Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the “right responsibly to choose” the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a “compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.Unfortunately, as Matthew Archibald of Creative Minority Report observes, this kind of thinking is all too common within the Obama administration.
It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Brave New World of Obama's Science Czar
Saturday Morning Cartoons: Prince Charles's Strange Eco-Math
According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.
I’m impressed. 96 months. Not 95. Not 97. July 2017. Put it in your diary. Usually the warm-mongers stick to the same old drone that we only have ten years left to save the planet. Nice round number. Al Gore said we only have ten years left three-and-a-half years ago, which makes him technically more of a pessimist than the Prince of Wales. Al’s betting that Armageddon kicks in sometime in January 2016 — unless he’s just peddling glib generalities. And, alas, even a prophet of the ecopalypse as precise as His Royal Highness is sometimes prone to this airy-fairy ten-year shtick: In April, Prince Charles predicted that the red squirrel would be extinct “within ten years,” which suggests that, while it may be curtains for man and all his wretched works come summer of 2017, the poor doomed red squirrel will have the best part of two years to frolic and gambol on a ruined landscape.
So, unless you’re a squirrel, don’t start any long books in 95 months’ time, because time is running out! “Time is running out to deal with climate change,” said Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace in 2006. “Ten years ago, we thought we had a lot of time.”
Really? Ten years ago, we had a lot of time? Funny, that’s not the way I remember it. (“Time is running out for the climate,” said Chris Rose of Greenpeace in 1997.) So what’s to blame for this eternally looming rendezvous with the iceberg of apocalypse? As the British newspaper the Independent reported:Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned. . . . And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.He then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again! Part MCMXXLVIII
The Somali Muslim extremist group Al Shabaab, which is linked to Al Qaeda, has decapitated seven people accused of being Christians and “spies” in the city of Baidoa, Somalia.
According to the AGI news agency, the extremists said they were applying Sharia law in murdering the seven people. Baidoa had been a stronghold for the transitional government that re-gained control of Somalia in 2006 with the help of Ethiopian troops.
Now the government is losing increasingly greater swaths of territory to fundamentalist groups that are beginning to appear in the country. Al Shabaab, which means “youth” in Arabic, had already decapitated three other people in the region last month.
The extremist group seeks to control the country and strictly enforce Muslim law, forcing women to wear burkas and cutting of the hands of those accused of stealing, AGI reports.
"And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."
The Pope's "Unannounced Gift" to Obama: Dignitas Personae
"The G8 has been very productive, 20 billion dollars have been allocated [to poor countries]; that's something concrete," President Obama told the Pope when he asked about the summit, as photographers and journalists were ushered out of the Papal library.
The meeting between the Pope and the U.S. President started at 4:25 p.m. local time, after an unusually short meeting of ten minutes with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
After the private conversation, and again in front of the cameras, President Obama gave the Pontiff a stole that was drapped upon the body of St. John Neumann from 1988 to 2007. The Pope instead presented the president with a mosaic portraying St. Peter's Square and the Vatican Basilica, and an autographed copy of his latest social encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.”
“I will have something to read on the plane,” President Obama joked after receiving the encyclical.
In addition to his family, Obama’s entourage included Kaye Wilson, General Jim Jones, Denis McDonough, Mona Sutphen, Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod, Julieta Valls (currently responsible for the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See), Alyssa Mastnaco Clay Beers, Melissa Winter, Joseph Clancy and interpreter Elisabeth Ullman. They all received commemorative medals and blessed Rosaries.
At the end of the meeting, the Pope said in English, "I pray for you and bless your work."
"I am very grateful, I hope we will have fruitful relationships," the President responded.
Despite the fact that the Vatican did not release an official statement about the nature of the meeting, the “unannounced” gift to Obama of the 2008 document "Dignitas Personae" on bioethics and the right to life, could be a signal of the nature of at least part of their conversation.
Birthday Boy John Calvin: Hero or Heretic?
