Archive for November, 2009

EU forces Government to put gay equality over Christian conscience

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

An important post from Cranmer:-

The Torah says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Lev 18:22).

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev 20:13).

The New Testament says:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9f).

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another (Rom 1:24).

The Qur’an says:

Lut: he said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds” (7:80-81).

Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males. And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing all limits!” (26:165-166)

Please note, this is not a post about the divergences between Hasidic/Orthodox/Haredi/Masorti and Reform/Reconstructionist Judiasm; or between Orthodox/Protestant/Roman Catholic and Liberal Christianity, or between Sunni/Shi’a and Sufi Islam. And Cranmer is fully aware of the hermeneutic complexities, exegetical difficulties and the debates over the Sitz im Leben of all of these passages. Sexual ethics is not the point.

It is a post about national sovereignty.

Whatever one’s interpretation of the above scriptures, the European Commission has just subordinated the Christian conscience of the United Kingdom to the Divine Right of Europa, religious conviction to the infallible proclamation of secular orthodoxy.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time.

The spirit of Factortame is alive and well as once again Her Majesty’s Government is forced to amend a sovereign Act of Parliament in order that it might conform to a higher-sovereign EU directive.

There are now so many sovereigns that it is difficult to find the head that wears the crown.

Readers and communicants will recall that Labour’s Equality legislation granted religious groups certain exemptions when it came to employing homosexuals ‘so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers’. Some agreed, some disagreed. The majority view prevailed: that is democracy.

But the EU has decreed that such exemptions are incompatible with their directive prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation. The Guardian informs us: ‘The ruling follows a complaint from the National Secular Society, which argued that the opt-outs went further than was permitted under the directive and had created “illegal discrimination against homosexuals”.’

Again, Cranmer has no argument with the National Secular Society in expressing its view: in a liberal democracy they have every right to argue their case in the public sphere. But to read that the Commission have heeded the ‘reasoned opinion’ of its lawyers that the view of the NSS may be imposed upon the professing Christian majority is of immense concern. The Government have been told: ‘exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive’.

So sort it.

It is interesting to note that The Guardian then talks of ‘a furore among church groups’ and how this is preferable to the ‘backlash from the commission’.

The furore among church groups will be as nothing compared to the furore among mosque groups, but (of course) The Guardian does not want to go there.

The ‘significant victory for gay equality’ and the ‘serious setback for religious employers’ may be of little consequence or a cause of no concern among many supine church groups, but there are other rather more convicted religious adherents for whom a ‘backlash from the commission’ is of no consequence at all.

Peter Tatchell may be right (again) that this intervention by the European Commission is ‘a big embarrassment for the British government, which has consistently sought to appease religious homophobes by granting them opt-outs from key equality laws. The European commission has ruled these opt-outs are excessive’.

But this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing over the rights and wrongs of sexual ethics. It is an ‘embarrassment for the British government’ because it is manifestly no longer sovereign: there is a higher moral power. Even this hyper-cautious, equality-obsessed, anti-Christian Labour Government could not legislate sufficiently in the realm of equality to satisfy the rabidly-secular beast in Brussels.

As the NSS director Keith Porteous-Wood observed: “Now the government must demonstrate its commitment to equality, rather than continuing to jump to the church’s tune.”

Equality is the new religious orthodoxy. Its god is Europa; its creed is the rights of man.

It is no longer possible for religious groups to preach their beliefs or to sustain a distinct identity. By legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the Government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.

The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.

The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said this week that the work by two scientists has shown adult stem cells to be much more promising for medical treatment than embryonic stem cells.

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

(CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said this week that the work by two scientists has shown adult stem cells to be much more promising for medical treatment than embryonic stem cells. The use of adult stem cells poses no ethical difficulties and has already contributed to advancing treatments for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.

In an article published by L’Osservatore Romano, the archbishop cited the work of two scientists, James Thomson of the United States and Shinya Yamanaka of Japan.  Yamanaka was able to create adult stem cells in rats and later using human skin, which he called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, constituting a significant scientific development.

Archbishop Fisichella underscored that “the technique for producing iPS cells has allowed something to happen that was unthinkable in the field of cellular biology: to convert differentiated adult stem cells into immature, undifferentiated cells of an embryonic type.”  Currently, he underscored, “nearly 300 labs throughout the world are studying these cells and what is significant is that numerous research teams have moved from the study of embryonic cells to the study of iPS cells.”

Adult stem cells outweigh embryonic stem cells in three ways, the archbishop continued.  “The first is in the area of ethics, as iPS cells are not obtained through the destruction of human embryos (as is the case with embryonic cells.)”  “With the development of iPS cells, the ethical debate that has raged in public opinion, parliaments and the scientific community can now be considered closed,” he said.

The second aspect “has to do with therapeutic applications: iPS cells have the great advantage of having been obtained from cells taken directly from the patient. This means that when they are injected they are compatible with the patient’s own immune system, and thus they are perfectly accepted,” as has been shown in cases involving stem cells taken from the umbilical cord.

The third aspect is that “iPS cells allow for the creation of pathological models,” Archbishop Fisichella said.  “Thanks to Yamanaka, we can speak about the immediate future of generations of cellular models of diseases, in vitro, as the first practical application of this technology.”

The archbishop pointed to recent studies which have shown that iPS cells have been made from the cells of patients who carry the mutated genes that cause sclerosis, Parkinson’s, diabetes and other diseases, resulting in significant advances especially “in pharmacology.”

Archbishop Fisichella also highlighted the international congress “Adult Stem Cells: New Perspectives,” which will be held November 26-28 in Monaco to promote respect for life and the new methods in the field of stem cell research and treatment.

Deceptive Manipulative Propagandist Activist Atheists are at it Again – Unbeknownst to them: their New Ads Compliment Christianity

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

This is a cross post by Mariano over at the excellent Atheism is Dead blog:-

Studies consistently demonstrate that atheists are, by a very very wide margin, the least charitable amongst us. Yet, Ariane Sherine and the British Humanist Association have conducted hugely successful donation drives. Are they the exception to the self-absorbed atheist greed meme?

Not in the least bit. Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance.

Atheist activist Ariane Sherine was the “brains” behind some of the recent embarrassments which were publicly advertised in the form of bus ads and bill boards. As these ads represented well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think they were, predictably, illogical, presumptuous and pompous.

As “the final phase of the atheist bus campaign…in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast” is coming to a close Ariane Sherine asked her adherents what they could further do with the “amazing sums donated to the campaign fund.[1]

Surely, some said, “How about feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, funding hospitals, establishing adoption agencies, opposing abortion” or any of a billion humanitarian options. But the overwhelming response was they the money was needed to fund atheist propaganda based on misinformation and common misconceptions due to relying heavily on atheist talking points and lightly on those bothersome facts such as are readily discernable when stopping to actually understand the issues at hand.
She writes,

…we asked how the extra funds should be spent, one of the issues which came up repeatedly in the comments concerned the growth of of faith schools in the UK and the segregation of children according to their parents’ beliefs. Many of you felt strongly that children should be given the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to, if any, and that they should not have a religion decided for them….The atheist campaign team shared this point of view.

