Having got back from dropping children off at school I returned to a little message that begins:
"Vic, it's all well and good you writing what you have but there are times when those who are right must act forcefully against those who would engage in . . . . [yawn]"
I haven't continued because it's pretty boring and to be honest, the next bit of the message could have so easily continued with any one of the disparaging nouns we assign to those who take opposing views to us. Why don't you pick your word from the list below (or use one of your own favourites):
abortion, bigotry, capitalism, condemnation, euthanasia, feminism, fundamentalism, homosexuality, homophobia, liberalism, misogyny, racism, etc.
Now, I don't mind people having their views but have to ask how we express them. If it's by engaging in dialogue, praying about the situation and those who(in our eyes) are wrong, if it's by education and engaging people then it's O.K. in my book.
But if it's about slandering or engaging in ad hominem, if we seek to traduce, ridicule or disgrace people then we are doing it wrong!
If we send images to people to press our point or if we publish addresses and telephone number so others can be harried, then we are wrong.
If we put spin onto a topic so that what we say is untrue - this too is wrong.
We must act decisively rather than forcefully for the weapons of our warfare are not those of the world (i.e. not carnal).
A quick revision of 2 Corinthians 10:
"By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you - I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away! I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world.
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.
On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.
You are looking only on the surface of things. If anyone is confident that he belongs to Christ, he should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as he. For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it. I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Such people should realise that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.
We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise. We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us, a field that reaches even to you. We are not going too far in our boasting, as would be the case if we had not come to you, for we did get as far as you with the gospel of Christ. Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand, so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in another man’s territory. But, “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends."
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Following the letter of the law
The first mail I opened this morning told me that we needed to obey 'the letter of the law', anything else was to permit wrong attitudes in the world and we are told to make it 'pure'. Now while I agree with the sentiment (even if not perhaps the words) I am also extremely aware that the Church, let's not go as far as the world at the moment, is full of sinful and fallen beings. I know this because I saw one first thing this morning and recognised him even though he was hiding in a mirror! (Funny how he looks like my Dad these days too!)
When it comes to keeping the Christian race 'pure' I do struggle a bit because this is a wonderful intention (I have it every morning as a personal goal) and yet is something that isn't going to happen because we're all sinful and because, to be honest, lots of the sinful bits either let us do what we want to do, let us be who we want to be or are rather enjoyable (at the time anyway).
The problem is that we each appear to have the ability to sift the sins such that we have:
1. Big and important sins - these are usually what we're not and we decide that these are the especially defining sins. Depending which group you're with they vary greatly.
2. Ordinary sins - the normal day-to-day stuff that we do and try not to do.
3. 'You can ignore these' sins - these are things that we excuse away or totally ignore as unimportant.
Now here's today's shocker - if it's is a sin then it's wrong! We cannot excuse it away or assign it a greater or lesser importance, it's a sin! The problem here is that if we lived in a world where only those who were without sin threw the first stone we wouldn't be able to stand upon our (self-confirmed) righteousness and denounce others would we?
Perhaps we need to remember the words of Matthew seven which tells us that by the way we judge others we too will be judged. Or that we can't do eye surgery on others when we're blinded by our own sin. We need to ensure that we act with clarity of vision and purity of life. (Actually I prefer 'holiness' but perhaps this is just me). We are also told in Galatians six that when we come across those caught in a sin that we should restore them gently. Don't see much of these two passages being used, by any of the groups struggling in the Church, at the moment.
How's about trying to live each day seeking to be holy - thinking, saying, seeing and being the right thing - a holy and righteous person? How's about trying to be righteous rather than being 'right'?
Sadly, nothing makes a sin right or a person righteous, other than stopping sinning and choosing to do what is right and good in God's eyes. So regardless of where we stand theologically or in our life choices - we have but one choice today - living as God commands or living for ourselves.
Which path you taking?
