Change in America doesn’t start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZqYwdf5Igg]
Part of the Obama stimulus package
Reply
Monthly Archives: March 2009
The Pope, Aids and Planned Parenthood
This is what Pope Benedict said about the Aids epidemic:
“Aids cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”
Echoing words spoken frequently by Pope John Paul II, Benedict declared that the “traditional teaching of the Church” on chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it had proved to be “the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids”.
And here is a response from Planned Parenthood:
Kevin Osborne, HIV adviser at the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said: “All the evidence is that preaching sexual abstinence and fidelity will not solve the problems. We need to work with the reality of where people are, especially in countries he is visiting such as Angola, which is hard-hit by the epidemic.
“The Pope’s message will alienate everybody. It is scary. It spreads stigma and creates a fertile breeding ground for the spread of HIV.”
I’m not a Roman Catholic and I’m not against birth control, but it is easy to spot the diversionary tactic employed in this response by Planned Parenthood. Obviously it’s not the preaching alone that would prevent the spread of Aids, but the preaching and practising of fidelity and abstinence. And there is evidence to suggest that it does work:
Uganda Winning the Battle Against AIDS – Using Abstinence
Uganda may be on its way to wiping out AIDS by using the Biblical values of chastity and fidelity, a new Harvard University study finds. According to the study, abstinence education has shown significant effectiveness in reducing AIDS in Uganda, with the HIV infection rate dropping 50 percent between the years 1992 and 2000.
A consistent atheist
Peter Singer is a bioethicist at Princeton University; he favours infanticide, euthanasia and animal rights:
Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. Yet you wouldn’t have to read his work too long to find his extreme positions. He cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia and, in almost the same breath, favors animal rights. Even most liberals would have qualms about third-trimester abortions; Singer does not hesitate to advocate what may be termed fourth-trimester abortions, i.e., the killing of infants after they are born.
Singer writes, “My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.” Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality-and, consequently, a greater claim to rights-than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. “Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy.”
To his credit, Singer does exhibit more consistency than other popular atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, both of whom wish to largely retain the ethical framework of Christianity while denying its truth.
Of course, Singer is still holding back somewhat since he isn’t yet advocating the use of discarded humanity for food; I expect that is coming.
Cuddly atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are determined to demonstrate that there is no God; it is ironic, then, that one of their number has gone a long way to proving that there is a devil.
To improve decorum, hospice chaplain is not allowed to use the word "God"
A chaplain at Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton has resigned because she is not allowed to use the word ‘God’. Not a nurse or a doctor, a chaplain:
A chaplain at Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton has resigned, she says, over a ban on use of the words “God” or “Lord” in public settings.
Chaplains still speak freely of the Almighty in private sessions with patients or families but, the Rev. Mirta Signorelli said: “I can’t do chaplain’s work if I can’t say ‘God’ – if I’m scripted.”
Hospice CEO Paula Alderson said the ban on religious references applies only to the inspirational messages that chaplains deliver in staff meetings. The hospice remains fully comfortable with ministers, priests and rabbis offering religious counsel to the dying and grieving.
“I was sensitive to the fact that we don’t impose religion on our staff, and that it is not appropriate in the context of a staff meeting to use certain phrases or ‘God’ or ‘Holy Father,’ because some of our staff don’t believe at all,” Alderson said.
Signorelli said that she and other chaplains were told Feb. 23 to “cease and desist from using God in prayers.”
Signorelli said her supervisor recently singled her out for delivering a spiritual reflection in the chapel that included the word “Lord” and had “a Christian connotation.”
“But that was the 23rd Psalm,” Signorelli said – not, strictly speaking, Christian, as it appears in the Old Testament.
“And I am well aware that there were people from the Jewish tradition in attendance. I didn’t say Jesus or Allah or Jehovah. I used ‘Lord’ and ‘God,’ which I think are politically correct. I think that’s as generic as you can get.”
Signorelli resigned Feb. 25.
None of the six other chaplains objected to the ban on God’s name, she said.
Alderson said she was surprised by Signorelli’s reaction to what she characterized as a minor administrative directive aimed solely at improving the decorum of monthly staff meetings, where the desired tone from a chaplain should be motivational, not religious.
Alderson said it started after she asked a chaplain – not Signorelli – to say something “inspirational” and “thought-provoking” at a staff meeting. The remarks did not strike the secular tone she wanted, Alderson said. So, “I issued some guidelines.”
The obvious question that comes to mind is, why does the hospice employ chaplains if they don’t want them to talk about God? Asking a chaplain to motivate people, but refusing to allow her to refer to that which motivates her, is like asking Richard Dawkins to explain evolution without mentioning Darwin.