The new ads, which feature a 7 and 8 year old child state, “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself” with a background stating, “Mormon child,” “Marxist child,” “Zoroastrian child,” “Buddhist child,” “Catholic child,” “Agnostic child,” etc.


Ariane Sherine claims that this latest atheist propaganda is meant to:

try and change the current public perception that it is acceptable to label children with a religion. As Richard Dawkins states, “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a ‘Marxist child’ or an ‘Anarchist child’ or a ‘Post-modernist child’. Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions, and our adverts will help to do that.

I have covered this issue variously as UK atheist propagandists influenced USA atheist propagandists until in various countries atheists were wasting money on patting themselves in the backs. Just read some of their slogans in my past essays to see that which they consider clever; I am actually embarrassed for them yet, I understand that one of atheism’s consoling delusions is the delusion of being more erudite than thou.

This is merely another sham and a scam as atheist activists are doing what they do best: 1) playing the underdog victim, 2) begging for donations, 3) not being charitable to people in real tangible need, 4) openly displaying their ignorance and arrogance and 5) making their livelihood by condemning others since they think that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Before getting to a more riotous aspect of the ads themselves let us hit some key points:

1) Such atheist activists seem to overlook the fact that children sometimes are referred to by such labels due to cultural and or social consid­erations and not theological. For instance, Judaism has a Bar/Bat Mitzvah when a child becomes a willing/thinking adult and decides to make a commitment to the faith. Likewise, various forms of Christianity have confirmation. Etc.

2) Richard Dawkins is a supporter of the atheist indoctrination summer camp for children “Camp Quest” (see here for atheism/children related essays including dissections of Camp Quest).

3) Dawkins’ purpose is not this sham of pure freedom but he envisages “society stepping in,”[2] and standing between you and your children. This is not about intellectual freedom but about indoctrinating children into atheism under the thinly veneered disguise of “science,” “evolution,” or education and freedom as Dawkins has expressed that his dictating to the parents of the world how to raise their children “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”[3]

4) For quite some time Dawkins has refused to debate various worthy opponents and so he absconds to attempt to influence the college crowd or much younger children.

He told a group of children “We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…It is every living object’s sole reason for living.’”[4] And another group of children, “Put your trust in the scientific method, put your faith in scientific method.”[5]

What is wrong with that? For one, to him “science” and “evolution” are synonymous with atheism. He actually pulled the wool over the children’s eyes as he sought to prove why they could have faith/trust in science by a hard-science demonstration while he is involved in a soft-science that is riddled with quaint Victorian Era tall tales as evidence is interpreted via schools of thought and manipulated to fit the theory (multitudinous evidence is found here).

5) Philip Pullman, the author of “The Golden Compass” related books, chimed in to state, “It is absolutely right that we shouldn’t label children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.” Pullman write perfectly innocent fictional books for little children—right?

He has stated, “I don’t think I’m writing fantasy. I think I’m writing realism. My books are psychologically real.”[6] But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, “My books are about killing God” and “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

Bottom line: these activists atheist are very good at media campaigns, mostly due to the media’s complicity, and are two faced: one face is the concerned intellectual and the other the zealous atheist out to convert little children, interfere with your parenting, and make a living by expressing prejudice.

Now, what about the ads themselves? What of the children…the children? Well, the actual children in the ads are the children of one of the UK’s “most devout Christian families” and their father, Brad Mason, “is something of a celebrity within evangelical circles.”[7]


Daddy has stated:

It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children…
Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.

Leader of the Pioneer network of churches, Gerald Coates noted, “I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

Always ready to miss the point and counter-argue against that which no one has argued, Andrew Copson, The British Humanist Association’s “education” director stated:

That’s one of the points of our campaign…People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts. The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.

The use of their images came about due to a randomly accidental coincidence—yeah, right; no God here, keep moving along and pay no attention—since their daddy who is also a photographer had uploaded their images to a website that photographers use in order to sell images to designers.

Well, atheist activists; keep on throwing money away whilst elbowing each other in the ribs as we discern your lack of charity and manipulative propaganda. You discredit yourselves by merely being left to speak out as loudly and often as you please so, please do keep it up, we hear you loud and clear.

[1] Ariane Sherine, “Hey, preacher – leave those kids alone,” The Guardian, November 18, 2009
[2] During his interview with Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers”: here or here
[3] Richard Dawkins, Now Here’s a Bright Idea
[4] Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
[5] Stated during his “Royal Institute of Christmas Lectures” 1991 aka “Growing Up in the Universe.”
[6] New York Magazine, Philip Pullman Realizes ‘Killing God’ Not the Ideal Sales Pitch
[7] Ruth Gledhill, “Children who front Richard Dawkins’ atheist ads are evangelicals,” Time Online, November 21, 2009

Previous Posts

The British Humanist Association (BHA) said four large advertisements went up in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast with the slogan “Please Don’t Label Me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”.

Atheist Humanist advertising campaign has unknowingly used photographs of the children of two evangelical Christians. The poster which can be seen on billboards across the UK shows two youngsters with the slogan ‘Don’t Label Me’.

Road Rage

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

The light turned yellow, just in front of him.  He did the right thing,
stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light
by accelerating through the intersection.

The tailgating woman was furious and honked her horn, screaming in
frustration, as she missed her chance to get through the intersection,
dropping her cell phone and makeup.

As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up
into the face of a very serious police officer.  The officer ordered her
to exit her car with her hands up.

He took her to the police station where she was searched,  fingerprinted,
photographed,  and placed in a holding cell.

After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the
door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting
officer was waiting with her personal effects.

He said, ”I’m very sorry for this mistake.  You see, I pulled up behind
your car while you were blowing your horn,  flipping off the guy in front
of you  and cussing a blue streak at him.  I noticed the ‘What Would Jesus
Do’ bumper sticker,  the ‘Choose Life’ license plate holder,  the ‘Follow
Me to Sunday-School’ bumper sticker,  and the chrome-plated  Christian
fish emblem on the trunk,  so naturally….I assumed you had stolen the
car.”

Faces of Zion – CharismaMag profiles the Israeli Messianic movement.

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

Excellent article from CharismaMag profiling the Israeli Messianic movement.

Hat-tip Rosh Pina Project

A Stranger In Our House

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later.

As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. Mom taught me to love the word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it. But the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries and comedies were daily conversations. He could hold our whole family spell-bound for hours each evening.

If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so life like that I would often laugh or cry as I watched.

