eChurch Blog

OK, I confess, I am popping this one on the blog because I loved the headline:-

Pope does not belong to church of Al Gore

How true.

(CNA).- “The Pope denounces the ecological crisis but does not belong to the church of Al Gore,” wrote Giuliano Ferrara, director of Italian daily Il Foglio, in his editorial column after reading Benedict XVI’s message for the World Day of Peace.  Ferrara described the papal message as being “of great culture” in its reminder that man must be valued above all other living things.

The Pontiff’s message underscores the threats to the environment and the necessity of taking decisive action to find long-term, inter-generational solutions to the crises of today.  It also provides parameters for the role of the Church and individual Christians in combating the environmental and economic crises, pointing to a renewal of values and morality without losing sight of the “distinctiveness and superior role” of human beings over nature.

“Benedict XVI,” wrote Ferrara in his analysis, “in no way denies human abuse of nature,” but in affirming the ecological crisis, neither does he share “the environmentalist religion or environmentalism as a religion.”

“The Pope has another faith,” Ferrara explained, one “based on the transcendence of a God that creates man in his image and likeness to entrust nature to him … he has, evidently, no need for replacement beliefs, of ideologies feigned as science.”

The Holy Father’s letter included a warning against sacrificing the sanctity of man and applying an attitude of absolutism to nature, giving it equal status to mankind.  To this, the director of Il Foglio added that such a mentality of reducing the person “to nothing more than a particle of nature… excludes, (at times) even with the approval of scientific certainty, the self-conscious freedom of humanity.”

The Pope credits the differentiation between humankind and other animal and plant life to the God-given unique physical and meta-physical constitution of men and women and their capacity to govern and protect the creation entrusted to their hands, explained Ferrara.

Benedict’s caution against “pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone” is not merely words to be heeded by the faithful, Ferrara emphasized in the editorial.  Instead, readers should also read them as a “sign of civilization and culture, an interesting syntax for us laymen and modernists (and postmodernists).”

“Indeed we too, for a long time, have been intellectually scorning and criticizing, based on rational arguments consistent with the Biblical tale, the magic environmentalism of the gurus and the militant organizations who foster a global redemption, especially when dubious, manipulating emails are exchanged as part of an idolatrous dance, supported by powerful interests with no true magic whatsoever,” wrote Ferrara.

Il Foglio also published an article in its Wednesday edition on the the deception of certain scientists and politicians who have falsified statistics to sway public opinion in their favor in the global-warming debate.

Nice. Merry Christmas darling, hope you like your present! What a mad world.

Couriermail.com.au

Speaking at Tweed Heads yesterday on a new “peaceful pill” suicide method being developed overseas, Dr Nitschke’s comments sent right-to-life campaigners and church groups into a frenzy.

Asked whether it was in the spirit of the season to be publicising ways of ending life just a week before Christmas, Dr Nitschke said he was always going to attract criticism.

“Our main opposition is from religious groups who would still be getting outraged at Easter, or any other time of year for that matter,” he said.

“There are people here in this room who I know have bought that (euthanasia medication) for their loved ones as Christmas presents.”

His comments angered Right to Life Australia‘s Queensland co-ordinator Graham Preston.

“A pill to kill yourself and your loved one as a Christmas present is absolutely reprehensible,” he said.

“Christmas should be about celebrating life, so this is a very sad thing to hear.” Australian Christian Lobby group Queensland director Peter Earle said no time of year was a good time to talk about euthanasia.

“Christmas is about giving people hope and life – how tragic Dr Nitschke would darken family lives with death at this time,” he said.

Christian lobbyists clashed angrily with police at Dr Nitschke’s last Gold Coast visit in May but there were no protesters yesterday as more than 100 people turned out to learn about “death with dignity”.

A so-called “peaceful pill” is being developed from Nembutal, a drug commonly used by vets to put down animals, but not available to humans in Australia.

Instead, many elderly or sick people are being forced to travel to Mexico, where the drug is freely available.

While the present liquid form has an expiry date, Dr Nitschke said the pill being developed could sit for years and was easy to smuggle into the country.

