be saved. So some people think.
Now, if it be so, the sooner we all begin to eat opium the better; because
there is nothing that makes people dream so much as that, and the best
advice I could give would be — let every minister distribute opium very
largely, and then his people would all dream themselves into heaven. But,
out upon that rubbish; there is nothing in it. Dreams, the disordered fabrics
of a wild imagination; the totterings often of the fair pillars of a grand
conception; how can they be the means of salvation? You know Rowland
Hill’s good answer; I must quote it, in default of a better. When a woman
pleaded that she was saved because she dreamed, he said, “Well, my good
woman, it is very nice to have good dreams when you are asleep; but I
want to see how you act when you are awake; for if your conduct is not
consistent in religion when you are awake I will not give a snap of the
finger for your dreams.” Ah, I do marvel that ever any person should go to
such a depth of ignorance as to tell me the stories that I have heard myself
about dreams. Poor dear creatures, when they were sound asleep they saw
the gates of heaven opened, and a white angel came and washed their sins
away, and then they saw that they were pardoned; and since then they have
never had a doubt or a fear. It is time that you should begin to doubt, then
very good time that you should; for if that is all the hope you have, it is a
poor one. Remember it is, “whosoever calls upon the name of God,” not
whosoever dreams about him. Dreams may do good. Sometimes people
have been frightened out of their senses in them; and they were better out
of their senses than they were in, for they did more mischief when they
were in their senses than they did when they were out; and the dreams did
good in that sense. Some people, too, have become alarmed by dreams; but
to trust to them is to trust to a shadow, to build your hopes on bubbles,
scarcely needing a puff of wind to burst them into nothingness. Oh!
remember, you want no vision, no marvellous appearance. If you have had
a vision or a dream, you need not despise it; it may have benefitted you:
but do not trust to it. But if you have had none, remember that is the mere
calling upon God’s name to which the promise is appended.

And now, once again, there are others, very good sort of people too, that
have been laughing while I was talking about dreams, and now it is our
turn to laugh at them. There are some people who think they must have
some very wonderful kind of feelings, or else they cannot be saved; some
most extraordinary thoughts such as they never had before, or else
certainly they cannot be saved. A woman once applied to me for admission
to church-membership. So I asked her whether she had ever had a change
of heart. She said, “Oh yes sir, such a change as you know,” she said, “I
felt it across the chest so singular, sir; and when I was a praying one day I
felt as if I did not know what was the matter with me, I felt so different.
And when I went to the chapel, sir, one night, I came away and felt so
different from what I felt before, so light.” “Yes,” I said “light-headed, my
dear soul, that is what you felt, but nothing more, I am afraid.” The good
woman was sincere enough; she thought it was all right with her, because
something had affected her lungs, or in some way stirred her physical
frame. “No,” I hear some of you say, “people cannot be so stupid as this.”
I assure you that if you could read the hearts of this present congregation,
you would find there are hundreds here that have no better hope of heaven
than that, for I am dealing with a very popular objection just now. “I
thought,” said one addressing me one day, “I thought when I was in the
garden, sure Christ could take my sins away, just as easily as he could
move the clouds. Do you know, sir, in a moment or two the cloud was all
gone, and the sun was shining. Thought I to myself, the Lord is blotting
out my sin.” Such a ridiculous thought as that, you say, cannot occur often.
I tell you, it does, very frequently indeed. People get supposing that the
veriest nonsense in all the earth is a manifestation of divine grace in their
hearts, Now, the only feeling I ever want to have is just this, — I want to
feel that I am a sinner and that Christ is my Savior. You may keep your
visions, and ecstasies and raptures, and dancings to yourselves; the only
feeling that I desire to have is deep repentance and humble faith; and if,
poor sinner, you have got that, you are saved. Why, some of you believe
that before you can be saved there must be a kind of electric-shock, some
very wonderful thing that is to go all through you from head to foot. Now
hear this, “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart. If thou
dost with thy heart believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and with thy mouth
dost confess, thou shalt be saved.” What do ye want with all this nonsense
of dreams and supernatural thoughts? All that is wanted is, that as a guilty
sinner I should come and cast myself on Christ. That done, the soul is safe,
and all the visions in the universe could not make it safer.