He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and me to our first football game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars.

The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn’ t seem to mind-but sometimes Mom would quietly get up– while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places– go to her room, read her Bible and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave.

You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But this stranger never felt obligation to honour them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house– not from us, from our friends, or adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted. My dad was a teetotaler who didn’t permit alcohol in his home – not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often.

He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (too much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes sugestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early concepts of the man-woman relationship were influenced by the stranger.

As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents. Yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.

More than thirty years have passed since the stranger moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so intriguing to my Dad as he was in those early years. But if I were to walk into my parents home today, you would still see him sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.

His name?…..We always just called him…TV

If I forget thee o Jerusalem – White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was ordered by the Obama to express displeasure at the decision by Israel to build houses in the East Jerusalem suburb of Gilo

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

By Victor Sharpe – American Thinker

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was ordered by the Obama apparatchiks to express displeasure at the decision by Israel to build houses in the East Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. But Gibbs failed to disclose that the land on which Gilo was built, as with other suburbs in “disputed” parts of East Jerusalem, was home to many Jews who were driven out in 1948 by the British officered Arab Legion of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

It was not liberated by Israel, and the land restored, until the June, 1967 Six Day War, nineteen years later. King Hussein of Jordan had thrown in his lot with the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was boasting how he was on the verge of destroying the Jewish state. The King believed Nasser’s claims and attacked along the entire Jordanian / Israeli front (including Jerusalem) despite pleas by Israel for him to not follow Nasser’s aggression. History might have been different if Hussein had listened to Israel’s pleas.

In the nineteen years that the Jordanians occupied the territory, they never remotely considered it as anything but Jordanian. Certainly they never thought it belonged to another Arab people who later called themselves Palestinians. As it was, Jordan’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, as well as of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), was recognized by only two countries, Britain and Pakistan.

But the Obama White House, and the relentlessly anti-Israel State Department, nevertheless have decided that they will echo the demands of the Palestinian Authority and call for Israel to stop building homes, not only in Judea and Samaria, but even within Jewish suburbs of Israel’s capital city, Jerusalem; this while Arab settlement building continues unchecked throughout the area at a feverish pace.

It matters not to Obama that Jerusalem, east, west, north and south, has been described as the eternal city of the eternal people.

Let me quote the words from 1918 of the great Rabbi J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, at the thanksgiving service for the liberation of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks by British forces. He spoke of the nearly 4,000 years of history that bound the Jews to their spiritual and physical capital city and of their fate in defending it against its many conquerors:

Like the Jew, this Holy City of Israel is deathless; fire and sword and all the engines of destruction have been hurled against it in vain. The Babylonians burnt it and deported its population; the Romans slew a million of its inhabitants, razed it to the ground, passed the ploughshare over it and strewed its furors with salt; Hadrian banished its very name from the lips of men, changed it to Aelia Capitolina and forbade any Jew from entering it on pain of death. Persians and Arabs, Barbarians and Crusaders and Turks took it and re-took it, ravaged it and burnt it; and yet, marvelous to relate, it ever rises from its ashes to renewed life and glory.

Rabbi Hertz was talking on the very day that 2,080 years earlier, Judah Maccabee, the legendary Jewish hero, led his warriors against the Greek-Syrians to liberate the Holy city from its heathen occupiers, entered the Temple, and re-dedicated it to the glory of the One and Only God. Rabbi Hertz ended his speech by proclaiming the prophetic teaching of the Maccabean Festival, we know as Hanukah, in Zechariah, 4:6:

Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.

It is useful to dwell on what has been said by both Jews and non-Jews in the past about Jerusalem for there is a government and a Prime Minister in Israel today under assault by President Obama who demands that Israel abandon parts of eternal Jerusalem and give it away to those who hate the Jewish People and who have set their face against accepting any Jewish independence or sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

Jerusalem and Zion are interchangeable. One can go back through the mists of time and read as far back as the towering words in Isaiah 2:1 and Micah 4:2:

For out of Zion shall come forth the Torah, and the word of God from Jerusalem.

These are just two of the 821 times that Jerusalem and Zion appear in the Jewish Bible – what is pejoratively called the Old Testament: Jerusalem 667 times, and Zion 154 times.

According to the much loved correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, the late Moshe Kohn:

Jewish sources speak of the seventy names by which Jerusalem is referred to in the classical Jewish sources. These include Ariel/lion of God (Isaiah 29:1); Kirya Neemana/Faithful City (Isaiah 1:25); Ir Ha’emet (City of Truth (Zechariah 8:3); Klilat Yofi/Paragon of Beauty (Lamentations 2:15); Yefay Nof/ Beautiful Panorama (Psalms 48:3); and the ancient commentary of Rabbi Akiva in Sanhedrin 58a on 1 Chronicles 29:11 Hanetza/Eternity.

But what of now? The modern State of Israel endures a world willing, even anxious, to divide Jerusalem again – even as it celebrates the reunification of Berlin – and to give away ancestral and biblical Jewish lands to an enemy led by a Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas, whose own Fatah organization continues to murder Jews and gleefully claim credit for its crimes.

After taking a colossal risk for peace, Israel abandoned the Gaza Strip to the Arabs who showed their contempt for peace by not creating a civilized society in Gaza but by sliding into 7th century barbarism and Islamism. They rained thousands of missiles upon Israeli towns and villages adjacent to the terror infested and Arab occupied territory and the world stood by in silence. Now that same world demands that a similar fate befall Jewish Jerusalem.

That has been the sorry pattern of Israel’s suicidal policy of “land for peace” whereby the Palestinian aggressors receive land from Israel only to then launch new terrorism against Israel from abandoned territory. In turn, Israel never receives peace. This failed and tragic policy has been pressed upon Israel by successive American Secretaries of State and Presidents but never more so than by the current American president whose formative years were deeply influenced by Islam.

Israeli leaders have seemed unable to learn any lessons from their earlier futile withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza. If the Obama Administration has its way, the very ancestral Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) will be lost, not by the ravages of an enemy host but, to its eternal shame, by an Israeli government acquiescing in its own national suicide.