Jill Kleinman, of Southport watched her husband lose a long battle with cancer and said she wished a painless alternative had been available to him.

“No one should have to die like that, so I am very interested in being able to buy something like this for myself,” she said.

by Joanna Bogle – MercatorNet

After decades of aggressive secularism it is received wisdom in some circles that there should be no public displays of Christian symbols supported by public funds – no Nativity displays at Christmas, and preferably no use of the word “Christmas” because it involves using the name of Christ. In recent years, despite howls of protest in some newspapers, this notion has become entrenched, and on both sides of the Atlantic, nations steeped in Christian history have been subjected to daft campaigns in both commercial companies and public officialdom insisting on the use of “happy holidays” in place of “Merry Christmas” and even references to “holiday trees” instead of “Christmas trees”.

But none of this is new. In the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, public authorities in a major European country launched major campaigns to ban all mention of Christ at Christmas time, and to create new non-religious pictures, decorations, slogans, and messages. Today’s anti-Christian censors will not have been happy to learn, recently, exactly whose company they have been travelling in.

The Nazis put massive efforts into persuading Germans to leave Christ out of Christmas: they took pains to produce booklets and newspaper features explaining that Christ was a newcomer to the scene and that Germany’s ancient pagan religions had celebrated a midwinter festival based on the solstice. Christianity was presented as an artificial imposition, disruptive of a true sense of community and respect for conscience and individual rights. Young people were urged to take part in dawn ceremonies to mark the winter solstice –much lighting of fires, sounding of music, unfurling of banners and inauguration of feasting. Church events were marginalised, and tolerated only as a private matter, not to be associated with public life or supported in any way by holders of public office.

More than this, there was an emphasis on non-Christian decorations, Christmas tree trimmings, and general Christmas paraphernalia, with a deliberate attempt to sideline the traditional Christmas crib scenes. The Christian imagery of Christmas — the child in the manger, Mary and Joseph, angels, shepherds, kings and star – were seen as belonging to something that modern-minded people should reject and abandon.

It is intriguing that the arguments used by the Nazis – that Christianity was artificially imposed on people by a takeover of older pagan festivities – are the same ones that are used by some campaigners today. They argue that the Medieval Church used the calendar with its feast-days to impose its structures, culture and norms on a reluctant populace, and that in doing so it enforced an oppressive sexual morality and made itself rich by imposing fines and tithes on people who dared not disobey or challenge an authority which claimed an invincible deity to be on its side.

The Nazis spoke this language too. Nazi booklets and propaganda, especially that aimed at the young, constantly harped on the evils of the Medieval Church, and of Christianity in general, which was presented as narrow-minded, too much concerned with sexual morality, soaked in sentimental images of Christ and his mother, and culturally inferior to long-ago pagan religions which were presented as freedom-loving, dynamic, and joyful.

Princess Tatiana Metternich, a Russian who married an anti-Nazi German aristocrat, recalled him being ordered, as an officer in the German army, to announce a celebration of a “Spring time ceremony” designed to replace Easter. Instead, he refused and announced that it was Easter Sunday, the great Christian feast. (The Metternichs were close to the July 20th plotters who almost succeeded in toppling the Nazi regime – the Berlin Diaries of Princess Tatiana’s sister, Marie, who was secretary to the leading July plotter, Adam von Trott, make fascinating reading).

Children at German schools were taught a non-religious form of “grace before meals” that specifically celebrated the earth and banned any mention of God – today’s politically-correct campaigners, including those milling about the climate summit in Copenhagen, would warmly approve of it: “Earth that did this food bestow/Sun that made it riper grow/Dearest sun and dearest earth/We will not forget your worth”.

A Nazi newspaper in 1939 emphasised the importance of removing Christ from public rituals and celebrations and restoring the “original” pagan meaning to things: “Easter, the spring festival of our forebears, in spite of all attempts to falsify it, has preserved its original meaning as the feast of victory, the celebration of the resurrection of life and victory of the sun over the forces of winter”.

