The designer baptism

I was recently at the spot on the river Jordan where, supposedly, John the Baptist baptised Jesus. Actually, there are two places that make the claim; at both of them, people were being baptised on the assumption, I suppose, that the efficacy of the washing away of one’s sin would be somehow magnified.

_29U1966

_29U1975

 

One of the locations was patrolled by soldiers carrying assault rifles, preventing over-active candidates from immersing themselves in one country and emerging, without sin, in another.

_29U3710

 

Perhaps it’s because I am used to the Niagara that the Jordan river seemed much narrower than I expected. And muddier. That didn’t prevent my wife from braving the advances of an aggressive catfish to collect a bottle of the Real Thing. Most of it has been divided up and distributed to friends but I think we may still have a reserve somewhere for a new grandchild, should another arrive unexpectedly.

_29U3701

 

For those who want more glitz than the algae infested Jordan can provide, there is always this:

A new style of service – staged in churches decked out with balloons while guests sit at tables laid out for a baptism banquet – is among options being looked at by officials as part of a drive to make people feel more welcome.

The idea is one of the early results of a major “market research” project, backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, examining how the Church could redesign its christening services for the 21st Century.

[….]

As a result some congregations have begun to adapt services to accommodate them, dressing up the doorways with balloons and offering church halls for christening parties.

But a handful have gone further, holding separate christening services combined with family parties.

At one church visited by Dr Millar the entire church had been laid out like a wedding reception with the baptism performed in the centre of the room in front the guests at tables.

Afterwards they were served champagne and a meal while the family cut a christening cake and received presents. The model is expected to form a centrepiece of new christening handbooks for vicars when the projected is completed.

The Anglican and Lutheran Joint Assembly begins

And it’s all about commonplace leftist preoccupations that have little to do with Christianity – like resource extraction – and diminishing membership; could there be connection?

From here:

Hundreds of members of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada are converging on Ottawa for an unprecedented joint national gathering of the two churches, where they will tackle issues like resource extraction, homelessness, and how to live out their mission in a time of diminishing church membership.

The Anglican Church of Canada is claiming “545,000 members”, a grossly inflated number I suspect. After all, my wife and I are still on the membership roll of the Diocese of Niagara even after the bishop sued me. I wonder if that’s a first, a bishop suing one of his own parishioners?

The Anglican Church of Canada (anglican.ca) has been a self-governing member of the worldwide Anglican Communion since 1893 and has 545,000 members in nearly 2,800 congregations across the country.

The ELCIC claims even fewer members – 145,000 – and has joined with the ACoC in the hope, perhaps, of padding its denomination with disaffected Anglicans; another example of resource extraction.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (elcic.ca), established in 1986, has 145,000 members across Canada in nearly 600 congregations and is a member of the Lutheran World Federation.

Membership decline is to be addressed by restructuring rather than examining the reason that people are leaving:

Delegates from both churches will also discuss proposals to restructure the way in which the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada function, since both churches have experienced the same decline in membership as many other mainline Canadian churches.

Not all mainline churches have lost members: the Roman Catholic Church has experienced membership growth while standing resolutely against same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia – could there be a connection?

“It doesn’t matter whether you are Buddhists or Christians, Jews or Gentiles, the world needs people who lead Christ’s life”

That statement was made by Archbishop Paul Kim, Primate of the Province of Korea during a sermon at Christ Church Cathedral in the Diocese of New Westminster.

It fits well with the mushy theology of the diocese, as do Paul Kim’s views on blessing same-sex unions.

The problem is, it does matter: if Christianity is true then the statement is nonsense. A Buddhist would not accept Christ’s Divinity, his freely-chosen atoning death on the cross, his Resurrection, or the gift of eternal life through Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice. A Buddhist is “dead in his sins”, is unreconciled to God and has dubious prospects in the hereafter. Moreover, although the world may need people who lead a Christ-like life, those who attempt to do so will not be saved by their works, since we are saved by grace not works.

This leads me to conclude that Archbishop Paul Kim either: doesn’t believe that Christianity is true; doesn’t know what it is; or is illogical. Take your pick.