As Frank Gaffney wrote in an article some years ago about the delusional peace process:

… The entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Abbas’ mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace. Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu withstand the brutal pressure from Barack Hussein Obama and not sell out Israel’s ability to remain a viable state with an undivided capital city in eternal Jerusalem? It remains to be seen, but if he falters Israel may not be able to defend itself after being forced back within the nine mile wide pre-1967 borders, which an Israeli statesman, Abba Eban, once described as the “Auschwitz borders”

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

CHARLES SPURGEON INDEPENDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.”
Zechariah 4:6

GOD’S first and greatest object is his own glory. There was a time, before
all time, when there was no day but the Ancient of days, when God dwelt
alone in the magnificence of his sublime solitude. Whether he should
create, or not create was a question depending upon the answer to another
question — Would it be to his honor or not? He determined that he would
glorify himself by creating; but, in creating, beyond all doubt, his motive
was his glory. And since that time, he hath ever ruled the earth, and even
blessed it with the same object in his infinite mind — his own glory and
honor. Lesser motive for God to have, were less than divine; it is the
highest position to which you or I could attain, to live for God; and the
very highest virtue of God is for him to magnify himself in all his greatness
as the Infinite and the Eternal. Whatever, then, God permits or does, he
doeth with this one motive, his own glory. And even salvation, costly
though it was, and infinitely a benefaction to us, had for its first object, and
for its grand result, the exaltation of the Being and of the attributes of the
Supreme Ruler.

Now, as this is true in the general of the great acts of God, this is equally
true in the minutiae of them. It is true that God has a church, that that
church has been redeemed and will be preserved for his glory, and it is
equally true that everything that is done to the church, in the church, or for
the church either with the permission or by the power of God, is for God’s
glory, as well as for the church’s weal. You will notice, in reading
Scripture, that whenever God has blessed the church, he has secured
himself the glory of the blessing, though they have had the profit of it.
Sometimes he has been pleased to redeem his people by might but then he
has so used the might and power that all the glory hath come to him, and
his head alone hath worn the crown. Did he smite Egypt, and lead forth his
people, with a strong hand and outstretched arm? The glory was not to the
rod of Moses, but to the Almighty power which made the rod so potent.
Did he lead his people through the wilderness, and defend them from their
enemies? Still, did he, by teaching the people their dependence upon him,
preserve to himself all the glory? So that not Moses or Aaron amongst the
priests or prophets could share the honor with him. And tell me, if ye will,
of slaughtered Anak, and the destruction of the tribes of Canaan; tell me of
Israel’s possessing the promised land; tell me of Philistines routed, and laid
heaps on heaps; of Midianites made to fall on each other; tell me of kings
and princes who fled apace and fell, until the ground was white, like the
snow in Salmon. I will say of everyone of these triumphs, “Sing ye to the
Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously;” and I will say at the end of every
victory, “Crown him, crown him, for he hath done it; and let his name be
exalted and extolled, world without end.” Sometimes, however, God
chooseth not to employ the agency of power. If he chooses to save, by
might and by power, it is that glory may be unto him; and when he says,
“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord,” it is still
with the same object, and the same desire, that we may be led —

“To give to the King of kings renown,
The Lord of Lords with glory crown,”

God is jealous of his own honor; he will not suffer even his church to be
delivered in such a way as to honor men more than God; he will take to
himself the throne without a rival he will wear a crown that never head did
wear, and sway a scepter that never head hath grasped, for as truly as he is
God, the earth shall know that he, and he alone, hath done it, and unto him
shall be the glory.

Now, my objects this morning will be to glorify God, by showing to you,
who love the Savior, that the preservation and the triumph of the church
are both of them to be accomplished, not by might, nor by power, but by
the Spirit of God, in order that all the honor might be to God, and none of
it to man. I shall divide my text very simply; it divides itself. First, not by
might; secondly, nor by power; thirdly, but by my Spirit.

You will ask me whether there is any distinction to be drawn between these
two words, “NOT BY MIGHT, NOR BY POWER.” I answer, yes. The best
Hebrew scholars tell us that the “might,” in the first place, may be
translated, “army.” The Septuagint does so translate it. It signifies power
collectedly — the power of a number of men combined together. The
second word, “power,” signifies the prowess of a single individual, so that
I might paraphrase my text thus — ”Not by the combined might of men
laboring to assist each other, nor by the separate might of any single hero,
but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” And now you will see the distinction,
which is not without a difference.

To begin then, the preservation and the triumph of the church cannot be
accomplished BY MIGHT — that is, not by might collectedly.

First, let us consider that collected might to represent human armies. The
church, we affirm, can neither be preserved nor can its interests be
promoted by human armies. We have all thought otherwise in our time, and
have foolishly said when a fresh territory was annexed to our empire, “Ah!
what a providence that England has annexed Oude,” — or taken to itself
some other territory — “Now a door is opened for the Gospel. A Christian
power will necessarily encourage Christianity, and seeing that a Christian
power is at the head of the Government, it will be likely that the natives
will be induced to search into the authenticity of our revelation, and so
great results will follow. Who can tell but that, at the point of the British
bayonet, the Gospel will be carried, and that, by the edge of the true sword
of valiant men, Christ’s Gospel will be proclaimed?” I have said so myself;
and now I know I am a fool for my pains, and that Christ’s church hath
been also miserably befooled; for this I will assert, and prove too, that the
progress of the arms of a Christian nation is not the progress of
Christianity, and that the spread of our empire, so far from being
advantageous to the Gospel, I will hold, and this day proclaim, hath been
hostile to it.

We will just confine our attention for a moment or two to India. I believe
that British rule there, has been useful in many ways. I shall not deny the
civilizing influence of European society; or that great things have been
done for humanity; but I do assert, and can prove it, that there would have
been greater probability of the Gospel spreading in India if it had been let
alone, than there has been ever since the domination of Great Britain. Ye
thought that when Christians, as ye called them, had the land, they would
favor religion. Now I will state a fact which ought to go through the length
and breadth of the land; it does not rest on hearsay, I was informed of it a
little while ago by a clergyman, upon whose memory the fact is vividly
impressed. A Sepoy in a certain regiment was converted to God by a
missionary. He proposed to be baptized, and become a Christian. Mark,
not a Christian after our way and fashion, as a Baptist, or an Independent
or a Methodist; but a Christian according to the fashion of the Episcopalian
church established in this realm. He was seen by the chaplain, and was
received as a Christian. What think you became of that Sepoy? Let the East
India Company blush for ever, he was stripped of his regimentals,
dismissed the service and sent home, because he had become a Christian!
Ah! we dreamed that if the; had the power they would help us. Alas! the
policy of greed cannot easily be made to assist the Kingdom of Christ.
But I have another string to my bow, I believe that the help of Government
would have been far worse than its opposition, I do regret that the
Company sometimes discourages missionary enterprise; but I believe that,
had they encouraged it, it would have been far worse still, for their
encouragement would have been the greatest hindrance we could receive.
If I had to-morrow to go to India to preach the Gospel, I should pray to
God, if such a thing could be, that he would give me a black face and make
me like a Hindoo; for otherwise I should feel that when I preached I should
be regarded as one of the lords — one of the oppressors it may sometime
be added — and I should not expect my congregation to listen to me as a
man speaking to men, a brother to brother, a Christian full of love, but they
would hear me, and only cavil at me, because even my white face would
give me some appearance of superiority. Why in England, our missionaries
and our clergymen have assumed a kind of superiority and dignity over the
people; they have called themselves clergy, and the people laity; and the
result has been that they have weakened their influence. I have thought it
right to come amongst my fellow men, and be a man amongst men, just
one of themselves, their equal and their friend; and they have rallied around
me, and not refused to love me. And I should not expect to be successful in
preaching the gospel, unless I might stand and feel that I am a brother,
bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh. If I cannot stand before them
thus, I cannot get at their hearts. Send me, then, to India as one of the
dominant ruling race, and you give me a work I cannot accomplish when
you tell me to evangelise its inhabitants. In that day when John Williams
fell in Erromanga, ye wept, but it was a more hopeful day for Erromanga
than the day when our missionaries in India first landed there. I had rather
go to preach to the greatest savages that live, than I would go to preach in
the place that is under British rule. Not for the fault of Britain, but simply
because I, as a Briton, would be looked upon as one of the superiors, one
of the lords, and that would take away much of my power to do good.