Orthodoxy's problem with Calvinism in particular, and Protestantism in general, is its rejection of Holy Tradition in favor of a humanistic interpretation of the faith. More specifically, the Calvinist understanding of the sovereignty of God is problematic. Linsley cites David Bentley Hart:
I quite explicitly admit in my writing that I think the traditional Calvinist understanding of divine sovereignty to be deeply defective, and destructively so. One cannot, as with Luther, trace out a direct genealogy from late medieval voluntarism to the Calvinist understanding of divine freedom; nevertheless, the way in which Calvin himself describes divine sovereignty is profoundly modern: it frequently seems to require an element of pure arbitrariness, of pure spontaneity, and this alone separates it from more traditional (and I would say more coherent) understandings of freedom, whether divine or human.Perhaps the conflict with Holy Tradition, then, is not Calvinism's novel doctrine but, rather, its novel interpretation of doctrine. It is not a question of whether or not God predestines, but of whether or not his sovereignty is contingent upon predestination. Is God omnipotent because he predestines, or does he predestine because he is omnipotent? The difference between these two positions is more than merely semantic.
This idea of a God who can be called omnipotent only if his will is the direct efficient cause of every aspect of created reality immediately makes all the inept cavils of the village atheist seem profound: one still should not ask if God could create a stone he could not lift, perhaps, but one might legitimately ask if a God of infinite voluntaristic sovereignty and power could create a creature free to resist the divine will. The question is no cruder than the conception of God it is meant to mock, and the paradox thus produced merely reflects the deficiencies of that conception.
Frankly, any understanding of divine sovereignty so unsubtle that it requires the theologian to assert (as Calvin did) that God foreordained the fall of humanity so that his glory might be revealed in the predestined damnation of the derelict is obviously problematic, and probably far more blasphemous than anything represented by the heresies that the ancient ecumenical councils confronted.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Abp. Venables Addresses FCA: The Danger of Drift
I spoke with someone on an aeroplane recently who concluded the conversation with an expression with which we are all familiar: “One can’t be sure of anything any more,” to which I gave the obvious response, “I do hope the pilot doesn’t share your philosophy.” Sadly, many within the Christian church are saying the same thing yet the Bible tells us clearly that there is much of which we can be sure.
Hebrews 2, chapter 2 tells us that there is a really great danger that we might abandon the true Christian faith. The writer tells us we have heard the message – not invented it or created it ourselves – we have received it from God Himself. Yet, he continues, there is a real danger that we drift. And to drift we only have to do nothing.
As a youngster, I spent much time in boats on the south east coast and once lay back in a canoe to close my eyes for a brief moment. When I looked around I was almost out of sight of the coast.
It’s all too easy to drift and the writer tells us that the only answer is to pay close attention to what we have heard.
Drifting is dangerous because of the nature of the message we have heard. It is about salvation. It’s about eternal life and death and so it’s a great salvation. It’s great because it is unique. It’s our only hope. There is no other. It’s great because of its scope. It is complete and for all. It’s great because it’s from God Himself and a revelation of His great love for us.
Because of this something had to be done and Gafcon and this FCA have been a part of our response.
What has not been done? We have not set up an alternative church or communion. We have not set up an alternative leadership. We have not divided the church. That occurred when ECUSA ignored the voice of the Communion in 2003.
We have simply and necessarily affirmed the central truths of the Christian faith as received. We have raised a standard.
We did it at Lambeth 1998. We did it at all the subsequent primates meetings. We did it in Jerusalem last year and know that many of you are standing with us.
Flying over the Paraguayan Chaco once, the pilot confessed he had never been there before and asked if what he could see was the runway at the indian village we were visiting. I was able to say, ‘Yes. That’s the runway.”
We are saying, “This is the runway. This is the one safe place to land and take off. There is no other.
We haven’t moved from it and we haven’t moved the runway.”
We are standing where Christians have stood throughout the last 2000 years – on the historic, biblical Christian faith delivered to the saints and received once for all. It hasn’t changed because it cannot change and remain the truth. It’s not relative, nor subjective nor a matter of interpretation. You cannot change the foundation of our eternal salvation just because you are following correct institutional procedures.
Why was it necessary?
It was necessary because we are called now as always to preach, teach, affirm, proclaim, defend and stand on this unchanging truth. Sadly it is very clear that the gospel of salvation is not being proclaimed throughout much of the western Anglican Church. Some said that we only stated in the Jerusalem Declaration what they too believe. Why then are they not proclaiming it?
It was necessary because this is about life and death. It is salvation from sin and death and hell. John 3, 16 says, “For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” And we are accountable for what we have received.
It was necessary because many have drifted away, false teaching has been introduced and had we not acted the Anglican Communion could easily have been taken over by a false gospel.
At a Primates meeting, an archbishop pointed out that the action of ECUSA was to make a hole in the hull of the boat and that we were sinking to which a north american Primate responded, “Let them fall in the water.” That might be an acceptable option in postmodernism but not in the real world as God has created it.
