Catholic Bishops Called to Bark Like Dogs

Some Catholics were grievously disappointed that their bishops did not do more to stop the Ontario Liberals from pushing Bill 13 through parliament. Father Alphonse De Valk concludes that with the passage of this bill there is little left of Catholic education that is distinctly Catholic.  He laments that this so called anti-bullying bill will in fact systematically teach Catholic children a version of sexuality that is not according to Catholic teaching. He states in a recent article published on lifesitenews.com: 

"Ostensibly about fighting bullying in schools, Bill 13 is much more than that. It is a product of the homosexual agenda which since the early nineteen seventies has tenaciously fought to have its lifestyle accepted, first by the general public, then recognized as a civil “right” by the judiciary under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and finally given “equality “in 2005 under Prime Minister Paul Martin, who even removed the definition of normal marriage between one man and one woman. Today it has triumphed in the schools.

From here on activists will seek to deform the consciences of toddlers and students. School materials have been in preparation for years. Barbara Hall, Commissar of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, holds that today her Commission overrides all other rights, including the Charter’s religious section."

De Valk is especially critical of the Catholic bishops. He thinks they made very little effort to stop the passage of this dangerous bill. Quoting from Saint Boniface, a famous German martyr, he writes, "Let us be neither dogs who do not bark, nor silent onlookers nor paid servants who run away before the wolf."  

De Valk’s advice is good for Evangelical leaders as well. Is it not incredibly ironical that we have a vast army of muted, moral watchmen, who mostly just watch, as our culture slowly trickles down the drain into a moral wasteland?  God help us, we need some barking dogs. We need them now. 

What Does it Mean to Repent?

I heard a rare message on repentance at my home church this last Sunday. David Loney at Crossings Alliance Church did a great job of teaching and laying out what it actually means.

The call, “to repent” is sometimes confused with penance.  They are not the same.  To “do penance” which comes to us from the Catholic tradition implies carrying out penalties usually imposed by the priest in the confessional booth. A person might be told to say thirty or forty “our Fathers’” or some other religious duty.

The word, repent comes from the Greek word, metanoia which means “to change one’s mind”.  It  carries with it the thought of turning from one course of action and turning toward another. Evangelicals in times past have usually conceived it as turning away from sin and turning toward God.  Bakers Dictionary of theology notes, “Generally however metanoia can be said to denote that inward change of mind, affections, convictions and commitment, rooted in the fear of God and sorrow for offenses committed against him, which, when accompanied by faith in Jesus Christ, results in an outward turning from sin to God and his service in all of life.”

Repentance in the book of Acts is repeatedly tied to the call to put faith in Jesus. Apostolic preaching expected that the new convert would be a transformed person.  The new convert would have turned away from sin and selfishness and their new orientation would have been toward God and love of neighbour. Repentance should always be linked with the call to believe in Christ. 

An old story has it that a newly converted follower of Christ was being mocked and belittled for his newly found faith. His tormentors laughed at him for believing that anybody could turn water into wine.  The convert said, “I don’t know how Jesus turned water into wine. I wasn’t there.  But I do know that in my own home he has turned beer into furniture and whiskey into shoes for my kids.”

6 Reasons Why Repentance is Missing Today

I know that I’m not the only one who has noticed the teaching of repentance is largely missing in our churches today.  Since our evangelical ancestors made much of it in their preaching and teaching, we do well to ask ourselves why there is so little focus on it in our time. 

For starters I am offering the following six reasons that seek to explain its demise in Christian circles today. My plan is simply to lay out these points in a somewhat stark format and then expand on them in the days to come.

1.       I believe there is widespread ignorance of what the term actually means. This should not surprise us since doctrinal teaching in the churches has been de-emphasized over a period of many decades

  

2.       I think that some teachers and preachers have concluded that repentance is opposed   to grace. And since grace for them is the primary teaching of the Bible, they are loathe to muddy the waters by also speaking of repentance. 

3.       In order for repentance to make sense as a teaching the pastor has to be willing to treat the wider issue of what constitutes sin. And in an age of rampant ethical relativism the whole concept of sin itself is largely rejected by the broader culture.