Now, will you just cast your eye upon the wide world? Did you ever hear
of a nation under British rule being converted to God? Mr. Moffat and our
great friend Dr. Livingstone have been laboring in Africa with great
success, and many have been converted. Did you ever hear of Kaffir tribes
protected by England, ever being converted? It is only a people that have
been left to themselves, and preached to by men as men, that have been
brought to God. For my part, I conceive, that when an enterprise begins in
martyrdom, it is none the less likely to succeed, but when conquerors begin
to preach the gospel to those they have conquered, it will not succeed, God
will teach us that it is not by might All swords that have ever flashed from
scabbards have not aided Christ a single grain. Mahommedans’ religion
might be sustained by scimitars, but Christians’ religion must be sustained
by love. The great crime of war can never promote the religion of peace.
The battle, and the garment rolled in blood, are not a fitting prelude to
“peace on earth, goodwill to men.” And I do firmly hold, that the slaughter
of men, that bayonets, and swords, and guns, have never yet been, and
never can be, promoters of the gospel. The gospel will proceed without
them, but never through them. “Not by might.” Now don’t be be fooled
again, if you hear of the English conquering in China, don’t go down on
your knees and thank God for it, and say it’s such a heavenly thing for the
spread of the gospel — it just is not. Experience teaches you that, and if
you look upon the map you will find I have stated only the truth, that
where our arms have been victorious, the gospel has been hindered rather
than not; so that where South Sea Islanders have bowed their knees and
cast their idols to the bats, British Hindoos have kept their idols, and where
Bechuanas and Bushmen have turned unto the Lord, British Affairs have
not been converted, not perhaps because they were British, but because the
very fact of the missionary being a Briton, put him above them, and
weakened their influence. Hush thy trump, O war; put away thy gaudy
trappings and thy bloodstained drapery, if thou thinkest that the cannon
with the cross upon it is really sanctified, and if thou imaginest that thy
banner hath become holy, thou dreamest of a lie. God wanteth not thee to
help his cause. “It is not by armies, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith
the Lord.”

Now, understanding this word “might,” in another sense, to signify great
corporations, or, as we say, denominations of men. Now-a-days, people
get a queer notion in their head, and they form what they call a
denomination. It is all wrong; there never ought to have been any
denominations at all, for according to Scripture, every church is
independent of every other. There ought to have been as many separate
churches as there were separate opinions; but denominations, which are the
gathering up of those churches, I take it, ought not to have existed at all.
They may do some good, but they do a world of mischief. Now, when first
denomination starts it is very much opposed. Take, for instance,
Methodism; how earnest were its first preachers, how indefatigably did
they toil, and how incessantly were they persecuted; yet what a harvest of
souls God gave to them! What a great blessing was showered from the
cloud that first started at Oxford, with those few young men preaching the
everlasting gospel! Methodism goes on till it grows to be a most
respectable kind of society, its ramifications extend all over England and it
has societies in every country — and now — God forbid I should say
anything against Methodism; let those who like it believe it; I do not like it
— but I do say now, when they have come to the greatest is the time when
they are doing the least. They will confess that the ancient power of
Methodism has to a great degree failed. That power which once seemed to
turn the world upside down, and set the whole of the churches on fire with
a divine light and life, is to a great degree quenched. Wars and rumors of
wars are in their camp; till, what with new connections and old
connections, reformed and conferential, and an infinite quantity of names,
one does not know into how many fraternities they intend to divide
themselves. The fact is, that just when the corporation began to be the
greatest, God said, “Now then, you have done your work, to a great
degree, it shall not be by you any longer; not by might, not by your allied
forces. You have said our efforts will cover the earth with the gospel.”
“Now,” says God, “I will diminish you by thousands, I will take off your
roll year by year, as many as would make another denomination strong;
and though you shall still exist, you shall have to weep and repent with
bitterness, because of your departed zeal.” It is just the same with every
other denomination. When we Baptists were reckoned to be the poorest lot
in the world, and everybody sneered at us, we did far more good than we
do now. There was far more pure doctrine, and far better preaching than
there is at the present time. But we began to be respectable — and just as
we began to be respectable we began to lose our power. Every fresh
Gothic Baptist chapel was a diminution of simplicity; and every fresh place
where the minister become intellectual, as it was called, was just a loss of
evangelical might, till now, as a denomination, we are just as low as any
other: and we need some of our old leaders again, just to preach the word
with demonstration and with power, and to overthrow all those grand
conventionalisms which have tried to make the Baptist denomination
respectable. I pray to God I may never be called to preach to a much
applauded congregation; it would be a sad and evil day. To be despised, to
be spit upon, to be caricatured, and to be jeered, is the highest honor that a
Christian minister can have; and to be pampered, flattered, and applauded
by men, is a poor, base thing, that is not worth having. If any come here
and say “They are not a respectable sort;” we reply, “we labor to preach to
the poor.” But mark this, whenever a great denomination begins to get too
great, God will cut away its horns, and take away its glory, till the world
shall say, “It is not by might nor by power.”

And now, I shall give one more application of the word “might.” It is so
with one particular church, just as I have been observing. I tremble for the
church of which I am the pastor. I never trembled for it when we were few,
when we were earnest in prayer, and devout in supplication, when it was a
thing of contempt to go into “that miserable Baptist Chapel in Park Street,”
when we were despised and maligned and slandered. I never trembled for
them then; God was blessing the ministry, souls were saved, and we
walked together in the fear of the Lord and in love. But I tremble for it
now, now that God hath enlarged our borders, and given us to count our
members not by tens but by hundreds, now that we can say we are the
largest Baptist church in England. I do tremble now, because now is just
the time when we shall begin to say, “We are a great people,” “We shall do
very much,” “We are a great agency,” “The world will look upon us, and
we will do a great deal.” If we ever say that, God will say, “Cursed is he
that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm,” and he will hide the light of
his countenance from us, so that our mountain that standeth firm shall
begin to shake. O churches! — all of ye here that are representatives of
churches, carry ye the tidings. O churches! take heed lest ye trust in
yourselves; take heed lest ye say, “We are a respectable body,” “We are a
mighty number,” “We are a potent people;” take heed lest ye begin to glory
in your own strength; for when that is done, “Ichabod” shall be written on
your walls and your glory shall depart from you. Remember, that he who
was with us when we were but few, must be with us now we are many, or
else we must fail; and he who strengthened us when we were but as “little
in Israel,” must be with us, now that we are like “the thousands of
Manasseh,” or else it is all over with us and our day is past. “Not by might,
nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord.”

