To read the article click
http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/india/11036/ .
Compass Direct News Team
For more news from the Frontlines of Persecution: CompassDirect.org
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Massive ‘Reconversion’ Event in India Aimed at Christians
Children of Light
| We were going to remain silent about this, but we guess the Lord won't let us. We don't want to be spoil sports but we take our calling as your spiritual leaders deadly serious. The scripture below is a command every priest and deacon must obey for their sake and the sake of their flocks. Ezekiel 33 7 "So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of It seems kind of harsh calling people "the wicked" - its Old Testament language. So don't worry we are not calling anyone wicked! J What it basically it means is if the Lord gives us a word to speak particularly to highlight some potential sin or speak out a warning and we do not, then he will hold us accountable and we will be as guilty of the transgression as the people who actually committed it and their guilt will be on our hands. So here comes the word from the Lord (paraphrased): Tomorrow night, we as a church will be coming together to celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Communion, our most sacred feast during which we commemorate Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension. Part of his suffering while on the cross was to be tormented by the demonic. They spoke directly to him in the spirit realm and also through people who taunted him, telling him to "come down from the cross" and to "save yourself if you really are the Son of God". Tomorrow night, Halloween or to give it its true name Oiche Shamhna is a night which celebrates and empowers the very demons who mocked our Lord on the cross. It is a demonic festival. We could go into a whole lecture on the deeper meaning of Oiche Shamhna and all it's evil occultic significance, but we think what we have said is sufficient to encourage anyone who was thinking of celebrating Halloween instead of the Sacrament of Holy Communion tomorrow night to choose carefully. We are the people of God, Children of the Light who celebrate a Kingdom culture of holiness and life not a demonic culture of evil and death. Afterwards there will still be time to visit friends and bring the Light of Christ into one of the darkest nights of the pagan year. Blessings in Him Jim+ Peggy Rector Deacon Kingdom Life Anglican Church www.KingdomLifeAnglicanChurch.org Cell (239) 404-0639 Office (239) 263-1895 | ||
| |
Friday, October 30, 2009
We are in a race . . .
| |||||||||||||||
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Suffering Servants - our Calling in Christ
Each day at Breakfast Val and I share in the daily "Encounter with God" notes published by Scripture Union. Today's notes by Bp Graham Cray seemed particularly good.....
Paul Boasts About His Sufferings
16I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!
What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?
30If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.
New International Version (NIV)
WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER
CROSS-SHAPED LEADERSHIP
'The cross before me, the world behind me - no turning back.' 1
2 CORINTHIANS 11:16-33
Corinth's 'super-apostles' (v 5) emphasise their credentials, their abilities and achievements, `boasting in the way the world does' (v 18). Paul decides that he will have to boast as well - of his sufferings for Christ. The list which follows (vs 22-29) goes well beyond the events recorded in Acts. Paul pours out this list of suffering, of conflict with Jewish and Roman authorities, of danger and deprivation, not because he is looking for sympathy but because he believes it takes us to the heart of Christian discipleship. Leaders are to model the lifestyle of the cross, because it is the way to which all Christian disciples are called. He described it earlier as to `carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.'2
The super-apostles avoid the way of the cross in-their teaching. They `take advantage' of those they lead (v 20). Paul, on the other hand, has an additional element of suffering - his concern for the churches. Just as he taught them in his previous letter, `If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.'3 He identifies with all who are weak. He is outraged when believers are led into sin (v 29).
The Corinthians want their leaders to look good, but Paul will only boast of the things that show his weakness, because they give opportunity for the power of God to be displayed. Christian discipleship does not seek suffering, but it is a life which imitates Christ, with the potential for collision with the way the world does things. Martin Luther used to distinguish between the `theology of glory' and the `theology of the cross'.The church in Corinth was faced with precisely that choice - as are we in our status-ridden, success¬oriented world.
What does it mean in my circumstances to live the life of the cross? What does cross-shaped leadership look like today?
1From 'I have decided to follow Jesus', written by an Indian prince 2 2 Cor 4:10 3 1 Cor 12:26
Paul Boasts About His Sufferings
16I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!
What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?
30If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.
New International Version (NIV)
WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER
CROSS-SHAPED LEADERSHIP
'The cross before me, the world behind me - no turning back.' 1
2 CORINTHIANS 11:16-33
Corinth's 'super-apostles' (v 5) emphasise their credentials, their abilities and achievements, `boasting in the way the world does' (v 18). Paul decides that he will have to boast as well - of his sufferings for Christ. The list which follows (vs 22-29) goes well beyond the events recorded in Acts. Paul pours out this list of suffering, of conflict with Jewish and Roman authorities, of danger and deprivation, not because he is looking for sympathy but because he believes it takes us to the heart of Christian discipleship. Leaders are to model the lifestyle of the cross, because it is the way to which all Christian disciples are called. He described it earlier as to `carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.'2
The super-apostles avoid the way of the cross in-their teaching. They `take advantage' of those they lead (v 20). Paul, on the other hand, has an additional element of suffering - his concern for the churches. Just as he taught them in his previous letter, `If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.'3 He identifies with all who are weak. He is outraged when believers are led into sin (v 29).
The Corinthians want their leaders to look good, but Paul will only boast of the things that show his weakness, because they give opportunity for the power of God to be displayed. Christian discipleship does not seek suffering, but it is a life which imitates Christ, with the potential for collision with the way the world does things. Martin Luther used to distinguish between the `theology of glory' and the `theology of the cross'.The church in Corinth was faced with precisely that choice - as are we in our status-ridden, success¬oriented world.
What does it mean in my circumstances to live the life of the cross? What does cross-shaped leadership look like today?
1From 'I have decided to follow Jesus', written by an Indian prince 2 2 Cor 4:10 3 1 Cor 12:26
Words of LIFE: How Much Time Do You Have?
Unsubscribe / Change your email preferences. |
FW: Standing firm in the face of adversity
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Baghdad – Bishop Michael’s Statement
A STATEMENT BY BISHOP MICHAEL LEWIS
“The Rt Revd Michael Lewis, Bishop of the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf and at present travelling in the Arabian peninsula, telephoned Canon Andrew White on Sunday evening to hear details of the devastating bomb blasts of the morning of Sunday 25 October very close to St George's Anglican church on Haifa Street in Baghdad.
‘Canon White, currently in England for preaching engagements but due to be back in Iraq soon, is examining photographs of the widespread damage to the church compound. The dental and general medical clinics and the Mothers' Union kitchen and food-aid facility have apparently suffered terribly, with equipment destroyed beyond use. Church vehicles, vital for transporting worshippers, have been wrecked. The lovingly landscaped and tended grounds, in which many children play, are a wilderness. While the church building itself stands, windows, both glass and frames, have been blown out entirely.
‘The photographs were emailed by a key lay leader. At present it is unclear whether church members were among the dead and wounded.
‘Bishop Michael and his wife Julia paid their most recent visit to St George's at the start of the summer, where well over a thousand people greeted them at the principal eucharist. "The faith and love of the people of St George's is powerful and extraordinary. So is their resilience," he said. "It's heartbreaking to think that the clinics, which I opened last year and have been in constant use since then by Baghdadis irrespective of creed or affiliation, have suffered so badly. But the impressive Iraqi leadership team, together with Andrew White, will be determined to carry on witnessing to the unstoppable compassion of God in that great, battered city.”’
“The Rt Revd Michael Lewis, Bishop of the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf and at present travelling in the Arabian peninsula, telephoned Canon Andrew White on Sunday evening to hear details of the devastating bomb blasts of the morning of Sunday 25 October very close to St George's Anglican church on Haifa Street in Baghdad.
‘Canon White, currently in England for preaching engagements but due to be back in Iraq soon, is examining photographs of the widespread damage to the church compound. The dental and general medical clinics and the Mothers' Union kitchen and food-aid facility have apparently suffered terribly, with equipment destroyed beyond use. Church vehicles, vital for transporting worshippers, have been wrecked. The lovingly landscaped and tended grounds, in which many children play, are a wilderness. While the church building itself stands, windows, both glass and frames, have been blown out entirely.
‘The photographs were emailed by a key lay leader. At present it is unclear whether church members were among the dead and wounded.
‘Bishop Michael and his wife Julia paid their most recent visit to St George's at the start of the summer, where well over a thousand people greeted them at the principal eucharist. "The faith and love of the people of St George's is powerful and extraordinary. So is their resilience," he said. "It's heartbreaking to think that the clinics, which I opened last year and have been in constant use since then by Baghdadis irrespective of creed or affiliation, have suffered so badly. But the impressive Iraqi leadership team, together with Andrew White, will be determined to carry on witnessing to the unstoppable compassion of God in that great, battered city.”’
FW: Bomb damage to St George's Church; photos
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Dear Friends,
And the clinic? The St George's clinic provides free medical and dental treatment to people in Iraq, regardless of their religious or ethnic background. It is staffed by a team of medics representing each of the Abramic faiths: Muslim, Christian and Jew. It contained high quality medical equipment provided by charitable donations to the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East. In a moment, much of this equipment has been destroyed, placing it permanently out of reach of the Iraqi people who need it so desperately.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Whither Anglicanism again
Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics: this is the moment of truth
http://bit.ly/Gky85
http://bit.ly/Gky85
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Whither Anglicanism
Senior Anglican bishop reveals he is ready to convert to Catholicism
http://bit.ly/o2rM6
http://bit.ly/o2rM6
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Whither Anglicanism?