When it comes to keeping the Christian race 'pure' I do struggle a bit because this is a wonderful intention (I have it every morning as a personal goal) and yet is something that isn't going to happen because we're all sinful and because, to be honest, lots of the sinful bits either let us do what we want to do, let us be who we want to be or are rather enjoyable (at the time anyway).
The problem is that we each appear to have the ability to sift the sins such that we have:
1. Big and important sins - these are usually what we're not and we decide that these are the especially defining sins. Depending which group you're with they vary greatly.
2. Ordinary sins - the normal day-to-day stuff that we do and try not to do.
3. 'You can ignore these' sins - these are things that we excuse away or totally ignore as unimportant.
Now here's today's shocker - if it's is a sin then it's wrong! We cannot excuse it away or assign it a greater or lesser importance, it's a sin! The problem here is that if we lived in a world where only those who were without sin threw the first stone we wouldn't be able to stand upon our (self-confirmed) righteousness and denounce others would we?
Perhaps we need to remember the words of Matthew seven which tells us that by the way we judge others we too will be judged. Or that we can't do eye surgery on others when we're blinded by our own sin. We need to ensure that we act with clarity of vision and purity of life. (Actually I prefer 'holiness' but perhaps this is just me). We are also told in Galatians six that when we come across those caught in a sin that we should restore them gently. Don't see much of these two passages being used, by any of the groups struggling in the Church, at the moment.
How's about trying to live each day seeking to be holy - thinking, saying, seeing and being the right thing - a holy and righteous person? How's about trying to be righteous rather than being 'right'?
Sadly, nothing makes a sin right or a person righteous, other than stopping sinning and choosing to do what is right and good in God's eyes. So regardless of where we stand theologically or in our life choices - we have but one choice today - living as God commands or living for ourselves.
Which path you taking?
Monday, 17 May 2010
Are you sitting uncomfortably?
Then I'll begin . . . (a story for C)
In a far off land there lived a primitive people unlike others around them. Where others had tattoos and piercings to please their gods these people had none. Where others engaged in sexual stuff with whoever and whatever they happened across, for it also pleased their gods and them too, this primitive group opted for monogamy and anything else was regarded as 'wrong'. The rest of the world worked hard at having possessions, status and things that 'made them happy' but the primitives just wanted to please their God. The others decided that they were themselves gods and that they owed nothing to any God character and sneered at the fulitle little lives of the primitives.
The primitives continued to believe that there was but one God who created everything (which of course included them) and wanted people to be kind, have relationships that mirrored the values and standards He, their God, considered to be desirable and be honest in their dealings. How the rest of the world laughed at such naivety!
Sadly, some of the primitives who were in charge felt that the world was passing them by and they began to wonder how they might engage with them. What kept the world from coming and spending time with the primitives? What was it they wanted?
It didn't take long to realise that what kept the two apart was the restrictive rules and requirements so treasured by the primitives. "If we keep the robes, buildings and other trappings but loosen up on the 'don't do this stuff', then we would be able to attract the world and we'd no longer be primitives," they reasoned. "Not only that, but if we persuade the primitives that this is merely a re-interpretation of the old ways, they too will be happy because they're still primitives and will think the world has joined them. Then everyone will be happy!"
So the world came and joined the primitives and many rejoiced because they were primitive no longer, yet as everyone could see, nothing had changed - there were just more of them. How the people in the counting houses cheered, this would bring them in in droves and, just as in the days gone by, there would be plenty of money and people to show how right the decisions to embrace the world had been.
Sadly, many of the primitives became hardened against the new ways and soon found themselves branded as obstructive. The revised primitive followers realised that they were the future and that the past had to be shed and so the unregenerate primitives were encouraged to leave 'for the sake of unity'. The primitives did as they were asked (some would say bitterly around the camp fire, 'forced') and this saw then (and their God) leaving the revised followers with the gods that the world had always had, merely re-branding them to keep up the appearance for those (obviously more enlightened) primitives who remained.
And those who left and those who stayed? That's a story for another day . . . hasn't been written yet!
