eChurch Blog

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

by Sandro Magister

ROME, January 18, 2010 – Benedict XVI’s words yesterday in the synagogue of Rome – presented further below in their entirety – are all the more revealing in that they reverberated in a landscape that is not entirely friendly, as is inevitable between two faiths so united in their origin and at the same time so radically divided by that Jesus of Nazareth who for Christians is the Son of God.

Pope Joseph Ratzinger was welcomed to the synagogue by the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, and by practically the entire Jewish community of Rome, the largest in Italy and the heir of the one that inhabited the city “caput mundi” even before the arrival of the apostles Peter and Paul, Jews who had converted to Jesus.

But the other famous rabbi of Italy, Giuseppe Laras of the Jewish community of Milan, wasn’t there. He didn’t believe in this encounter, and said, “only the Church will benefit from it.” In his view, with Benedict XVI the fraternal relationship between Jews and Catholics has not been strengthened, but “has become weaker and weaker.”

Rabbi Di Segni replied, “Time will tell which of [our] two opposite views is right.”

In effect, there are many “undecided” questions between the Jews and the Church of Rome.

THE DAY OF THE “MOED DI PIOMBO”

Even the date chosen for the visit had two different connotations. For the Jews of Rome, January 17 is the day of the “Moed di piombo”: the commemoration of the  fire that was ignited in their ghetto out of hatred in 1793, fortunately extinguished by a violent rainstorm that fell out of a “lead” (“piombo”) colored sky.

The fenced-in ghetto was for centuries the way of life for Jews in papal Rome. At the end of his visit to the synagogue, Benedict XVI inaugurated in the Jewish Museum an exhibition on how, in the eighteenth century, Roman Jews were required to participate in the installation ceremony for each new pope: with flowers, banners, and standards, in the area between the Colosseum and the Arch of Titus, which celebrates the definitive destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Roman empire.

THE REFUSAL OF RABBI LARAS

By January 17 is also, in Italy, the “Day for the exploration and development of dialogue between Catholics and Jews.” Since 2001, the Jewish community has been promoting it together with the Italian bishops, and since 2005, both sides have agreed to dedicate it, year after year, to one of the ten commandments, in the wake of the speech given that year by Benedict XVI in the synagogue of Cologne.

Last year, however, the Jews retracted their participation in the day, above all at the urging of Rabbi Laras, blaming Benedict XVI himself, and in particular his decision to introduce into the ancient Roman rite for Good Friday the prayer that God “may enlighten” the hearts of the Jews, “that they may recognize Jesus Christ as Savior of all men.” A prayer judged by Laras to be unacceptable, because it is aimed at the conversion of Jews to the Christian faith.

Not all Italian Jews agreed with this act of rupture. But the controversy surrounding Benedict XVI took on even harsher tones and spread to the entire world because of the revocation of excommunication for four Lefebvrist bishops with anti-Jewish tendencies, one of whom, Richard Williamson of England, had blatantly denied the Holocaust.

The pope explained the intention for his action in a letter to the Catholic bishops dated March 10, 2009. And in one passage of the letter, he thanked “the Jewish friends” who – more than many churchmen – had helped him “to remove misunderstanding and reestablish friendship and trust.”

The storm died down a little. And so in 2010, this January 17, the Italian Jews again joined the bishops in promoting the day of dialogue, dedicating it to the commandment “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” the fourth in the Jewish numbering.

The climate had been improved in part by Benedict XVI’s trip to the Holy Land, last May.

But even after that trip, the controversial questions remained open. Two of them in particular, both interrelated: Pius XII, and the Holocaust.

THE SILENCES OF PIUS XII AND OF THE JEWS

The main accusation that many Jews all over the world – but also some Catholics – make against Pius XII is that he was silent in the face of the Nazi extermination.

Before entering the synagogue yesterday, Benedict XVI stopped in front of the stone that commemorates the deportation to Auschwitz of a thousand Jews from Rome, on October 16, 1943. The accusation against Pius XII is that he was also silent on that occasion, as the president of the Jewish community of Rome, Riccardo Pacifici, reiterated in the speech with which he welcomed the pope to the synagogue:

“The silence of Pius XII in the face of the Shoah still gives us pain, as an unfulfilled act. He might not have stopped the death trains, but he would have transmitted a signal, a word of final comfort and human solidarity, to our brothers and sisters who were being taken to the ovens of Auschwitz.”

In defense of Pius XII, it is maintained that he was silent in order  to avoid provoking, with public protests, even more victims. And on the contrary, he did a great deal to save the lives of many Jews, who in a effect found protection in Catholic churches, convents, schools. Protection acknowledged with emotional words from Pacifici, whose father found safety in a convent of sisters in Florence.

Precisely in the days leading up to Benedict XVI’s visit to the synagogue, other cases of Jews who were saved became known. Some of these found refuge during the war in the Roman abbey of Tre Fontane, built on the site of St. Paul’s martyrdom. The Germans had established themselves there, but they didn’t realize that among the monks, hidden by the monastic habit, there were also Jews, who were saved in the end.

On the historiographical level, the profile of Pius XII as “Hitler’s pope” appears increasingly unfounded. But criticism of his public silence about the Holocaust remains strong and widespread. And this explains the negative reaction of many Jews to the progress of the beatification cause of Pius XII, one important step in which was the proclamation of his “heroic virtues,” last December 19.

According to Rabbi Laras, this decision by Benedict XVI should have been sufficient reason for the Jews of Rome to cancel his visit to the synagogue.

But the question of silence about the Holocaust is more complex than it may appear. In addition to the silence of Pius XII, there were also the silences of others, which lasted long after the second war. The accusations against Pius XII became loud and persistent only after his death, beginning in the 1960′s. Because before then, the Jewish world was also silent, not so much about that pope as about the Holocaust itself:

“The fifteen years after the second world war that in Europe was the period of silence and of the great removal of the Holocaust, was in fact also for Israel a period of silence.”

So wrote Anna Foa, a Jewish professor of history at the University of Rome “La Sapienza,” in an article published in “L’Osservatore Romano” on January 15, 2010, two days before Benedict XVI’s visit to the synagogue.

An article of considerable significance, because of where it was written and when.

ANNA FOA AND THE “ORIGINAL SIN” OF ISRAEL

In the article, Anna Foa endorses the ideas of one of the leading scholars of Zionism, Georges Bensoussan. In the opinion of both, the state of Israel was not born as”redemption” from the extermination of the Jews carried out by Hitler. The real force behind the state was Zionism, already during the British mandate, with the settlement of that land by Jews who wanted to create a new man. The idea of the Holocaust as the foundation of the state of Israel gained strength only much later, after the Eichmann trial and especially after the war of Yom Kippur, in recent decades. And what paved the way for it – Anna Foa writes – was precisely the fifteen years of postwar silence: a silence “inhabited by repressed memories, by new fears identified with the ancient fears that had come true in the Holocaust, by the sense of guilt and the desire for revenge.”

Interpreted this way, the birth of the state of Israel is no longer that “original sin” which even today many of its friends and enemies ascribe to it. The latter of these include many Catholics, first among them the Arabs living in the region. The most authoritative of these, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem Fouad Twal, was also in the synagogue of Rome yesterday, at the pope’s arrival.

According to this “vulgate,” the state of Israel was created by the great powers in order to remedy the previous extermination in Europe of six million Jews, which meant that one injustice was compensated by committing another against the local Arab population. In 1964, when Paul VI went to the Holy Land, the Church of Rome had not yet accepted the existence of the new state. And when three decades later, in 1993, the Holy See finally recognized the state of Israel and established diplomatic relations with it, the Arab Christians took this act as a betrayal.

But on the part of John Paul II, and now of Benedict XVI, the recognition of Israel no longer has any reservation.

While, on the other hand, the incessant use of the memory of the Holocaust as a weapon of accusation against the Church of Pius XII and of his successors prevents Judaism from leaving behind its identity as a victim.