I figured there would be a robust response to the Vatican's announcement this week from Fr. Robert Hart. I was not disappointed. Here it is:-
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thanks, but no thanks
From my childhood I have been wholly unimpressed with Walt Disney's versions of Alice in Wonderland and Winnie the Pooh, thinking he owed A.A. Milne and Lewis Carroll an apology; in recent years I have been mostly unhappy with the new Doctor Who series, because I liked the real one so much. As a life long Anglican, I am unhappy with the "Anglican" Use liturgies approved by Rome for much the same sort of reason. I love the genuine Book of Common Prayer tradition, and do not find a few crumbs from it satisfying, nor do I appreciate the unnecessary "corrections" and deletions. This has come from the same Apostolic See that failed to understand why the first English Ordinal did, in fact, specify each Order, indicating that "[Roman] Catholics don't read the Bible," so that even the Magisterium stubbornly clings even now to a position born of Biblical illiteracy, seeing a defect of Intention because, it seems, they do not notice actual quotations of Scripture appropriate to each Order (translated from a very old Latin rite commonly used with Rome's full approval in "the before time").
And, today I remain equally unimpressed by the announcement of a new "apostolic constitution" from Rome. Obviously, this must mean that I hate the idea of unity, that I refuse to grant the prayer of the Son of God (that He made to His Father, not to you or me), and that I stand in the way. The NOTE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ABOUT PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH , (dated today, Oct. 20, 2009) closes with the words "In the light of these developments, the Personal Ordinariates established by the Apostolic Constitution can be seen as another step toward the realization the aspiration [sic] for full, visible union in the Church of Christ, one of the principal goals of the ecumenical movement." So, if I am not leaping for joy, overwhelmed with excitement, eager to sign on, and ready to throw myself into the Tiber with full confidence in its currents, tides and waves, I must be against unity.
Or, maybe I do not see a group of people shifting from one denomination into another as particularly relevant to real unity. Perhaps that is because real visible unity has been described by St. Paul in these words: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."(I Cor. 1:10) On many essential issues Christians do, in fact, live up to this model more than is commonly appreciated. And, indeed, we have many areas of real agreement with the See of Rome; and to a very large degree it is to Rome's credit that they want to help those who have knocked on their door because of the general state of crisis in the Anglican Communion. But, even if all of the English Anglo-Papalists of Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FiF/UK)* take advantage of this new constitution, it will not be the Church's answer to God's prayer (doesn't anybody notice a theological problem with the general misuse of John 17:21?). The various camps will vary yet, and within those camps "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3) will remain, as it has always been, mostly a local and pastoral duty.
That closing line of today's "Note," which I quoted, does reveal what Rome means by unity. They mean submission, pure and simple, to the pope and whoever will succeed him. "'The initiative has come from a number of different groups of Anglicans,' Cardinal Levada went on to say: 'They have declared that they share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion.'"
To understand the full implications of this, we must put away all sentimental gobble-dee-gook for the moment, and, with our feet securely fastened to the ground, use our heads. Let us examine what their words really mean. To do that, we will have to look at the key phrases in the Note from the Vatican.
First, however, we ought to understand that the Church in Rome, or at least Pope Benedict XVI and maybe a few others, really believe what their church teaches about the Papacy: That without it there is no Church, and that it contains the special charism to combat all error, and that without it we all go to Hell in a hand basket. So, it was morally responsible for the Pope to bypass the unfriendly Roman Catholic bishops in England (with implications for other countries) and open the door to Traditionalists who have been made to feel unwelcome and unwanted by the majority of "liberal" modernist trendy Roman Catholic bishops, and by other clergy. Their goal had been to imitate the Church of England, following the lead of the Episcopal Church in the United States; but once again that old stick in the mud, Joseph Ratzinger, has foiled them. This entire thing is an example of pure papal power overcoming all dissent, not an example of unity, that is not as St. Paul described, among Roman Catholic bishops. So, we may applaud the Pope's charitable sense of pastoral responsibility, even though the situation itself demonstrates an area of real concern to those of us who do not believe in universal rule by one man instead of the collegiality of bishops and conciliar model of the ancient Church.
"In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony."
We must understand that only those "elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony" approved by Rome will be allowed to survive. Furthermore, because the Roman way is to rely on the authority of one Bishop in one See, none of these elements is guaranteed to survive beyond the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI himself.
"It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."
This is no surprise, and I have been trying to make clear for many years that no body of Anglicans is going to simply have their Orders recognized by Rome. Some call it Infallibility, and others call it stubbornness. I call it wrong; Rome is wrong about Anglican Orders, as has been proved over and over. No answer from Rome has ever refuted the apologetic work Saepius Officio (1897), and it is unlikely that Rome ever has actually wanted to. Instead they have acknowledged, one after another, the historical errors of Apostolicae Curae (1896), except for their inexplicable insistence about a defect of Intention that ought, really, to embarrass them (for reasons stated in my opening paragraph). On The Continuum we have posted, as well, a brief and excellent summary by E. J. Bicknell (published first in 1919) that makes short work, and a mangled corpse, of the Roman position, in a few words.
But, what does this mean in practice? It means, first of all, that Anglicans swimming the Tiber en masse will lose their bishops. Forget anything to the contrary, despite the empty assurance from these words: "Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy." Please note the word "appointed." There will be no vote, and no court of appeals. In the pray, pay and obey Church your bishop will be appointed-maybe even someone with an Anglican past if you can find a celibate clergyman, and one hopes, a clergyman who is cream of the crop. This appointment will come from the same See that appointed such stellar examples as Bishop Weakland, Cardinal Law, and that other protector of child molesting priests, Cardinal Levada (yes, that Cardinal Levada whose quotes you have been reading). At least Cardinal Levada (yes, that Cardinal Levada) has been good enough to speak of "married" and "unmarried" clergy. Fair or unfair (as each case may be) the term "celibate clergy" has become hard to pronounce, with a straight face, throughout most of this decade.
And, how does this relate to the average Anglican in the pews (assuming that these Anglo-Papalist clergy will have anyone in their pews)? Well, your baptism is valid, so you will not have to become a Roman sort of Anabaptist (i.e. baptized again). But beyond that you have never had, in Rome's not so humble opinion, any valid sacraments. In addition to every clergyman needing to become an Anaordinand, everyone will have to become an Anaconfirmand. That means you will have to be "Confirmed" all over "again" simply because your bishop was only a layman in disguise. And, it means you have never really had Communion, or Absolution either, if you choose to be among the new former Anglicans. Frankly, I do not mean to say that this alone is reason not to go through with it, provided one really believes what Rome is teaching; but, if one really believes that, what has one been doing all along, and what will one do in the meantime?
My criticism in the opening paragraph deals with two matters. One is Anglican Orders, and the other is the insufficiency of the Anglican Use Liturgy. One issue of the Anglican Use Liturgy is a matter that I explained in my essay Anglican Identity, and it deals with very significant doctrinal clarity. I wrote:
"It is worth noting that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the so-called Anglican Use approved by Rome, have a very noticeable difference, one which shows a different approach to Anglicans and a different attitude about our patrimony. The Anglican Use Rite approved by Rome has nothing that approximates the perfectly sound theology, drawn clearly and obviously from the Epistle to the Hebrews, expressed so powerfully in these words: 'O God heavenly father, which of thy tender mercie diddest geve thine only sonne Jesu Christ to suffre death upon the crosse for our redempcion, who made there (by his one oblacion once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifyce, oblacion, and satysfaccyon, for the sinnes of the whole worlde…' (1549 BCP) But, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon contains the American version of this part of the Canon.
"To whatever degree we may have common ground with Rome, and aside from other differences, any real union with them would make it necessary that they receive from us a good healthy dose of this Biblical Doctrine: Christ’s sacrifice full, perfect and sufficient. This does not take away from the sacrifice of the Church on its many altars; rather it gives it its context and meaning. This example demonstrates that our Faith is Biblical, Patristic and thoroughly Catholic in ways that can enrich Rome, and that has been affirmed within Orthodoxy. In a rite designed to attract Anglicans, the removal of this irrefutably true doctrine, as though it needed to be subjected to some correction, shows that we have further cause, at present, to maintain our distinct identity. The line that provides the context of the sacrifice, the meaning of it and the joining of our own worship to the actual sacrifice of the cross on Calvary, indicates that we are better able than Rome, at this time, to declare the Gospel in its fullness with the power of directness and simplicity."
About Anglican Orders, everything that needs to be said was written in the two works referenced above. Nonetheless, my one point about use of Scripture in the Ordinal needs to be drawn out a bit more. Even though the Rites in the Ordinal make very clear which office it is that a man is ordained to, Rome has clung to its position that the Imperative lines have failed to identify the Orders of bishop and priest (whereas the word "deacon" is in the Imperative of that Rite) until the 1662 revision. That is not true. The use of the Scriptures that were quoted most certainly (and clearly to those who know Scripture) identified the episcopate with the words from II Timothy 1:6, and the priesthood with words from John 20: 22, 23. This was not only commonly understood, but also it was already traditional, translated out of a Latin Ordinal that had been used for centuries. Simply put, there was no defect in Intention, and the whole argument by Rome in 1896 was completely bogus.