Much of this was described by German exiles who had fled from the Nazis and who published a book in London in 1940 under the title “The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich – facts and documents”. The book was widely publicised at the time in Britain, to impress upon the British public the viciously anti-Christian nature of the enemy they were now fighting. But it makes interesting reading today.

Think about it. In 1936 the local authority in southern Germany banned the decoration of any public buildings for the traditional feast of Corpus Christi, adding that, of course, “there is no objection to civil servants taking part, as private individuals, in the religious services and the accompanying procession for the feast”. So Christianity is allowed only as something private, and must not be given any public support. Sound familiar?

Yet more grim news from Iraq.

Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

KIRKUK, Iraq (AsiaNews) – A policy of “ethnic and religious cleansing” is underway in Mosul; in fact, it has worsened as Christmas approaches, Mgr Louis Sako told AsiaNews. For the archbishop of Kirkuk, this means that “security measures must be strengthened or the holiday season”. Meanwhile, tensions and fear are palpable in the city, made worse by a new attack against two places of worship, killing one person and wounding 40 more. A Christian source, anonymous for security reasons, said that the “community is destined to die”.

In the late morning, a car bomb exploded in front of the Church of the Annunciation in the al- Mohandiseen neighbourhood, damaging walls and windows. The attackers also threw grenades against the nearby Christian school, killing a baby girl and injuring 40 more people, including five high school kids. Saad Younes, father of the 8-day-old child, said that the blast occurred when his daughter and sister-in-law were leaving the nearby hospital.

A second attack targeted the Syro-Catholic Church of the Immaculate in al-Shifaa, a neighbourhood in northern Mosul. An explosive device went off in the street in front of the building’s gate. No one was killed or injured.

Yesterday’s attacks are the latest episodes in a series of violence against Christian places of worship. On 26 November, terrorists razed to the ground the Church of Saint Ephrem and the Mother House of the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine. A source told AsiaNews that most nuns left; only a few have remained but “are afraid of going out”.

Such attacks are a “warning” for Christians to leave en masse. Many “families have fled north, into Kurdistan, but are jobless and have no hope for the future. The Christian community is destined to die,” the source said.

Mgr Louis Sako shares this concern. For the archbishop of Kirkuk, “ethnic and religious cleansing” is underway in Mosul. The central government and parties are concerned only about the elections, scheduled for 7 March 2010, especially about “sharing the oil”.

The city’s political situation is complex. Arabs control local power; Kurds do not participate in the municipal council; and there is a strong presence of fundamentalist groups and members of Saddam Hussein’s old regime.

“The situation is very tense,” Mgr Sako said. “Just last week to Christian brothers were killed and two more were abducted. Where was the local government? And the Central government? Where are the representatives of the ruling parties?” the prelate asked.

Read More

Cross-post from Point of no return. Hat-tip Harry’s Place.

The myth of Jewish colonialism

In much discourse about the Middle East, there is a widespread myth that Jews are interlopers from Europe and the US – white westerners who came to ‘colonise’ and ’steal land’ from the ‘native’ Palestinian people to whom it rightfully belongs. This myth, drawing on Marxist terminology, gained increasing legitimacy after 1967 when Israel annexed East Jerusalem and ‘conquered’ the West Bank. The notion of ‘occupation’ and the use of the word ‘settlers’ reinforce the concept of Israeli ‘colonisation’ of ‘Arab’ land.

Aside from assuming that the Palestinians must be the true natives because they look authentically ‘brown’, the colonialism myth supports another myth: Jews are not a people, deserving of the right to self-determination, but a religion. Thus anti-Zionists habitually talk about of US citizens of the Jewish faith, Germans of the Jewish faith and even Arabs of the Jewish faith. At the time of the French Revolution, Clermont-Tonnerre said of the emancipation of Jews: “We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to Jews as individuals.” The Jewish community would somehow disappear, leaving only French citizens of Jewish religion or ancestry.