This is how Anna Foa concludes her article in “L’Osservatore Romano.” By taking the Holocaust, instead of Zionism, as the foundation of its political and religious identity, Israel risks “clinging to catastrophe instead of hope in the future”; it closes itself off in “a sorrowful identity that always oscillates between Auschwitz and Jerusalem.”

MORDECHAY LEWY AND THE INABILITY TO FORGIVE

Also in “L’Osservatore Romano,” in the days before Benedict XVI’s visit to the synagogue, another authoritative Jew went even deeper into the heart of the same question.

The author, Mordechay Lewy, is the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, and in addition to publishing his article in the Vatican newspaper on January 13, also published it in the monthly magazine for Jewish Italians “Pagine ebraiche.”

Lewy acknowledges that “only a few representatives of Judaism are really involved in the current dialogue with Catholics.” They are above all Reformed Jews, while the Orthodox currents are more resistant.

The reason – he writes – is that the dialogue between Jews and Christians is asymmetrical. While the Christians have the Old Testament together with the New, the Jews tend to define their own religious identity in terms of “theological self-sufficiency.” They feel that they are the only ones “chosen” by God. Strenuously trying to survive in the midst of Christians who for centuries did everything they could to convert them, “kindly or, in the majority of cases, coercively.”

In this way, “a deep and painful wound inflicted in the past is opened every time the victim finds himself in front of the symbols of the executioner.”

This is still what happens today for many Jews, Lewy writes:

“They want to avoid any situation in which they have to forgive someone, especially if he is identified rightly or wrongly as a representative of the executioner. The Jewish victim seems incapable of granting absolution for wrongs committed long ago or recently against his brothers and sisters.”

Self-criticism is no small thing. But in the speech he addressed to Benedict XVI, in welcoming him to the synagogue, the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, had words of hope about Jews and Christians being “brothers”:

“The narrative of Sefer Bereshit, Genesis, gives us some precious suggestions for understanding. As Rabbi Sachs explains, from the beginning to the end of the book, there is leitmotif tying together the different stories. The relationship between brothers starts out badly, with Cain killing Abel. Another pair of brothers, Isaac and Ishmael, live separated, the victims of an inherited rivalry, but are united in their gesture of compassion when they bury their father Abraham. A third pair of brothers, Esau and Jacob, have an equally conflicting relationship, they meet for a brief reconciliation and an embrace and then their roads separate. Finally, there is the story of Joseph and his brothers, which begins dramatically with an attempted murder and sale into slavery but is resolved with a final reconciliation when Joseph’s brothers admit their error and give proof of their willingness to sacrifice themselves one for the other. If ours is a relationship of brothers, we should ask ourselves quite sincerely what point of this journey we have reached, and how far we still have to travel before we recover an authentic relationship of brotherhood and understanding, and what we have to do to achieve this.”

*

Against this backdrop, this is what pope Joseph Ratzinger said in the synagogue of Rome on January 17, 2010.

__________

THE “TEN WORDS” THAT ILLUMINATE THE WORLD

by Benedict XVI

“What marvels the Lord worked for them!
What marvels the Lord worked for us:
Indeed we were glad” (Ps 126).

“How good and how pleasant it is
when brothers live in unity” (Ps 133).

1. At the beginning of this encounter in the Great Synagogue of the Jews of Rome, the Psalms which we have heard suggest to us the right spiritual attitude in which to experience this particular and happy moment of grace: the praise of the Lord, who has worked marvels for us and has gathered us in his “hesed,” his merciful love, and thanksgiving to him for granting us this opportunity to come together to strengthen the bonds which unite us and to continue to travel together along the path of reconciliation and fraternity. [...]

When he came among you for the first time, as a Christian and as Pope, my Venerable Predecessor John Paul II, almost 24 years ago, wanted to make a decisive contribution to strengthening the good relations between our two communities, so as to overcome every misconception and prejudice. My visit forms a part of the journey already begun, to confirm and deepen it. With sentiments of heartfelt appreciation, I come among you to express to you the esteem and the affection which the Bishop and the Church of Rome, as well as the entire Catholic Church, have towards this Community and all Jewish communities around the world.

2. The teaching of the Second Vatican Council has represented for Catholics a clear landmark to which constant reference is made in our attitude and our relations with the Jewish people, marking a new and significant stage. The Council gave a strong impetus to our irrevocable commitment to pursue the path of dialogue, fraternity and friendship, a journey which has been deepened and developed in the last forty years, through important steps and significant gestures. Among them, I should mention once again the historic visit by my Venerable Predecessor to this Synagogue on 13 April 1986, the numerous meetings he had with Jewish representatives, both here in Rome and during his Apostolic Visits throughout the world, the Jubilee Pilgrimage which he made to the Holy Land in the year 2000, the various documents of the Holy See which, following the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration “Nostra aetate”, have made helpful contributions to the increasingly close relations between Catholics and Jews. I too, in the course of my Pontificate, have wanted to demonstrate my closeness to and my affection for the people of the Covenant. I cherish in my heart each moment of the pilgrimage that I had the joy of making to the Holy Land in May of last year, along with the memories of numerous meetings with Jewish Communities and Organizations, in particular my visits to the Synagogues of Cologne and New York.

Furthermore, the Church has not failed to deplore the failings of her sons and daughters, begging forgiveness for all that could in any way have contributed to the scourge of anti- Semitism and anti-Judaism (cf. Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,” 16 March 1998). May these wounds be healed forever! The heartfelt prayer which Pope John Paul II offered at the Western Wall on 26 March 2000 comes back to my mind, and it calls forth a profound echo in our hearts: “God of our Fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”

3. The passage of time allows us to recognize in the Twentieth Century a truly tragic period for humanity: ferocious wars that sowed destruction, death and suffering like never before; frightening ideologies, rooted in the idolatry of man, of race, and of the State, which led to brother killing brother. The singular and deeply disturbing drama of the Shoah represents, as it were, the most extreme point on the path of hatred that begins when man forgets his Creator and places himself at the centre of the universe. As I noted during my visit of 28 May 2006 to the Auschwitz Concentration camp, which is still profoundly impressed upon my memory, “the rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people”, and, essentially, “by wiping out this people, they intended to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that remain eternally valid.”

Here in this place, how could we not remember the Roman Jews who were snatched from their homes, before these very walls, and who with tremendous brutality were killed at Auschwitz? How could one ever forget their faces, their names, their tears, the desperation faced by these men, women and children? The extermination of the people of the Covenant of Moses, at first announced, then systematically programmed and put into practice in Europe under the Nazi regime, on that day tragically reached as far as Rome. Unfortunately, many remained indifferent, but many, including Italian Catholics, sustained by their faith and by Christian teaching, reacted with courage, often at risk of their lives, opening their arms to assist the Jewish fugitives who were being hunted down, and earning perennial gratitude. The Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way.

The memory of these events compels us to strengthen the bonds that unite us so that our mutual understanding, respect and acceptance may always increase.

4. Our closeness and spiritual fraternity find in the Holy Bible – in Hebrew “Sifre Qodesh” or “Book of Holiness” – their most stable and lasting foundation, which constantly reminds us of our common roots, our history and the rich spiritual patrimony that we share. It is in pondering her own mystery that the Church, the People of God of the New Covenant, discovers her own profound bond with the Jews, who were chosen by the Lord before all others to receive his word (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 839). “The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh is the Christ’ (Rom 9:4-5), ‘for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable!’ (Rom 11:29)” (Ibid).

5. Many lessons may be learnt from our common heritage derived from the Law and the Prophets. I would like to recall some of them: first of all, the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people “at the level of their spiritual identity”, which offers Christians the opportunity to promote “a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament” (cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” 2001, pp.12 and 55); the centrality of the Decalogue as a common ethical message of permanent value for Israel, for the Church, for non-believers and for all of humanity; the task of preparing or ushering in the Kingdom of the Most High in the “care for creation” entrusted by God to man for him to cultivate and to care for responsibly (cf. Gen 2:15).