And now, I have one more error to try to rectify. Among very poor people
— and I have visited some of them, and know what I say to be true, and
there are some here, and I will speak to them, — among the very poor and
uneducated, there is a very current idea that somehow or other salvation is
connected with learning to read and write. You smile, perhaps, but I know
it. Often has a poor woman said, “Oh! sir, this is no good to poor ignorant
creatures like us; there is no hope for me, sir; I cannot read. Do you know,
sir, I don’t know a letter? I think if I could read a bit I might be saved; but,
ignorant as I am, I do not know how I call: for I have got no
understanding, sir.” I have found this in the country districts too, among
people who might learn to read if they liked. And there are none but can,
unless they are lazy. And yet they sit down in cold indifference about
salvation, under the notion that the parson could be saved, for he reads a
chapter so nicely; that the clerk could be saved, for he said “Amen” so
well; that the squire could be saved, for he knew a great deal, and had a
vast many books in his library, but that they could not be saved, for they
did not know anything, and that therefore it was impossible. Now, have I
one such poor creature here? I will speak plainly to you. My poor friend,
you do not want to know much to go to heaven. I would advise you to
know as much as ever you can; do not be backward in trying to learn. But
in regard to going to heaven, the way is so plaint that “the wayfaring man,
though a fool, shall not err therein.” Do you feel that you have been guilty,
that you have broken God’s commandments that you have not kept his
Sabbath, that you have taken his name in vain that you have not loved your
neighbor as yourself, nor your God with all your heart. Well, if you feel it,
Christ died for such as you; he died upon the cross, and was punished in
your stead, and he tells you to believe it. If you want to hear more about it,
come to the house of God and listen, and we will try to lead you to
something else. But remember, all you want to know to get to heaven is
the two things that begin with S. — Sin and Savior. Do you feel your sin?
Christ is your Savior trust to him pray to him; and as sure as you are here
now, and I am talking to you, you will one day be in heaven. I will tell you
two prayers to pray. First, pray this prayer, — “Lord, show me myself.”
That is an easy one for you. Lord, show me myself, show me my heart,
show me my guilt; show me my danger, Lord, show me myself. And, when
you have prayed that prayer, and God has answered it, (and remember, he
hears prayer) when he has answered it, and shown you yourself, here is
another prayer for you, — ”Lord, show me thyself: Show me thy work, thy
love, thy mercy, thy cross, thy grace.” Pray that, and those are about the
only prayers you want to pray, to get to heaven with, — “Lord, show me
myself;” “Lord, show me thyself.” You do not want to know much, then.
You need not spell, to get to heaven; you need not be able to speak
English, to get to heaven; the ignorant and rude are welcome to the cross
of Christ and salvation.

Excuse my thus answering these popular errors; I answer them because
they are popular, and popular among some who are present. O men and
women, hear the word of God once more. “Whosoever shall call upon the
name of the Lord shall be saved.” Man of eighty, child of eight, young man
and maiden, rich, poor, literate, illiterate, to you is this preached in all its
fullness and freeness, yea, to every creature under heaven “whosoever “(
and that shuts out none,) “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved.”

III. And now I have nothing to do except to finish with EXHORTATION.
My exhortation is, I intreat you by the name of God believe the message
which this day I declare from God’s word. Do not turn away from me
because the message is simply delivered, do not reject it because I have
chosen to preach it simply and plainly to the poor, but hearken again,
“Whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” I beseech you
believe this. Does it seem hard to believe? Nothing is too hard for the Most
High. Do you say, “I have been so guilty, I cannot think God will save
me?” Hear Jehovah speak: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are
my ways your ways. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high
are my thoughts above your thoughts, my ways above your ways.” Do you
say, “I am excluded. Surely, you cannot mean that he would cave me?”
Hark you; it says, “Whosoever” — “whosoever” is a great wide door, and
lets in big sinners. Oh, surely, if it says, “whosoever,” you are not excluded
if you call — there is the point.