The New Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The 21st Century’s Inquisition at work:
Science minister won’t confirm belief in evolution.
Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion.
Canada’s science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won’t say if he believes in evolution.
“I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.
A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.
Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.
The interesting part of all this is that the headline in the Globe shrieks its outrage that Goodyear won’t confirm his belief in evolution. Obviously if evolution is a simple empirically verifiable fact, it wouldn’t be necessary to pull out Mr. Goodyear’s fingernails to extract a statement of belief: it would be impossible for him to deny it. For example, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Goodyear would cling to the potentially suicidal notion that he is immune to gravity and is capable of stepping off a high story building without hurtling to his death.
The truth is, evolution is a theory that describes the mechanism behind how species change; it does not explain life’s origin or its purpose. It has no way of determining whether the emergence of mankind was supernaturally guided or accidental; clearly a Christian would not believe it to be accidental. The rhetoric of scientism would deny the possibility of supernatural intervention, but that denial is an act of faith not of science, since the supernatural is outside the realm of science’s competence.
Now, back to pouring molten lead into Mr. Goodyear’s nostrils:
Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.
Jim Turk needs to do a little self-examination. For many scientists, evolution is a religion.
The connected Anglican
There are two kinds of people in this world: those who talk in restaurants in loud voices and those who don’t. Rev. Ian Dingwall is in the former category: I know – I’ve heard him.
He also is someone who is offended by those in ANiC who have left the Anglican Church of Canada because they can no longer countenance being associated with an organisation that is going in the wrong direction. In the Niagara synod when this was plainly stated, Ian loudly declared, “that means you are saying I am not a Christian.” Very astute.
Being Connected is Ian’s latest article in the Niagara Anglican:
Begin with yourself. How well are you connected with your inner and outer self?
I have to admit, over the years, my outer self has expanded somewhat and consequently, so has the distance between the inner and outer selves. The connection, although more tenuous, is undoubtedly still there, since the outer self visibly wobbles in concert with the agitations of the inner self.
Connect with our Environment. No need to say more really but, if you wish to find direction, all you need is a newspaper or magazine to find out what we are suffering from its evil potential and, perhaps, what we can do about it: if only we’d connect with the problem and others who are concerned.
I am so connected with our Environment. Really. Although I have no idea what you mean by the environment’s evil potential. Are you referring to poison ivy?
Surely “to connect” is an invitation for us to critique our own lives as well as our fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness
Now this I understand. You obviously are referring to the Internet and blogs. I will do my best to critique my “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness”. This article is proof.
Choose two people to engage with in a profoundly different way than simply being casual.
OK. So far I have my wife and my dog.
In both cases there will be much that you can do together as you search for some answers to the world’s dilemmas as well as how you can deepen your personal connection with each other.
My dog’s dilemmas consist mainly of selecting a pooping spot in the Environment that we are all so connected with. He tells me it does deepen his personal connection.
Ian, in the spirit of critiquing “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness“ , next time you are in a restaurant, disconnect and shut up.
The Cuddly Christianity of the Anglican Church of Canada
In the latest Niagara Anglican, Michael Burslem has written an article which contends that every person is saved through Jesus atoning death whether he wants to be or not:
But even those of more ‘orthodox’ persuasion, I also believe, are wearing blinkers; both Catholics and Evangelicals. Catholics see no salvation outside the church; but means of salvation seems to be some pious action around the Eucharistic elements, which have some atoning value of their own, quite apart from the death of the Lord Jesus and His resurrection. Also Evangelicals, who see no salvation without a personal faith in Jesus, tend to make the act of believing a ritual to earn their personal salvation. Neither, I feel, see the total picture, and neither of them “get it.”
To defend a universal atonement I would have to say from the start that there is no other way to God than through Jesus, and His atoning death and resurrection. Nobody can claim to be saved by any other means. The work of salvation is done, finished and complete, not by us, nor by any other deity but the one and true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles boldly proclaimed the Good News, “You have been saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.” Whether we acknowledge that fact by believing it, or not, is up to us, but I think it does not change our state of salvation, which is a gift from God. This indeed is Good News.
[…..]
We may have to rethink our cherished, entrenched positions, going right back to the Sermon on the Mount. Lent is that time of year when we assess, and re-assess, what we really and truly believe. I don’t claim now to see the picture any more clearly than I did forty years ago, but I shall never, ever, again tell anyone that they’ll go to hell unless they believe in Jesus as saviour.