6. In particular, the Decalogue – the “Ten Words” or Ten Commandments (cf. Ex 20:1-17; Dt 5:1-21) – which comes from the Torah of Moses, is a shining light for ethical principles, hope and dialogue, a guiding star of faith and morals for the people of God, and it also enlightens and guides the path of Christians. It constitutes a beacon and a norm of life in justice and love, a “great ethical code” for all humanity. The “Ten Commandments” shed light on good and evil, on truth and falsehood, on justice and injustice, and they match the criteria of every human person’s right conscience. Jesus himself recalled this frequently, underlining the need for active commitment in living the way of the Commandments: “If you wish to enter into life, observe the Commandments” (Mt 19:17). From this perspective, there are several possible areas of cooperation and witness. I would like to recall three that are especially important for our time.

The “Ten Commandments” require that we recognize the one Lord, against the temptation to construct other idols, to make golden calves. In our world there are many who do not know God or who consider him superfluous, without relevance for their lives; hence, other new gods have been fabricated to whom man bows down. Reawakening in our society openness to the transcendent dimension, witnessing to the one God, is a precious service which Jews and Christians can offer together.

The “Ten Commandments” call us to respect life and to protect it against every injustice and abuse, recognizing the worth of each human person, created in the image and likeness of God. How often, in every part of the world, near and far, the dignity, the freedom and the rights of human beings are trampled upon! Bearing witness together to the supreme value of life against all selfishness, is an important contribution to a new world where justice and peace reign, a world marked by that “shalom” which the lawgivers, the prophets and the sages of Israel longed to see.

The “Ten Commandments” call us to preserve and to promote the sanctity of the family, in which the personal and reciprocal, faithful and definitive “Yes” of man and woman makes room for the future, for the authentic humanity of each, and makes them open, at the same time, to the gift of new life. To witness that the family continues to be the essential cell of society and the basic environment in which human virtues are learned and practised is a precious service offered in the construction of a world with a more human face.

7. As Moses taught in the “Shema” (cf. Dt 6:5; Lev 19:34) – and as Jesus reaffirms in the Gospel (cf. Mk 12:19-31), all of the Commandments are summed up in the love of God and lovingkindness towards one’s neighbour. This Rule urges Jews and Christians to exercise, in our time, a special generosity towards the poor, towards women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy. In the Jewish tradition there is a wonderful saying of the Fathers of Israel: “Simon the Just often said: The world is founded on three things: the Torah, worship, and acts of mercy” (Avoth 1:2). In exercising justice and mercy, Jews and Christians are called to announce and to bear witness to the coming Kingdom of the Most High, for which we pray and work in hope each day.

8. On this path we can walk together, aware of the differences that exist between us, but also aware of the fact that when we succeed in uniting our hearts and our hands in response to the Lord’s call, his light comes closer and shines on all the peoples of the world. The progress made in the last forty years by the International Committee for Catholic-Jewish Relations and, in more recent years, by the Mixed Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and of the Holy See, are a sign of our common will to continue an open and sincere dialogue. Tomorrow here in Rome, in fact, the Mixed Commission will hold its ninth meeting, on “Catholic and Jewish Teaching on Creation and the Environment”; we wish them a profitable dialogue on such a timely and important theme.

9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful.

10. Finally, I offer a particular reflection on this, our city of Rome, where, for nearly two millennia, as Pope John Paul II said, the Catholic Community with its Bishop and the Jewish Community with its Chief Rabbi have lived side by side. May this proximity be animated by a growing fraternal love, expressed also in closer cooperation, so that we may offer a valid contribution to solving the problems and difficulties that we still face.

I beg from the Lord the precious gift of peace in the world, above all in the Holy Land. During my pilgrimage there last May, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, I prayed to Him who can do all things, asking: “Send your peace upon this Holy Land, upon the Middle East, upon the entire human family; stir the hearts of those who call upon your name, to walk humbly in the path of justice and compassion”.

I give thanks and praise to God once again for this encounter, asking him to strengthen our fraternal bonds and to deepen our mutual understanding.

“O praise the Lord, all you nations,
acclaim him, all you peoples.
Strong is his love for us,
He is faithful forever.
Alleluia” (Ps 117)

(Unofficial Vatican translation)

This one made me laugh my socks off, courtesy of Yeze over at the Rosh Pina Project:-

Sobering and hard-hitting analysis from Bill Muehlenberg looking at the attempt by Packer to ‘straighten up’ the church with the use of catechisms.

Spurgeon himself was a huge fan of catechisms for the purpose of ‘safeguarding against error’ and said the following:-

I am persuaded that the use of a good Catechism in all our families will be a great safeguard against the increasing errors of the times, and therefore I have compiled this little manual from the Westminster Assembly’s and Baptist Catechisms, for the use of my own church and congregation. Those who use it in their families or classes must labour to explain the sense; but the words should be carefully learned by heart, for they will be understood better as years pass.

Combating Christian Paganism by Bill

While Christian paganism may seem to be a contradiction in terms, it sadly is not. Indeed, there are growing segments of the church which may be better described as pagan than as Christian. Many churches have abandoned biblical truth, and have instead simply latched onto the latest secular trends and fads.

Because belief in truth has been undermined in the surrounding culture, it is not surprising that truth is under attack within the churches as well. Unfortunately almost any non-biblical belief or agenda can now be found in various circles calling themselves Christian.

Want to introduce homosexuality into the churches? No problem. There are plenty of churches which have long ago given up on the biblical position on that issue. Want divorce to be just as easy as it is in the surrounding secular culture? Easy, that is well under way as well.

Want to try to combine New Age teaching with biblical beliefs? Yep, that too is being done in many churches. Want to argue that all religious traditions are more or less equal, and we must not be too exclusive in our beliefs? All sorts of church groups are running with that one. Sadly, much of the church today has simply succumbed to the spirit of the age

Consider the words of one leading pastor: “There is an amazing ignorance of Scripture among many, and a consequent want of established, solid religion. In no other way can I account for the ease with which people are, like children, ‘tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine’ (Eph. 4:14). There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers.  Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true. There is an incessant craving after any teaching which is sensational, and exciting, and rousing to the feelings. There is an unhealthy appetite for a sort of spasmodic and hysterical Christianity.”

Powerful words. But they were actually written by the great English evangelical J. C. Ryle back in 1877! So this paganisation of the churches is not exactly new, but it seems to be getting more pronounced with each passing year. And I am not the only one to be greatly concerned about such trends. One of the fathers of modern evangelicalism, J.I. Packer is equally concerned, and has just penned a new volume in order to turn things around.

Called Grounded in the Gospel (Baker, 2010), Packer and Gary Parrett seek to stop the rot by calling Christians to return to sound biblical instruction, including the systematic teaching of Christian doctrine. A recent article in Christianity Today explains their concerns:

“Influential theologian J I Packer wants evangelical churches to recover catechesis, or systematic instruction in the essentials of the Christian faith. Packer believes the idea is an alien concept to most evangelicals. ‘We are drifting back into paganism, that’s the truth,’ he said in a lecture last Saturday at St Matthew’s Cathedral in Dallas, according to The Living Church News Service.

“The 83-year-old Anglican priest has co-authored a new book, Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way, in which he makes the case that catechesis is a non-negotiable practice of churches and is of no less value than Bible study and expository preaching.

“During Saturday’s lecture, he said he yearns for ‘Bible-based, Christ-centred, declarative in style’. But recovering catechesis in churches will be a challenge, he added. Earlier, he called it the greatest challenge for the 21st century church.”

Packer said its “ridiculous to think that no more learning of the faith is necessary after confirmation has taken place. Ongoing learning is part of the calling of the church. It has to be taught in all churches at all times.”

To which I offer a hearty ‘Amen’. I have been continually dismayed and astonished over recent years at just what a dismal understanding so many Christians have of even the most basic of Christian teachings. Many believers could not explain key biblical doctrines, or probably even recite five of the Ten Commandments.