What has happened as a result of what was done?
It was very interesting to observe the strident and swift response to Gafcon especially in the UK.
“Why such a reaction?” is a question many must have asked.
The gospel plainly stated has always been resisted throughout history and in the same way the orthodox stance in recent times has been vigorously and even violently resisted; in North America openly and in the UK more subtly.
True orthodoxy is being outlawed.
Why should this be?
Ephesians 6 tells us that spiritual warfare is the underlying cause. We are not fighting flesh and blood but spiritual powers and principalities.
In addition, orthodoxy proclaims one unchanging truth at a time when that is unacceptable within western culture. Truth has become relative and to believe one truth which excludes others is to be intolerant, bigoted and dangerous.
There is also a non biblical belief that Anglicanism should include a diversity of beliefs even when they are contradictory and incompatible.
There is a false view of institutional loyalty which says, “Don’t rock the boat.” causing a fear of marginalisation and rejection.
And there is a spirit of rebellion and unbelief.
“To sone we are the fragrance of death, to others the fragrance of life.”
What is likely to happen?
If we consider the track record after Lambeth ‘98, the primates meetings, Lambeth ‘09 and the recent ACC meeting, the message is that the Communion will continue to seek to accommodate incompatible and antithetical positions even though the Primates clearly said in this year’s meeting, “We don’t believe the same things and something needs to be done.”
If the system is given its head, the liberal agenda will be pushed forward and since no synthesis can replace the gospel, non truth will simply swallow up true truth.
Unless there is a robust and clear voice in this part of the world as well as elsewhere, the very truth of Christianity will not only not be affirmed and proclaimed, it will be silenced in Anglicanism.
Hebrews 2 asks the rhetorical question, “How shall be escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” and the answer is that we shall not escape.
A God whom we do not meet in the unique revelation of the incarnation is not the Christian God.
A Jesus Christ who is not revealed in Scripture is not the true Christ.
True generosity does not say, “There are many truths, you must choose your own.”
True generosity says, “Jesus is the way. He is the only way. There is no other way. There is no other name given among men by which we must be saved.”
So we must stand together and support each other both locally and worldwide.
We must stand for truth in truth love for one anther which Jesus promised as he sign of our discipleship.
And we much stand, one with Him and one another that the world might believe.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
This Has to Stop!
Every once in a while a story comes along that not only reinforces the justness of our cause but makes abundantly clear the depravity of the other side.Someone once said, so I'm told, that when stuff like this begins to happen, the Lord will return, enter the scientists' laboratory, and say, "Closing time, gentlemen."
This is the case with a story out today. When the world describes destroying children as a fertility breakthrough, we are in big trouble.[Telegraph] Researchers at the pioneering Northeast England Stem Cell Institute say they have made the breakthrough using stem cells from an embryo.You really have to pause a moment to absorb just how monstrous and absurd this is. Scientists are destroying human life with the hope that with some manipulation they might be able to create it. We will kill babies in order to use their cells to create other babies. One goal of this monstrous pursuit is to remove men entirely from the reproductive process. This is the type of thing that cries out for old testament biblical comeuppance. This has to stop.
Within 10 years, the scientists say the technique could also be used to allow infertile couples to have children that are genetically their own. It could even be possible to create sperm from female stem cells, they say, which would ultimately mean a woman having a baby without a man.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Galli's "Scandalous" Article
From the perspective of one steeped in the holiness tradition, Galli's definition of sanctification may sound rudimentary, but I think that is intentional on his part. There is no need for visceral comments such as these:I sometimes wonder if becoming "sanctified" in this life is mostly about becoming increasingly aware of just how much we are, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, "miserable sinners," and that, really, "there is no health in us."
Sanctification certainly means this much: having the courage to face that reality and not flinch. That courage comes from knowing the merciful judgment and the humbling grace of God, knowing that God has judged the ugly reality of our lives, condemning it to its rightful death. And, at the same time, knowing that he has accepted us in all our sordidness, welcoming us as if we were as righteous as we sometimes imagine ourselves to be!
It is God's utter acceptance of us that allows us to look at our miserable sinfulness and not flinch. If that's not the final step in sanctification, it is certainly a prerequisite to any other step. And it's about all most of us will experience in this life.
* * *But for evangelicals, that has not been enough. We feel compelled to add something to the gospel mix. We hear the footsteps of "cheap grace" right behind us, so we try to run harder and faster and higher, trying to make ourselves presentable not only to God but to our fellow man, driven in part by our desire to be a good witness, to show forth that something.