II. NOR BY POWER, that is, individual strength. You know, beloved, that
after all, the greatest works that have been done have been done by the
ones. The hundreds do not often do much, the companies never do, it is the
units, just the single individuals, that after all are the power and the might.
Take any parish in England where there is a well-regulated society for
doing good — it is some young woman or some young man who is the
very life of it. Take any church, there are multitudes in it, but it is some
two or three that do the work. Look on the Reformation, there might be
many reformers, but there was but one Luther, there might be many
teachers, but there was but one Calvin. Look ye upon the preachers of the
last age, the mighty preachers who stirred up the churches; there were
many coadjutors with them, but after all, it was not Whitfield’s friends, nor
Wesley’s friends, but the men themselves that did it. Individual effort is,
after all, the grand thing. A man alone can do more than a man with fifty
men at his heels to fetter him. Committees are very seldom of much use,
and bodies and societies sometimes are loss of strength instead of a gain. It
is said, that if Noah’s Ark had had to be built by a company, they would
not have laid the keel yet; and it is perhaps true. There is scarcely anything
done by a body, it almost always fails; because what is many men’s
business is just nobody’s business at all. Just the same with religion, the
grand things must be done by the ones, the great works of God must be
accomplished by single men. Look back through old history. Who
delivered Israel from the Philistines? It was a solitary Samson. Who was it
gathered the people together to rout the Midianites? It was one Gideon,
who cried, “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon.” Who was he that
smote the enemy? It was one Shamgar, with his ox goad, or it was an Elon,
who with his dagger, put an end to his country’s tyrant. Separate men —
Davids with their slings and stones, have done more than armies could
accomplish. “But,” says God, “it is not even by individual might, the gospel
is to be spread.” Take individual might in different senses; sometimes we
may say, of this kind, it represents learning. We discover here and there
certain great and mighty men in learning, that can take an infidel, strap him
on to the dissecting board, and just anatomise him in a minute, they are
great doctors of divinity, they have achieved the highest titles that can be
given them at the universities; they have read the Scriptures thoroughly,
they are mighty theologians, they could dispute with John Owen, and could
entirely take the wind out of the sails of Calvin, they know a great deal, a
very great deal; they can write most excellent reviews, and are much gifted
in philosophical disquisitions. But did you ever hear, in the course of all
your life, of any one of these being blessed by God to lead any great
religious movement? Such a thing may have been, but I have forgotten all
about it; there may have been such an occurrence, but I do not remember
it. This I am sure of; that the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ had taken no
degree, except it was a good degree of being excellent fishermen, this I am
certain, that all through the ages God has not often used men of any very
great intellectual compass, they have not seemed to be men of profound
learning; they have generally been men of determined will and strong
principle, but not often of any very high intellectual attainments. Do I,
therefore, rail at learning? O! no; God forbid, the more of that the better.
Let men be as wise as they can be, and as learned as they can be, but still
the fact remaineth, and there is no one that can dispute it — that God hath
often taken the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, in order
that men may see “It is not by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.”

I have the pleasure and happiness of being acquainted with a large number
of the most eminent ministers in England; I have walked and talked with
them, and spoken to them about the things of the kingdom, and with great
pleasure, and if they were present they would not think me severe in what I
am about to say. Many of those at whose feet we have been prepared to sit
as little children to hear their wisdom, confessed as ministers, that when
they reviewed up their life, they felt that it has been unprofitable. They
have been learned, but they would say with Owen, “I would give up all my
talents to preach like Bunyan the tinker.” They have wished that they could
have believed something else besides having attained a name for profound
learning and research. My brethren, it is not their fault, they have labored
well and earnestly, I find no fault whatever with them: it is God’s
supremacy that stamps this upon them and makes them feel the force of it
— that it must not be by power, and their very intellectual prowess, puts
them out of the way — so that they are incapable of being used by God as
a mass at least, though individuals may be, for any very great result in the
church, because then it would seem to be by power.

“No, no,” says one. “If a man is not learned that does not signify much, a
man must be eloquent.” That is another mistake, it is not by power of
eloquence that souls are saved. I believe every man that preaches the
gospel in his heart is eloquent; so I have used a wrong word. I mean,
however, that great oratorical powers are very seldom made use of by God
for any very great result; not even here, is God pleased to let it be seen to
be by power. Ye have heard of the preaching of Whitfield did ye ever read
his sermons? If ye did ye will say they were rather contemptible
productions. There is nothing in them that I should think could have
approached to oratory; it was only the man’s earnestness that made him
eloquent. Have ye heard any preacher that has been blessed by God to
move the multitude? He has been eloquent, for he has spoken earnestly, but
as to oratory, there has been none of it. I, for my own part, must eschew
every pretension thereunto. I am certain I never think, when I come into
this pulpit, “How shall I talk to this people in a grand fashion?” I think
when I come up here, “I have got something to say, I will tell them it.”
How I will tell them, it does not signify much to me, I shall find the words
somehow or other I daresay, God helping me, but about any of the graces
of eloquence, or the words of oratory, I am utterly and quite in the dark,
nor do I wish to imitate any who have been masters in that. I believe that
the men whom we call eloquent now they are dead, were laughed at in
their day as poor bungling speakers. Now they are buried they are
canonized, but in their lives they were abused.