Indeed, how many believers even read their Bibles on a regular basis, let alone study it thoroughly and consistently? And how many are getting sound teaching and biblical exposition in their own pulpits? I suspect that only a small minority of believers today are exposed to regular, systematic biblical teaching.

What many believers are getting today of course is plenty of entertainment. They are getting all sorts of mushy, feel-good pep talks, therapy sessions, how-to-courses (how to feel good about yourself, how to lose weight for Jesus, etc), and lots of bubblegum teaching.

But where is the solid book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter exposition of the Word of God? Where is the systematic teaching of basic Bible doctrines? Where is the emphasis on Bible memorisation and the daily study of Christian truths?

In a society which emphasises image over content, entertainment over teaching, superficiality over substance, and emotions over thought, it is no wonder that the churches have been floundering. They have simply bought into the surrounding culture.

They have thought that a parade of celebrities will do the trick. They have thought that making people feel good is all that is needed. They have thought that telling people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear will suffice.

No wonder our churches are having so little impact, and so many in the world simply yawn – or laugh – at Christianity. No wonder we are making so little headway, and having so little influence. Why would the world want to come into the churches when all they find there is much of the same? If entertainment and amusement is all we can offer, well, the world can usually do a better job of such things.

Will a renewal of catechesis solve all of our problems? No, but it is surely part of a much-needed makeover of the church today. The importance on doctrine and teaching is splashed all over the pages of the New Testament. If the early disciples needed such systematic training and teaching in biblical truth, then we today certainly do as well.

I for one applaud the call of Packer to revitalise a dying, and increasingly pagan, church. The question is, will his call fall on deaf ears? Time will tell, but unless the Western churches decide to start getting serious about their faith – including the importance of biblical doctrine – then the future is looking rather grim indeed.

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/church-is-drifting-into-paganism-says-packer/7485.htm

Heartbreaking

Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Port-Au-Prince, Haiti – The woman wailed outside the ruins of the Notre Dame Cathedral of Port-au-Prince, the iconic Roman Catholic church that symbolized Haiti’s religious fervor.

“This is what God did!” she cried Friday morning. “See what God can do!”

Tuesday’s earthquake brought down the roof of the enormous pink-and-cream church, filling the apse and nave with tons of rubble. The quake punched out its vivid stained glass windows, twisted its wrought-iron fencing and sliced brick walls like cake. The western steeple, which had soared more than 100 feet, toppled onto parishioners praying at an outdoor shrine to St. Emmanuel. Flies buzzed around the pile of copper, plaster and felled columns.

The senior Catholic figure in the country, Msgr. Joseph Serge Miot, was killed in the magnitude 7.0 earthquake. As many as 100 priests were still missing, sacristan Jean Claude Augustin said.

By the cathedral’s ruins lay a small blue copy of the New Testament. Sheet music for Christian hymns was scattered through the street.

Read More

I’m deeply concerned also. Over a 100 Egyptian Copts have been arrested so far following the machine-gun slaying of 6 Christian Copts after a midnight mass service.

AFP

“The United States is deeply concerned by today’s arrests of individuals traveling to the Egyptian town of Naga Hammadi to express support for those tragically killed and injured during” the celebrations,” said Mark Toner, acting State Department spokesman.

“According to publicly available evidence, those arrested included bloggers, democracy and religious freedom advocates,” he added.

“We call on the government of Egypt to uphold the rights of all to peacefully express their political views and desires for universal freedoms and to ensure due process for those detained,” Toner said.

Egypt’s state prosecutor said earlier that three Muslims accused of gunning down six Egyptian Christians on the Coptic Christmas Eve will stand trial before an emergency security court.

Read More

Christian Copts are going to demonstrate at the White House against Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt:-

Jihad Watch

Please join us at a peaceful demonstration in front of the White House on Thursday January 21, 2010 from 11:00AM to 2:00PM to protest the persecution and violence against the Copts (Christian Egyptians) which are increasing in frequency and brutality.

For your convenience, buses will move to the White House from the parking lots of St. Mark Coptic Church (11911 Braddock RD Fairfax, VA 22030) and St. Mary Coptic Church (8340 Woodward St. Savage, MD 20763) at 10:00 AM. Be there 15-20 minutes earlier.

Thank you and God Bless you.

As usual you will have to forgive me from the outset, but this major Washington Post headline made me grimace.

Christians have had nothing but trouble in Malaysia since the court ruling allowing Malaysian Christians to continue using the word “Allah” to refer to the Christian God, as they have done for two millenia.

So far the “outraged” Islamic extremists have fire-bombed with molotov cocktails 11 Churches and yet we have this large piece in a major newspaper blathering on about someone throwing a bottle at a Mosque. Apparently this is an Associated Press story which means that it will be picked by other major newspapers around the world.

Here is a snippet of this important development:-

Vandals threw a rum bottle at a mosque in the first attack on a Muslim house of worship after almost a dozen similar assaults on churches in Malaysia the past week, police said Saturday.

{…..}

The bottle was thrown at a mosque in eastern Sarawak state late Friday and found smashed near an outer wall inside the compound, said local police chief Abu Bakar Mokhtar. He said they didn’t know if it contained any alcohol when vandals threw it. Most Muslims consider alcohol illegal.

So fire-bombing 11 churches is a “similar assault” to throwing a bottle at a Mosque.

Check out this Google search and note how many major media platforms have run with this story, it is truly amazing.

Google Search – Rum bottle thrown at Malaysia mosque amid tension

As I write this, the Associated Press have just release another news article relating to the church attacks and this is the headline:-

Malaysia church attacks ‘minor aberration’: PM

So the Malaysian Prime Minister feels that this is all just a “minor aberration” and the media are quick to promote and pump his view. Are you getting that sinking feeling? Bear in mind that this is the same guy who on the 4th Jan had to ‘appeal for calm‘ and has since announced that his own government would be appealing the court ruling in favour of Christians.

This is how the article goes on:-

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said attacks on churches in his country were a “minor aberration” that did not reflect the feelings of most Malaysian Muslims, in an interview published on Sunday.

“This is a minor aberration. National unity and mutual respect between various racial and religious communities in Malaysia has been a cornerstone of Malaysia for a long time,” he said in the interview with Okaz newspaper and published in its English-language sister, the Saudi Gazette.

“It should not be seen as a widespread attempt by the larger Muslim community to attack churches in Malaysia,” he said.

Several churches in predominantly Muslim Malaysia have been attacked after a court ruled on December 31 that non-Muslims could use “Allah” as a translation for “God.”

Nine churches were hit with Molotov cocktails, splashed with black paint and had windows smashed with stones, triggering tighter security at places of worship nationwide.

The offices of lawyers for Malaysia’s Roman Catholic Church were also burgled and ransacked.

Najib downplayed the attacks.

It’s hard to know which is worse; the attacks on churches, or the complicity of the media.

“These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”
Jude 1:19

WHEN a farmer comes to thrash out his wheat, and get it ready for the
market there are two things that he desires — that there may be plenty of
it, of the right sort, and that when he takes it to market, he may be able to
carry a clean sample there. He does not look upon the quantity alone; for
what is the chaff to the wheat ? He would rather have a little clean than he
would have a great heap containing a vast quantity of chaff, but less of the
precious corn. On the other hand, he would not so winnow his wheat as to
drive away any of the good grain, and so make the quantity less than it
need to be. He wants to have as much as possible — to have as little loss
as possible in the winnowing, and yet to have it as well winnowed as may
be. Now, that is what I desire for Christ’s Church, and what every
Christian will desire. We wish Christ’s church to be as large as possible.
God forbid that by any of our winnowing, we should ever cast away one of
the precious sons of Zion. When we rebuke sharply, we would be anxious
lest the rebuke should fall where it is not needed, and should bruise and
hurt the feelings of any who God hath chosen. But on the other hand, we
have no wish to see the church multiplied at the expense of its purity. We
do not wish to have a charity so large that it takes in chaff as well as
wheat: we wish to be just charitable enough to use the fan thoroughly to
purge God’s floor, but yet charitable enough to pick up the most shrivelled
ear of wheat, to preserve it for the Master’s sake, who is the husbandman.
I trust, in preaching this morning, God may help me so to discern between
the precious and the vile that I may say nothing uncharitable, which would
cut off any of God’s people from being part of his true and living and
visible church; and yet at the same time I pray that I may not speak so
loosely, and so without God’s direction, as to embrace any in the arms of
Christian affection whom the Lord hath not received in the eternal
covenant of his love.