Note how one writer put it in reflecting on the Gosselin debacle. (I'll leave the writer anonymous, because my beef is not with her.) The sentiment expressed is widespread in our movement. After rightly suggesting that the flaws of Jon and Kate reflect our movement's flaws, she says that we must do things differently: Find new role models, practice forgiveness better, and take marriage vows more seriously. Do, do, do. Then she concludes, "Then, and only then, will Christians have something to offer the world."
The problem, of course, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Christians will actually do these things consistently. Not private Christians. Not public Christians—it's only a matter of months, maybe days (!) before another scandal will be revealed in the press.
Such moral exhortations are no doubt needed, but we must never believe that "then and only then" will we Christians have something "to offer the world." What we offer the world is not ourselves or our moral example or our spiritual integrity. What we offer the world is our broken lives, saying, "We are sinners saved by grace." What we offer the world is Jesus Christ and him crucified.
This article is sick and disgusting! Yes, we need God's grace. Yes, we fall and sin. But we don't just say sorry and act like it never happened. We ask God's help and His grace so we don't sin any more. Hypocrisy is one thing - not trying to follow Jesus is another. Of course in our flesh we can do nothing. Only by the Spirit. But there is a work (not of the flesh) that we are called to do: surrender the flesh to crucifixion by the Spirit by cooperating with the Spirit. Luther was a fool. In his zeal to emphasize grace, he blew sin out of proportion. try telling an abused wife (like Mrs Sanders) "sin cannot tear u away from Christ even though u commit adultery a 100 times a day & as many murders" like Luther did. You're right about one thing. Grace isn't cheap. Jesus gave His life. So lets stop acting like we're above it. Grace causes us to have changed lives. Or maybe u haven't read Ephesians 2 really well, usually followed by Chapters 4, 5 and 6.At best, this is an example of the all too common evangelical practice of shadow boxing against an imaginary enemy. At worst, it is yet another illustration of why pop culture evangelicalism is so much more pop culture and so much less evangelical.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Abp. Jensen's Address to Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans: Why the Jerusalem Declaration Matters
Ominous and foreboding words are being said about the FCA by those who wish it ill – they say it is schismatic, it will divide the church, it is a power play.
These changes are at best misunderstandings or at worst political posturing.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
The FCA exists to keep Anglicanism united, to enable those whose spiritual existence as Anglicans is threatened to remain Anglicans with integrity.
It exists to keep orthodox, biblical Anglicanism inside the fold at the highest level possible; to gather up the fragments, to unite them. It exists so that evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics and mere Anglicans can continue to be Anglicans without compromising Biblical truth. The question for you is: will you join us, will you help us keep our Communion one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
Jim Packer is one of the giants of the real world-Anglicanism. Amongst the wise of this world he is disdained, but his praises are sung in all the churches. Astonishingly, in the eyes of his institutional church he is no longer one of us. He has chosen to separate himself from what he has called the sanctification of sin.
Is he still an Anglican?
When we can seriously ask that question, something is deeply wrong. We are at a watershed, at a parting of the ways. Decisions have to be made.
In this country, the Christian foundations have been shaken. In this and the next generation there will be fought what may amount to the last battle for the soul of the nation. It will be an ideological war, a war of ideas. But great issues will hang upon the outcome: the fate of a culture and the eternal fate of souls. Many look to you for guidance and resource and inspiration. Can we do so any longer?
How can we test your resolve to evangelize your people? Unless you develop a deep confidence in the gospel of the saving work of God through Jesus Christ, a willingness to work together for Christ, and a determination to submit to the teaching of scripture, it will not be done. The culture will swallow you alive.
With persuasive power, the culture of the West has adopted and promulgated anti-Christian belief and practice. It confronts every Christian with the choice of submission or harassment. It pretends to be the true heir of the Christian faith, that it now possesses all that was worthwhile of Christianity, and that the entire structure of Christian thought can disappear into the receding past.
It tells you that its tolerance is the choicest part of your love, that its non-discrimination is the choicest part of your justice, that its individualism is the choicest part of your freedom and that its sexual athleticism is the choicest part of your marriage.