4.       The preaching of repentance smacks of judgmentalism.  And our society hates with a passion anybody who dares to pass judgment on its actions.  Likewise, the preacher bristles at the mere idea that he might be perceived as passing judgment on anybody.

5.       The preaching of repentance does not fit in with the seeker sensitive mentality found in many churches today.   In such churches the leaders design everything to appeal to newcomers so they will return.

6.       To boldly preach repentance means taking a stand against popular sins that are culturally accepted and many leaders simply do not have the stomach to confront people in the pew, or the people who make up our society.

Repentance Has Gone Missing

Just a few days ago a friend of mine related a story about his encounter with the leadership of his church.   Rob (not his real name) had expressed concern with the problem of “Christians” among the fellowship who were cohabiting without benefit of marriage. Rob wanted the leaders to take some kind of action. Specifically he wanted them to lovingly speak the truth of this sin and its dangers to these young couples. He was shocked beyond belief by the leaders’ response. They indicated they were not interested in preaching against sin. But rather they were all about preaching Jesus, and wanted to just preach the gospel and not be judgmental in anyway.  

I suspect, sadly, that this attitude is prevalent in thousands of churches in our day. And I am not speaking solely of the mainline (sidelined and slipping) churches, but of all Christian churches in general.  

Just how important is the teaching or repentance in the scripture? First, let’s note that Jesus began his ministry with the call to repentance. The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts frequently includes the call to repent. The church down through the centuries has carefully guarded the truth that repentance is part of the ministry of preaching the good news of Jesus.  J. Edwin Orr insisted that, “repentance is the first word of the gospel.” Martin Luther strongly called Christians to repent as part of their daily walk with God.  General William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, warned that one of the chief dangers of the twentieth century would be the offering of forgiveness without repentance.

I lament that we live in a time when we see much decline in the churches. I think that one of the clear reasons for this decline is the loss of this very basic teaching of repentance. On every hand we see a growing and blatant apostasy in many mainline churches.  But we need to see there is another apostasy at work, quieter perhaps, but no less dangerous.  Far too many Christians in the conservative churches, yes even some Evangelicals, are neglecting, and abandoning certain basic truths of scripture. 

For the next week or so this blog will explore, just how this doctrine has been lost and how it can be recovered. And yes, it can be recovered and the church can be made strong again. The church can and will find herself, reforming her own reformation by God’s help and leading.  May God help us all to move in that direction. And soon, please God.

                   

Why is the Catholic Church under Attack?

As I follow Christ I seek to encourage and teach fellow believers to speak about their faith in Jesus. To achieve that end I provide training in witnessing and evangelism and constantly challenge others to boldly talk the walk.  

But there is another way of understanding, “talking the walk.”  In my view Christians have the duty and responsibility to confidently enter the public square with the truth of Christianity. Of the many faith groups that I know of, there is one in particular who seems to understand this calling better than others.  I speak of the Catholic Church.  Many who follow her teaching are people who speak up for Christian values in the public square.  As a result they are often maligned for their efforts.

The following is a letter published today in a local Guelph newspaper defending the Catholics for their willingness to speak the truth.

Dear Editor,

Re: Letter to the editor, “Solid argument lost in translation” (Tribune, June 21, 2012).

Letter writer Cory Houghton wants everybody to be certain that Alan Pickersgill did not attack the Catholic Church in one of his recent columns.   So, in a fairly nuanced way he tries to defend Pickersgill, and at the same time scorns the idea that Catholic Christian, Betty Karl, has any right to feel attacked.

It amazes me that Houghton has the audacity to say to someone in a faith tradition that they have no right to their feelings. Who does he think he is? Then in a surprising turn he, himself, proceeds in the last half of his letter to specifically attack the Catholic Church for some of her public stands on morality, and her persecution of various groups some 500 years ago.

Frankly, I too, grow tired of the almost constant drum beat of attack against Catholics. And no I don’t agree with every Catholic position. In fact I am an Evangelical Christian with a different faith tradition. But I recognize that the Catholic Church is one of the last bulwarks of defence against the rampant tide of immorality sweeping the West.   