Lately, the notion that Jews are not one people but a motley collection of converts has been given a boost by Tel Aviv Professor Shlomo Sand, whose bestselling book, The Invention of the Jewish People, is now out in English. Sand’s theories build on the work of Arthur Koestler, who popularised the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Turkic tribe, the Khazars. Both men undermine the legitimacy of Israel by inferring that Jews have no link to Palestine. Genetic studies, however, discredit Koestler’s theory: they find that Jews from East and West have more in common with each other, and are genetically closer to non-Jews of Middle eastern origin – the Kurds in particular – than they are to the non-Jewish populations they lived amongst.

Last June President Obama articulated another myth: Israel was created as a penance for the Holocaust in Europe. This myth obscures the truth that every Arab state is equally a creation of western colonialism. It also ignores the fact that the institutions of a Jewish state-in-waiting were established decades before Ben Gurion read out Israel’s declaration of independence.

We often hear or read about Israel being populated by pork-munching non-Jewish Russians and settlers from Brooklyn. But these groups are marginal. We almost never hear that 40 percent of Israel’s Jews trace their ancestry from Muslim and Arab lands. The vast majority of these Jews merely moved from one corner of the ‘Arab’ world to that Middle Eastern coastal sliver known as Israel.

Until their expulsion 50 years ago, Jews had been settled in Iraq, for example, since the Babylonians exiled Jews from Jerusalem almost 3,000 years ago. In the early 20th century, Baghdad was the most Jewish city in the world, after Salonica and Jerusalem. The Jews can be said to have as legitimate a claim on Baghdad as Palestinians on Jerusalem.

The Arabs are relative newcomers to the region; the ‘Arab’ world is a misnomer. By the time the Arabs had conquered land largely inhabited by Jews and Christians in the 7th century, the Jews had been settled there for 1,000 years. People in the West tend to apply a common misconception to all Jews, borrowing the Christian notion that Jews have been punished to wander from land to land with no country to call their own. But not only have Jews always lived in Palestine, there was continuity of Jewish settlement in the Middle East and North Africa for 2,000 years. If only native inhabitants are titled to political rights, the Jews are as indigenous as any people living in the Middle East can be.

That Jewish presence came to an end in the last 50 years. The Arab League determined to wreak revenge on defenceless Jewish citizens in Arab lands if the partition of Palestine went ahead. On the day when five Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state, the Arab League secretary, Azzam Pasha announced :”This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.

The Arab governments actually declared two wars in 1948. The military war against the fledgling Jewish state of Israel they lost, but they declared a second war, against a million Jewish citizens. This war they won easily, through a policy of intimidation, repression, persecution and sporadic outbreaks of violence. The result is that only 4,500 Jews are left in Arab countries.

Jews ‘stealing Arab land’ is an offensive inversion of reality. Jews in 10 Arab countries were stripped of their rights and in most cases dispossessed of their property. The World Organisation of Jews from Arab Countries estimates that Jews in Arab countries lost many more billions of assets than the Palestinians, and four times as much land as the size of Israel itself.

Seen in these terms, Arab antisemitism created Israel no less than the Holocaust. The Arabs owe the Jews big-time. It’s time the world stopped viewing the conflict through a distorted, Eurocentric lens.

This is part two of an excellent cross-post from Mariano over at the Atheism is Dead Blog.

Part one can be found here.

We now conclude our consideration of arguments that have broken out about atheist attempts to proselytize children and otherwise express anti-Christian prejudice in the guise of humanism and concern and free thinking freedom of choice.

We have been considering the article written by “The [atheist] Chaplain” from An Apostate’s Chapel as we pick up where we left off in the previous segment.

As for religious wars; this is a ubiquitous atheist talking-point and one that is repeated without evidence as something that everyone known. The Encyclopedia of Wars was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.

Of course there is the simply indefensible such as the examples of the ordained predatory monsters and Islamic stoning. Yet, 1) The Chaplain does not consider two millennia of charitable work by Catholicism and one and a half by Muslims. Moreover, upon what atheistic premise does he condemn anything at all besides personal preferences which are based on personal preferences?

The Chaplain goes on to state, “The list goes on and on. One could argue more persuasively that religions have provided enduring moral teachings than that they have provided moral role models.” This is simply myopic as millions, upon millions, upon millions of “religious” people in the history of humanity have lived perfectly peaceful and moral lives and had nothing to do with any sort of persecution of anyone at all, ever.