Furthermore, unity is a high priority, but visible unity requires theological and ecclesiastical discussion on some very important matters, ranging from practical issues of polity to issues of soteriology. We are in favor of such discussion with Rome and with Orthodoxy, and with all serious Christians who believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Today's approach from Rome, however, assumes full and complete agreement as an established fact. This is all the more serious inasmuch as they also require full and complete agreement as a matter of faith and obedience.
Considering what Rome teaches about Rome, today's announcement reveals a charitable and responsible position that is about the most they can offer without denying their burdensome extracurricular "dogmas" about the Petrine See. I am not writing to criticize the motivation, which I attribute only to one man, but to set the record straight, and once again to explain why the Anglo-Papalists will have to swim the Tiber without me.
_______________ _________
* It is not clear where the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) fits into this, except that Cardinal Levada is certainly aware of them, and that at one time in the past (before his elevation) Archbishop DiNioa was expected to have a role in some discussions. It is clear, however, that Archbishop John Hepworth had expected to lead the way even for English Anglicans (or so he told me himself, in Timonium, Maryland last Summer). But, obviously, this Constitution has been prepared first and foremost for members of FiF/UK. They had requested this, by the way, in the days of Pope John Paul II.
Posted by Fr. Robert Hart at 9:14 PM 86 comments Links to this post
Labels: Roman Catholicism
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thanks, but no thanks
From my childhood I have been wholly unimpressed with Walt Disney's versions of Alice in Wonderland and Winnie the Pooh, thinking he owed A.A. Milne and Lewis Carroll an apology; in recent years I have been mostly unhappy with the new Doctor Who series, because I liked the real one so much. As a life long Anglican, I am unhappy with the "Anglican" Use liturgies approved by Rome for much the same sort of reason. I love the genuine Book of Common Prayer tradition, and do not find a few crumbs from it satisfying, nor do I appreciate the unnecessary "corrections" and deletions. This has come from the same Apostolic See that failed to understand why the first English Ordinal did, in fact, specify each Order, indicating that "[Roman] Catholics don't read the Bible," so that even the Magisterium stubbornly clings even now to a position born of Biblical illiteracy, seeing a defect of Intention because, it seems, they do not notice actual quotations of Scripture appropriate to each Order (translated from a very old Latin rite commonly used with Rome's full approval in "the before time").
And, today I remain equally unimpressed by the announcement of a new "apostolic constitution" from Rome. Obviously, this must mean that I hate the idea of unity, that I refuse to grant the prayer of the Son of God (that He made to His Father, not to you or me), and that I stand in the way. The NOTE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ABOUT PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH , (dated today, Oct. 20, 2009) closes with the words "In the light of these developments, the Personal Ordinariates established by the Apostolic Constitution can be seen as another step toward the realization the aspiration [sic] for full, visible union in the Church of Christ, one of the principal goals of the ecumenical movement." So, if I am not leaping for joy, overwhelmed with excitement, eager to sign on, and ready to throw myself into the Tiber with full confidence in its currents, tides and waves, I must be against unity.
Or, maybe I do not see a group of people shifting from one denomination into another as particularly relevant to real unity. Perhaps that is because real visible unity has been described by St. Paul in these words: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."(I Cor. 1:10) On many essential issues Christians do, in fact, live up to this model more than is commonly appreciated. And, indeed, we have many areas of real agreement with the See of Rome; and to a very large degree it is to Rome's credit that they want to help those who have knocked on their door because of the general state of crisis in the Anglican Communion. But, even if all of the English Anglo-Papalists of Forward in Faith, United Kingdom (FiF/UK)* take advantage of this new constitution, it will not be the Church's answer to God's prayer (doesn't anybody notice a theological problem with the general misuse of John 17:21?). The various camps will vary yet, and within those camps "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3) will remain, as it has always been, mostly a local and pastoral duty.
That closing line of today's "Note," which I quoted, does reveal what Rome means by unity. They mean submission, pure and simple, to the pope and whoever will succeed him. "'The initiative has come from a number of different groups of Anglicans,' Cardinal Levada went on to say: 'They have declared that they share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion.'"
To understand the full implications of this, we must put away all sentimental gobble-dee-gook for the moment, and, with our feet securely fastened to the ground, use our heads. Let us examine what their words really mean. To do that, we will have to look at the key phrases in the Note from the Vatican.
First, however, we ought to understand that the Church in Rome, or at least Pope Benedict XVI and maybe a few others, really believe what their church teaches about the Papacy: That without it there is no Church, and that it contains the special charism to combat all error, and that without it we all go to Hell in a hand basket. So, it was morally responsible for the Pope to bypass the unfriendly Roman Catholic bishops in England (with implications for other countries) and open the door to Traditionalists who have been made to feel unwelcome and unwanted by the majority of "liberal" modernist trendy Roman Catholic bishops, and by other clergy. Their goal had been to imitate the Church of England, following the lead of the Episcopal Church in the United States; but once again that old stick in the mud, Joseph Ratzinger, has foiled them. This entire thing is an example of pure papal power overcoming all dissent, not an example of unity, that is not as St. Paul described, among Roman Catholic bishops. So, we may applaud the Pope's charitable sense of pastoral responsibility, even though the situation itself demonstrates an area of real concern to those of us who do not believe in universal rule by one man instead of the collegiality of bishops and conciliar model of the ancient Church.
"In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony."
We must understand that only those "elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony" approved by Rome will be allowed to survive. Furthermore, because the Roman way is to rely on the authority of one Bishop in one See, none of these elements is guaranteed to survive beyond the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI himself.
"It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."
This is no surprise, and I have been trying to make clear for many years that no body of Anglicans is going to simply have their Orders recognized by Rome. Some call it Infallibility, and others call it stubbornness. I call it wrong; Rome is wrong about Anglican Orders, as has been proved over and over. No answer from Rome has ever refuted the apologetic work Saepius Officio (1897), and it is unlikely that Rome ever has actually wanted to. Instead they have acknowledged, one after another, the historical errors of Apostolicae Curae (1896), except for their inexplicable insistence about a defect of Intention that ought, really, to embarrass them (for reasons stated in my opening paragraph). On The Continuum we have posted, as well, a brief and excellent summary by E. J. Bicknell (published first in 1919) that makes short work, and a mangled corpse, of the Roman position, in a few words.
But, what does this mean in practice? It means, first of all, that Anglicans swimming the Tiber en masse will lose their bishops. Forget anything to the contrary, despite the empty assurance from these words: "Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy." Please note the word "appointed." There will be no vote, and no court of appeals. In the pray, pay and obey Church your bishop will be appointed-maybe even someone with an Anglican past if you can find a celibate clergyman, and one hopes, a clergyman who is cream of the crop. This appointment will come from the same See that appointed such stellar examples as Bishop Weakland, Cardinal Law, and that other protector of child molesting priests, Cardinal Levada (yes, that Cardinal Levada whose quotes you have been reading). At least Cardinal Levada (yes, that Cardinal Levada) has been good enough to speak of "married" and "unmarried" clergy. Fair or unfair (as each case may be) the term "celibate clergy" has become hard to pronounce, with a straight face, throughout most of this decade.
And, how does this relate to the average Anglican in the pews (assuming that these Anglo-Papalist clergy will have anyone in their pews)? Well, your baptism is valid, so you will not have to become a Roman sort of Anabaptist (i.e. baptized again). But beyond that you have never had, in Rome's not so humble opinion, any valid sacraments. In addition to every clergyman needing to become an Anaordinand, everyone will have to become an Anaconfirmand. That means you will have to be "Confirmed" all over "again" simply because your bishop was only a layman in disguise. And, it means you have never really had Communion, or Absolution either, if you choose to be among the new former Anglicans. Frankly, I do not mean to say that this alone is reason not to go through with it, provided one really believes what Rome is teaching; but, if one really believes that, what has one been doing all along, and what will one do in the meantime?
My criticism in the opening paragraph deals with two matters. One is Anglican Orders, and the other is the insufficiency of the Anglican Use Liturgy. One issue of the Anglican Use Liturgy is a matter that I explained in my essay Anglican Identity, and it deals with very significant doctrinal clarity. I wrote:
"It is worth noting that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the so-called Anglican Use approved by Rome, have a very noticeable difference, one which shows a different approach to Anglicans and a different attitude about our patrimony. The Anglican Use Rite approved by Rome has nothing that approximates the perfectly sound theology, drawn clearly and obviously from the Epistle to the Hebrews, expressed so powerfully in these words: 'O God heavenly father, which of thy tender mercie diddest geve thine only sonne Jesu Christ to suffre death upon the crosse for our redempcion, who made there (by his one oblacion once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifyce, oblacion, and satysfaccyon, for the sinnes of the whole worlde…' (1549 BCP) But, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon contains the American version of this part of the Canon.