Among other charges, Houghton claims that the Catholic Church is linked with homophobia. I’m of the strong opinion that there is a much more sinister phobia on the loose.  There is a growing animosity toward Christian values found in virtually every level of society.

Yes, I speak of Christophobia. It is very much present, and is growing.  I long for the day when the media will begin to report on it.  

Royal Hamel

Follow me, let's change the world together!

Anti-Semitism in Germany

 A regional court in Germany decided that parents can be brought before a judge for causing bodily injury if they have their child circumcised. According to reports neither religious reasons, nor the rights of the parents can be used to justify the procedure.  

This does not look good. It especially looks bad that this decision against Jewish people has been undertaken by a German court.  Who does not know that for thousands of years circumcision has been a fundamental rite of the Jewish faith? Indeed, some might argue that it is the most basic rite, and therefore the most basic religious right of this oft persecuted people.

What would Christians say if a court all of a sudden concluded that baptizing people was now considered to be against the law?  Yes, you can be certain millions of generally passive Christians would sit up and take notice.  Such a decision would be an attack on the heart of Christian faith and practise.  It is exactly the same with this decision respecting the Jews in Germany.   

There will be some who say that this is not persecution, it is merely a decision taken on the basis of the health of the child.  What rubbish! Let’s be realistic, circumcision has not been happening in a corner for the last few thousand years. Don’t you think if this was a serious health matter it would have been dealt with hundreds of years ago?

It is well documented that presently we are living in a time of heightened anti-Semitism, the like of which has not been seen since the time of World War II. 

This unprecedented act by a German judge is simply another manifestation of that age old scourge of Jew hatred that the world simply cannot seem to shake.

I implore my fellow Christians to shake off passivity; I implore you to speak and to act on behalf of Jews wherever they are found 

Blankenhorn Abandons Traditional Marriage

Marriage=One Man + One Woman

We live in a time when simply speaking truth is controversial. For a long period of time the general cultural values of the west were more or less comparable to the values of Christianity. That is no longer the case. To define marriage today, for instance, as a union between one man and one woman can easily land you in hot water.

The Southern Baptists in the USA recently affirmed their strong commitment to traditional marriage. I applaud them for making such a statement. I share their understanding that God created and defined marriage to be a union of one man and one woman. See their excellent article here. I believe marriage can no more be re-defined than a square can be redefined as having only three sides.

David Blankenhorn formerly defended traditional marriage. However, in a recent New York Times article he has now come out in favour of same-sex marriage. In the article he puts forth three reasons for the change in his position. He thinks that to oppose such marriage is to somehow stigmatize homosexual love as being less than its heterosexual counterpart. He also feels that the more important issue, now, is comity and mutual acceptance—that we must put aside our differences for the sake of being reconciled, and avoid more of the so called, “culture wars.” In his final argument he points out that both the national elites and the younger generation favour same-sex marriage. He thinks that this emerging consensus should be respected.

I view the above arguments as spurious and shallow. If truth and morality mean anything it is precisely because they don’t change with the changing times. Dare I say it—even God cannot make a four sided figure into a triangle. Blankenhorn wants there to be mutual acceptance and reconciliation. This is always a worthy goal to pursue, but it must not be pursued at the expense of truth and reality. It certainly did not work in the USA in the civil war era when some states wanted the right to keep slaves while other states saw slavery itself as an abomination. As for the argument that we must respect the emerging consensus of the elites and the youth—please don’t insult our intelligence. I can easily imagine that in ancient Roman society the leading elites and the youth my have favoured the continuation of slavery. These same elites may have also favoured the vicious gladiatorial combat in the coliseum. So what! No society should decide questions of morality on the basis of straw polls and preferences.

I am deeply disappointed with Blankenhorn and his faux reasons for changing his mind. How wonderful that God will not and cannot change his mind on the definition of true marriage. He has clearly spoken on this issue (Genesis 2:20-25 and Matthew 19:4-6).

Both passages clearly teach just one definition of marriage—one man + one woman—there is no other possible interpretation.