The Chaplain notes “Of course, many non-religious philosophies have also provided enduring moral precepts, so the realm of morality is not, and never has been, exclusive to religions. On that point, Dennett and I agree”—example please. Well, for instance, we have non-religious moral philosophy/precepts that urge people to make their living expressing prejudice against “religious” people. But even granting this: if you can be good without God then, get around to it already as studied consistently show that atheist and agnostics are amongst the least charitable, least sociable and lest moral amongst us.

For example, they throw money away on attempting to be clever via ads while not helping people in real need during a time of recession. There most certainly are atheist charities such as certain aspects of the American Humanist Association, but the facts are the facts and it is not exactly atheists who have been known worldwide to be the ones who establish, run and support homeless shelters, hospitals, universities, soup kitchens, adoption agencies, disaster relief organizations, gang intervention units, drug and alcohol treatment center, etc., etc., etc.

The Chaplain also notes that,

“Susan K. Smith, a pastor in the United Church of Christ, had this to say:…I cannot for the life of me understand why humanists don’t just leave people who believe in God alone….Just like atheists don’t want God pushed down their throats, neither do those of us who believe in God want atheism pushed down ours. [second ellipses in original quote]”

The Chaplain commented on the statement thusly,

I cannot for the life of me understand how Smith got the idea that this ad is directed at her. I don’t see anything in it that urges her to give up her beliefs. Here’s a newsflash for Smith and other Christians of her ilk: it’s not all about you. Really. It’s not. This ad is not about belittling believers, it’s about encouraging nonbelievers.

AMEN TO THAT!!! “Nonbelievers,” aka believers in atheism and agnosticism, need encouraging as per the studies to which I referred above. Yet, let us not play games here; the various humanist associations who are wasting money on such ads make their living by expressing anti-“religion” prejudice. They did not produce ads reading, “Be good [period],” or “Attention non-believers; be good [period],” or “Peace on Earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages [period]” but they had to equate being good with besmirching theism by stating, “No God…” Even whilst attempting to encourage goodness they must define their position as anti-theistic: this is atheism as anti-theism. Moreover, there is an atheist commandment here, “Be good…” but ask why and you will be presented with an infinite regress of assertion as to why.

By the way; did anyone notice any ads like these???

The Chaplain is also in favor of keeping “religious” people locked away safely in their “homes and churches.” While demanding that they “keep your religion out of my community’s science curriculum (i.e., intelligent design/creationism)” as, apparently, science is to be a tool for converting children to atheism.

“And out of my country’s medical agenda (i.e., stem cell research)” consider that, for example, the Bush administration—you know, those fundie-evang-YECists-Bible-thumping-born-againers where the only administration to federally fund that research.

“And out of my country’s laws (i.e., abortion)” there you have it, The Chaplain “morality,” the being “good” for “goodness’” sake includes brutality murdering beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies. But fine, let us remove “religious” laws such as The Chaplain’s right to freedom of speech.

Consider just how far The Chaplain has gone in positively believing the materialist mythos, “That battle has already been fought and the religious have lost it – humanists, atheists, etc., will not respect beliefs that we deem to be either ridiculous, or, in more worrisome cases, dangerous.” Just how is a “battle” won via arguments from personal incredulity, by referencing that which he—with a mind safely locked away within a box of thought restricting, not following evidence where it leads, materialism—consider “ridiculous”? And “dangerous” indeed, and there is plenty of that to go around as you merely have to consider the history of the most secular and bloodiest century in human history.

The Chaplain then quotes President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw who wrote:

We evangelical types have paraded enough of our own in-your-face stuff in public places, so why should we complain when the unbelievers do the same? Nor should we get too worked up when those same folks insist that morality is possible without a belief in God. Actually, the Bible itself teaches that such is the case….