"To whatever degree we may have common ground with Rome, and aside from other differences, any real union with them would make it necessary that they receive from us a good healthy dose of this Biblical Doctrine: Christ’s sacrifice full, perfect and sufficient. This does not take away from the sacrifice of the Church on its many altars; rather it gives it its context and meaning. This example demonstrates that our Faith is Biblical, Patristic and thoroughly Catholic in ways that can enrich Rome, and that has been affirmed within Orthodoxy. In a rite designed to attract Anglicans, the removal of this irrefutably true doctrine, as though it needed to be subjected to some correction, shows that we have further cause, at present, to maintain our distinct identity. The line that provides the context of the sacrifice, the meaning of it and the joining of our own worship to the actual sacrifice of the cross on Calvary, indicates that we are better able than Rome, at this time, to declare the Gospel in its fullness with the power of directness and simplicity."
About Anglican Orders, everything that needs to be said was written in the two works referenced above. Nonetheless, my one point about use of Scripture in the Ordinal needs to be drawn out a bit more. Even though the Rites in the Ordinal make very clear which office it is that a man is ordained to, Rome has clung to its position that the Imperative lines have failed to identify the Orders of bishop and priest (whereas the word "deacon" is in the Imperative of that Rite) until the 1662 revision. That is not true. The use of the Scriptures that were quoted most certainly (and clearly to those who know Scripture) identified the episcopate with the words from II Timothy 1:6, and the priesthood with words from John 20: 22, 23. This was not only commonly understood, but also it was already traditional, translated out of a Latin Ordinal that had been used for centuries. Simply put, there was no defect in Intention, and the whole argument by Rome in 1896 was completely bogus.
Furthermore, unity is a high priority, but visible unity requires theological and ecclesiastical discussion on some very important matters, ranging from practical issues of polity to issues of soteriology. We are in favor of such discussion with Rome and with Orthodoxy, and with all serious Christians who believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Today's approach from Rome, however, assumes full and complete agreement as an established fact. This is all the more serious inasmuch as they also require full and complete agreement as a matter of faith and obedience.
Considering what Rome teaches about Rome, today's announcement reveals a charitable and responsible position that is about the most they can offer without denying their burdensome extracurricular "dogmas" about the Petrine See. I am not writing to criticize the motivation, which I attribute only to one man, but to set the record straight, and once again to explain why the Anglo-Papalists will have to swim the Tiber without me.
_______________ _________
* It is not clear where the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) fits into this, except that Cardinal Levada is certainly aware of them, and that at one time in the past (before his elevation) Archbishop DiNioa was expected to have a role in some discussions. It is clear, however, that Archbishop John Hepworth had expected to lead the way even for English Anglicans (or so he told me himself, in Timonium, Maryland last Summer). But, obviously, this Constitution has been prepared first and foremost for members of FiF/UK. They had requested this, by the way, in the days of Pope John Paul II.
Posted by Fr. Robert Hart at 9:14 PM 86 comments Links to this post
Labels: Roman Catholicism
Friday, October 23, 2009
Packer on theological liberalism
Packer on theological liberalism - original here:- http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/
Here are some lightly edited extracts from J. I. Packer's Latimer Studies booklet "A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness."
Although this booklet reflects on the theological situation in the Church of England, and that at a particular time, some of the following observations hold good for more contemporary movements. For although there have been several historic forms of liberal theology there is also a liberal mood or mindset:
First, the basis of all forms of this position is the hypothesis that no universally right way of thinking about God is given in Christianity.
Unable to accept what might be called a Chalcedonian view of Scripture (i.e. that it is fully human as well as fully divine, and fully divine as well as fully human), they have doubted both the reality of the Chalcedonian Christ to whom the New Testament witnesses and the propriety of reading Scripture as more than a rag-bag of traditions, intuitions, fancies and mythology whereby good men celebrated and shared their sense of being in touch with God - a contact occasioned for New Testament writers by a uniquely godly man named Jesus.
That prophets and apostles no less than creeds and churches can all be wrong on questions of reality and truth, is plank one in the liberal platform. Scripture and the Christian literary heritage are certainly stimulating, inspiring and effective in communicating God, but that does not make them true.
So the constant endeavour of the liberal fraternity from the start has been to go behind and beyond biblical witness to reformulate the faith in terms which to them, as modern men, seem truer, clearer and less inadequate (whether evolutionist, idealist, panentheist, deist, existentialist, Marxist; sociological, psychological, syncretistic; or whatever).
Certainly, for today’s liberals there are no fixed fundamentals; everything, not excluding the doctrine of God - indeed, some say, that first - is regarded as in principle open to review and change.
...liberals have no united platform or policy, for they hold in common only...negations...plus the sifting, reshaping methodology which these negations entail. They agree only in what they are against; beyond this it is every man for himself.
Sykes notes that ‘a “liberal” theological proposal is always in the form of a challenge to an established authority, and thus necessarily implies a dispute about the appropriate norms or criteria for any theology whatsoever.’ He notes too that ‘it is impossible to be merely a “liberal” in theology one’s theology … will be liberal in as much as it is a modification of an already existing type’ - liberal catholic, liberal evangelical, or even liberal latitudinarian.
And he rightly stresses that any church in which liberals do their thing, querying the traditional and jettisoning the conventional, will have to endure real divergences of belief as some negate what others affirm and affirm what others cannot but negate.
[A]ll forms of liberalism are unstable. Being developed in each case by taking some secular fashion of thought as the fixed point (evolutionary optimism, historical scepticism, Marxist sociology, or whatever), and remodelling the Christian tradition to fit it, they are all doomed to die as soon as the fashion changes, according to Dean Inge’ s true saying that he who marries the spirit of the age today will be a widower tomorrow.
It is not always realised that the history of the past century and a half is littered with the wreckage of dead liberalisms. Though liberalism as an attitude of mind (going back at least to the Renaissance, if not indeed to the temptation of Eve) has persisted, and persists still, particular liberalisms have so far been relatively short-lived, and can be expected to continue so. Some liberals cheerfully acknowledge this and never treat their current opinions as more than provisional, anticipating that they may think differently next week.
Labels: Invasion of the body snatchers, Nothing new under the sun
posted by Martin Downes at 9:46 AM 2 comments
Here are some lightly edited extracts from J. I. Packer's Latimer Studies booklet "A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness."
Although this booklet reflects on the theological situation in the Church of England, and that at a particular time, some of the following observations hold good for more contemporary movements. For although there have been several historic forms of liberal theology there is also a liberal mood or mindset:
First, the basis of all forms of this position is the hypothesis that no universally right way of thinking about God is given in Christianity.
Unable to accept what might be called a Chalcedonian view of Scripture (i.e. that it is fully human as well as fully divine, and fully divine as well as fully human), they have doubted both the reality of the Chalcedonian Christ to whom the New Testament witnesses and the propriety of reading Scripture as more than a rag-bag of traditions, intuitions, fancies and mythology whereby good men celebrated and shared their sense of being in touch with God - a contact occasioned for New Testament writers by a uniquely godly man named Jesus.
That prophets and apostles no less than creeds and churches can all be wrong on questions of reality and truth, is plank one in the liberal platform. Scripture and the Christian literary heritage are certainly stimulating, inspiring and effective in communicating God, but that does not make them true.
So the constant endeavour of the liberal fraternity from the start has been to go behind and beyond biblical witness to reformulate the faith in terms which to them, as modern men, seem truer, clearer and less inadequate (whether evolutionist, idealist, panentheist, deist, existentialist, Marxist; sociological, psychological, syncretistic; or whatever).
Certainly, for today’s liberals there are no fixed fundamentals; everything, not excluding the doctrine of God - indeed, some say, that first - is regarded as in principle open to review and change.
...liberals have no united platform or policy, for they hold in common only...negations...plus the sifting, reshaping methodology which these negations entail. They agree only in what they are against; beyond this it is every man for himself.
Sykes notes that ‘a “liberal” theological proposal is always in the form of a challenge to an established authority, and thus necessarily implies a dispute about the appropriate norms or criteria for any theology whatsoever.’ He notes too that ‘it is impossible to be merely a “liberal” in theology one’s theology … will be liberal in as much as it is a modification of an already existing type’ - liberal catholic, liberal evangelical, or even liberal latitudinarian.
And he rightly stresses that any church in which liberals do their thing, querying the traditional and jettisoning the conventional, will have to endure real divergences of belief as some negate what others affirm and affirm what others cannot but negate.
[A]ll forms of liberalism are unstable. Being developed in each case by taking some secular fashion of thought as the fixed point (evolutionary optimism, historical scepticism, Marxist sociology, or whatever), and remodelling the Christian tradition to fit it, they are all doomed to die as soon as the fashion changes, according to Dean Inge’ s true saying that he who marries the spirit of the age today will be a widower tomorrow.
It is not always realised that the history of the past century and a half is littered with the wreckage of dead liberalisms. Though liberalism as an attitude of mind (going back at least to the Renaissance, if not indeed to the temptation of Eve) has persisted, and persists still, particular liberalisms have so far been relatively short-lived, and can be expected to continue so. Some liberals cheerfully acknowledge this and never treat their current opinions as more than provisional, anticipating that they may think differently next week.