Now, my brethren, God, I do think will generally cast a slur upon fine
speaking and grand compositions and so on, in order that he may show that
it is not by individual power, but by his Spirit. I could stand here, and point
my finger in a certain circle around this place, and I could pause at such a
chapel and say, There is a man preaching there whose compositions are
worthy to be read by the most intellectual of persons, but whose chapel
contains this morning, a hundred. I will point you to another of whose
preaching we can say that it was the most faultless oratory to which we
ever listened, but his congregation were nearly all of them asleep. We
might point you to another, of whom we could say that there was the most
chaste simplicity, the most extraordinary beauty in the compositions he
delivered, but there has not been a soul known to be saved in the chapel for
years. Now, why is that? I think it is because God says, it is not by power,
it shall not he by individual power. And I will say this that whenever God is
pleased to raise up a man by individual power to move the world, or to
work any reform, he invariably selects a man whose faults and whose
errors are so glaring and apparent to everyone, that we are obliged to say,
“I wonder that man should do it, surely it must be of God, it could not be
of that man.” No, there are some men who are too great for God’s designs,
their style is too excellent. If God blessed them the world would cry —
especially the literary world — it is their talent that God blesses; but God,
on the other hand takes up some rough fellow, truly an earthen vessel, puts
his treasure in him, and just shakes the whole world. People cry, “We do
not see how it is, it is not in the man certainly;” the critic takes up his pen,
dips it in gall, writes a most fearful character about the man, the man reads
it, and says, “It is just true, and I am glad of it for if it had not been true
God would not have used me. I glory in my infirmities, because Christ’s
own power rests on me. If I had not those infirmities so much could not
have been done, but the very infirmities have insured against men’s saying,
‘It was the man.’” I have often been delighted at some of my opponents,
they have sneered at everything in me — from the crown of my head to the
sole of my foot, I have been all over bruises and putrifying sores, every
word has been vulgarity, every action has been grotesque, the whole of it
has been abominable and blasphemous; and I said, ‘Well that is delightful,
now that is good.’ And while some persons have said, ‘Now we must
defend our minister,’ I have thought, “You had better let it alone, it is
much the best that it should be so; for suppose it is true — and it is, the
most of it — there is all the more glory to God; for who can deny that the
work is done?’” And he is a great workman that can use bad tools and yet
produce a fine piece of workmanship; and if the conversion of hundreds of
souls now present, if the sobriety of drunkards, if the chastity of harlots, if
the salvation of men who have been swearers, blasphemers, thieves and
vagabonds from their youth up, is not a grand result, I do not know what
is. And if I have been the unwieldy, uncouth, unworthy tool employed in
doing it, I bless God, for then you cannot honor me, but must give all the
glory to him, and to him all the glory belongs. He will have it proved that
“It is not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.”

III. And now to conclude lest I weary you. Whilst the progress and
advance of the church are neither to be accomplished by the collected
might of armies, corporations, nor churches, nor by the separate exertions
of individuals, by the might neither of learning nor of eloquence, yet both
the objects are to be accomplished BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

I was thinking, yesterday, my friends, what a magnificent change would
come over the face of Christendom if God were on a sudden to pour out
his Spirit as he did on the day of Pentecost. I was then sitting down
meditating upon this sermon, and I thought! oh, if God should pour his
Spirit upon me, should I not leap from this place where I am now sitting,
and on my knees begin to pray as I never did before; and should I not go
next Sabbath-day to a congregation who would feel a solemn awe about
them! Every word I spoke would strike like arrows from the bow of God;
and they themselves would feel that it was “none other than the house of
God and the very gate of heaven!” Thousands would cry out, “What must I
do to be saved?” and go away carrying the divine fire till the whole of this
city would be kindled. And then I had pictured to myself what would come
over all the churches if they were in the same condition, and all the people
received that same Spirit. I had seen the minister from Monday morning till
Saturday night doing little or nothing; delivering his weekly lecture,
attending one prayer-meeting, and thinking himself hard worked I saw him,
on a sudden, start from his couch, and go round to all the sick of his
chapel, and I marked how he delivered a short address of comfort to the
sick, with such holy gravity and such divine simplicity, that they lifted their
heads from their pillows, and began to sing, even in the agonies of death. I
thought I saw others of them girding up their loins, and crying, “What am I
doing? — men are perishing, and I am preaching to them but three times a
week and am called to the work of the ministry.” I thought I read of all
those ministers going into the open-air to preach next Monday night; I
thought I saw the whole of them flying, like angels fly, to-and-fro this land.
And then I thought I saw the deacons all full of the Spirit too, and found
them with all their powers, doing everything in the fear of God. I found
those who had been lords and rulers no longer seeking to be like
Diotrephes; I saw the heavenly influence spread over every mind, I saw the
vestries too small for the prayer-meetings, and I saw the chapel crowded,
and I heard the brethren who year after year had prayed the same
monotonous prayer, break forth in earnest burning words; I saw the whole
assembly melted in tears when the pastor addressed them, and urged them
to prayer, and I heard the brethren one by one as they rose up speak like
men who had been with Jesus, and had learned how to pray. They prayed
as if they had heard Christ pray in Gethsemane, that prayer which was such
as never man prayed; and then I thought I saw all those members, and
those deacons, and those pastors going out into the world. And, oh, I
pictured what preaching there would be, what tract distributing, what alms
giving, what holy living! And then I already thought I heard every house at
vesper uttering its song, and every cottage as its matin, sending up its
prayer to heaven. I thought I saw upon every ploughshare “consecrated to
God,” and every bell upon the horses, “holiness unto the Lord.” And then I
thought I saw the different denominations rushing into each others arms; I
saw the bishop doff his mitre, and clasp his dissenting brother and call him
friend, and bid him preach in his cathedral. And I thought I saw the stiff
puritanical dissenter casting away his hatred of conformity, and receiving
the Church of England brother to his heart. I thought I saw baptized and
unbaptized sitting at one table. I saw Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Independent,
and Quaker agreeing in one thing — that Christ crucified was all: and
clasping one another’s hands. Ay, and then I thought I have the angels
coming down from heaven. And I was not long before I finished my reverie
by hearing the shout — “Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, the Lord God
Omnipotent reigneth!” It was a reverie, but it will be true some day. By the
Spirit of God all this will be accomplished. How and by what means I
know not, but I know the great agency must be the Holy Spirit.

And now, dear friends, let me counsel you. The grand thing the church
wants in this time, is God’s Holy Spirit. You all get up plans and say,
“Now, if the church were altered a little bit, it would go on better.” You
think if there were different ministers, or different church order, or
something different, then all would be well. No, dear friends, it is not there
the mistake lies, it is that we want more of the Spirit. It is as if you saw a
locomotive engine upon a railway, and it would not go, and they put up a
driver, and they said, “Now, that driver will just do.” They try another and
another. One proposes that such-and-such a wheel should be altered, but
still it will not go. Some one then bursts in amongst those who are
conversing and says, “No, friends; but the reason why it will not move, is
because there is no steam. You have no fire, you have no water in the
boiler: that’s why it will not go. There may be some faults about it; it may
want a bit of paint here and there, but it will go well enough with all those
faults if you do but get the steam up.” But now people are saying, “This
must be altered, and that must be altered; but it would go no better unless
God the Spirit should come to bless us. You may have the same ministers,
and they shall be a thousand times more useful for God, if God is pleased
to bless them. You shall have the same deacons, they shall be a thousand
times more influential than they are now, when the Spirit is poured down
upon them from on high. That is the church’s great want, and until that
want be supplied, we may reform, and reform, and still be just the same.
We want the Holy Spirit, and then whatever faults there may be in our
organization, they can never materially impede the progress of Christianity,
when once the Spirit of the Lord God is in our midst.

