The Shard from Platform 6 at London Bridge Station.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Homosexual Marriage.
Marriage is by definition a Sexual relationship. Genital activity between people of the same gender, whatever else it might be, is by definition Asexual, therefore it is not marriage.
The biological definition of Sex is intercourse between members of opposite sexes of the same species. None of this is rocket science.
Marriage is by definition a Sexual relationship. Genital activity between people of the same gender, whatever else it might be, is by definition Asexual, therefore it is not marriage.
The biological definition of Sex is intercourse between members of opposite sexes of the same species. None of this is rocket science.
Prof Orlando Figes.
I can't help being amused by the furore over Prof Orlando Figes' anonymous on-line rubbishing of his fellow academics' books. Figes has written some wonderful books about Russian history and it seems incredible that he should stoop to such low tactics.
From a Christian perspective though, it confirms my view that one can be wonderfully talented and still be a prat!
I can't help being amused by the furore over Prof Orlando Figes' anonymous on-line rubbishing of his fellow academics' books. Figes has written some wonderful books about Russian history and it seems incredible that he should stoop to such low tactics.
From a Christian perspective though, it confirms my view that one can be wonderfully talented and still be a prat!
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Ex Opere Operato!
A casual observer might wonder why I have taken such a keen interest in the subject of baptism. It isn't just that there is a school of thought called "Federal Vision" doing the rounds in Anglican Evangelical circles, my interest predates this. I am a Charge Nurse who has worked in children's intensive care for over a decade and a half. I have lost count of the number of infants I've seen die; not I hasten to add because our death rates are higher than anyone else's - it's just that I've been on this scene a long time! Not surprisingly I've puzzled over the subject of infant salvation and the related topic of the role of infant baptism.... or is it related?
There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.
As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?
The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.
I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.
I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)
The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?
When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.
Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.
There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.
As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?
The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.
I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.
I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)
The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?
When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.
Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Friday, April 02, 2010
A Turn for the Worse.
Since I wrote about the internet scams a couple of weeks ago I have had a further SEVEN such e-mails.
Sadiq Mussa, Al-Abdullah Mohami, Madawi Atassi, Arik Bello and a Mr Albarte (aka Mr Alberte) have each separately approached me about large sums of money tied-up in a bank account which can be released if someone like me makes an application through them to claim the money. The total sum of these seven e-mails comes to $82.9 million (or £52.2m) not included in the amount previously quoted. Added together they all come up to a grand total of $126.5 million!
One of the scams is about a "Free Lotto" win - notification of winning.
There is one other scam which deserves some attention because it purports to come from a fellow Christian. "Mrs Celin Jonah" of Cote D'Ivoire explains that her wealthy husband has died and she has recently had a stroke. She is concerned that their money is used to serve Christ through charitable work. There are quotes from the Bible and pious language used which under normal circumstances would help to get this under the discernment "radar".
A few years ago I received a similar e-mail and although I thought that it was "iffy" I did genuinely wonder if I should make some sort of response. As a Christian I HAD to ask myself if this was someone genuinely asking for help, albeit in a rather artless sort of way. I puzzled over that one for a few days and not without a crisis of conscience I decided to ignore it.
But that is the cruel nature of such scams - sometimes they are quite crude, but a "good" one is like a 'smart bomb' which homes in on some aspect of one's psychology and gets under the skin. Most appeal to naked greed but this one uses one's faith in Christ as a means of leverage. It is cynical and exploitative of one's natural desire to help - that's why it is especially wicked.
Since I wrote about the internet scams a couple of weeks ago I have had a further SEVEN such e-mails.
Sadiq Mussa, Al-Abdullah Mohami, Madawi Atassi, Arik Bello and a Mr Albarte (aka Mr Alberte) have each separately approached me about large sums of money tied-up in a bank account which can be released if someone like me makes an application through them to claim the money. The total sum of these seven e-mails comes to $82.9 million (or £52.2m) not included in the amount previously quoted. Added together they all come up to a grand total of $126.5 million!
One of the scams is about a "Free Lotto" win - notification of winning.
There is one other scam which deserves some attention because it purports to come from a fellow Christian. "Mrs Celin Jonah" of Cote D'Ivoire explains that her wealthy husband has died and she has recently had a stroke. She is concerned that their money is used to serve Christ through charitable work. There are quotes from the Bible and pious language used which under normal circumstances would help to get this under the discernment "radar".
A few years ago I received a similar e-mail and although I thought that it was "iffy" I did genuinely wonder if I should make some sort of response. As a Christian I HAD to ask myself if this was someone genuinely asking for help, albeit in a rather artless sort of way. I puzzled over that one for a few days and not without a crisis of conscience I decided to ignore it.
But that is the cruel nature of such scams - sometimes they are quite crude, but a "good" one is like a 'smart bomb' which homes in on some aspect of one's psychology and gets under the skin. Most appeal to naked greed but this one uses one's faith in Christ as a means of leverage. It is cynical and exploitative of one's natural desire to help - that's why it is especially wicked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)