We are coming to a time now – or rather are already there – when all the wishy-washiness of the political world and the falling away in society must be counterbalanced by the voice of the Church.
This post is not about whether the Church is needed or not or about gay marriage or whether there is a G-d or any of those things – it’s about a strong countervoice, firmly putting the gospel line. As one commenter at the Telegraph said:
Given the state of the world today, the Church has a moral dilemma. How best to tackle the excesses and wickedness inherent in the ruling classes in western “democracy”.
I believe that though non believers who would violently disagree with the gospels, you know – love thy neighbour, let not the sun go down on your wrath, the parable of the good samaritan etc., which for some inexplicable reason the rationalists seem so against – I believe that these people would still respect a firm Church with a consistent line, in counterpoint to all the Red Eds and Camerons and Cleggovers etc. for whom u-turns are their daily fare.
The Church’s N1 directive is to bring people to the Word so that they can be redeemed, according to the gospel narrative. Again, it’s irrelevant whether you believe in that or not – the point is that that is its job – putting the Word. In other words, the organization needs to be fit for purpose.
The Church’s N2 directive is to offer succour, respite, a listening ear, all the things people are looking for now that society is disintegrating and can’t get any joy from the Statists or any compassion from the godless. The Church needs to resume its role of the caring ministry it once was – hospices, food for the poor, counselling etc. etc.
It MUST have a strong man in the shepherd’s role who will bend neither to the UN, the EU, nor all the other global socialists, the Statists, the lowlifes – it should simply follow the written Word, whatever you might personally think of that Word.
Simples. That’s all it takes. As others have commented today:
# The only churches that are putting on numbers have a strong evangelical element … and the church needs a wolf [not a caretaker or someone close to the establishment].
# The CofE does not need re imagining, it needs to go back to using the King James Bible and ditch the happy clappy rubbish which, as far as I am concerned is a major deterrent to attending a service. Williams has been a disaster.
# The tide of ‘fashion’, ‘modernity’, ‘crises’ and politicians waxes and wanes, and should find the ‘rock’ of the Anglican Church entirely resistant. Who will ensure that is the case? He should be chosen.
# Under Rowan Williams, among others, the CoE, at the top, has come to be seen by many as the third member of an unholy trinity of which the first two are the Guardian and the BBC – an impression recently reinforced by its unequivocal support of the UK’s completely unreconstructed membership of the EU. This is guaranteed to alienate at least 50% of the general public and, I suspect, an even larger proportion of churchgoers.
And always remember:
# Jesus wasn’t crucified because he went about saving individual souls* but because he spoke out against the injustices of the political system of the time and upset the Romans and their proxy administration made up of the Chief Priests and elders.
This is what the new Archbishop of Canterbury MUST do. No caretakers, no reformers, no trying to be relevant, just putting the Word in a caring, approachable, incorruptible manner and others can decide whether they accept that or reject it.
You don’t have to be a Christian to admire someone who will stick to his guns and not sell out.
………..
* Actually, there’s a strong metaphysical case that He was crucified for that but the other reason also holds true.
James, I’m in full agreement with you. As a Roman Catholic, I also see that the hierarchy have been diverted along a path that is not consistent with Jesus’ teachings. The infection appears to affect just about every part of Christian life here in the West; but of course the cause – socialism/communism/fascism/ the green movement, in whatever guise it comes to us – has infiltrated all areas of our civilisation. Destroy socialism; destroy islam and we might just have a chance of returning to normality.
And, I also believe that Jesus was concerned for the individual more than the ‘system’. Which is why socialism is antithetical to everything Christian. If socialists stopped trying to love the world and tried, for once, to love individuals, they might just be able to see beyond their bigotry, intolerance, violence, lies and deceit.
As a completely deluded idiot, try this:
link to nobeliefs.com
Pay close attention to the open collaboration of the RC with the anti-socialist forces in the pictures.
Then there was their collaboration with Franciso Franco, wasn’t there?
Greg, I’m sure you’re not a completely deluded idiot. No need to be so hard on yourself.
Do grow up!
Anyone who is daft enough to believe in BSF is deluded, anyone deluded enough to swallow the RCC’s lies id definitely an idiot, whatever their other mental areas of competence.
Meanwhile, on this very subject …
google for “Einstein letter on god” – about to be put on sale….
“the Bible is a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Strawman argument there. Non believers do not necessarily object to the golden rule – of which these are facets – they (we) simply do not believe in gods and object to religious belief and its tenets being foisted on the rest of us.