“It doesn’t matter whether you are Buddhists or Christians, Jews or Gentiles, the world needs people who lead Christ’s life.”

These were the words spoken by the interpreter, the Reverend Aidan Koh, (Chaplain, St.James Episcopal School, Los Angeles) near the conclusion of Archbishop Paul Kim’s address at a Celebration of the Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral marking the Birth of John the Baptist, Tuesday, June 25th, 2013.
Archbishop Kim, en route to the Diocese of Peterborough in England (there are 6 Korean clergy in ministry in that diocese) from the Episcopal Asiaamerica Ministries Conference that ran June 20th to June 24th wanted to stop in Vancouver to visit the Diocese of New Westminster and to pay his respects to Bishop Michael Ingham and his legacy of prophetic witness.
Archbishop Kim has been a vocal advocate in the Asian region and across the Anglican Communion for justice, particularly as it relates to sexuality.

 

Church installs vending machine for the easy purchase of religious paraphernalia

From here:

Holy VendorThe world’s first religious vending machine has been installed in a church to allow worshippers to buy holy accessories before attending a service.

Churchgoers can now buy rosary beads and armbands with religious motifs before taking their seat inside their place of worship.

The machine was the brainchild of pastoral assistant Sebastian Fiebig at the St. Joseph Church, in Hamburg, Germany.

He designed the machine and believes it is a fun idea.

The 39-year-old said: ‘I walked passed a vending machine for umbrellas a long time ago and it was then that I came up with the idea to make one for the church.

‘I purchased an old vending machine on the internet, repaired it, gave it a new coat of paint and then filled it with the rosaries and armbands.’

After putting the money in the slot, a white cardboard box drops into your hands, and the wooden rosary is inside.

A wooden armband with religious motifs will set you back two euros and features images of Jesus, Maria and the Pope.

Maybe it’s just me – and I don’t want to give North American Anglican Churches any ideas – but that looks as if it was once a condom dispenser of the kind one encounters in airport bathrooms.

New Church of England plan to attract people: a Pagan Christian church

From here:

As part of its drive to retain congregation numbers, the Church of England is training its clergy to create a “pagan church” where Christianity will be “very much in the center,” a British newspaper reports.

The mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion is seeking to create new forms of Anglicanism with which people of alternative beliefs should feel comfortable, according to The Telegraph.

“I would be looking to formulate an exploration of the Christian faith that would be at home in their culture,” the daily quotes the Rev. Steve Hollinghurst, who is advising the denomination in its new endeavor, as telling the BBC.

What the church is looking at is “almost to create a pagan church where Christianity was very much in the centre,” he adds.

I have bad news for Rev. Hollinghurst: the Anglican Church of Canada has been telling people they can believe whatever they like while concealing Christianity in a centre that no-one ever seems to find for decades. The result has been that potential congregants choose a belief that tells them that it is better to stay in bed late on Sunday morning than attend a church that can’t confidently convey a coherent Christian message.

Anglican Church of Canada Resolution C003: change the marriage canon to allow the marriage of same-sex couples

The Anglican Church of Canada holds its general synod every three years.

Resolution C003 is a motion for the 2016 synod requesting a change to the marriage canon to include the marrying of same-sex couples. Eleven dioceses – New Westminster, Ottawa, Huron, Niagara, Toronto, Montreal, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Edmonton, Rupert’s Land, Quebec and British Columbia – already offer the blessing of same-sex unions. All offer liturgies for this blessing and all are careful to point out that the liturgies are for the purpose of blessing not marriage itself.

The cynical among us might question whether there is any significant difference between the two and wonder at the depths of hypocrisy to which these dioceses are prepared to stoop in order to deceive gullible congregants: after all, if a church is willing to bless a same sex-marriage why would it refuse to conduct the marriage? The answer lies in how Anglicans effect change: gradually. A rector who wishes to move a piano from one side of the church to the other does it an inch at a time; it may take a year but no one notices.

There can be little doubt that the Anglican Anglican Church of Canada will end up marrying same sex couples. I for one will welcome it; at least it will be a forthright and undeniable capitulation to the Zeitgeist – stupid and flagitious, perhaps, but with less circuitous guile.