In a far off land there lived a primitive people unlike others around them. Where others had tattoos and piercings to please their gods these people had none. Where others engaged in sexual stuff with whoever and whatever they happened across, for it also pleased their gods and them too, this primitive group opted for monogamy and anything else was regarded as 'wrong'. The rest of the world worked hard at having possessions, status and things that 'made them happy' but the primitives just wanted to please their God. The others decided that they were themselves gods and that they owed nothing to any God character and sneered at the fulitle little lives of the primitives.
The primitives continued to believe that there was but one God who created everything (which of course included them) and wanted people to be kind, have relationships that mirrored the values and standards He, their God, considered to be desirable and be honest in their dealings. How the rest of the world laughed at such naivety!
Sadly, some of the primitives who were in charge felt that the world was passing them by and they began to wonder how they might engage with them. What kept the world from coming and spending time with the primitives? What was it they wanted?
It didn't take long to realise that what kept the two apart was the restrictive rules and requirements so treasured by the primitives. "If we keep the robes, buildings and other trappings but loosen up on the 'don't do this stuff', then we would be able to attract the world and we'd no longer be primitives," they reasoned. "Not only that, but if we persuade the primitives that this is merely a re-interpretation of the old ways, they too will be happy because they're still primitives and will think the world has joined them. Then everyone will be happy!"
So the world came and joined the primitives and many rejoiced because they were primitive no longer, yet as everyone could see, nothing had changed - there were just more of them. How the people in the counting houses cheered, this would bring them in in droves and, just as in the days gone by, there would be plenty of money and people to show how right the decisions to embrace the world had been.
Sadly, many of the primitives became hardened against the new ways and soon found themselves branded as obstructive. The revised primitive followers realised that they were the future and that the past had to be shed and so the unregenerate primitives were encouraged to leave 'for the sake of unity'. The primitives did as they were asked (some would say bitterly around the camp fire, 'forced') and this saw then (and their God) leaving the revised followers with the gods that the world had always had, merely re-branding them to keep up the appearance for those (obviously more enlightened) primitives who remained.
And those who left and those who stayed? That's a story for another day . . . hasn't been written yet!
Pondering over - now what?
Well I've been pondering and find myself confronted by a few choices (as others see it). Up there in the lead (apparently) is that of expelling the immoral from our ranks with the act of withdrawing from fellowship with 'naughtiness' on the basis that (according to Scotty the engineering officer/theologian from Star Trek) you cannae mix matter and anti-matter, neither can you mix darkness and light.
Following on from these we have the 'ignore it and hope the problem mends itself' choice, the 'tut loudly and look like you're thinking until people, amazed at your intellect, walk away and ask someone else' approach (which appears to be a very popular approach to the problems before us.
In addition to these we have the 'make all things acceptable' and then none transgress approach, an extremely good way forward for if there are no laws then no one can be condemned as a law-breaker and therefore holiness will be everyone's reality. No need to do evangelism or seek repentance and ask people to change - and everyone gets into heaven too - so another plus for this one (just joking honest!!).
Meanwhile . . . .
The foot soldiers gather in the trenches and wonder what to do. They've been trained for a conventional war with a line neatly drawn to separate good from evil. There's a 'no man's land' and we know where and how we play 'war'on this basis, we've always done it this way (more or less). Trouble is that we now have Asymmetric Warfare before us where there is no 'front line' and the enemy comes from wherever it wishes, even from within.
What we need is intelligence, that is information as to the risks, tactics, strategies of our likely enemies. We can identify them by their behaviour and we might even have a set of playing cards made (who would be the Joker?).
Armed and equipped by such intelligence we need a strong and intelligent leadership that will enable us to complete the task we have been given such that we have success. This leadership will issues orders that mobilise those engaged in the battle to be in the right place and doing the right thing. The problem is that this doesn't seem to be forthcoming and the results are becoming obvious as the tide of apathy and turning of the blind eyes lead the orthodox to certain defeat.