But I beseech you be earnest in praying for this. Do you know that there is
no reason to day, why I should not have preached to day, so that every
soul in the place was converted, if God the Holy Spirit had been pleased to
manifest himself. There is not any solitary shadow of a reason why every
soul that has been within the sound of my lips should not have been
converted by something said to-day if God the Holy Spirit had been
pleased to bless the word. Now I will repeat, there, is not a humble
Primitive Methodist, nor a poor insignificant preacher of any sort on earth,
but who, if he preaches the truth, God the Spirit may not make as useful in
conversion, as any of the great departed, who are now before God’s
throne. All we want is the Spirit of God. Dear Christian friends, go home
and pray for it; give no rest until God reveals himself, do not tarry, here
you are, do not be content to go on in your everlasting jog-trot as you have
done; do not be content with the mere round of formalities. Awake, O
Zion; awake, awake, awake! Put on thy strength, O Jerusalem, start ye
from your slumbers, arouse ye from your lethargy, and cry unto God and
say unto him, “Awake, awake! put on thy strength, O arm of the Lord, as
in the ancient days,” then when he shall do it, you will find that while it is
not by might, nor by power, it is by God’s Spirit.

And now I conclude with a brief address that shall not occupy a moment.
Sinner, unconverted sinner, thou hast often tried to save thyself, but thou
hast often failed. Thou hast, by thine own power and might, sought to curb
thy evil passions and licentious desires with thee, I lament that all thine
efforts have been unsuccessful. And I warn thee, it will be unsuccessful, for
thou never canst by thine own might save thyself; with all the strength thou
hast, thou never canst regenerate thine own soul; thou canst never cause
thyself to be born again, And though the new birth is absolutely necessary,
it is absolutely impossible to thee, unless God the Spirit shall do it. I pray
for thee that God the Spirit may convince thee of sin, and if thou art
already convinced, I bid thee believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he has
died for thee, hath washed away thy sins; thou art forgiven. Believe that; be
happy, and go thy way rejoicing; an, God Almighty be with thee until thou
diest.

Christians in the UK have been warned by The Rev George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party that to place their vote on the ballot sheet for one of the main political parties is a “wasted vote”.

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

I am somewhat confused by these comments from Rev George Hargreaves.

He rightly (in my opinion) says in the following article that it is pointless for Christians to vote for the ‘main’ UK political parties and cites his reasons, however, his recent comments in the Telegraph, seem to lament the fact that Christians are so “sick” of mainstream parties like Labour, that we would all rather vote BNP?

So if the Rev George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, is correct in his statement in the Telegraph that:

“Christians in the past may have voted Labour, but [they] have silenced Christians and their anti-traditional family policies have created a vacuum which Nick Griffin can fill.”

Does this not beg the question of what on earth are the Christian parties doing wrong?

Evidently Christians already know how crap the ‘main’ political parties are, so what are the Christian parties going to offer, that will counter this supposed vacuum, into which Christians can be tempted to vote BNP? Perhaps the Christian parties should ask themselves, why is the BNP so [supposedly] potentially attractive to Christians and what does this mean for policies, canvassing and media publicity drives?

Christian Today

Christians ‘wasting’ votes on main parties, says party leader

Christians in the UK have been warned that to place their vote on the ballot sheet for one of the main political parties is a “wasted vote”.

The Rev George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, claims that since the last General Election two vital changes have taken place in British Politics, and is calling for Churches to take a lead in helping to create a new Parliament.

Mr Hargreaves said: “In former times, the leaders of political parties would respect the faith and conscience views of Christian MPs, even those in the cabinet, and so they could influence the political process for good.

“Now, all the main parties have followed a liberal and secular agenda and all MPs, particularly Ministers and Shadow Ministers, must follow the party Whip or loose their position.

“Therefore, the impact and influence Christian MPs can have inside the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties etc. is extremely small.”

He said the MP’s expenses scandal has led to a “deep mistrust” of politicians amongst the public.

“Even Christian MPs were told to keep quiet about the system by their parties and so this once again proves that you cannot be a Christian and retain your conscience within the main stream parties,” he said.

The Christian Party, which is putting up 120 candidates at the next election, believes there is a clear majority in the United Kingdom which treasures its Christian roots, even if they are not active church members. With millions of parents sending their children to church schools for the ethical stance they take, Mr Hargreaves said he hoped to tap into that level of concern come the next election.

He said: “A hostile non-Christian liberal elite now dominates all the main political parties and want to destroy what is left of our Christian culture and legacy.

“They pay lip service to wanting churches to take an active role in community life, and yet, as soon as any Christian says publicly what motivates and focuses their service to others, they are gagged for fear of offending someone.

“Grants from local and central bodies are almost impossible to obtain unless you are prepared to remain silent about what you really believe as a Christian.”

Mr Hargreaves pointed to the example of Stephen Timms, Labour MP for East Ham, as someone who was a sincere practising Christian who has to take the Labour Party Whip and vote accordingly “regardless of whether the policies are godly and satisfy his conscience”.

Recognising the watershed in the nature of British political history, the Christian Party has taken the unprecedented step of issuing a draft Pre-Election Manifesto in order that church leaders and individual Christians can scrutinise it carefully, and use it as a benchmark against the upcoming election promises of the other main parties.

Mr Hargreaves said: “Many consistencies have small majorities and with the expenses saga, the new ways that parties are whipping their MPs, despite their consciences, the 2010 General Elections provides a very real possibility for the first time, to elect genuinely open Christian MPs, who will have no party-political influence on the way they serve their electorate.

“This is a watershed in British politics and I very much hope church leaders and individual Christians will use their vote wisely and strategically in the election, and not waste it voting for people to be MPs who silence the Christian voice and thwart any Christian influence at national level.”

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU)

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to “hide the decline,” apparently in temperatures.

Click here for tons of Internet links from the Climate Depot

Click here for Tom Nelson’s constant updates

Even the mainstream media is unable to ignore this scandal anymore, although having said that, I’m sure the BBC will find an appropriate ‘spin’.

Previous Post:-

The University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre (CRU) appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today and has been hacked by an unknown hacker – man made global warming theory exposed?

I must confess. I’m rather enjoying this one, and of course what are the implications for the obsession with man-made climate change advocated by so many of our churches.

Climate change denial MEP attacks church – Roger Helmer says Anglican hierarchy has dropped the gospel in favour of ‘the new religion of climate alarmism’

Environmentalism, climate change, global warming, the new religion

If the Church of England did stop going on about its climate change initiatives, however, it really would be the end of the world – for what else would it talk about?

Hopefully, we will see a return to the gospel of our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ and enough of this man-made climate change alarmist propaganda from the church.

Switch to our mobile site