Labels: Invasion of the body snatchers, Nothing new under the sun
posted by Martin Downes at 9:46 AM 2 comments
St James - Brother of Jesus - Oct 23rd
St James of Jerusalem brother of Jesus
Published on October 23, 2009 in liturgy. 0 Comments Tags: bible, filippa hamilton, images, Jesus, photoshopped, ralph lauren.
Fillipa Hamilton photoshopped
Fillipa Hamilton photoshopped
In the early church there was a saying: In Christ, God became what we are so that we might become what Christ is. God became fully human so that we might become divine.
You may have seen the news last week that the American fashion label Ralph Lauren fired the model Filippa Hamilton because she was too heavy. Filippa Hamilton is 178cm tall (5 foot 10) and weighs 54 Kg. Recently Ralph Lauren photoshopped an advertisement with Filippa Hamilton in which she was made to look impossibly thin – in fact in the advertisement she looks absolutely gross. Her waist has been photoshopped to be the same size as her head. She looks like an alien. I cannot imagine any normal woman looking at those photographs and thinking – I’ll buy those clothes. Clearly most normal persons would not be able to fit into such clothes. Certainly Filippa Hamilton cannot.
What sort of people do we aspire to be like? What sort of role-models inspire you? Do you get inspired by people that are like you and have achieved more? Or do you think role-models should be unattainable, fantasy, impossibly unhuman.
Today we celebrate the feast of St James the brother of Jesus. A lot of Christians start to squirm when they hear “brother of Jesus”, it makes Jesus and his family and his background sound too normal. It must have been his cousin – some of them say. Well, unfortunately for you, Greek has a perfectly good word for cousin, and a perfectly good word for brother, and James was Jesus’ brother – as we hear in today’s reading.
In fact a lot of Christians, I would even go so far as to say most Christians cannot name Jesus’ brothers. And of course, what might be worse – is that no one can list off Jesus’ sisters – we know he had some, but the society of the time was so sexist that their names are not even recorded.
Jesus was the oldest in the family. And James was the next boy. When Jesus died, James took over running the movement Jesus had started and James stayed the boss in Jerusalem – we call him the first bishop of Jerusalem. He probably wrote the letter of James we find in the Bible. James is mentioned by the historian Josephus writing at the time. Josephus mentions James is the well-respected brother of Jesus. And that his enemies took advantage of an interval between Roman Governors in 62AD to have James executed.
So the reading today has Jesus growing up in an ordinary first century Mediterranean peasant family – of five boys: Jesus, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas, and at least a couple of girls.
In Christ, God became what we are so that we might become what Christ is.
Isn’t it funny how some people want our heroes to be different to us. Some people want models to look more glamorous than we will ever manage. And what’s the consequence of that? Well we will never be able to be like them – so we don’t even try. We won’t even need to try. We don’t even start out on the journey. We can give up before we start.
When models are a lot more like us, when heroes are a lot more like us, when spiritual leaders are a lot more like we are – then maybe we are challenged – scary eh! – to go on the same journey they went on. Or at least a similar one.
So in the reading, Jesus goes to his hometown and it says they “take offence at him.” Because this is the guy who grew up in their midst We’ve known him since he was a kid; he’s the carpenter’s son– that’s his carpenter’s shop down there; We know his Mum, Mary. We know his brothers James and Joseph, Simon and Judas. All his sisters live here. Who does he think he is?” They get their noses all out of joint.
In Christ, God became what we are so that we might become what Christ is.
Jesus said: “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house. A prophet is taken for granted, he is not accepted, in his hometown and his family.”
Look at the pictures we see of Jesus, the stained glass images. The Shroud of Turin notwithstanding – this is an image of Jesus pretty hard to live up to. But what if Jesus didn’t look like that.
We now know a lot more about Mediterranean peasant diet and lifestyle at the time of Jesus. We know more about their health, what they looked like. What if Jesus actually was short, and old looking, bald, and fat, with bad teeth and bad breath? That would not have been uncommon for a first century Mediterranean carpenter, a building-site labourer, a builder.
Jesus was essentially indistinguishable from the people of his day. He was one of them.
Original here:- http://networkedblogs.com/p15426404
Published on October 23, 2009 in liturgy. 0 Comments Tags: bible, filippa hamilton, images, Jesus, photoshopped, ralph lauren.
Fillipa Hamilton photoshopped
Fillipa Hamilton photoshopped
In the early church there was a saying: In Christ, God became what we are so that we might become what Christ is. God became fully human so that we might become divine.
You may have seen the news last week that the American fashion label Ralph Lauren fired the model Filippa Hamilton because she was too heavy. Filippa Hamilton is 178cm tall (5 foot 10) and weighs 54 Kg. Recently Ralph Lauren photoshopped an advertisement with Filippa Hamilton in which she was made to look impossibly thin – in fact in the advertisement she looks absolutely gross. Her waist has been photoshopped to be the same size as her head. She looks like an alien. I cannot imagine any normal woman looking at those photographs and thinking – I’ll buy those clothes. Clearly most normal persons would not be able to fit into such clothes. Certainly Filippa Hamilton cannot.
What sort of people do we aspire to be like? What sort of role-models inspire you? Do you get inspired by people that are like you and have achieved more? Or do you think role-models should be unattainable, fantasy, impossibly unhuman.
Today we celebrate the feast of St James the brother of Jesus. A lot of Christians start to squirm when they hear “brother of Jesus”, it makes Jesus and his family and his background sound too normal. It must have been his cousin – some of them say. Well, unfortunately for you, Greek has a perfectly good word for cousin, and a perfectly good word for brother, and James was Jesus’ brother – as we hear in today’s reading.
In fact a lot of Christians, I would even go so far as to say most Christians cannot name Jesus’ brothers. And of course, what might be worse – is that no one can list off Jesus’ sisters – we know he had some, but the society of the time was so sexist that their names are not even recorded.
Jesus was the oldest in the family. And James was the next boy. When Jesus died, James took over running the movement Jesus had started and James stayed the boss in Jerusalem – we call him the first bishop of Jerusalem. He probably wrote the letter of James we find in the Bible. James is mentioned by the historian Josephus writing at the time. Josephus mentions James is the well-respected brother of Jesus. And that his enemies took advantage of an interval between Roman Governors in 62AD to have James executed.
So the reading today has Jesus growing up in an ordinary first century Mediterranean peasant family – of five boys: Jesus, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas, and at least a couple of girls.
In Christ, God became what we are so that we might become what Christ is.
Isn’t it funny how some people want our heroes to be different to us. Some people want models to look more glamorous than we will ever manage. And what’s the consequence of that? Well we will never be able to be like them – so we don’t even try. We won’t even need to try. We don’t even start out on the journey. We can give up before we start.
When models are a lot more like us, when heroes are a lot more like us, when spiritual leaders are a lot more like we are – then maybe we are challenged – scary eh! – to go on the same journey they went on. Or at least a similar one.
So in the reading, Jesus goes to his hometown and it says they “take offence at him.” Because this is the guy who grew up in their midst We’ve known him since he was a kid; he’s the carpenter’s son– that’s his carpenter’s shop down there; We know his Mum, Mary. We know his brothers James and Joseph, Simon and Judas. All his sisters live here. Who does he think he is?” They get their noses all out of joint.
In Christ, God became what we are so that we might become what Christ is.
Jesus said: “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house. A prophet is taken for granted, he is not accepted, in his hometown and his family.”
Look at the pictures we see of Jesus, the stained glass images. The Shroud of Turin notwithstanding – this is an image of Jesus pretty hard to live up to. But what if Jesus didn’t look like that.
We now know a lot more about Mediterranean peasant diet and lifestyle at the time of Jesus. We know more about their health, what they looked like. What if Jesus actually was short, and old looking, bald, and fat, with bad teeth and bad breath? That would not have been uncommon for a first century Mediterranean carpenter, a building-site labourer, a builder.
Jesus was essentially indistinguishable from the people of his day. He was one of them.
Original here:- http://networkedblogs.com/p15426404
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Making Sense of Suffering - from "Soul Supply"
Making Sense of Suffering ... Part A
12 Spiritual Reasons for Suffering
Introduction
The impotence, the injustice and the surrounding ignorance to suffering assail all alike.
Finding reason in the unreasonable, depth in the disaster or simply quality to a life 'snatched away' is just so dissatisfyingly unfathomable.
That which eludes the mind of man, will never elude the mind of God. His infallible word reveals many reasons for suffering. Please enjoy this first of 4 installments. It covers briefly the first 12 reasons.
The question that this series must pose is, which reason/s explains my suffering? This can really only be answered between you and God. Job got no helpful assistance/advice from his friends at all. Ultimately it is usually only my close relationship with The Father and His Son that can reveal this to me as I walk with Him through the Holy Spirit.
Please note there is no sequencing at all to the order of these reasons. They are in categories for ease of reference and understanding.
BEFORE READING FURTHER PLEASE LEARN THIS VERSE because it is not God's desire to ever harm anyone. His core is always to care. It is God's eternal desire to repair and not wreck.