Our text suggests to us three things: first, an inquiry — Have we the
Spirit? secondly, a caution — if we have not the spirit we are sensual;
thirdly, a suspicion — there are many persons that separate themselves.
Our suspicion concerning them is, that notwithstanding their extrasuperfine
profession, they are sensual, not having the Spirit; for our text
says, “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the
Spirit.”

I. First, then, our text suggests AN INQUIRY — Have we the Spirit? This is
an inquiry so important, that the philosopher may well suspend all his
investigations to find an answer to this question on his own personal
account. All the great debates of politics, all the most engrossing subjects
of human discussion, may well stop to-day, and give us pause to ask
ourselves the solemn question — “Have I the Spirit?” For this question
does not deal with any externals of religion, but it deals with religion in its
most vital point. He that hath the Spirit, although he be wrong in fifty
things, being right in this, is saved; he that hath not the Spirit, be he never
so orthodox, be his creed as correct as Scripture- ay and in his morals
outwardly as pure as the law, is still unsaved; he is destitute of the essential
part of salvation — the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

To help us to answer this question, I shall try to set forth the effects of the
Spirit in our hearts under sundry Scriptural metaphors. Have I the Spirit? I
reply, And what is the operation of the, Spirit? How am I to discern it?
Now the Spirit operates in divers ways, all of them mysterious, and
supernatural, all of them bearing the real marks of his own power, and
having certain signs following whereby they may be discovered and
recognised.

1. The first work of the Spirit in the heart is a work during which the Spirit
is compared to the wind. You remember that when our Savior spoke to
Nicodemus he represented the first work of the Spirit in the heart as being
like the wind, “which bloweth where it listeth ;” “even so;” saith he, “is
every one that is born of the Spirit.” Now you know that the wind is a
most mysterious thing; and although there be certain definitions of it which
pretend to be explanations of the phenomenon, yet they certainly leave the
great question of how the wind blows, and what is the cause of its blowing
in a certain direction, where it was before. Breath within us, wind without
us, all motions of air, are to us mysterious. And the renewing work of the
Spirit in the heart is exceedingly mysterious. It is possible that at this
moment the Spirit of God may be breathing into some of the thousand
hearts before me; yet it would be blasphemous if any one should ask,
“Which way went the Spirit from God to such a heart? How entered it
there?” And it would be foolish for a person who is under the operation of
the Spirit to ask how it operates: thou knowest not where is the storehouse
of the thunder; thou knowest not where the clouds are balanced; neither
canst thou know how the Spirit goeth forth from the Most High and enters
into the heart of man. It may be, that during a sermon two men are
listening to the same truth; one of them hears as attentively as the other and
remembers as much of it; the other is melted to tears or moved with
solemn thoughts; but the one though equally attentive, sees nothing in the
sermon, except, maybe, certain important truths well set forth; as for the
other, his heart is broken within him and his soul is melted. Ask me how it
is that the same truth has an effect upon the one, and not upon his fellow: I
reply, because the mysterious Spirit of the living God goes with the truth to
one heart and not to the other. The one only feels the force of truth, and
that may be strong enough to make him tremble, like Felix; but the other
feels the Spirit going with the truth, and that renews the man, regenerates
him, and causes him to pass into that gracious condition which is called the
state of salvation. This change takes place instantaneously. It is as
miraculous a change as any miracle of which we read in Scripture. It is
supremely supernatural. It may be mimicked, but no imitation of it can be
true and real. Men may pretend to be regenerated without the Spirit, but
regenerated they cannot be. It is a change so marvellous that the highest
attempts of man can never reach it. We may reason as long as we please,
but we cannot reason ourselves into regeneration; we may meditate till our
hairs are grey with study; but we cannot meditate ourselves into the new
birth. That is worked in us by the sovereign will of God alone.

“The Spirit, like some heavenly wind,
Blows on the sons of flesh,
Inspires us with a heavenly mind,
And forms the man afresh.”

But ask the man how: he cannot tell you. Ask him when: he may recognize
the time, but as to the manner thereof he knoweth no more of it than you
do. It is to him a mystery.

You remember the story of the valley of vision. Ezekiel saw dry bones
lying scattered here and there in the valley. The command came to Ezekiel,
“Say to :these dry bones, live.” He said, “Live,” and the bones came
together, “bone to his bone, and flesh came upon them;” but as yet they did
not live. “Prophesy, son of man; say to the wind, breathe upon these slain,
that they may live.” They looked just like life: there was flesh and blood
there; there were the eyes and hands and feet; but when Ezekiel had spoken
there was a mysterious something given which men call life, and it was
given in a mysterious way, like the blowing of the wind. It is even so today.
Unconverted and ungodly persons may be very, moral and excellent;
they are like the dry bones, when they are put together and clothed with
flesh and blood. But to make them live spiritually it needs the divine
afflatus from the breath of the Almighty, the divine pneuma, the divine
Spirit, the divine wind should blow on them, and then they would live. Say,
my hearer, hast thou ever had any supernatural influence on thine Heart?
For if not I may seem to be harsh with thee, but I am faithful: if thou hast
never had more than nature in thy heart, thou art “in the gall of bitterness
and in the bonds of iniquity.” Nay, sir, sneer not at that utterance; it is as
true as this Bible, for tis from this Bible it was taken, and for proof thereof
hear thou me. “except a man be born again (from above) of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” What sayest thou to that? It
is in vain for thee to talk of making thyself to be born again; thou canst not
be born again except by the Spirit, and thou must perish, unless thou art.
You see, then, the first effect of the Spirit, and by that you may answer the
question.

2. In the next place, the Spirit in the word of God is often compared to
fire. After the Spirit, like the wind, has made the dead sinner live, then
comes the Spirit like fire. Now, fire has a searching and tormenting power.
It is purifying, but it purifies by a terrible process. Now, after the Holy
Spirit has given us the life of Christianity, there immediately begins a
burning in our heart: the Lord searches and tries our reins, and lights a
candle within our spirits which discovers the wickedness of our nature, and
the loathsomeness of our iniquities. Say, my hearer, dost thou know
anything about that fire in thine heart? For if not, thou hast not yet received
the Spirit. To explain what I mean, let me just tell a piece of my own
experience, by way of illustrating the fiery effects of the Spirit. I lived
careless and thoughtless; I could indulge in sin as well as others, and did do
so. Sometimes my conscience pricked me, but not enough to make me
cease from vice. I could indulge in transgression, and I could love it: not so
much as others loved it — mine early training would not let me do that —
but still enough to prove that my heart was debased and corrupt. Once on a
time something more than conscience pricked me: I knew not then what it
was. I was like Samuel, when the Lord called him; I heard the voice, but I
knew not whence it came. A stirring began in my heart, and I began to feel
that in the sight of God I was a lost, ruined, and condemned sinner. That
conviction I could not shake off. Do what I might it followed me. If I
sought to amuse my mind and take it off from serious thoughts it was of no
use; I was obliged still to carry about with me a heavy burden on my back.
I went to my bed, and there I dreamed about hell, and about “the wrath to
come.” I woke up, and this dreary nightmare, this incubus, still brooded on
me. What could I do? I renounced first one vicious habit, then another: it
mattered not; all this was like pulling one firebrand from a flame, that fed
itself with blazing forests. Do what I might, my conscience found no rest.
Up to the house of God I went to hear the gospel: there was no gospel for
me; the fire burned but the more fiercely, and the very breath of the gospel
seemed to fan the flame. Away I went to my chamber and my closet to
pray: the heavens were like brass, and the windows of the sky were barred
against me. No answer could I get; the fire burned more vehemently. Then
I thought, “I would not live always; would God I had never been born!”
But I dared not die, for there was hell when I was dead; and I dared not
live, for life had become intolerable. Still the fire blazed right vehemently;
till at last I came to this resolve: “If there be salvation in Christ, I will have
it. I have nothing of my own to trust to; I do this hour, O God, renounce
my sin, and renounce my own righteousness too.” And the fire blazed
again, and burned up all my good works, ay, and my sins with them. And
then I saw that all this burning was to bring me to Christ. And oh! the joy
and gladness of my heart, when Jesus came and sprinkled water on the
flame, and said, “I have bought thee with my blood; put thy trust in me; I
will do for thee what thou canst not do for thyself; I will take thy sins
away; I will clothe thee with a spotless robe of righteousness; I will guide
thee all thy journey through, and land thee at last in heaven.” Say, my dear
hearer, Dost know anything about the Spirit of burning? For if not, again I
say, I am not harsh, I am but true; if thou hast never felt this, thou knowest
not the Spirit.