Take note, conservative Anglican frogs determined to remain in the Anglican Church of Canada come what may: the water is almost boiling.

From here:

Resolution C003

Subject: Preparation of motion to change Canon XXI on Marriage; Direction to COGS

Moved by: Ms. Michelle Bull, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI

Seconded by: Ms. Jennifer Warren, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI

Be it resolved that this General Synod

direct the Council of General Synod to prepare and present a motion at General Synod 2016 to change Canon XXI on Marriage to allow the marriage of same sex couples in the same way as opposite sex couples, and that this motion should include a conscience clause so that no member of the clergy, bishop, congregation or diocese should be constrained to participate in such marriages against the dictates of their conscience.

Source: Member

Submitted by: Ms. Michelle Bull, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI

Does this motion contain within it any financial implications? Yes No X

If yes, has the General Synod Expenditures Committee considered the implications? Yes No

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND

It has been 6 years since General synod last debated this issue. Since then, some dioceses have proceeded in a manner they deemed necessary to meet the local pastoral and other needs with respect to the blessing of same sex civil marriages. It has been over 10 years since such civil marriages were legal in Canada. The general public has become much more accepting of same sex unions since we last discussed it. This is also true of the church, though not, of course, universally so.

It seems like a good idea to ask COGS to draft this motion, so that it will be done correctly and with the benefit of appropriate legal and theological advice as to wording, so that the motion will do all and only what we wish it to.

We believe that it is necessary that there be a conscience clause so that anyone who is not in favour of same sex marriages will not be constrained to participate in them. It is not our intention to force everyone to conform in this matter, but only to allow those who wish to allow same sex marriage in the church to go ahead.

PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION (G)

In the normal course, an ordinary motion must be passed by a majority of the Order of Bishops, and by a majority of the Orders of Clergy and Laity voting together.

Six members of General Synod may, prior to the question being put, require a vote by Orders, with a majority of each Order being necessary to pass.

If a question passes on a Vote by Orders, any six members (two from each of three different dioceses) may require a vote to be taken by dioceses. A motion passes if a majority of dioceses (or a tie) vote in favour.

Source: Section 5 of the Declaration of Principles and sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules of Order and Procedure

Note: If Resolution A030 is given second reading, the required majority will be all Orders voting together.

Bishop Michael Ingham: “I believe in a God….”

It’s never a good sign when someone precedes the word “God” with the indefinite article.

Michael Ingham, in his address at SFU on receiving his honorary degree, resorts to this device, as do many who have wandered from the Triune God of the Bible. He intoned, piously: “I believe in a God” – one of many equally suitable anthropomorphised candidates available for selection; we, if we are wise and wish to avoid the horror of “fundamentalism”, should do likewise. It doesn’t really matter whether we choose the same god as Ingham so long as we don’t fall into the trap of leaving out the all-important “a”, thereby excluding all other gods: that would never do.

We live in a time when religious fundamentalism is growing stronger in all faiths and traditions. It is a movement rooted in fear. The answer in my view is not to abandon religious faith but to join the side of religious progress. Religions must struggle for the equality of women. Religions must uphold the dignity of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. Religions must work to safeguard the integrity of God’s creation. And religions must work together, not against each other, for justice and peace.
I have never believed in a God who was male, white, and elitist. I believe in a God who is engaged on the side of life, often with powerless people, in the struggle against the many faces of death. And that is my invitation to all of you today.

What is the Gospel?

The word “Gospel” is thrown around willy-nilly by theological liberals to justify every lunatic contemporary crusade imaginable, from global warming denunciation to Gay Pride Parade exhibitionism; it has become a Humpty Dumpty word:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ Through the Looking Glass

Primate Fred Hiltz – presumably taken unawares by the unexpected intrusion of a theological question in an ACoC meeting – struggled mightily when asked to explain the Gospel.

Nevertheless, it does have an objective meaning. This is J. I Packer’s exposition of what the Gospel is:

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL MESSAGE?

J. I. Packer

IN a word, the evangelistic message is the Gospel of Christ and Him crucified, the message of man’s sin and God’s grace, of human guilt and divine forgiveness, of new birth and new life through the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a message made up of four essential ingredients.