For he (God) does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to the children of men. Lamentations 3:33
12 spiritual reasons for suffering
To accomplish the purposes of God's heart. Jer 31:19-20. God's purpose for His people is to understand their own ways, that they may turn to Him. He can use His loving discipline to achieve this. Paul clearly accepts (even rejoices?) that his suffering advances the Gospel and promotes spiritual strength in those around him. Phil 1:12-14
Suffering may just be for the well being of others. There is nothing clearer in all of creation than the Cross of Jesus identifying innocent suffering for the well being of another. The apostle Paul explains this with personal clarity in Phil 1:12-26.
My suffering exalts Christ Phil 1:20. Esteem for Jesus will grow in the eyes of others and He can receive deserving praise through His servant's suffering.
I am unable to know God's mind, counsel His thoughts, or discover His intentions unless He decides to inform me. His purposes are too high for me. Is 55:9 Things occur to me that are seeded in the heavenlies that I simply can't understand. (This is why Job suffered, a heavenly transaction he was simply unaware of. Look at Job 1 & Job 2)
So that I may reach out/search for God. Acts 17:26-27 It is God's GOOD intention that we all find Him and know Him. Our lives are so constructed that this may be easy for us to do. God does not want us to 'miss' Him. My life is so constructed that I may reach out and find Him. He WANTS to be found. Suffering really is God using the temporal to prepare me for the eternal.
To learn to live for God's will and not mine. 1 Peter 4:1-2 Suffering helps me, indeed equips me, to leave my sin behind. So often my sin brings my suffering. When I am tired of causing my own suffering through my sin, I will then be free to adopt Christ's correct attitudes to my life. Suffering is really a sin remover. Suffering delivers me from sin and frees me to serve. Phil 1:19. Think: who is more likely to harm me; me or Jesus? (This is developed in much more detail in "Personal Reasons for suffering.")
God tests obedience. Judges 3:1-4. The story transpires of a small group of gunmen violently interrupting a Christian church gathering in a Communist country. Before shooting they offered every person the opportunity to leave if they did not follow Jesus. Many left! At their departure the men put down their guns and said they wanted to find out who the hypocrites were. The gunmen then joined in worship. Instantly this suffering showed who were the true Christians. (Must see also Hebs 12:1-11)
To bring God glory. Jn 9:3 My suffering can always serve a much higher purpose. It then is not from my sin, or another's malevolence to me. There is simply a higher good that I am not usually aware of but I have been privileged to be part of. (Mary, a young virgin, pregnant with Jesus would have experienced great difficulty for a much greater good.)
We simply live in a world cursed to decay.Gen 3:17, Rms 8:18-21 Ever since man was unceremonially ejected, indeed expelled from Eden by God the world has been cursed to decay. Tyres go flat, batteries loose charge, paint fades and my hair thins. The suffering of ill health especially, simply can happen because this world is cursed to decay.
Simply share with Christ. Rms 8:17. Jesus is clear that the path to glory can be gory. To follow His footsteps (as a Christian does) is to be vulnerable to what He was vulnerable to. Jesus teaches cle that the path to glory is narrow and difficult, the gate is tight. Mt 7:13-14 The path of suffering even taught Jesus obedience. Hebs 5:7-8
Suffering is a gift of God. Phil 1:29 It certainly may not feel as if it is a gift, but it must be if it brings you close to throne of grace. Sometimes suffering is God's gift to gain our attention. As with Jonah there may be massive storms before we will take the gentle and unseen hand that has been reaching down to us all our life.
Death. God's foreknowledge wants to bring early release Is 57:1 When a premature death occurs, God is clear that for those who belong to Him, He is simply delivering 'an early mark' to spare them later pain, that only He can know will happen. Death then actually becomes His kindness received. (See Soul Snack ... 'The Early Mark'.)
God orders all events in sequence. The Bible is very clear that the Lord operates in His divinely appointed seasons (Eccl 3:1-11, Hab 2:3, Rev 20 etc). The time of suffering may well be the season that a person must pass through. Remember suffering is to draw us to God and not from God.
Conclusion
Making Sense of Suffering Part B examines Biblically the impact of evil upon our lives.
Original page is here:- http://www.soulsupply.com/soulsensesufferinga
12 Spiritual Reasons for Suffering
Introduction
The impotence, the injustice and the surrounding ignorance to suffering assail all alike.
Finding reason in the unreasonable, depth in the disaster or simply quality to a life 'snatched away' is just so dissatisfyingly unfathomable.
That which eludes the mind of man, will never elude the mind of God. His infallible word reveals many reasons for suffering. Please enjoy this first of 4 installments. It covers briefly the first 12 reasons.
The question that this series must pose is, which reason/s explains my suffering? This can really only be answered between you and God. Job got no helpful assistance/advice from his friends at all. Ultimately it is usually only my close relationship with The Father and His Son that can reveal this to me as I walk with Him through the Holy Spirit.
Please note there is no sequencing at all to the order of these reasons. They are in categories for ease of reference and understanding.
BEFORE READING FURTHER PLEASE LEARN THIS VERSE because it is not God's desire to ever harm anyone. His core is always to care. It is God's eternal desire to repair and not wreck.
For he (God) does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to the children of men. Lamentations 3:33
12 spiritual reasons for suffering
To accomplish the purposes of God's heart. Jer 31:19-20. God's purpose for His people is to understand their own ways, that they may turn to Him. He can use His loving discipline to achieve this. Paul clearly accepts (even rejoices?) that his suffering advances the Gospel and promotes spiritual strength in those around him. Phil 1:12-14
Suffering may just be for the well being of others. There is nothing clearer in all of creation than the Cross of Jesus identifying innocent suffering for the well being of another. The apostle Paul explains this with personal clarity in Phil 1:12-26.
My suffering exalts Christ Phil 1:20. Esteem for Jesus will grow in the eyes of others and He can receive deserving praise through His servant's suffering.
I am unable to know God's mind, counsel His thoughts, or discover His intentions unless He decides to inform me. His purposes are too high for me. Is 55:9 Things occur to me that are seeded in the heavenlies that I simply can't understand. (This is why Job suffered, a heavenly transaction he was simply unaware of. Look at Job 1 & Job 2)
So that I may reach out/search for God. Acts 17:26-27 It is God's GOOD intention that we all find Him and know Him. Our lives are so constructed that this may be easy for us to do. God does not want us to 'miss' Him. My life is so constructed that I may reach out and find Him. He WANTS to be found. Suffering really is God using the temporal to prepare me for the eternal.
To learn to live for God's will and not mine. 1 Peter 4:1-2 Suffering helps me, indeed equips me, to leave my sin behind. So often my sin brings my suffering. When I am tired of causing my own suffering through my sin, I will then be free to adopt Christ's correct attitudes to my life. Suffering is really a sin remover. Suffering delivers me from sin and frees me to serve. Phil 1:19. Think: who is more likely to harm me; me or Jesus? (This is developed in much more detail in "Personal Reasons for suffering.")
God tests obedience. Judges 3:1-4. The story transpires of a small group of gunmen violently interrupting a Christian church gathering in a Communist country. Before shooting they offered every person the opportunity to leave if they did not follow Jesus. Many left! At their departure the men put down their guns and said they wanted to find out who the hypocrites were. The gunmen then joined in worship. Instantly this suffering showed who were the true Christians. (Must see also Hebs 12:1-11)
To bring God glory. Jn 9:3 My suffering can always serve a much higher purpose. It then is not from my sin, or another's malevolence to me. There is simply a higher good that I am not usually aware of but I have been privileged to be part of. (Mary, a young virgin, pregnant with Jesus would have experienced great difficulty for a much greater good.)
We simply live in a world cursed to decay.Gen 3:17, Rms 8:18-21 Ever since man was unceremonially ejected, indeed expelled from Eden by God the world has been cursed to decay. Tyres go flat, batteries loose charge, paint fades and my hair thins. The suffering of ill health especially, simply can happen because this world is cursed to decay.
Simply share with Christ. Rms 8:17. Jesus is clear that the path to glory can be gory. To follow His footsteps (as a Christian does) is to be vulnerable to what He was vulnerable to. Jesus teaches cle that the path to glory is narrow and difficult, the gate is tight. Mt 7:13-14 The path of suffering even taught Jesus obedience. Hebs 5:7-8
Suffering is a gift of God. Phil 1:29 It certainly may not feel as if it is a gift, but it must be if it brings you close to throne of grace. Sometimes suffering is God's gift to gain our attention. As with Jonah there may be massive storms before we will take the gentle and unseen hand that has been reaching down to us all our life.
Death. God's foreknowledge wants to bring early release Is 57:1 When a premature death occurs, God is clear that for those who belong to Him, He is simply delivering 'an early mark' to spare them later pain, that only He can know will happen. Death then actually becomes His kindness received. (See Soul Snack ... 'The Early Mark'.)
God orders all events in sequence. The Bible is very clear that the Lord operates in His divinely appointed seasons (Eccl 3:1-11, Hab 2:3, Rev 20 etc). The time of suffering may well be the season that a person must pass through. Remember suffering is to draw us to God and not from God.