3. To proceed a little further. When the Spirit has thus quickened the soul
and convinced it of sin, then he comes under another metaphor. He comes
under the metaphor of oil. The Holy Spirit is very frequently in Scripture
compared to oil. “Thou anointest mine head with oil; my cup runneth
over.” Ah! brethren, though the beginning of the Spirit is by fire, it does
not end there. We may be first of all convinced and brought to Christ by
misery; but when we get to Christ there is no misery in him, and our
sorrow results from not getting close enough to him. The Holy Spirit
comes, like the good Samaritan, and pours in the oil and the wine. And oh!
what oil it is with which he anoints our head, and with which he heals our
wounds! How soft the liniments which he binds round our bruises! How
blessed the eye-salve with which he anoints our eyes! How heavenly the
ointment with which he binds up our sores, and wounds, and bruises, and
makes us whole, and sets our feet upon a rock, and establishes our goings!
The Spirit, after he has convinced, begins to comfort; and ye that have felt
the comforting power of the Holy Spirit, will bear me witness there is no
comforter like him that is the Paraclete. Oh! bring hither the music, the
voice of song, and the sound of harps; they are both as vinegar upon nitre
to him that hath a heavy heart. Bring me here the enchantments of the
magic world, and all the enjoyments of its pleasures; they do but torment
the soul and prick it with many thorns. But oh! Spirit of the living God,
when thou dost blow upon the heart, there is not a wave of that
tempestuous sea which does not sleep for ever when thou biddest it be still;
there is not one single breath of the proud hurricane and tempest which
doth not cease to howl and which doth not lie still, when thou sayest to it,
“Peace be unto thee; thy sins are forgiven thee.” Say, do you know the
Spirit under the figure of oil? Have you felt him at work in your spirits,
comforting you, anointing your head, making you glad, and causing you to
rejoice?

There are many people that never felt this. They hope they are religious;
but their religion never makes them happy. There are scores of professors
who have just enough religion to make them miserable. Let them be afraid
that they have any religion at all; for religion makes people happy; when it
has its full sway with man it makes him glad. It may begin in agony, but it
does not end there. Say, hast thou ever had thine heart leaping for joy?
Hath thy lip ever warbled songs of ecstatic praise? Doth thine eye ever
flash the fire of joy? If these things be not so, I fear lest thou art still
without God, and without Christ; for where the Spirit comes, his fruits are,
joy in the Spirit, and peace, and love, and confidence, and assurance for
ever.

4. Bear with me once more. I have to show you one more figure of the
Spirit, and by that also you will be able to ascertain whether you are under
his operation. When the Spirit has acted as wind, as fire, and as oil, he then
acts like water. We are told that we are “born again of water and of the
Spirit.” Now I do not think you foolish enough to need that I should say
that no water, either of immersion or of sprinkling, can in the least degree
operate in the salvation of a soul. There may be some few poor creatures,
whose heads were put on their shoulders the wrong way, who still believe
that a few drops of water from a priest’s hands can regenerate souls. There
may be such a few, but I hope the race will soon die out. We trust that the
day will come when all those gentry will have no “other Gospel” to preach
in our churches, but will have clean gone over to Rome, and when that
terrible plague-spot upon the Protestant Church, called Puseyism, will have
been cut out like a cancer, and torn out by its very roots. The sooner we
get rid of that the better; and whenever we hear of any of them going over
to Rome, let them go — I wish we could as easily get rid of the devil, they
may go together — we do not want either of them in the Protestant
Church, anyhow. But the Holy Spirit when he comes in the heart comes
like water. That is to say, he comes to purify the soul. He that is to-day as
foul a liver as he was before his pretended conversion is a hypocrite and a
liar; he that this day loveth sin and liveth in it just as he was wont to do, let
him know that the truth is not in him, but he hath received the strong
delusion to believe a lie: God’s people are a holy people; God’s Spirit
works by love, and purifies the soul. Once let it get into our hearts, and it
will have no rest till it has turned every sin out. God’s Holy Spirit and
man’s sin cannot live together peaceably; they may both be in the same
heart, but they cannot both reign there, nor can they both be quiet there;
for “the Spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh lusteth against the
Spirit;” they cannot rest, but there will be a perpetual warring in the soul,
so that the Christian will have to cry, “O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?” But in due time the Spirit
will drive out all sin, and will present us blameless before the throne of his
Majesty with exceeding great joy.

Now, my hearer, answer thou this question for thyself, and not for another
man. Hast thou received this Spirit? Answer me, anyhow; if it be with a
scoff, answer me; if thou sneerest and sayest, “I know nothing of your
enthusiastic rant,” be it so, sir; say, nay, then. It may be thou carest not to
reply at all. I beseech thee do not put away my entreaty. Yes or no. Hast
thou received the Spirit? “Sir no man can find fault with my character; I
believe I shall enter heaven through my own virtues.” It is not the question,
sir. Hast thou received the Spirit? All that thou sayest thou mayest have
done; but if thou hast left the other undone, and hast not received the
Spirit, it will go ill with thee at last. Hast thou had a supernatural operation
upon thine own heart? Hast thou been made a new man in Christ Jesus!
For if not, depend on it, as God’s Word is true, thou art out of Christ, and
dying as thou art thou wilt be shut out of heaven, be thou who thou mayest
and what thou mayest.

II. Thus, I have tried to help you to answer the first question — the
inquiry, Have we received the Spirit? And this brings me to the CAUTION.
He that has not received the Spirit is said to be sensual. Oh, what a gulf
there is between the least Christian and the greatest moralist! What a wide
distinction there is between the greatest professor destitute of grace, and
the least of God’s believers who has grace in his heart. As great a
difference as there is between light and darkness between death and life,
between heaven and hell, is there between a saint and a sinner; for mark,
my text says, in no very polite phrase, that if we have not the Spirit we are
sensual. “ Sensual!” says one; “well, I am not converted man — I don t
pretend to be; but I am not sensual.” Well, friend, and it is very likely that
you are not — not in the common acceptation of the term sensual; but
understand that this word, in the Greek, really means what an English word
like this would mean, if we had such a one — soulish. We have not such a
word — we want such a one. There is a great distinction between mere
animals and men, because man hath a soul, and the mere animal hath none.
There is another distinction between mere men and a converted man. The
converted man hath the Spirit — the unconverted man hath none; he is a
soulish man — not a spiritual man; he has got no further than mere nature
and has no inheritance in the spiritual kingdom of grace. Strange it is that
soulish and sensual should after all mean the same! Friend, thou hast not
the Spirit. Then thou art nothing better — be thou what thou art, or
whatsoever thou mayest be — than the fall of Adam left thee. That is to
say, thou art a fallen creature, having only capacities to live here in sin, and
to live for ever in torment; but thou hast not the capacity to live in heaven
at all, for thou hast no Spirit; and therefore thou art unable to know or
enjoy spiritual things. And mark you, a man may be in this state, and be a
sensual man, and yet he may have all the virtues that could grace a
Christian; but with all these, if he has not the Spirit, he has got not an inch
further than where Adam’s fall left him — that is, condemned and under
the curse. Ay, and he may attend to religion with all his might — he may
take the sacrament, and be baptized, and may be the most devout
professor; but if he hath not the Spirit he hath not started a solitary inch
from where he was, for he is still in “the bonds of iniquity,” a lost soul.
Nay, further, he may pick up religious phrases till he may talk very fast
about religion; he may read biographies till he seems to be a deep taught
child of God; he may be able to write an article upon the deep experience
of a believer; but if this experience be not his own, if he hath not received it
by the Spirit of the living God, he is still nothing more than a carnal man,
and heaven is to him a place to which there is no entrance. Nay, further, he
might go so far as to become a minister of the gospel, and a successful
minister too, and God may bless the word that he preaches to the salvation
of sinners, but unless he has received the Spirit, be he as eloquent as
Apollos, and as earnest as Paul, he is nothing more than a mere soulish
man, without capacity for spiritual things.