1. The Gospel is a message about God. It tells us who He is, what His character is, what His standards are, and what He requires of us, His creatures. It tells us that we owe our very existence to Him; that for good or ill, we are always in His hands and under His eye; and that He made us to worship and serve Him, to show forth His praise and to live for His glory. These truths are the foundation of theistic6 religion; and until they are grasped, the rest of the Gospel message will seem neither cogent7 nor relevant. It is here with the assertion of man’s complete and constant dependence on his Creator that the Christian story starts.

We can learn again from Paul at this point. When preaching to Jews, as at Pisidian Antioch, he did not need to mention the fact that men were God’s creatures. He could take this knowledge for granted, for his hearers had the Old Testament faith behind them. He could begin at once to declare Christ to them as the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes. But when preaching to Gentiles, who knew nothing of the Old Testament, Paul had to go further back and start from the beginning. And the beginning from which Paul started in such cases was the doctrine of God’s Creatorship and man’s creaturehood. So, when the Athenians asked him to explain what his talk of Jesus and the resurrection was all about, he spoke to them first of God the Creator and what He made man for. “God . . .made the world . . . seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made . . . all nations . . . that they should seek the Lord” (Act 17:24-27). This was not, as some have supposed, a piece of philosophical apologetic8 of a kind that Paul afterwards renounced, but the first and basic lesson in theistic faith. The Gospel starts by teaching us that we, as creatures, are absolutely dependent on God, and that He, as Creator, has an absolute claim on us. Only when we have learned this can we see what sin is, and only when we see what sin is can we understand the good news of salvation from sin. We must know what it means to call God Creator before we can grasp what it means to speak of Him as Redeemer. Nothing can be achieved by talking about sin and salvation where this preliminary lesson has not in some measure been learned.

2. The Gospel is a message about sin. It tells us how we have fallen short of God’s standard, how we have become guilty, filthy, and helpless in sin, and now stand under the wrath of God. It tells us that the reason why we sin continually is that we are sinners by nature, and that nothing we do or try to do for ourselves can put us right or bring us back into God’s favor. It shows us ourselves as God sees us and teaches us to think of ourselves as God thinks of us. Thus, it leads us to self-despair. And this also is a necessary step. Not until we have learned our need to get right with God and our inability to do so by any effort of our own can we come to know the Christ Who saves from sin.

There is a pitfall here. Everybody’s life includes things that cause dissatisfaction and shame. Everyone has a bad conscience about some things in his past, matters in which he has fallen short of the standard that he set for himself or that was expected of him by others. The danger is that in our evangelism we should content ourselves with evoking thoughts of these things and making people feel uncomfortable about them, and then depicting Christ as the One who saves us from these elements of ourselves, without even raising the question of our relationship with God. But this is just the question that has to be raised when we speak about sin. For the very idea of sin in the Bible is of an offence against God that disrupts a man’s relationship with God. Unless we see our shortcomings in the light of the Law and holiness of God, we do not see them as sin at all. For sin is not a social concept; it is a theological concept. Though sin is committed by man, and many sins are against society, sin cannot be defined in terms of either man or society. We never know what sin really is until we have learned to think of it in terms of God and to measure it, not by human standards, but by the yardstick of His total demand on our lives.

What we have to grasp, then, is that the bad conscience of the natural man is not at all the same thing as conviction of sin. It does not, therefore, follow that a man is convicted of sin when he is distressed about his weaknesses and the wrong things he has done. It is not conviction of sin just to feel miserable about yourself, your failures, and your inadequacy to meet life’s demands. Nor would it be saving faith if a man in that condition called on the Lord Jesus Christ just to soothe him, and cheer him up, and make him feel confident again. Nor should we be preaching the Gospel (though we might imagine we were) if all that we did was to present Christ in terms of a man’s felt wants: “Are you happy? Are you satisfied? Do you want peace of mind? Do you feel that you have failed? Are you fed up with yourself? Do you want a friend? Then come to Christ; He will meet your every need”—as if the Lord Jesus Christ were to be thought of as a fairy godmother or a super-psychiatrist . . . To be convicted of sin means, not just to feel that one is an all-round flop, but to realize that one has offended God, and flouted His authority, and defied Him, and gone against Him, and put oneself in the wrong with Him. To preach Christ means to set Him forth as the One Who through His cross sets men right with God again . . .