And now come, I must plead with you, and I will use a few reasons to
induce you to believe this truth. They shall be Scripture reasons May God
bless them to you, sinner. If thou callest on Christ’s name thou wilt be
saved. I will tell thee first, thou wilt be saved because thou art elect. No
man ever called on Christ’s name yet who was not elected. That doctrine
of election which puzzles many and frightens more, never need do so. If
you believe, you are elect, if you call on the name of Christ you are elect, if
you feel yourself to be a sinner, and put your trust in Christ you are elect.
Now, the elect must be saved, for them there is no perdition. God has
predestinated them unto eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither
shall any pluck them out of Christ’s hands. God does not choose men, and
then cast them away; he does not elect them, and then cast them into the
pit. Now, you are elect, you could not have called if you had not been
elected your election is the cause of your calling, and inasmuch as you have
called, an do call upon the name of God, you are God’s elect. And from his
book not death nor hell can ever erase your name. ‘Tis an omnipotent
decree. Jehovah’s will be done! His chosen must be saved, though earth
and hell oppose, his strong hand shall break their ranks, and lead his people
through. You are one of these people. You shall at last stand before his
throne, and see his smiling face in glory ever lasting, because you are elect.
Now, another reason. If thou callest upon the name of the Lord thou shalt
be saved, because thou art redeemed. Christ has bought thee, and paid for
thee, poured out the hottest of his heart’s blood to buy thy ransom, split his
heart, and riven it to splinters to buy thy soul from wrath. Thou art a
bought one, thou knowest it not, but I see the blood-mark on thy brow. If
thou callest on his name though thou hast as yet no comfort, yet Christ has
called thee his own. E’er since that day when he said “It is finished,” —
Christ has said, “My delight is in him, for I have bought him with my
blood,” and because thou art bought thou shalt never perish. Not one of
Jesus’ blood-bought ones was ever lost yet. Howl, howl, O hell, but howl
thou canst not over the damnation of a redeemed soul. Out upon the horrid
doctrine that men are bought with blood, and yet are damned, it is too
diabolical for me to believe. I know that what the Savior did he did, and if
he did redeem he did redeem, and those redeemed by him are positively
redeemed from death and hell and wrath. I can never bring my mind to the
unrighteous idea that Christ was punished for a man, and that such a man
will be punished again. I never could see how Christ could stand in a man’s
stead and be punished for him, and yet that man be punished again. No,
inasmuch as thou callest on God’s name there is proof that Christ is thy
ransom. Come, rejoice! If he was punished, God’s justice cannot demand a
double vengeance, first, at the bleeding Surety’s hands and then again at
thine. Come, soul put thine hand upon the Saviour’s head, and say “Blest
Jesus, thou wast punished for me.” Oh, God, I am not afraid of thy
vengeance. When my hand is on the atonement, smite, but thou must smite
me through thy Son. Smite, if thou wilt, but thou canst not for thou hast
smitten him, and sure thou wilt not smite again for the same offense. What!
Did Christ at one tremendous draught of love, drink my damnation dry?
and shall I be damned after that? God forbid! What! shall God be
unrighteous forget the Redeemer’s work for us and let the Saviour’s blood
be shed in vain? Not hell itself has ever indulged the thought which has
only been worthy of the men who are traitors to God’s truth. Ay, brethren,
if ye call on Christ, if ye pray, if ye believe, ye may be quite sure of
salvation, for ye are redeemed, and the redeemed must not perish.
Shall I tell you one more reason? Believe this truth: it must be true. For it
ye call upon the name of God, “In my Father’s house,” says Christ, “there
are many mansions,” and there is one there for you. Christ has prepared a
house and a crown, from before the foundation of the world, for all them
that believe. Come! dost thou think Christ will prepare a house, and not
carry the inhabitant there? Will he make crowns, and then lose the heads
that are to wear them! God forbid! Turn thine eye towards heaven. There
is a seat there that must be filled, and must be filled by thee; there is a
crown there that must be worn, and must be worn by thee. Oh! be of good
cheer: heavens preparation shall not be too abundant, he shall make room
for those that believe, and because he hath made that room those that
believe shall come there. Oh! I would to God I might know that some soul
could lay hold on this promise! Where are you? Are you standing away
among the crowd there, or sitting here in the body of the hall or in the
topmost gallery? Are you feeling your sins? Do you shed tears in secret on
account of them? Do you lament your iniquities? Oh! take his promise —
“Whosoever (sweet whosoever!) — whosoever calleth upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved.” Say thus. The devil says it is of no use for you to
call; you have been a drunkard. Tell him it says, “Whosoever,” “Nay,” says
the evil spirit, “it is of no use for you, you have never been to hear a
sermon, or been in the house of God these last ten years.” Tell him it says,
“Whosoever.” “No,” says Satan, “remember the sins of last night, and how
you have come up to the MUSIC HALL stained with lust.” Tell the devil it
says. “Whosoever,” and that it is a foul falsehood of his, that you can call
on God and yet be lost. No; tell him that —

“If all the sins that men have done
In thought, or word, or deed,
Since worlds were made or time begun,
Could meet on one poor head,
The blood of Jesus Christ alone
For all this guilt could well atone.”

Oh lay this to thine heart. May God’s Spirit do it! “Whosoever calleth upon
the name of the Lord shall be saved.”