Where, oh where are the leaders? Reminiscent of Roger McGough's wonerful poem 'The Leader':
I wanna be the leader, I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader? Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader. I'm the leader.
O.K. what shall we do?
Sounds extremely familiar doesn't it?
Following on from these we have the 'ignore it and hope the problem mends itself' choice, the 'tut loudly and look like you're thinking until people, amazed at your intellect, walk away and ask someone else' approach (which appears to be a very popular approach to the problems before us.
In addition to these we have the 'make all things acceptable' and then none transgress approach, an extremely good way forward for if there are no laws then no one can be condemned as a law-breaker and therefore holiness will be everyone's reality. No need to do evangelism or seek repentance and ask people to change - and everyone gets into heaven too - so another plus for this one (just joking honest!!).
Meanwhile . . . .
The foot soldiers gather in the trenches and wonder what to do. They've been trained for a conventional war with a line neatly drawn to separate good from evil. There's a 'no man's land' and we know where and how we play 'war'on this basis, we've always done it this way (more or less). Trouble is that we now have Asymmetric Warfare before us where there is no 'front line' and the enemy comes from wherever it wishes, even from within.
What we need is intelligence, that is information as to the risks, tactics, strategies of our likely enemies. We can identify them by their behaviour and we might even have a set of playing cards made (who would be the Joker?).
Armed and equipped by such intelligence we need a strong and intelligent leadership that will enable us to complete the task we have been given such that we have success. This leadership will issues orders that mobilise those engaged in the battle to be in the right place and doing the right thing. The problem is that this doesn't seem to be forthcoming and the results are becoming obvious as the tide of apathy and turning of the blind eyes lead the orthodox to certain defeat.
Where, oh where are the leaders? Reminiscent of Roger McGough's wonerful poem 'The Leader':
I wanna be the leader, I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader? Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader. I'm the leader.
O.K. what shall we do?
Sounds extremely familiar doesn't it?
Another interesting Monday in prospect
Starting, as usual, whilst Radio Four still thinks it's the World Service, this week begins by looking like another action-packed endeavour into what Church can be. I've answered the emails that ask me whether all the CofE types support homosexuality as a lifestyle, whether we're pro-life and a few other questions relating to issues which they see as key issues for Christians.
Not being Anglican (or even coming from what I'd call a mainstream Christian denomination) they don't have a clue as to the role of Rowan, simply assuming that he's just a non-Catholic version of the Pope. Neither do they understand what the Anglican Communion is but then again neither do many of those who consider themselves Anglican either!
I had to honestly say that I couldn't answer for anyone but myself and that my views would not be representative of some of those who called themselves Anglicans. The response to this has been that surely those who weren't 'sound' should be put out of the church, after all the Bible (1 Cor 5: 9 - 13) calls us to expel the immoral brethren (And sistren too!). They were of course correct (here's a recap for those who might have missed it!):
"When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you."
I guess that is pretty unequivocal - even for the more dense among us.
So with that before me - I'm off to a meeting (it'll give me something to ponder I guess).
Not being Anglican (or even coming from what I'd call a mainstream Christian denomination) they don't have a clue as to the role of Rowan, simply assuming that he's just a non-Catholic version of the Pope. Neither do they understand what the Anglican Communion is but then again neither do many of those who consider themselves Anglican either!
I had to honestly say that I couldn't answer for anyone but myself and that my views would not be representative of some of those who called themselves Anglicans. The response to this has been that surely those who weren't 'sound' should be put out of the church, after all the Bible (1 Cor 5: 9 - 13) calls us to expel the immoral brethren (And sistren too!). They were of course correct (here's a recap for those who might have missed it!):
"When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you."
I guess that is pretty unequivocal - even for the more dense among us.
So with that before me - I'm off to a meeting (it'll give me something to ponder I guess).
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Sunday's done and. . . .
Memo to God:
It's 22:55 and I can finally climb into bed for an early night (well, early for here anyway!).