Ultimately, of course, the big question is what–or Whom–we are trusting in as we go about our efforts to “be good for goodness’ sake.” But, as for the Humanists wanting to run their anti-God ads: I say, “No problem”–at least in the short run. [ellipses in original quote]

I certainly agree with the first sentiment and have iterated it and reiterated it variously. Let them exercise their theistically inspired free speech as nothing discredits atheism more and faster than simply having atheist speak up as loudly and often as they please.

But what did The Chaplain get out of this, “Did you catch that? He ended with the trump card to trump all trump cards – the Threat of Hell! What a humble guy! His cup runneth over with Jesus’ love.” Certainly, hell should not be a threat but a loving warning.

The Chaplain also states,

“The person who most closely captures my attitude about the whole War on Christmas issue is Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, formerly of Chicago Theological Seminary and now a fellow at the Center for American Progress:

American public holidays are about consumption, not God. Even worse, the Christian faith has internalized this message of cultural Christmas. Christians themselves often forget what Christmas is really about. The humanists really can’t do any more harm to Christians about Christmas than we’ve already done to ourselves.

American holidays, particularly Christmas, are all about the economy. Economists track the health or weakness of the economy based on the purchasing habits of American consumers between now and Christmas….

We’ve set up our entire economy to depend on the sales generated by the hype of “holidays,” particularly Christmas. What could this possibly have to do with God?

I believe that this is rightly and simply categorized under, “Speak for yourself.” Certainly, the sentiment is true at large and in general but if your “holidays are about consumption, not God,” if they are not holy days then, repent. If you are a celebrator of “cultural Christmas” then, repent. If you have forgotten “what Christmas is really about” then, repent. If you neglect the Christ in Christmas then, repent. Repent and return to the joy of celebrating the birth of the Messiah Jesus.

The end of The Chaplain’s article is an appeal to personal, and conveniently self-serving, anecdotes. Yet, even here he misses the point. He is attempting to further prove that:

The secularization of Christmas has occurred…with the full cooperation of Christians. Here’s an example of how a Christian organization does its part to secularize Christmas: the American Family Association opposes the secularization of Christmas by rating “naughty” and “nice” retailers according to how vociferously their sales catalogs promote Christmas rather than a generic holiday season. Moreover, the association urges people to boycott the naughty merchants and do all of their Christmas shopping at the nice stores…i-r-o-n-y.

I am not certain that it is secularizing Christmas to encourage the solicitation of merchants who, more so than not, support Christmas.

The Chaplain leaves us with a generalized references to “I’ll leave it to others to fight faux religious wars, max out credit cards and do almost everything to excess…”

Harvard University’s humanist chaplain endorsed the AHA campaign with the claim that “if Humanist organizations are celebrating the holidays more publicly these days, it is because the holidays are not about God.”[1]

Again, this is a personal decision and one that may be rectified by remembering the reason for the season: Jesus.

Oh, by the way if Christmas brings an infusion of much needed money into the economy in a time of recession I suppose that I will say—you are welcome.

[1] Robert Parham, “Better Angels Needed for Peace in Christmas Wars Robert Parham,” Ethics Daily, November 30, 2009

I have been watching news flood in from all over the Christian world relating to the death of Oral Roberts. All of the ‘big hitters’ have been busy sharing their thoughts on the man, from Joel Osteen to the Graham’s.

Much of the coverage is predictable, as Roberts was a controversial and major influence in the rise of Pentecostalism and of course the wretched ‘prosperity gospel‘.

But did you know that Oral Roberts was a minister for the United Methodist church during the final decades of his life? I must admit that I didn’t and I have seen no mention of this in any of the media reports except for the excellent Get Religion Blog.

Get Religion

Obviously, one of the major religion stories of the day is the death of the Rev. Oral Roberts at the age of 91. I would imagine that the major newspapers have had obituaries ready for a decade or more.

This another one of those stories about the passing of a landmark figure in American and even global religion. However, we have to ask: What is the key “story” inside the larger story that is the life of Oral Roberts?

Clearly, his role in the creation of the “prosperity Gospel” is crucial. However, Roberts was a major figure in another story, one that has had a much larger global impact in all Christian churches — from Pentecostalism to Catholicism. And what is that story?