Conclusion
Making Sense of Suffering Part B examines Biblically the impact of evil upon our lives.
Original page is here:- http://www.soulsupply.com/soulsensesufferinga
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
UNHCR Representation in Cyprus: The challenges on migration and asylum for Cyprus.
UNHCR Representation in Cyprus: The challenges on migration and asylum for Cyprus.
Not theological - but still a matter for prayer and concern
Posted using ShareThis
Not theological - but still a matter for prayer and concern
Posted using ShareThis
Anglicans and Rome - more observations
End of Anglican Communion?
Published on October 21, 2009 in liturgy.
A few hours ago there was an absolute internet frenzy as people predicted and then reported, tweet by tweet, the announcement from the Vatican and the joint press conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster.
Let me add my own initial thoughts to this confusing dust-cloud following the announcement that the pope will create “Personal Ordinariates” for Anglicans who wish to come home to Rome. Archbishop Rowan said that it would be a “serious mistake” to view the development as a response to the difficulties within the Anglican Communion. As we in New Zealand say: “Yeah right!”
To anyone who has been watching the direction that Pope Benedict has been moving, and those he has been welcoming into his fold, the commentary that this is “surprising” is itself surprising. Just to mention recent events that have been in the news: the reconciliation with Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson and his Society of St. Pius X, the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” giving wider possibility to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, reconciliation with the traditionalist “Transalpine Redemptorists,” and so forth. I want to highlight some things I have not yet seen mentioned:
* married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate
They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination. In the tweeting frenzy Scott Richert wrote, “There is no warrant in tradition for marrying AFTER receiving Holy Orders. None.” He may very well be right. I am genuinely interested in this point, and hope that people in the comments box below might provide evidence for or against this. My reply to him for clarification has not yet been responded to.
* bishops in Anglican Personal Ordinariates are celibate
* there has been no rescinding of Apostolicae Curae.
Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate.
From a church (New Zealand Anglican) that leads Christian history in having created a “Tikanga” structure (where there are parallel episcopal jurisdictions according to cultural streams) I am intrigued by the concept of “Personal Ordinariates.” These are described by John Allen as “non-territorial diocese” (which sounds like an oxymoron to me!) My comment to Scott Richert and anyone else is: There is no warrant in tradition for “Personal Ordinariates.” None. But, of course, as usual, I am very very comfortable to be demonstrated wrong on this also. Please… anyone?
The end of the Anglican Communion?
As Mark Twain would say, “The reports of the end of the Anglican Communion are greatly exaggerated.” Andrew Brown, a regular person lining up for the funeral of the Communion, highlights his own weak grasp on the issues by declaring that only homosexuals can be celibate! Clearly heterosexuals, it would appear according to him, are either too weak or too immoral to be able to control their urges (not to mention that Andrew Brown is unable to distinguish doctrine from discipline). Scott Richert may have a slightly better grasp on the consequences for Anglicanism. Whilst no one would want to impugn curate’s-egg motives to the Archbishop of Canterbury, one cannot help wondering if there is just the flicker of a smile under that beard. In one Roman gesture he may be rid of, at one estimate, up to 2,000 of his CofE priests who have been holding out against his strong conviction for women in all three orders. Rowan Williams is well-known for ordaining openly practising homosexuals. Traditionalist Anglicans around the globe have struggled with women and with gays in a committed relationship being ordained. Commentators are repeatedly highlighting that this is an invitation from Rome to misogynists and homophobes.
In North America some Anglicans formed a new denomination The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). This brings together two extremes of the Anglican spectrum – Rome-facing and Geneva-facing. This marriage of convenience, like the 1977 followers of the Affirmation of St. Louis, cannot last, as, at its heart it is united around being against one thing. Rome’s declaration cannot but affect it. If the Rome-facing ACNA (married) bishops can stomach losing their purple, pectoral crosses, honorary doctoral gowns, and complex titles, they may yet lead their groups home to Rome. This will impact the attempt of some Anglicans to produce a “covenant”. Nigerian “Anglicans” have already formally removed the Archbishop of Canterbury from their constitution. Sydney Anglicans, leaders in GAFON/FOCA/Mainstream, are now not only struggling with theology, church history, and liturgical practice, but have recently realised they haven’t been that good at investments either (their $265 million assets are now worth $105 million). This Geneva-facing, congregationalist end of the Anglican spectrum does not need a Communion in the way that others see it. Rome’s announcement may help towards trimming off the extremes leaving an Anglican Communion that is certainly leaner but hopefully spending far less energy on peripherals and with a stronger focus on the end of the Communion, in the sense of the purpose of the church.
It is not the numbers inside the church that is ultimately significant IMO. It is the focus on service – in the two senses: our liturgical worship of God, and our service to God by our care of people and God’s world. Anglicanism may yet, through this, become more clearly a 21st century church episcopally led, synodically governed, and adapted for the particular context in which it finds itself, working “together with other Provinces and with our ecumenical and interfaith partners to promote God’s reign on earth.”
Original here:- http://tinyurl.com/yhdup8q
Published on October 21, 2009 in liturgy.
A few hours ago there was an absolute internet frenzy as people predicted and then reported, tweet by tweet, the announcement from the Vatican and the joint press conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster.
Let me add my own initial thoughts to this confusing dust-cloud following the announcement that the pope will create “Personal Ordinariates” for Anglicans who wish to come home to Rome. Archbishop Rowan said that it would be a “serious mistake” to view the development as a response to the difficulties within the Anglican Communion. As we in New Zealand say: “Yeah right!”
To anyone who has been watching the direction that Pope Benedict has been moving, and those he has been welcoming into his fold, the commentary that this is “surprising” is itself surprising. Just to mention recent events that have been in the news: the reconciliation with Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson and his Society of St. Pius X, the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” giving wider possibility to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, reconciliation with the traditionalist “Transalpine Redemptorists,” and so forth. I want to highlight some things I have not yet seen mentioned:
* married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate
They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination. In the tweeting frenzy Scott Richert wrote, “There is no warrant in tradition for marrying AFTER receiving Holy Orders. None.” He may very well be right. I am genuinely interested in this point, and hope that people in the comments box below might provide evidence for or against this. My reply to him for clarification has not yet been responded to.
* bishops in Anglican Personal Ordinariates are celibate
* there has been no rescinding of Apostolicae Curae.
Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate.
From a church (New Zealand Anglican) that leads Christian history in having created a “Tikanga” structure (where there are parallel episcopal jurisdictions according to cultural streams) I am intrigued by the concept of “Personal Ordinariates.” These are described by John Allen as “non-territorial diocese” (which sounds like an oxymoron to me!) My comment to Scott Richert and anyone else is: There is no warrant in tradition for “Personal Ordinariates.” None. But, of course, as usual, I am very very comfortable to be demonstrated wrong on this also. Please… anyone?
The end of the Anglican Communion?
As Mark Twain would say, “The reports of the end of the Anglican Communion are greatly exaggerated.” Andrew Brown, a regular person lining up for the funeral of the Communion, highlights his own weak grasp on the issues by declaring that only homosexuals can be celibate! Clearly heterosexuals, it would appear according to him, are either too weak or too immoral to be able to control their urges (not to mention that Andrew Brown is unable to distinguish doctrine from discipline). Scott Richert may have a slightly better grasp on the consequences for Anglicanism. Whilst no one would want to impugn curate’s-egg motives to the Archbishop of Canterbury, one cannot help wondering if there is just the flicker of a smile under that beard. In one Roman gesture he may be rid of, at one estimate, up to 2,000 of his CofE priests who have been holding out against his strong conviction for women in all three orders. Rowan Williams is well-known for ordaining openly practising homosexuals. Traditionalist Anglicans around the globe have struggled with women and with gays in a committed relationship being ordained. Commentators are repeatedly highlighting that this is an invitation from Rome to misogynists and homophobes.
In North America some Anglicans formed a new denomination The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). This brings together two extremes of the Anglican spectrum – Rome-facing and Geneva-facing. This marriage of convenience, like the 1977 followers of the Affirmation of St. Louis, cannot last, as, at its heart it is united around being against one thing. Rome’s declaration cannot but affect it. If the Rome-facing ACNA (married) bishops can stomach losing their purple, pectoral crosses, honorary doctoral gowns, and complex titles, they may yet lead their groups home to Rome. This will impact the attempt of some Anglicans to produce a “covenant”. Nigerian “Anglicans” have already formally removed the Archbishop of Canterbury from their constitution. Sydney Anglicans, leaders in GAFON/FOCA/Mainstream, are now not only struggling with theology, church history, and liturgical practice, but have recently realised they haven’t been that good at investments either (their $265 million assets are now worth $105 million). This Geneva-facing, congregationalist end of the Anglican spectrum does not need a Communion in the way that others see it. Rome’s announcement may help towards trimming off the extremes leaving an Anglican Communion that is certainly leaner but hopefully spending far less energy on peripherals and with a stronger focus on the end of the Communion, in the sense of the purpose of the church.