Been another great day of being Church with a visit from Christians Against Poverty (CAP) at the morning Eucharistic service and a wonderfully still and sacred space Taize Service for the evening service. God is indeed good!
What is fun is that we're seeing growth in the church family, people are catching the vision and becoming the missionaries that Jesus calls us to be. The excitement over Kid's Club and other oportunities God is giving us is there for all and we really are making a difference.
Thank you for the challenges and the blessings - for the excitement of new life in Christ and the fact that being converts means they don't realise we're not 'grown-up church' :-)
For all the faithful believers out there, I want to thank you. For those who stumble and excuse themselves of sin, please judge them kindly in their frailties just as I ask you to also judge me.
Thanks for never sleeping, even when I do,
love you.
It's 22:55 and I can finally climb into bed for an early night (well, early for here anyway!).
Been another great day of being Church with a visit from Christians Against Poverty (CAP) at the morning Eucharistic service and a wonderfully still and sacred space Taize Service for the evening service. God is indeed good!
What is fun is that we're seeing growth in the church family, people are catching the vision and becoming the missionaries that Jesus calls us to be. The excitement over Kid's Club and other oportunities God is giving us is there for all and we really are making a difference.
Thank you for the challenges and the blessings - for the excitement of new life in Christ and the fact that being converts means they don't realise we're not 'grown-up church' :-)
For all the faithful believers out there, I want to thank you. For those who stumble and excuse themselves of sin, please judge them kindly in their frailties just as I ask you to also judge me.
Thanks for never sleeping, even when I do,
love you.
Sunday Morning and all is quiet at the coal face
Funny how Sundays begin here at around 06:00 with farming followed by the Radio Four religious equivalent of the 'Today' programme. Diversity rules here and as I listen each week I find stimulation, despair and (now and then) a bit of encouragement.
Seven years after the discovery of the gay Gene we now have the consecration of the another openly homosexual cleric and what will undoubtedly be additional fuel to the conflagration that rages within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion worldwide. Sadly, while other voices urging many things are heard above the din, it appears that the one voice who should be heard remains silent (well I've heard and read nothing).
Where are you Rowan? Does your silence indicate a frustration at the lack of 'restraint' from those whom you apparently support? IS it merely a silence that permits your friends to acts unimpeded by observation and comment? It is an attempt to say nothing in the hope that others will do the same?
In this act from the Americas do we see the final act of UDI and within the implicit two-fingered gesture to the rest of the Anglican Communion see the line now crossed and the letters of removal signed, with them i's dotted and the t's crossed at last?
I was amazed that this news item has featured so lightly today and wonder whether this is the calm before the storm or an indication that we have decided to concentrate on bigger issues.
Two months (almost) is a very long time to remain silent on this issue - we really do need guidance and leadership and . . . . oh yeah, hope!
Come out come out (can I say that in this context?) wherever you are - because those of us working at a Parish level have to answer the criticism from other churches about being 'apostate' and deal with the issues from real people who are frustrated, saddened and confused.
And we don't have the luxury of ivory towers and silence!
Seven years after the discovery of the gay Gene we now have the consecration of the another openly homosexual cleric and what will undoubtedly be additional fuel to the conflagration that rages within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion worldwide. Sadly, while other voices urging many things are heard above the din, it appears that the one voice who should be heard remains silent (well I've heard and read nothing).
Where are you Rowan? Does your silence indicate a frustration at the lack of 'restraint' from those whom you apparently support? IS it merely a silence that permits your friends to acts unimpeded by observation and comment? It is an attempt to say nothing in the hope that others will do the same?
In this act from the Americas do we see the final act of UDI and within the implicit two-fingered gesture to the rest of the Anglican Communion see the line now crossed and the letters of removal signed, with them i's dotted and the t's crossed at last?
I was amazed that this news item has featured so lightly today and wonder whether this is the calm before the storm or an indication that we have decided to concentrate on bigger issues.