So, no, I do not particularly want to see a strong church. I have no objection to the church’s existence, but would object very strongly to any attempt by it or its followers to impose its morality on those of us who are not followers. Indeed disestablishment cannot come soon enough, frankly.
but would object very strongly to any attempt by it or its followers to impose its morality on those
Strawman – how on earth could the Christian church impose anything on anyone – they can’t even agree among themselves.
I said that they should be a strong voice – completely different thing, of course.
Islam and Shariah Law – ah, that’s a different thing.
Er, because the CofE is part of the establishment. Bishops in the HOL, anyone?
James – Check out the Dominionists and get back to me.
Totally, VoR. Agree with you and have been campaigning against it on my blog, subtly, however. I do have a couple of dominionist readers and am trying to encourage them to see the NT in the light of Jesus Christ, not Pharisaical legalism.
If you had ever actually read any history ( I know you have, but you write as if you had not!) you would know that “churches” have been very effective indeed at imposing their brutal will on the suffering people.
Look at Iran….
Sorry, James — tell me where Jesus ever spoke out against the political system. If you’ve really been reading my Forbidden Bible Verses posts over the past couple of years, you’ll see that wasn’t the case. It was all about His divinity and the afterlife, not about the present day (then or now).
If I’ve misunderstood your post, do let me know. If not, this ‘socio-political’ thing is exactly what I’ve been blogging against.
(Apologies for the multiple edits.)
Postscript: Is there any necessity for a Christian to type ‘G-d’?
No. Never understood it myself.
When he took on the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Huh?
Point it out to me in Scripture, please. Otherwise it’s a Jews for Jesus construct.
Matthew 16:1-3 and 16:21
Matthew 23:27.
What do these verses have to do with God’s name not being spelled out in full, James?
If it were customary, all Christians would be doing it.
Here are your verses:
1/ Matt. 16:1-3 (which I featured in a recent post of mine):
16 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
2/ Matt. 16:21:
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
3/ Matt. 23:27:
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness…”
Pardon my saying so, but you have a ragtag assembly of Jews for Jesus, Orthodox semi-Pelagianism and Christian conspiracy stuff going on here. It’s beginning to annoy me, quite frankly. Scripture isn’t something to be played fast and loose, especially inaccurately.
Just read the Bible. Every week, I offer perspectives from reliable clergy and commentary. Why not just read what they have to say — as well as the Bible — for … what it is?
I was referring to Jesus taking on the Pharisees and Sadducees, which was another point you raised, CM.
I wrote:
James Higham
October 8, 2012 at 7:35 pm (edit)
When he took on the Sadducees and Pharisees.
You replied:
Churchmouse
October 8, 2012 at 9:12 pm (edit)
Huh?
Point it out to me in Scripture, please. Otherwise it’s a Jews for Jesus construct.
… and I supplied the verses. I don’t understand why you’re on about this, CM. I thought we were playing for the same team.
Doesn’t mean that you have to agree on everything. Indeed, Christians have been accusing each other of heresy since the beginning of Christianity. For non Christians, it makes for an amusing diversion
James — I do not see what any of those verses has to do with writing ‘G-d’ instead of ‘God’.
Read any Christian theologian (okay, I don’t meddle with Orthodox denoms or the error-ridden Jews for Jesus, so I cannot speak for them) and you’ll see they all say ‘God’. Open the Bible. Do you see ‘G-d’ anywhere there? Does any Christian priest or minister refuse to say ‘God’? No.
I’m departing this thread.
Are we on the same side? I have noted our Christian differences before and advised against your expecting me to speak in support of theological error. I will not do it.
James — my words to you on your particular brand of Christianity are as follows. I have pointed out theological error in your belief before. You know that. You seem to enjoy your error. Fine, you have to live with that and suffer any consequences on the Final Day, especially if it leads someone else to adopt the same errors.
In closing, the most important thing a Christian can say about himself is that he is a Christian. Every time a believer avers that, he should be attempting to give glory to God and His Son Jesus Christ. He should also be exhibiting the fruits of faith which the Holy Spirit helps to bring forth. It seems this journey takes until middle age with most of us. And I’m far from fruitful in that regard, but I’m praying for more grace.