Nay, to crown all, he might even have the power of working miracles, as
Judas had — he might even be received into the church as a believer, as
was Simon Magus, and after all that, though he had cast out devils, though
he had healed the sick, though he had worked miracles, he might have the
gates of heaven shut in his teeth, if he had not received the Spirit. For this
is the essential thing, without which all others are in vain — the reception
of the Spirit of the living God. It is a searching truth, is it not, my friends?
Do not run away from it. If I am preaching to you falsehood, reject it; but
if this be a truth which I can substantiate by Scripture, I beseech you, rest
not till you have answered this question: Hast thou the Spirit, living,
dwelling, working in thy heart?

III. This brings me, in the third place, to THE SUSPICION. How singular
that “separation” should be the opposite of having the Spirit. Hark! I hear a
gentle man saying, “Oh! I like to hear you preach smartly and sharply; I am
persuaded, sir, there are a great many people in the church that ought not
to be there; and so I, because there is such a corrupt mixture in the church,
have determined not to join anywhere at all. I do not think that the Church
of Christ now a days is at all clean and pure enough to allow of my joining
with it. At least, sir, I did join a church once, but I made such a deal of
noise in it they were very glad when I went away. And now I am just like
David’s men; I am one that is in debt and discontented, and I go round to
hear all new preachers that arise. I have heard you now these three months;
I mean to go and hear some one else in a very little time if you do not say
something to flatter me. But I am quite sure I am one of God’s special
elect. I don’t join any church because a church is not good enough for me;
I don’t become a member of any denomination, because they are all wrong,
every one of them.” Hark ye brother, I have something to tell you, that will
not please you. “These be they that separate themselves, sensual, having
not the Spirit.” I hope you enjoy the text: it certainly belongs to you, above
every man in the world. “These be they who separate themselves, sensual,
having not the Spirit.” When I read this over I thought to myself, there be
some who say, “Well, you are a dissenter, how do you make this agreeable
with the text, ‘These be they who separate themselves;’ “ you are separated
from the Church of England. Ah, my friends, that a man may be, and be all
the better for it; but the separation here intended is separation from the one
universal Church of Christ. The Church of England was not known in
Jude’s day: so the apostle did not allude to that. “These be they who
separate themselves,” — that is from the Church of Christ; from the great
universal body of the elect. Moreover, let us just say one thing. We did not
separate ourselves — we were turned out. Dissenters did not separate
themselves from the Church of England, from the Episcopal church; but
when the Act of Uniformity was passed, they were turned out of their
pulpits. Our forefathers were as sound Churchmen as any in the world, but
they could not take in all the errors of the Prayer Book, and they were
therefore hounded to their graves by the intolerance of the conforming
professors. So they did not separate themselves. Moreover, we do not
separate ourselves. There is not a Christian beneath the scope of God’s
heaven from whom I am separated. At the Lord’s table I always invite all
Churches to come and sit down and commune with us. If any man were to
tell me that I am separate from the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, or the
Methodist, I would tell him he did not know me, for I love them with a
pure heart fervently, and I am not separate from them. I may hold different
views from them, and in that point truly I may be said to be separate; but I
am not separate in heart, I will work with them — I will work with them
heartily; nay, though my Church of England brother sends me in, as he has
done, a summons to pay a churchrate that I cannot in conscience pay, I will
love him still; and if he takes chairs and tables it matters not — I will love
him for all that; and if there be a ragged-school or anything else for which I
can work with him to promote the glory of God, therein will I unite with
him with all my heart. I think this bears rather hard on our friends — the
Strict Communion Baptists. I should not like to say anything hard against
them, for they are about the best people in the world, but they really do
separate themselves from the great body of Christ’s people. The Spirit of
the living God will not let them do this really, but they do it professedly.
They separate themselves from the great Universal Church. They say they
will not commune with it; and if any one comes to their table who has not
been baptized, they turn him away. They “separate,” certainly. I do not
believe it is willful schism that makes them thus act; but at the same time I
think the old man within has some hand in it.

Oh, how my heart loves the doctrine of the one church. The nearer I get to
my Master in prayer and communion, the closer am I knit to all his
disciples. The more I see of my own errors and failings, the more ready am
I to deal gently with them that I believe to be erring. The pulse of Christ’s
body is communion; and woe to the church that seeks to cure the ills of
Christ’s body by stopping its pulse. I think it sin to refuse to commune with
anyone who is a member of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. I desire
this morning to preach the unity of Christ’s church. I have sought to use
the fan to blow away the chaff. I have said no man belongs to Christ’s
church unless he has the Spirit; but, if he hath the Spirit, woe be to the man
that separates himself from him. Oh! I should think myself grossly in fault if
at the foot of these stairs I should meet a truly converted child of God,
who called himself a Primitive Methodist, or a Wesleyan. or a Churchman,
or an Independent, and I should say, “No, sir, you do not agree with me on
certain points; I believe you are a child of God, but I will have nothing to
do with you.” I should then think that this text would bear very hard on
me. “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the
Spirit.” But would we do so, beloved? No, we would give them both our
hands, and say, God speed to you in your journey to heaven; so long as
you have got the Spirit we are one family, and we will not be separate from
one another. God grant the day may come when every wall of separation
shall be beaten down! See how to this day we are separate. There! you will
find a Baptist who could not say a good word to a Poedo-Baptist if you
were to give him a world. You find to this day Episcopalians who hate that
ugly word, “Dissent;” and it is enough for them that a Dissenter has done a
thing; they will not do it then, be it never so good.

Ah! and furthermore, there are some to be found in the Church of England
that will not only hate dissent, but hate one another into the bargain. Men
are to be found that cannot let brother ministers of their own church preach
in their parish. What an anachronism such men are! They would seem to
have been sent into the world in our time purely by mistake. Their proper
era would have been the time of the dark ages. If they had lived then, what
fine Bonners they would have made! What splendid fellows they would
have been to have helped to poke the fire in Smithfield! But they are quite
out of date in these times, and I look upon such a curious clergyman in the
same way that I do upon a Dodo — as an extraordinary animal whose race
is almost, if not quite extinct. Well, you may look, and look and wonder.
The animal will be extinct soon. It will not be long, I trust, before not only
the Church of England shall love itself, but when all who love the Lord
Jesus shall be ready to preach in each other’s pulpits, preaching the same
truth, holding the same faith, and mightily contending for it. Then shall the
world “see how these Christians love one another; “ and then shall it be
known in heaven that Christ s kingdom has come, and that his will is about
to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

My hearer, dost thou belong to the church? For out of the church there is
no salvation. But mark what the church is. It is not the Episcopalian,
Baptist, or Presbyterian: the church is a company of men who have
received the Spirit. If thou canst not say thou hast the Spirit, go thy way
and tremble; go thy way and think of thy lost condition; and may Jesus by
his Spirit so bless thee, that thou mayest be led to renounce thy works and
ways with grief, and fly to him who died upon the cross, and find a shelter
there from the wrath of God.