It is indeed true that the real Christ, the Christ of the Bible, Who [reveals] Himself to us as a Savior from sin and an Advocate with God, does in fact give peace, and joy, and moral strength, and the privilege of His own friendship to those who trust Him. But the Christ who is depicted and desired merely to make the lot of life’s casualties easier by supplying them with aids and comforts is not the real Christ, but a misrepresented and misconceived Christ—in effect, an imaginary Christ. And if we taught people to look to an imaginary Christ, we should have no grounds for expecting that they would find a real salvation. We must be on our guard, therefore, against equating a natural bad conscience and sense of wretchedness with spiritual conviction of sin and so omitting in our evangelism to impress upon sinners the basic truth about their condition—namely, that their sin has alienated them from God and exposed them to His condemnation, and hostility, and wrath, so that their first need is for a restored relationship with Him . . .

3. The Gospel is a message about Christ—Christ, the Son of God incarnate; Christ, the Lamb of God, dying for sin; Christ, the risen Lord; Christ, the perfect Savior.

Two points need to be made about the declaring of this part of the message: (i) We must not present the Person of Christ apart from His saving work. It is sometimes said that it is the presentation of Christ’s Person, rather than of doctrines about Him, that draws sinners to His feet. It is true that it is the living Christ Who saves and that a theory of the atonement, however orthodox, is no substitute. When this remark is made, however, what is usually being suggested is that doctrinal instruction is dispensable in evangelistic preaching, and that all the evangelist need do is paint a vivid word-picture of the man of Galilee who went about doing good, and then assure his hearers that this Jesus is still alive to help them in their troubles. But such a message could hardly be called the Gospel. It would, in reality, be a mere conundrum, serving only to mystify . . . the truth is that you cannot make sense of the historic figure of Jesus until you know about the Incarnation—that this Jesus was in fact God the Son, made man to save sinners according to His Father’s eternal purpose. Nor can you make sense of His life until you know about the atonement—that He lived as man so that He might die as man for men, and that His passion, His judicial murder was really His saving action of bearing away the world’s sins. Nor can you tell on what terms to approach Him now until you know about the resurrection, ascension, and heavenly session—that Jesus has been raised, and enthroned, and made King, and lives to save to the uttermost all who acknowledge His Lordship. These doctrines, to mention no others, are essential to the Gospel . . . In fact, without these doctrines you would have no Gospel to preach at all.

(ii) But there is a second and complementary point: we must not present the saving work of Christ apart from His Person. Evangelistic preachers and personal workers have sometimes been known to make this mistake. In their concern to focus attention on the atoning death of Christ, as the sole sufficient ground on which sinners may be accepted with God, they have expounded the summons to saving faith in these terms: “Believe that Christ died for your sins.” The effect of this exposition is to represent the saving work of Christ in the past, dissociated from His Person in the present, as the whole object of our trust. But it is not biblical thus to isolate the work from the Worker. Nowhere in the New Testament is the call to believe expressed in such terms. What the New Testament calls for is faith in (en) or into (eis) or upon (epi) Christ Himself—the placing of our trust in the living Savior, Who died for sins. The object of saving faith is thus not, strictly speaking, the atonement, but the Lord Jesus Christ, Who made atonement. We must not, in presenting the Gospel, isolate the cross and its benefits from the Christ Whose cross it was. For the persons to whom the benefits of Christ’s death belong are just those who trust His Person and believe, not upon His saving death simply, but upon Him, the living Savior. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” said Paul (Act 16:31). “Come unto me . . . and I will give you rest,” said our Lord (Mat 11:28).

This being so, one thing becomes clear straight away: namely, that the question about the extent of the atonement, which is being much agitated in some quarters, has no bearing on the content of the evangelistic message at this particular point. I do not propose to discuss this question now; I have done that elsewhere. I am not at present asking you whether you think it is true to say that Christ died in order to save every single human being, past, present, and future, or not. Nor am I at present inviting you to make up your mind on this question, if you have not done so already. All I want to say here is that even if you think the above assertion is true, your presentation of Christ in evangelism ought not to differ from that of the man who thinks it false.