Against such a false ideology the ecclesiastical liberal temper fails. It means well, but its genius is toward politics and hence compromise. Its tendency is toward exercising denominational leadership, into synods and boards and councils, indeed into the episcopacy itself. It will come to terms with this world theologically but paradoxically it will insist on the structural unity of the institutional church before gospel – truth. . Its spokesmen will unceasingly lecture the rulers of this world on how to go about their tasks, but they will not do so from within the culture of Christ and the Bible. They will do so from within the ideology of the day so that if you listen to them on the radio you will not be able to tell whether you are hearing a Christian minister or a member of the intellectual elite or the political class. There is much to admire in the liberal temper, but it is assuredly no basis from which to evangelize the nation and build up the churches. For that, you need a deep confidence in the gospel and a determination to follow the teaching of scripture come what may.
In the British Isles, there is a laudable tendency not to panic, not to respond to overstatement, to seek balance and nuance, to see the other point of view, above all not to take decisive and irretrievable action. I know I am a foreigner, but I care deeply what happens here. Let me say this: It is not a day in which to practice the politics of drift. There is little time left. The younger generations are largely lost. Your great inheritance is about to pass into other, heedless hands. You can no longer treat the institutional church as though it is as unassailable as the temple of the Lord; you can no longer say ‘peace, peace’ where there is no peace. You need to unite with each other in a fellowship which will sustain and protect and do mission.
Many are still angry that the Jerusalem GAFCON was held. Some of the most angry are those who agree with the theology of the GAFCON movement but cannot accept that a moment for decisive action had arrived. To such persons I say, I admire you and honour you as brothers and sisters in the Lord. But it seems to me that every day that has passed since the GAFCON has only vindicated the decision to hold it. The liberal churches have not resiled from their unbiblical teaching on human sexuality; the court cases still go on; the covenant has been delayed yet again; Dr Packer and eighty thousand other faithful Anglicans have been told that they do not belong to the Anglican Communion. And in this country there are moves not merely to consecrate women as bishops, but to make no provision for those whose only fault is that they believe what the Church Catholic has always believed.
We need to imagine the next twenty years. We need to see the ideological battle being fought out in the arena of ideas with the speed of the internet and the scale of the globe. We need to see biblical churches assailed as never before by the distorted and false gospels which have captured so much of the West. The culturally captivated churches of the West are sending their gospel to the rest of the world. I tell you, this is not the time to wring hands and say ‘the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,’ to choose institution over gospel; it is no time to say ‘peace, peace’ – for there is no peace.
The conflict is over the authority of Jesus Christ. The fact that sexual ethics is where the contest is sharpest should not divert us from this basic truth. There are two areas in which special vigilance is called for if we wish to honour the authority of Christ in his church. The first is theological education by means of which the intellectual and spiritual lives of future leaders are shaped. The second is the area of hermeneutics. Those who hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God will see in it a unity which holds all things together. Those who regard it as a human witness to God, drawn together as a sort of library, will find contradiction and tension throughout. It is no accident that the two areas in which we can see especial liberal efforts to help in the ‘enlightenment’ of the global south and the conservative Anglicans of the West, are in theological education and hermeneutics.
GAFCON has been a remarkable success. It has rescued the 80,000 Anglican Christians in North America who have been forced to disaffiliate from their church by the sanctification of sin. Other good people have chosen to stay inside the denomination. But who can doubt the stature of Bob Duncan or Jim Packer and their urgent need to find another spiritual home? I applaud the courage of men like Greg Venables and the African and Asian Primates who risked and received heaped up opprobrium for extending fellowship to those who needed it. They took action while others wrung their hands. They have invited us all to declare that we are in communion with these Anglicans. I cannot believe that any evangelically and catholically minded Anglican would hold back. Why are we so frightened?
The Jerusalem Declaration is a rallying point for Anglicans and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is the means by which the movement can be sustained. The FCA exists to unite Anglicanism in their faith so that we help each other be authentic Anglican Christians. Shortly there is to be a commentary on the Declaration published, and I commend it to you.
What sort of document are we dealing with here? It is a Catholic statement, it is an Evangelical statement, it is an Anglican statement, it is a classically Christian statement. One of its chief features is this: it says both a joyous ‘yes’ and a firm ‘no’. Both are necessary. A Christianity which has a great desire to be acceptable to the world says all the positives but will not state the negatives. But the mark of a Christian statement, a statement which professes the true faith, is that it also says ‘No!’ In particular here is an affirmation which says to those who would offer cheap grace in the name of Jesus Christ that there is no grace without the grace which leads to repentance and to transformation of life, that our good news to this sin-sick world is not ‘go this is not longer a sin,’ but ‘go and sin no more.’ Its affirmatives take strength from its negations.
First it affirms the biblical gospel.