Two months (almost) is a very long time to remain silent on this issue - we really do need guidance and leadership and . . . . oh yeah, hope!
Come out come out (can I say that in this context?) wherever you are - because those of us working at a Parish level have to answer the criticism from other churches about being 'apostate' and deal with the issues from real people who are frustrated, saddened and confused.
And we don't have the luxury of ivory towers and silence!
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Politics - the real issues
I think it is naive to assume that Christians must be naturally aligned to any particular party, that said I also find it quite difficult that some can subscribe to some of the parties on offer!
There are many problems with party politics in that people assume that the stereotypes they rely on are either no longer valid (or perhaps never were) or are merely stereotypes and have no truth behind the image held. An excellent 'for instance' can be found in the views of the person who told me that I had to vote Labour as they were the party of the working man and looked after the poorer people. Another person told me that Conservatives were the party of the ruling classes and that a vote for them was a vote for public schools and chinless wonders.
The problem is that voting for a stereotype is, as I see it, a potentially unintelligent vote! Unless you've read the manifestos (which this time round I couldn't even get copies of), at the end of the day you vote for stereotypes or personalities rather than policies and thus deserve all you get!
People ask me about voting 'Christian' and what doing so does. Well it makes a statement that you are a certain type of Christian but apart from that, sadly, it doesn't seem to make any difference. To remedy this there needs to be a clear position on each of the 'tension-builder' topics. This means pro-life issues and all the other issues relating to sexuality, ecology, immigration, poverty (home and overseas), aid, health care, benefits and the welfare state (to name but a few areas of 'Christian' concern). Even when we've done this we are left with a problem in that we still have the issues of employment, taxation, commerce, industry, housing, Europe, global relations and more beside to contend with. Sadly, we don't often see these in the 'Christian' agenda or mindset.
Interestingly, some see Europe and the antichrist as inexplicably married together and thereby bring together even more wobbly bits to the table as well.
Looking at what Geneva was as a Christian state I have to agree with the chap who could not, "Think of a greater hell on earth than Geneva with Zwingli, Calvin and Co."
In the world, not of it. Interesting words, because we are called to be light and salt and this recipe must be part of the political and social realities of the place we find ourselves inhabiting (until He comes!).
There are many problems with party politics in that people assume that the stereotypes they rely on are either no longer valid (or perhaps never were) or are merely stereotypes and have no truth behind the image held. An excellent 'for instance' can be found in the views of the person who told me that I had to vote Labour as they were the party of the working man and looked after the poorer people. Another person told me that Conservatives were the party of the ruling classes and that a vote for them was a vote for public schools and chinless wonders.
The problem is that voting for a stereotype is, as I see it, a potentially unintelligent vote! Unless you've read the manifestos (which this time round I couldn't even get copies of), at the end of the day you vote for stereotypes or personalities rather than policies and thus deserve all you get!
People ask me about voting 'Christian' and what doing so does. Well it makes a statement that you are a certain type of Christian but apart from that, sadly, it doesn't seem to make any difference. To remedy this there needs to be a clear position on each of the 'tension-builder' topics. This means pro-life issues and all the other issues relating to sexuality, ecology, immigration, poverty (home and overseas), aid, health care, benefits and the welfare state (to name but a few areas of 'Christian' concern). Even when we've done this we are left with a problem in that we still have the issues of employment, taxation, commerce, industry, housing, Europe, global relations and more beside to contend with. Sadly, we don't often see these in the 'Christian' agenda or mindset.
Interestingly, some see Europe and the antichrist as inexplicably married together and thereby bring together even more wobbly bits to the table as well.
Looking at what Geneva was as a Christian state I have to agree with the chap who could not, "Think of a greater hell on earth than Geneva with Zwingli, Calvin and Co."
In the world, not of it. Interesting words, because we are called to be light and salt and this recipe must be part of the political and social realities of the place we find ourselves inhabiting (until He comes!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)