Well, let me ask two questions that I think are crucial. First, what is the most controversial thing that Roberts did in his life, from the point of view of his Pentecostal supporters? If you look at his life from their perspective, then we are not talking about the (justifiable) media storm that surrounded his life-and-death vision of a 900-foot Jesus and, eventually, that divine threat to call him home. The second question is linked to the first: Oral Roberts was a minister in what denomination, during the final decades of his life?

The answer to the second question: The United Methodist Church.

The answer to the first is clearly: His decision to join the United Methodist Church.

Read More

Polycarp over at the Church of Jesus Christ blog, simply notes the ‘notable alums of the Oral Roberts University’. I don’t think he’s impressed!

Cross post by Young Mr. Brown, from the excellent Marmalade Sandwich Blog:-

Is libertarianism compatible with Christianity?

Not my question, but that of Mr. Stewart Cowan of Real Street, asked in a comment on a post on this blog.

It is a question that has been discussed a lot in other places, but why not have another discussion here? Blogs are for reinventing the wheel, are they not?

I. Stewart’s question

Is libertarianism compatible with Christianity? We know that the truth will make us free and that behaving however we want will lead us into sin and enslave us.

To which I answered, in brief: “I agree with your second sentence. Libertarianism is about political freedom, not ultimate freedom. Politics cannot make anyone free, and operates in a completely different realm from the gospel – though politics can bring political freedom. So I’m not sure what the connection is between your first sentence and your second sentence.

If you can persuade me from Scripture that libertarianism is not compatible with Christianity, I shall be grateful. But my view is that it is more compatible with Christianity than any other form of politics in a sinful and fallen world.”

II. Definitions of Libertarianism.

My definition: Libertarianism: the philosophy that holds that the ultimate political value is the freedom of the individual, and that the most effective way to uphold that freedom is to limit the scope of the state to those activities which directly defend that freedom.

Leg-Iron: Libertarianism . . . means fewer and simpler laws that are easy to understand and follow. . . . You are free to do whatever you want in Libertarianism as long as it hurts nobody else. Cause trouble and the proverbial ton of bricks comes into play.

Counting Cats: The basic principle is: “Thou shalt not initiate the use of violence.” Everything else derives from that. Note, this is not pacifism; if someone initiates violence against you and yours, or your friends and allies and theirs, you are free to respond as you see fit. (And “violence” basically means “coercion”, as I understand this definition.)

Bella Gerens: Libertarians believe you should be free from coercion – and that you must not coerce anyone else. Libertarians believe you should be free from interference – and that you must not interfere with anyone else. Libertarians believe you should be free from oppression – and that you must not oppress anyone else. Because these are to be universal freedoms: what you do not wish done to you, you must not do to anyone else.

There are many more, but those give one a basic idea. (A lot of libertarians speak about “self-ownership” being the basic principle of libertarianism, though I find that philosophically problematic, and don’t accept it.)

III. So,what are the options?

1. No philosophy of government is compatible with Christianity. All fall short. And so, by implication, Christians should not be involved in politics or waste time discussing political matters.

2. Christians have a duty to “christianise” society, and should use political (among other) means to do so. This implies using force on unbelievers. This is what many would call the Constantinian or “Christendom” model. However, in my opinion, 2000 years of church history show that this has a nasty habit of turning, er, nasty – though there are plenty of people working on non-nasty variants. But these often end up being virtually indistinguishable from mainstream western political parties.

(I have dealt with both those options, to some extent, here.)

3. Libertarianism is not compatible with Christianity, but some other (basically secular) political philosophies are.

4. Libertarianism is compatible with Christianity. Indeed, it may be more compatible with Christianity than other political philosophies.

IV. A brief vindication of the thesis that libertarianism is compatible with Christianity.

1. The New Testament nowhere suggests that Christians have a duty to use the power of the sword to christianise society by political means.

2. What is the main thing that Christians are to seek from government?

I Timothy 2:1-2 “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

The main thing Christians are urged to pray for, when we pray for politicians, is that government will allow us to lead a peaceful and quiet life, and to let us get on with being Christians. This implies that the main thing that we are to look for from government is to basically leave us alone and protect us from those who would attack us. Which is basically the libertarianism position.