At least the author, to his credit, does hold to the orthodox Christian idea that salvation comes through Jesus alone – but it comes to everyone: this is a Universalist position. It is one that fits conveniently with the ACoC’s preoccupation with other faiths: after all, if everyone is saved, following Jesus in this life isn’t a very compelling or necessary calling, particularly once it becomes a little inconvenient.
Universalism seems on the face of it to be appealing – it is nice, Canadian, even; but is it true? There seem to me to be a number of problems:
Jesus spent quite a lot of time discussing Hell: verses like this would be needless scaremongering if no-one is going to end up there:
“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” Matt 5:29ff
I had a long discussion with a theology student – who is a Universalist – on this subject. His main arguments were: God is too loving to consign people to Hell and, once confronted by God after death, no person would be able to reject Him. On the first point, Clark Pinnock, a Canadian theologian who is not a Universalist, opts for the final destruction of the wicked rather than their eternal torment. I’m not sure he is entirely convinced of this, but either way, I personally don’t wish to be snuffed out or tormented. On the second, if when a person finally meets his maker he has little choice but to accept the gift of salvation – it is thrust upon him – God will have removed his free will, one of the main characteristics of being made in His image. He might just as well have done this in the first place and not allowed us to sin at all. Whether we will all be given one last chance to accept or reject God is arguable; if we are, we will still be free to reject Him – and, after a lifetime of practice, I think some will. For it to be otherwise would render all that went before meaningless. God is loving; is removing a person’s ability to turn God down – to expunge that part of God’s image within us – a loving thing to do? I believe not.
The willingness of members of the early church to endure a gruesome death for the sake of holding fast to the Gospel makes little sense if all are saved. They were not Universalists, they believed that decisions made in this life effect one’s predicament in the next; this is why they had to tell others the Good News. If all are to receive the benefits of the Gospel, why did they have the urge to enlighten others in this life when there is an eternity for all to ponder it in the next?
Although Universalism may be a comforting idea, in the end it won’t be much comfort if it isn’t true – and I fear it isn’t.
Canadian Primate, Fred Hiltz, immanentising the eschaton
There are a couple of significant things about this clip from Fred Hiltz:
[youtube= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_EdJRZge0]
First, he tells us that mission for Anglicans is not just about personal salvation. Having been a Canadian Anglican for over 30 years, were it not for the fact that I am a member of an evangelical parish, I could easily have missed the point that the Anglican mission is about personal salvation in any way whatsoever.
Second, Fred goes on to tell us that the Anglican mission is about much more than personal salvation and a relationship with Jesus: it is about transforming society to come under the just reign of God – a similar kind of theocratic utopianism to which Islam aspires.
I think Fred has neatly summed up one of the quintessential errors of the Anglican Church of Canada: for years the church has been focussing most of its energy on the “much more than that” rather than the apparently lesser issue of a person’s salvation. The perfect, just reign of God is going to come when Jesus returns but not before; it is a Christian’s duty to try to do what is right and to work justly in society, but placing this above salvation means setting the temporal above the eternal and making an idol of it.
As C. S. Lewis said in his wonderful essay, The Weight of Glory:
It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization-these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit-immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.
There isn’t much more than that.
Train up a child in the way he should go
The Diocese of Montreal has just had a youth synod; some of the youth were interviewed for Vision 2019 and asked what they would like to see in the Anglican Church of Canada.
Recurring themes were peace, love and an absence and of conflict. Acceptance was a dominant motif with emphasis on acceptance of homosexuals. There seemed to be little understanding of the concept of accepting a person while encouraging a change of behaviour; the thinking appears to be that a person is what he does and therefore, accepting him includes accepting his behaviour.
This is an existential rather than a biblical view, and is one that has probably been absorbed by the children as a result of being immersed in the meandering relativistic ideology of the ACoC where inclusion and tolerance are idolatrously placed above God’s revelation of himself.
Sadly, the parishes that have left the ACoC are thought of as unwelcoming to those with same-sex attractions; it seems unlikely that the youth have ever been exposed to ministries such as the Zacchaeus Fellowship.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnWxMI8cHIA&eurl=http://www.anglican.ca/v2019/yourstory/stories/]
Anglicans win Demented Priest Award
The informative Muslims Against Sharia site has a variety of awards it bestows upon deserving contenders. One is the Demented Priest Award; Anglicans will be proud to know that two of their own are the latest recipients of this prestigious accolade.
Rowan Williams for his groundbreaking work on explaining to Britons why Sharia law is inevitable in the land of the Crusaders and Katherine Jefferts-Schori for her tireless support of Islamofascism.
The only disappointment here is the sad lack of recognition for the efforts of Canadian Fred Hiltz; never mind Fred, with a bit of work and a lot of concentration, I’m sure you will do better next time.