The Declaration starts with the gospel. It is the gospel of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, applied to the hearts and lives of undeserving sinners by the Holy Spirit. It is a powerful Holy Spirit gospel which transforms us; it does not leave us where we are. It also speaks of the universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, ‘humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgment and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death we deserve.’ In other words here is a gospel which is to do with sin and hell, with our need of a Saviour, with our salvation through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross by which he bore our sins. The Declaration affirms that Jesus Christ is the sole Saviour that there is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved than that of Jesus.
In other words it repudiates any gospel in which human merit is advanced, any gospel which is confuses salvation with this worldly political goals, any gospel which does not seek for a transformed life though repentance, any gospel in which all are saved, any gospel which denies the reality of hell and judgment, any gospel which sees humanity as fundamentally sound, any gospel in which other beliefs and religions offer a way to God. The gospel of the Jerusalem Declaration is the gospel of the Bible, the Prayer Book and the Articles of Religion.
Second it affirms God’s authority.
The Jerusalem Declaration identifies Scripture as the word of God written and its unique role in expressing God’s authority over his people. Scripture is sufficient; it does not look beyond itself; it needs no supplement; the appeal to scripture is enough to settle for us the mind of God. Furthermore, since the whole Bible is a canonical unity, being the word of God, we may believe it and obey it with confidence that we may understand its message using the ordinary methods of reading, the plain and canonical sense.
And yet we are not the first to have studied scripture. We rightly respect ‘the church’s historic and consensual reading’, and therefore pay due honour to such creeds, Councils, Articles as enable us with confidence to say that we understand the scriptures aright. Hence the importance of the rule of faith expressed through the four ecumenical councils and the three creeds; hence too the assertion that the 39 Articles remain ‘authoritative for Anglicans today’.
Third it affirms Anglican identity through its basic practice and order.
The statement aligns itself with the classic expressions of Anglican sacramental, liturgical and ecclesiastical practice and order. It does so because this heritage is an expression of the gospel, not because they are worthy in themselves for antiquarian reasons. Over the years there have been many different appropriations of this heritage and to this day the different churchmanships lay claim to the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal as peculiarly their own. Such differences remain important. But we can talk about them and seek to resolve them as long as all parties recognize the givenness of the Christian faith, that we have received it from God and do not have the right to change it to fit the spirit of the age. To this conviction those Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals who understand their own position bear equal witness.
Fourth, it firmly applies the biblical gospel to the issues of our day.
The Declaration asserts ‘lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those not married’ as the biblical norm and hence as the will of God, to be obeyed not evaded. This stands in contrast to the churches which obscure the call of the gospel over this area of human life by ordaining those who breach it, or having the audacity to bless unions which God does not bless, or by suggesting that there is one standard for the ordained and another for the laity. The fact that these things may occur in our churches is an indication of how far we have come from the biblical foundation of our churches, of how far we have slipped and allowed the world to rule over that which belongs to God alone.
Here is where the contest between the church and the world is fiercest, here we need to be absolutely clear on the mind and will of God. If we will not stand for these principles we will not stand fogether or any principles and the Christian faith becomes an infinitely malleable set of human aspirations and not the revelation of the living God to a sinful people. Here we must make a choice and the choice must be political not theoretical. It must devolve into action not drift.
The Declaration properly asserts the unity of all Christian people and calls on us to act to one another in love. That is a basic Christian principle. Thus it recognizes that even between those who can assent to the Declaration itself there will be significant differences. Concerning these, there is a pledge either to live in Christian freedom or to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues which divide. The most obvious of such issues at the moment is that of the ordination of women. The Declaration assumes that on this subject there will be mutual forbearance and a willingness to continue a conversation under the eye of God to see whether there can be a common conviction. This is a far different temper from that which would make life impossible for those who hold this view to remain in fellowship and for the matter to be treated as though it is no longer able to be discussed before God. That is the cause of schism.
The boundaries of doctrine are not elastic. There are moments when an institutional church loses its grasp of the gospel and actually endorses that which is sin. There are moment in which the unity of the authentic church is best maintained by separation and distance. Truth must precede order; the fellowship of God’s people is more important that the institutions which serve that fellowship. The Jerusalem Declaration recognizes the orders of those of orthodox faith and practice and says firmly ‘We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.’