3. If we want to be allowed to lead a peaceful and quiet life, then we should want others to be allowed to lead a quiet life and do what they want to do. As a Christian, you cannot consistently ask the government to grant you the freedom to do what you want, if you, at the same time, want the government to deny others the freedom to do what they want (as long, of course, as it does not hurt someone else). Luke 6:31 “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

4. I have never seen anything in the Bible which suggests that libertarian principles are not compatible with Christianity.

If readers believe that I am wrong, then I invite them to point out my errors.

This poor fellow meant to pin his 95 theses to the church door and accidently pinned a dead rabbit instead….easy mistake!

BBC

A man has been charged after a dead rabbit was allegedly pinned to the front door of a church in Grantown in the Highlands.

The 32-year-old man, who has not been named, was arrested following a nine-month investigation.

The dead animal was attached to Grantown Baptist Church in the town’s High Street in February.

The man charged is from the Grantown area and is expected to appear at Inverness Sheriff court.

9 month police investigation?!?

Telegraph

Researchers describe a large proportion of the country as the “fuzzy faithful” who have a vague belief in God but do not necessarily belong to a particular denomination or attend services.

However, most people still say religion helps bring happiness and comfort, and regret its declining influence on modern society.

Professor David Voas, who has analysed the latest data, said: “More and more people are ceasing to identify with a religion at all.

“Indeed, the key distinction in Britain now is between religious involvement and indifference. We are thus concerned about differences in religiosity – the degree of religious commitment – at least as much as diversity of religious identity.”

His analysis, to be published in January by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), looks at the results of 4,486 interviews conducted in the respected 2008 British Social Attitudes survey.

It shows that just 50 per cent of respondents now call themselves Christian, down from 66 per cent in 1983. NatCen said it confirmed “the sharp decline in religious faith in Britain.”

At the same time, the proportion of Britons who say they have “no religion” has increased from 31 per cent to 43 per cent. Non-Christians, including Muslims and Jews, now represent 7 per cent of the population, up from 2 per cent, 25 years ago.

The steepest fall was among those who say they worship in the established religion, the Church of England, down from 40 per cent of those who call themselves Christians to 23 per cent.

Official Church attendance figures show that average Sunday attendance was 978,000 in 2007, compared with 1.2m in 1983.

Prof Voas said: “The declining Christian share is largely attributable to a drift away from the Church of England.”

The proportion of Roman Catholics declined only slightly from 10 per cent to 9 per cent.

Further questions showed that 37 per cent of Britons either do not believe in God or are unable to say if a supreme being exists, while 35 per cent have a definite belief in God or belief with occasional doubts.

Only 7 per cent described themselves as very religious, and 62 per cent said they never attended services in a place of worship.

Even 49 per cent of those who said they were Anglicans claimed never go to church, while just 8 per cent go every Sunday.

The study suggests that the decline in faith is largely attributable to children no longer being brought up in a particular religion.

“The results suggest that institutional religion in Britain now has a half-life of one generation, to borrow the terminology of radioactive decay.

“Two non-religious parents successfully transmit their lack of religion. Two religious parents have roughly a 50/50 chance of passing on the faith. One religious parent does only half as well as two together.”

Separate research suggests that immigration has led to a rise in adherence to Pentecostal Christianity and other world religions in Britain, leading to a “polarisation of belief” with the secular indigenous population.

Prof Voas believes that the population can be categorised as religious, non-religious or “fuzzy faithful” – the 36 per cent who “identify with a religion, believe in God or attend services, but not all three”.

Despite the survey showing falling belief in God, 65 per cent of those questioned still thought that religion helps people to find inner piece while 79 per cent thought it provided solace.

In addition, 44 per cent said it was a shame that the influence of religion on British life was declining, while 18 per cent claimed both that faith is becoming more influential and that this is a bad thing.

Read More

George Pitcher has written a good piece on this research which sums it all up nicely for me:-

Christianity dying? Don’t bet your church on it