However, consider that every time someone reads one of your posts that it could be a stranger. So, not Longrider or me or another of your online friends. And I do consider us online friends. It could be someone who wants to find out more about Christianity. They might only read one of yours or my posts to be interested or completely turned off. If it’s a case of the latter, I pray they find another resource which brings them to the truth of Jesus Christ.
So, we have a responsibility to make what we write online as close to New Testament teachings as possible. It’s difficult. I often wish I had a secular blog, because things would be easier for me in relating to the world.
And therein lies the challenge.
This means no ‘my brand’ of Jesus. As in, squatting is okay. Or that theonomy is a good thing. Or that posting photos of sensuous women is fine as long as one includes in the text ‘I’m a Christian’. Or promoting theological error because someone I knew thought it was okay. No, none of that marries up with New Testament teaching. In fact, some of it is sin. Therefore, it has no place in online Christian discourse.
I recall sometime last year you asked early on a Sunday morning for help in evangelising to one particular family. One of my readers and I spent several hours researching and producing relevant websites and NT verses for you to use. Although I realise you never had the opportunity to use them, at least in that case, I never had the feeling that you accepted NT orthodoxy (as opposed to Orthodoxy of the Eastern sort). It seems to me you prefer to put your own patchwork together of what appeals to you because it is more exciting, ties in with your worldview and so forth. But that isn’t what Christianity is about. Never mind what Anglican clergy say. Most of them lost their way decades ago.
That’s all from me on this one. I hope that you come to accept a fuller understanding of the NT. I consider you a brother in Christ.
CM
1. This is a new one to me. What theological error? If you take the gospel as the basis, and that is readable by most people, then where is the theological error?
2. How can you dispute that Jesus took on the Pharisees and Sadducees when I’ve given you the verses which show He quite clearly did?
3. On the question of writing G-d instead of God, is that a major issue? Is it central to redemption? I don’t accept that it is but if you disagree, do we then fall out? Because I believe that such schisms are artificial and needless. In fact, I believe they militate against the coming together of the church.
4. If that failure to come together is a theological fundamental, e.g. John 3:16, i.e. if that is denied, then there is basis for schism. But if that is agreed upon and that is the central issue, then where is the schism? Over peripherals.
What utter, deluded lying bollocks.
The “church” – any church at all is a collection of self-selected blackmailing liars.
THERE IS NO BigSkyFairy – hasn’t that simple fact sunk in yet?
A Theocracy is the worst possible form of government, anywhere at all.
History shows the cruelty & insanoty of all theological regimes.
The two current “best” examples are, of course, Iran & N. Korea.
Greg — How is North Korea an example of a theocracy?
Communism or the cult of personality – each is a form of religious belief.
AGreed L-R
Also look at N Korea.
Thw whole place is dedicated to singing the eternal praises of the founder & his son, for all eternity, & material needs, including food, are superflouous – remakably like heaven!
Also, regarding the communist theocratic system …
“Marxism is a religion.”
I believe Bertrand Russell was the first to note this, but the behaviour of both individual Marxists, and marxist organisations, and the construction of their internal power organisation and heirarchies conforms to classical religious behaviour. For example: people read a set number of Trotsky’s saying each day, just as if he were Jesus, or Mahmud. Or appeal to “the historical inevitability of the revolution” etc …
I may add that it passes ALL the tests, if one cares to list them:
1] It has a “Holy” book or books.
2] The words in those books may not be questioned, even when demonstrated proven wrong.
3] It has sub-divisions and sects and “heresy”, and heretics, in Trevor-Ropers phrase are “even wronger” than unbelievers.
4] Those sects fight each other, either by open warfare or in internal pogroms.
5] It is structurally based on the RC church, complete with its own “holy office”
6] Which leads to the gulag – the communist equivalent of the churches years of penitence and autos-de-fé
7] Thousands if not millions are killed in the name of the “holy cause” to bring about a supposed millennium
8] It persecutes all the competing religions
9] In some sects it even denies Evolution by Natural Selection (look up Trofim Lysenko)
Bertrand Russell
LOL – you quote that Marxist atheist deviant as support? QED.
You do like your logical fallacies. This one is the genetic fallacy.
Greg — Atheism, which it seems you espouse under the label of ‘rationalism’, is not theocracy. A bit of an own goal there?
It’s hardly an own goal to observe that communist regimes adopt the paraphernalia of religious practice – including the cult of personality, of which North Korea is a fine example.
You appear to be equating atheism and communism. Communists may well be atheists, it does not follow that atheists are communists.