It is not the numbers inside the church that is ultimately significant IMO. It is the focus on service – in the two senses: our liturgical worship of God, and our service to God by our care of people and God’s world. Anglicanism may yet, through this, become more clearly a 21st century church episcopally led, synodically governed, and adapted for the particular context in which it finds itself, working “together with other Provinces and with our ecumenical and interfaith partners to promote God’s reign on earth.”
Original here:- http://tinyurl.com/yhdup8q
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Anglicans and Rome
This will take a bit of time to think and pray through and digest....
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/damianthompson/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/damianthompson/
Monday, October 19, 2009
New Urdu Gospel of Matthew
| Date: 10/19/2009 10:39:54 AM (MST) From: Nations be Glad E-mail: Nospam@noip.com Comments: Be encouraged | |||||||
| |||||||
| This article was sent from www.ywam.org and can be found at http://www.ywam.org/articles/article.asp?aid=750 |
Date: 10/2/2009 | Source: News
J.Johns Newsletter
13 October 2009
Dear Friends
In my experience there are few other subjects that make us feel riddled with as much guilt as the subject of prayer. For many of us, the subject of prayer is one that makes us feel uncomfortable; we don’t pray as we should, as we want to or as we might hope to. We would all like to be given a formula that would make prayer easy, that would make it always a joy, that would see our prayers victoriously answered. And there are many books around espousing such techniques. But it strikes me that we ought to talk realistically about our talking to God. Perhaps that does mean recognising the weakness of our prayer lives. If that’s how you feel - a failure in prayer - bring that before God. Now, into this area of weakness or poverty, hear Jesus’ words: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5:2). We are poor in spirit, but we are blessed - What’s all that about? Well it is all about the fact that prayer is not first and foremost about us, our prayers, our devotion, our wonderful spiritual lives - but about God.
Let’s turn to one of the most famous chapters of the Bible.
Romans 8:15
‘By the Spirit we cry "Abba, Father."’ True prayer is an act of God in us. It is never simply a human activity. Recently I heard a statistic that 79% of people in this country pray - well perhaps in a loose sort of sense! But Paul says in this bit of the Bible that prayer is not a human activity - it is something the Spirit does in us.
What is it that the Holy Spirit does? He brings us to call God ‘Father’. He joins us to God - we are no longer distanced from him. No, we are brought into a relationship with the God of the whole world, with the Maker of all things. And we address God as ‘Father’ - the most intimate of terms, of relationships. This is what prayer is all about - the sustaining and cultivating of this relationship. Do you know, every time Jesus prayed, he called God ‘Father’. Think about your prayer life, who does it focus on most - you or God? The Spirit comes to bring us into full knowledge about God as our Father. In prayer we are not thrown on ourselves, we do not begin with our efforts, but with the presence of God in our lives by his Spirit. Prayers well up inside of us, the Spirit yelps in our hearts - ‘Father’.
Romans 8:26
‘The Spirit helps us in our weakness. We don’t know what we ought to pray but the Spirit prays within us...’ Not only does God initiate prayer, he keeps it going, he sustains it.
Do you feel your prayer life is weak? Do you feel all too aware of how much you have to learn, how much more of a prayerful person you want to become?
If that’s you (and it’s me) don’t be discouraged - this is a sign of the Spirit’s work inside you. It almost goes against everything we have been brought up to believe - that the awareness of our weak spirituality is actually a work of God’s Spirit in us. But he doesn’t leave us struggling, but helps us, intercedes for us, gives us words, tongues, yearnings which are the things we don’t even know we need. Often people come up to me and ask me a question like, ‘J.John, I’m at a loss to know what to do about my prayer life. I find it so hard to pray.’
And I say, ‘Well pray then.’
‘But you don’t understand that’s just the problem - I can’t - it’s so difficult.’
‘Well pray then ...’
The groaning, which questions like this reveal, shows us that far from giving up when it gets tough, we should keep on. Recognise the work of the Spirit.
Learn to let the Spirit groan within you.
Romans 8:34
‘Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God interceding for us ...’ Not only can we call God ‘Father’ by God’s work, not only is our prayer the Spirit’s work in us, but we find this stunning fact tucked away in verse 34 - Jesus is praying for us the whole time.
Prayer isn’t about what we do for God, or about us suggesting things or people to God, which he might not have thought of. It is not that we have better ideas than God or that we have to encourage him to love us. Prayer is something we join in. Jesus is alive and is at the right hand of the Father praying for us, for his Church and for the world. Jesus is praying to the Father on our behalf - for my friends and your friends, for our families, for our nations and, yes, for me. Jesus prays for you and for me. This is how much he loves us. This is how committed he is to us. If you are finding prayer almost impossible, hold out for the truth of this verse - Jesus is praying for you, he never gives up, never tires. This is how special you are to him.
Prayer is about joining in. It’s about listening closely enough to Jesus’ prayers that we begin to learn how best to pray.
So we find out there is so much going on before we even get down on our knees. God has done, is doing and will do so much to draw us into a deeper relationship with him. Prayer is a wonderful gift - let’s not leave it unopened on the shelf.
Philo Trust
Website www.philotrust.com
Connect with us on the following social networking sitesTwitterTwitterTwitterTwitter
Dear Friends
In my experience there are few other subjects that make us feel riddled with as much guilt as the subject of prayer. For many of us, the subject of prayer is one that makes us feel uncomfortable; we don’t pray as we should, as we want to or as we might hope to. We would all like to be given a formula that would make prayer easy, that would make it always a joy, that would see our prayers victoriously answered. And there are many books around espousing such techniques. But it strikes me that we ought to talk realistically about our talking to God. Perhaps that does mean recognising the weakness of our prayer lives. If that’s how you feel - a failure in prayer - bring that before God. Now, into this area of weakness or poverty, hear Jesus’ words: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5:2). We are poor in spirit, but we are blessed - What’s all that about? Well it is all about the fact that prayer is not first and foremost about us, our prayers, our devotion, our wonderful spiritual lives - but about God.
Let’s turn to one of the most famous chapters of the Bible.
Romans 8:15
‘By the Spirit we cry "Abba, Father."’ True prayer is an act of God in us. It is never simply a human activity. Recently I heard a statistic that 79% of people in this country pray - well perhaps in a loose sort of sense! But Paul says in this bit of the Bible that prayer is not a human activity - it is something the Spirit does in us.
What is it that the Holy Spirit does? He brings us to call God ‘Father’. He joins us to God - we are no longer distanced from him. No, we are brought into a relationship with the God of the whole world, with the Maker of all things. And we address God as ‘Father’ - the most intimate of terms, of relationships. This is what prayer is all about - the sustaining and cultivating of this relationship. Do you know, every time Jesus prayed, he called God ‘Father’. Think about your prayer life, who does it focus on most - you or God? The Spirit comes to bring us into full knowledge about God as our Father. In prayer we are not thrown on ourselves, we do not begin with our efforts, but with the presence of God in our lives by his Spirit. Prayers well up inside of us, the Spirit yelps in our hearts - ‘Father’.
Romans 8:26
‘The Spirit helps us in our weakness. We don’t know what we ought to pray but the Spirit prays within us...’ Not only does God initiate prayer, he keeps it going, he sustains it.
Do you feel your prayer life is weak? Do you feel all too aware of how much you have to learn, how much more of a prayerful person you want to become?
If that’s you (and it’s me) don’t be discouraged - this is a sign of the Spirit’s work inside you. It almost goes against everything we have been brought up to believe - that the awareness of our weak spirituality is actually a work of God’s Spirit in us. But he doesn’t leave us struggling, but helps us, intercedes for us, gives us words, tongues, yearnings which are the things we don’t even know we need. Often people come up to me and ask me a question like, ‘J.John, I’m at a loss to know what to do about my prayer life. I find it so hard to pray.’
And I say, ‘Well pray then.’
‘But you don’t understand that’s just the problem - I can’t - it’s so difficult.’
‘Well pray then ...’
The groaning, which questions like this reveal, shows us that far from giving up when it gets tough, we should keep on. Recognise the work of the Spirit.
Learn to let the Spirit groan within you.
Romans 8:34
‘Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God interceding for us ...’ Not only can we call God ‘Father’ by God’s work, not only is our prayer the Spirit’s work in us, but we find this stunning fact tucked away in verse 34 - Jesus is praying for us the whole time.
Prayer isn’t about what we do for God, or about us suggesting things or people to God, which he might not have thought of. It is not that we have better ideas than God or that we have to encourage him to love us. Prayer is something we join in. Jesus is alive and is at the right hand of the Father praying for us, for his Church and for the world. Jesus is praying to the Father on our behalf - for my friends and your friends, for our families, for our nations and, yes, for me. Jesus prays for you and for me. This is how much he loves us. This is how committed he is to us. If you are finding prayer almost impossible, hold out for the truth of this verse - Jesus is praying for you, he never gives up, never tires. This is how special you are to him.
Prayer is about joining in. It’s about listening closely enough to Jesus’ prayers that we begin to learn how best to pray.
So we find out there is so much going on before we even get down on our knees. God has done, is doing and will do so much to draw us into a deeper relationship with him. Prayer is a wonderful gift - let’s not leave it unopened on the shelf.
Philo Trust
Website www.philotrust.com
Connect with us on the following social networking sitesTwitterTwitterTwitterTwitter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