Can we do this? We can do no other. To remain in undisturbed fellowship with those who endorse what the Bible identifies as sin or heresy is to run the risk of partaking in the sins of others. We have to approach a subject like this with care and humility, but nonetheless when the issues are clear so is our duty. Our actual strategy may differ in each case. There may be a call to actually sever relations and move outside an institution; the aim of FCA is to help us stay within, but to do so with integrity. If we choose the latter option, we must do so in such a way at to make it clear that the practices which dishonour the gospel of Christ are not ours. We must organize, unite in fellowship, and act. What we cannot do is merely drift or utter meaningless protests which will not protect others or put forward the gospel of Christ. What we ought not do is show incredible sensitivity to the feelings of those who have endorsed false teaching and to the institution which does not bring them to account, while at the same time castigating those who have made their protest by taking action.
The Function of the Jerusalem Declaration
I believe that the Jerusalem Declaration is a noble document.
It is a gathering point. We need to be renewed, given new heart, revived in a common identity and in a common purpose. In the Jerusalem Declaration we have a gospel inspired, gospel infused call to unity of heart, mind. purpose and love written by and for Anglicans from the world–wide Communion. It does not say that its signatories are the only authentic Anglicans. But when you sign it and join the FCA does give a very practical way in which Anglicans of different backgrounds can signal their fixed determination to work together for the Anglican faith against the cultural captivity of the church and in favour of the Holy Spirit’s transforming power and the mission of Christ in the world. I believe that it represents a spiritual movement within our Communion, something which we seem to have forgotten in all our talk of conferences, covenants, commissions, and indaba groups.
The launch of the UK FCA is a great moment, a gospel moment. It appeals to all that is best in the Anglican tradition. It summons people from all over Britain and Ireland to join together in a spiritual movement for the sake of Christ and his gospel. It is a moment in which ordinary people can take responsibility for what happens in their church. It is a moment when you can say, enough is enough, we wish our church to express the Anglican faith because it is the biblical and gospel faith. It is a moment when you can say, what has happened in the USA and Canada will not happen here.
In Sydney we made Jim Packer a Canon of our Cathedral. It was a practical way of saying that we stand with him and we will not allow it to be said that he is no longer an Anglican. Our Diocese has signed up to the Jerusalem Declaration and we are actively at work with our brothers and sisters all round the world to defend and promote the biblical gospel. We are making our convictions concrete and we are setting them to work. Will you join us?
The Most Reverend Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of Sydney.
O'Grady on Honduras: Why is the U.S. Not Supporting the Rule of Law?
Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.
Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.
All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."
Hondurans have good cause for calling on divine intervention: Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom. Ruling the debate on Mr. Zelaya's behavior is Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is now the reigning international authority on "democracy."
Mr. Chávez is demanding that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated and is even threatening to overthrow the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti. He's leading the charge from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United Nations and the Obama administration are falling in line.
Is this insane? You bet. We have fallen through the looking glass and it's time to review how hemispheric relations came to such a sad state.
The story begins in 2004, when Mr. Chávez was still an aspiring despot and the U.S. pursued a policy of appeasement toward him. Not surprisingly, that only heightened his appetite for power.
Mr. Chávez had already rewritten the Venezuelan Constitution, taken over the judiciary and the national electoral council (CNE), militarized the government, and staked out an aggressive, anti-American foreign policy promising to spread his revolution around the hemisphere.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
DeMint Statement on Honduras
"The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator. The Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran military have acted in accordance to the Honduran constitution and the rule of law.
“For weeks leading to his arrest, Zelaya flouted the constitutional authority of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, and claimed for himself extra-constitutional control of his nation’s military and political institutions. Every institution from the Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme Court ruled that his actions were unjustified and illegal. Zelaya’s open defiance of democratic norms has set Honduras on a path toward violence, instability, and tyranny.
“I am hopeful that as President Obama grows in office, he will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya, and give the United States’ full-throated support to the people of any country who are fighting for the same values we cherish and defend in America. The people fighting for freedom around the world, in Iran and Honduras, should never have to wonder which side America will choose between freedom and tyranny.
“President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.
“The rule of law is working in Honduras. President Obama should not undermine the democratic institutions that guarantee freedom by forcing an illegitimate President back into power.
“This is not an ideal transition, but Hondurans are adhering to their constitution. The United States should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”
Saturday, July 4, 2009
+Nazir-Ali Speaks the Truth
July 5 2009
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
A senior Church of England bishop has called on homosexuals to repent and "be changed" in comments that have infuriated equality campaigners. The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, has defended traditional biblical teachings on homosexuality and said the Church should not be "rolled over by culture".