What I mean is this: it is obvious that if a preacher thought that the statement, “Christ died for every one of you,” made to any congregation, would be unverifiable and probably not true, he would take care not to make it in his Gospel preaching. You do not find such statements in the sermons of, for instance, George Whitefield or Charles Spurgeon. But now, my point is that, even if a man thinks that this statement would be true if he made it, it is not a thing that he ever needs to say or ever has reason to say, when preaching the Gospel. For preaching the Gospel, as we have just seen, means [calling] sinners to come to Jesus Christ, the living Savior, Who, by virtue of His atoning death, is able to forgive and save all those who put their trust in Him. What has to be said about the cross when preaching the Gospel is simply that Christ’s death is the ground on which Christ’s forgiveness is given. And this is all that has to be said. The question of the designed extent of the atonement does not come into the story at all . . . The fact is that the New Testament never calls on any man to repent on the ground that Christ died specifically and particularly for him.

The Gospel is not, “Believe that Christ died for everybody’s sins, and therefore for yours,” any more than it is, “Believe that Christ died only for certain people’s sins, and so perhaps not for yours” . . . We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement. Our job is to point them to the living Christ, and summon them to trust in Him . . . This brings us to the final ingredient in the Gospel message.

4. The Gospel is a summons to faith and repentance. All who hear the Gospel are summoned by God to repent and believe. “God . . . commandeth all men every where to repent,” Paul told the Athenians (Act 17:30). When asked by His hearers what they should do in order to “work the works of God,” our Lord replied, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (Joh 6:29). And in 1 John 3:23 we read: “This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ . . . ”Repentance and faith are rendered matters of duty by God’s direct command, and hence impenitence and unbelief are singled out in the New Testament as most grievous sins. With these universal commands, as we indicated above, go universal promises of salvation to all who obey them. “Through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Act 10:43). “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Joh 3:16). These words are promises to which God will stand as long as time shall last. It needs to be said that faith is not a mere optimistic feeling, any more than repentance is a mere regretful or remorseful feeling. Faith and repentance are both acts, and acts of the whole man . . . faith is essentially the casting and resting of oneself and one’s confidence on the promises of mercy which Christ has given to sinners, and on the Christ Who gave those promises. Equally, repentance is more than just sorrow for the past; repentance is a change of mind and heart, a new life of denying self and serving the Savior as King in self’s place … Two further points need to be made also:

(i) The demand is for faith as well as repentance. It is not enough to resolve to turn from sin, give up evil habits, and try to put Christ’s teaching into practice by being religious and doing all possible good to others. Aspiration,14 and resolution, and morality, and religiosity,15 are no substitutes for faith . . . If there is to be faith, however, there must be a foundation of knowledge: a man must know of Christ, and of His cross, and of His promises before saving faith becomes a possibility for him. In our presentation of the Gospel, therefore, we need to stress these things, in order to lead sinners to abandon all confidence in themselves and to trust wholly in Christ and the power of His redeeming blood to give them acceptance with God. For nothing less than this is faith.

(ii) The demand is for repentance as well as faith . . . If there is to be repentance, however, there must, again, be a foundation of knowledge . . . More than once, Christ deliberately called attention to the radical break with the past that repentance involves. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me … whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Mat 16:24, 25). “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also (i.e., put them all decisively second in his esteem), he cannot be my disciple . . . whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luk 14:26, 33). The repentance that Christ requires of His people consists in a settled refusal to set any limit to the claims that He may make on their lives . . . He had no interest in gathering vast crowds of professed adherents who would melt away as soon as they found out what following Him actually demanded of them. In our own presentation of Christ’s Gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness. In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything; or else our evangelizing becomes a sort of confidence trick. And where there is no clear knowledge, and hence no realistic recognition of the real claims that Christ makes, there can be no repentance, and therefore no salvation. Such is the evangelistic message that we are sent to make known.