I may have said some rough things this morning, but I am not given much
to cutting and trimming, and I do not suppose I shall begin to learn that art
now. If the thing is untrue, it is with you to reject it; if it be true, at your
own peril reject what God stamps with divine authority. May the blessing
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit rest upon the one church of
Israel’s one Jehovah. Amen and Amen.

Telegraph:-

A proposal to give the partners of gay priests some of the same rights that are awarded to priests’ spouses is likely to spark a new row over homosexuality.

Bishops and senior clergy will debate at next month’s General Synod whether the Church should provide same-sex couples with the same financial benefits as are awarded to married couples.

Traditionalists have expressed strong opposition to the move, which they claim would give official recognition to homosexual relationships.

They warn that affording equal treatment to heterosexual and homosexual couples would undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage.

At present, the Church bars clergy from being in active gay relationships, although it bowed to pressure to allow them to enter civil partnerships on the condition that they are celibate.

Liberals believe that the motion, to be unveiled this week, could be a major breakthrough in securing rights for gay clergy.

Read More

Would it be a step forward to have women Bishops? If the objection is based on Biblical interpretation in relation to the ‘Spiritual Authority’ of men, then could it not be argued that as long as the Archbishop is male, female bishops would still come under the Biblical premise of male authority. Of course this argument is moot to many Christians who simply believe that women should have no position of authority (over men) within the church.

BBC:-

A Scottish Anglican priest has failed in her bid to become the first female bishop of a major UK church.

The Reverend Canon Dr Alison Peden had been on a shortlist of three for the role of Bishop of Glasgow & Galloway in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Dr Gregor Duncan, 59, was the successful candidate, beating Dr Peden, 57, and the Venerable Dr John Applegate, 53.

An electoral synod of clergy and lay church members made the decision.

Dr Peden, who is married with three children, is rector of Holy Trinity Church in Stirling, chaplain of Forth Valley College, Stirling, and canon of St Ninian’s Cathedral in Perth.

Read More

And

Telegraph

Scottish priest fails in bid to become first woman bishop – Rev Canon Dr Alison Peden, a Scottish Anglican priest, has failed to be elected as Britain’s first female bishop.

Dr Peden, 57, had been shortlisted for the role of Bishop of Glasgow & Galloway in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

But the Very Rev Dr Gregor Duncan, 59, rector of St Ninian’s Church, Pollokshields, Glasgow, was chosen for the role.

He was selected by majority by an electoral synod made up of clergy and lay church members from the Diocese of Glasgow & Galloway who met at St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow today.

Dr Duncan is dean of the Diocese of Glasgow & Galloway and will be consecrated as Bishop and installed in the cathedral at a ceremony in the next few months.

The third candidate on the shortlist was the Venerable Dr John Applegate, 53, course principal of the Southern North West Training Partnership in the Diocese of Manchester and a part-time lecturer in the University of Manchester.

Dr Peden is rector of Holy Trinity Church in Stirling, chaplain of Forth Valley College, Stirling, and canon of St Ninian’s Cathedral, Perth.

Women have been allowed to become bishops in the Scottish Episcopal Church since 2003 but Dr Peden, who is married with three children, was the first to be shortlisted.

The Church of England is debating whether to permit women bishops. The Church in Wales voted against it in April 2008.

The Church of Ireland allows the ordination of female bishops but no women have been appointed.

Read More

Cross-posted from the excellent Calvin L Smith Blog

Further to my recent posts here and here concerning biblical Israel, ethnicity and racism, today I want to  broaden the discussion a little and consider if modern Israel is a racist country, a charge periodically leveled at the Jewish state. Many people using such language are either ideologically-driven (usually on the hard left), so that in reality it makes little difference whatever Israel does, she will also be criticised, or else they have never visited Israel and are totally unaware of the reality on the ground. Unfortunately, this pejorative language is increasingly echoed among some Christians who seem to be driven by an irrational, pathological hatred of Israel. What is ironic is when such people either accuse Israel of being racist or that its entire  existence owes itself to racism, and in some cases even publicly suggest the bulk of fellow Christians who happen to be Zionists espouse a racist theology, but then get highly offended and threaten to sue or bring in the police when people suggest they are anti-Semitic. So easy to label a nation racist, isn’t it? (who’s going to sue you?)

Anyway, let’s look briefly at whether or not Israel is racist. The first thing to note is Israel’s relationship with two (not one) groups of Arabs: Israeli Arabs and Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza. The former are actually Israeli citizens who live within Israel’s internationally recognised borders. As citizens, they have the right to vote, form political parties, stand for election, take their grievences to the Israeli courts, and so on. One of Israel’s official languages is Arabic. You’ll find Arabic writing on Israeli bank notes, while there are Arab members of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament).

Israel’s relations with non-Israeli Arabs, on the other hand, are very different. In the case of Gaza, which is led by an organisation – Hamas – whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel (why no howls of protest of racism from the anti-Israel crowd here then?), relations are non-existent. Relations with West Bank Arab leaders are marginally better. The point I am simply making is this: Israel has different relations with two distinct groups of Arabs in the region. In short, these relations are not homogenous. So efforts to label Israel as anti-Arab lack nuance. Neither does Israel have a blanket anti-Arab policy. The citizenship and rights of nearly one and a half million Israeli Arabs expose the accusation of “apartheid” for what it is, a breathtaking lie. But the left’s mantra of a racist Israel (and sadly swallowed hook, line and sinker by purportedly educated Christians who should know better than to fall for such unsophisticated drivel), repeated over and over, means it is hardly surprising you sometimes come across men and women in the street who assume Israel hates and mistreats all Arabs (that is, after all, the purpose of the mantra). Some express complete surprise to learn that a sizeable portion of Israel are actually Arab citizens.

Next, Israel is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse countries I’ve ever visited. You’ll see every skin colour and culture represented here. People who are even quite distantly Jewish are permitted to make aliyah and live in Israel. Thus, there are Ethiopian Jews (Falasha), as well as people claiming a distant Jewish link from places such as India and China. When one walks through the streets of Jerusalem one is struck by the broad ethnic and cultural diversity of this city. It is true that what holds them together is a Jewish identity and heritage, but as our OT discussion noted, Jewishness is not just limited to ethnicity and we pointed out how not all members of the congregation of Israel were ethnic Jews. So when Israel talks of a ‘Jewish state’ it is not, as some claim, a purely ethnic declaration and agenda. Rather, it represents an important declaration of identity, common heritage, religion, culture and history. In a sense, we see something very similar in the United States’ integrationist model (the so called ‘melting pot’) where a commitment to a common American national identity and values is promulgated. The main difference, of course, is that the US model is secular, unlike in Israel where rabbis play an important role in defining Jewishness and determining who is allowed to make aliyah (which is why so many Messianic Jews are outrageously refused right of abode).

Finally, Israel permits all manner of non-Jews, such as distant relatives, spouses and proselytes to make aliyah. It also takes in non-Jewish refugees from parts of Africa and elsewhere. Meanwhile, converts to Judaism of every skin colour exist in that country. Again, these are not the actions of a racist state.

To be sure, I am not suggesting Israel represents a model of racial harmony or that there are not very real tensions between some Israelis and some Arabs. There are, not least because of security concerns. Meanwhile, of course there are racists in Israel, just as they exist anywhere else. But seeking to model a culturally Jewish state, much like creating, for example, a distinctly American society which espouses American ideals and values, is not racist. Thus, talk of “apartheid” (I know South Africa well, there is simply no comparison) and “racism” is patent nonsense peddled either by the hard left, people who are driven for whatever reason by an anti-Israel agenda, or those who have never been to Israel and know no better. That some Christians have been sucked into making such blanket statements to forward the agenda of others is pitiful. So much better to keep any discussion of this issue objective… such people are taken far more seriously than ideological ranters.