No, but you seem to understand the finer details.
Agree that not all atheists are Communists.
I know Iran is getting the propaganda treatment and I am the last to apologise for those sociopaths, but let’s not forget the ever-pleasant Saudis and their recent Bahraini hijinks or indeed the charming Israelis, themselves theocratic.
Yes, thanks. Atheists tend to overlook the elephant in the room … You mention the other two world religions, but, if we look in numbers, Islam is far greater with much less difference in opinion. At least with Jews, wherever they are in the diaspora or Israel, one is guaranteed vigorous debate. With Islam, there is silence with the exception of a few brave (as in ‘their lives could be threatened’) voices.
There is no elephant in the room. Atheists are more than ready to criticise Islam. I’ve done it often enough myself.
Yes, but you’re one of the rare ones!
There are things unfortunately, where Churchmouse is to be taken to task. I thought whether to run a dedicated post and shall do at my place, not here but his errors do need to be corrected.
Precisely. As do I and readers know my opinion of relativism which sees things brought in which are not gospel. There’s a very simple answer – look at the gospels. There is nothing I’m maintaining about Christianity which is not in there. CM might wish to introduce some non-gospel denominational doctrine but that is hardly anything “correct” or “error” – it is his opinion.
I base my belief on the gospels. Please point out the errors in what He said.
Precisely. Again and again I say – there is no CM brand of Christianity, or my brand or anyone’s brand – there is only what anyone can see in the gospels. Or does CM claim, as the gnostics do, “adept” status? A Mohammedan ability to “interpret”?
Precisely the reason I must correct CM’s false accusations. Please show me one instance where I am doctrinally “in error”. As you say, educated people would assume I knew what I was talking about before writing it and I jealously guard having facts correct. On the occasions the facts have been in error, I’ve gone back and corrected them once pointed out.
CM says I am in error. Where? He asserts something, as many do, then doesn’t follow it up with chapter and verse. I am open to being shown where I’ve been in error and on what basis.
As I hope CM can because he is obviously in error over some key matters. One of those is the post itself and why he, as a Christian, would not support it. I wrote:
I would ask CM what is wrong with that statement from a Christian and why he would not support the Anglican head supporting the gospel.
Thanks, James. My absolute comment:
1/ Preach Christ and Him crucified and all else will be taken care of. This answers your post, which, to me, was ambiguous in its direction as it seems to have been with regard to some of your other readers.
2/ You have exhibited much error on my blog. For advice, as mentioned to you before, the Westminster Confessions of Faith are the most comprehensive ever written.
3/ I do much careful research before writing my posts, spending a minimum of three and four hours on the faith-based ones. I do not have my own ‘CM brand’ of Christianity. I actually cite references.
In conclusion — you can accept the New Testament wholly or you can paste bits and pieces together of various aspects of Christianity.
I will have to answer for a multitude of my own sins when the time comes, but I surely hope that advocating squatting (theft), lust and (semi-)Pelagianism won’t be going on my record book. Read — and study — the New Testament.
And — despite my asking on my site and this one more than once — you have still never explained why you refuse to write our Creator’s name in full. Why not let the rest of us know what your reasoning or sources are behind this?
In conclusion — you can accept the Gospels wholly or you can paste bits and pieces together of various aspects of Christianity.
I choose to accept them wholly, minus addition, minus deletion. All the rest is what followed after His death. The Acts is a book often dated within this timeframe but does not, of course, directly quote Jesus of Nazareth, except in a past sense.
The remainder of the books are useful for an understanding and I often quote from Paul’s letters – he may even have been inspired but for safety’s sake, the gospels are the core.
link to jewfaq.org
It’s a mark of respect. And I don’t “refuse” at all. That is another error. We include the Old Testament, that is where the Ten Commandments stem from, Jesus refers to prophets from the past and events from the Jewish past.
Matthew 5:17
If there is a NT injunction not to show this respect, similar to a good reason not to observe the sacrifice of the animal any more, which of course there is, please tell me. For this to be doctrinally wrong, can you quote the source which says this?
Now, CM, having answered you, I’m still waiting for those doctrinal “errors”. In other words, which scriptural texts have I wrongly quoted or used? I’d be most interested in this.
And lastly: Matthew 7:1.
………..
By the way, for those eagerly awaiting blood, CM and I actually correspond as well as cross swords here. We have no intention of sacrificial victims littering this thread.