Dr Nazir-Ali spoke as tens of thousands of people, including Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister’s wife, joined the annual Pride London march to celebrate homosexual culture. A war of words broke out between Labour and the Conservatives over the issue of homosexuality last week after a minister accused the Tories of having a "deep strain of homophobia" running through the party.
The bishop’s controversial comments will reignite the battle over homosexuality in the Church of England ahead of what promises to be a divisive week for Anglicanism.
Tomorrow, a new coalition of evangelical and Anglo-Catholic parishes, backed by Dr Nazir-Ali, will get under way, which critics have claimed is an attempt to create a "church within the church".
The organisers said The Queen, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, had sent a message to the leaders of the movement saying she understood their concerns about the future of the Anglican Communion. Next weekend the General Synod of the Church of England is meeting at York University. The following week, the Episcopal Church in America is expected to endorse liturgies for single sex marriage and allow more homosexuals to be made bishops.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Dr Nazir-Ali said: "We want to uphold the traditional teaching of the Bible. We believe that God has revealed his purpose about how we are made.
"People who depart from this don’t share the same faith. They are acting in a way that is not normative according to what God has revealed in the Bible. The Bible’s teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature. We welcome homosexuals, we don’t want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed."
The bishop added that it is not just homosexuals who need to repent, but all who have strayed from the Bible’s teaching. He said: "We want to hold on to the traditional teaching of the Church. We don’t want to be rolled over by culture and trends in the Church. We want a movement for renewal. We need a reformation of the Church and the life of the Communion."
Dr Nazir-Ali, who is resigning from his post in September, said there was a need for the new evangelical movement, called the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, because the Church is already divided. "We’re two different sorts of religion," he said. "One has a view of God and the Church and Christianity that is completely different from the other."
Derek Munn, the director of public affairs for Stonewall, the homosexual campaign group, criticised Dr Nazir-Ali’s comments. "It is unfortunate that in 2009, a church leader should continue to promote inequality and intolerance," he said. "Stonewall knows that most people of faith are accepting of lesbian and gay people. We also know that many lesbian and gay people who are themselves religious believers are not well served by some of those who claim to speak on their behalf."
The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, the president of the Inclusive Church, a liberal grouping in the Church of England, said: "Homosexuality is not a sin. It is the way many people love each other and is a gift from God. Ordinary people in the pews know this. And they are a lot more theologically aware than the handful of narrow- minded bishops who want to play politics with the Anglican Communion."
Dr Nazir-Ali’s views, which he will repeat in a speech at tomorrow’s gathering, will be seen as a direct challenge to the authority of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as he tries to keep the Anglican church together.
Dr Williams secured an uneasy truce over homosexuality in the dispute at last year’s Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops. However, this will be shattered if the American Church passes controversial votes on homosexuality which would defy the archbishop’s pleas for restraint.
Tomorrow’s gathering will be attended by some of the Church of England’s most senior figures, including the bishops of Exeter, Birmingham, and Chichester. Archbishops from around the world will also be present, including the Most Rev Henry Orombi, the Archbishop of Uganda, who last year challenged the Archbishop of Canterbury’s right to lead the Anglican Communion.
Many other Church of England bishops have signalled their support for the new alliance, which describes itself as "a home of focus and support for orthodox churches" opposed to liberal leadership.
The Rev Paul Perkin, a leading evangelical and vicar of St Mark’s Battersea Rise in south London, said the coalition was not intended to be "schismatic", but was needed to support "beleaguered evangelicals and orthodox parishes" across Britain.
"Evangelicals have often been ignored in the past when it comes to decision making," he said. "This should make people sit up and think and take notice. This represents a sea change in where the life and strength in the parishes lies."
Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on private correspondence from the Queen.
The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again! Part MCMXXLVII
Muslims apparently angered because a Christian man driving a tractor reportedly tried to pass a Muslim on a motorcycle have rampaged in one village in Pakistan, destroying Christians' homes and throwing acid on women and children as they fled, according to a new report from Barnabas Aid.
The ministry reported that the violence this week happened in the village of Bahmani Walla in Punjab state in Pakistan, which is dominated by Islamic influences.
The report said 600 Muslims used gasoline bombs to vandalize 117 homes belonging to Christians – including 48 damaged by fire, and sabotage water pumps and cut electricity.
According to the report, the violence apparently stemmed from an incident one night earlier, "in which a Christian man driving a tractor requested that a Muslim man riding a motorcycle allow him to pass."
