Archives

3 March 2004 The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, warmly greeted the leadership of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), welcoming them to Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop’s official residence and office in London. Following informal conversation over coffee, Archbishop Williams invited the two AMiA bishops, the Rt. Rev. Chuck Murphy and the Rt. Rev. TJ Johnston, to share the work and ministry of the Anglican Mission with an advisory council that he has established to gather information on developments within the Anglican Communion. During that meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury consulted privately with the two sponsoring Primates of the Anglican Mission, the Most Rev. Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda and the Most Rev. Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia. At the conclusion of the conversations, Archbishop Williams again met briefly with the AMiA bishops before they departed Lambeth Palace. Bishop Murphy, the Anglican Mission’s Chairman, felt the time was very helpful. “We’re very grateful for the opportunity to meet and talk with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to share with his advisors the growing work and ministry of the Anglican Mission in America. I feel the conversations created increased understanding and were constructive.” Archbishop Yong concurred, noting that, “Our meeting was very warm and covered a wide range of topics. Archbishop Kolini and I are thankful, especially, for the opportunity we had to pray, together again, with Archbishop Williams.” Last year the Archbishop of Canterbury asked Archbishops Kolini and Yong to arrange a meeting with the leadership of the Anglican Mission. The original meeting, scheduled for last October, was postponed due to an emergency meeting of the Anglican Communion’s Primates during the same week. This emergency meeting was called in the wake of The Episcopal Church’s consecration and election of V. Gene Robinson as the new bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire — the first openly gay bishop in the history of the church. The Anglican Mission in America is a missionary outreach of the Province of Rwanda, under the oversight of two Anglican Primates. Their focus is on the 130 million unchurched people in the United States. The AMiA is committed to church planting and evangelism. The AMiA currently numbers 65 congregations nationwide. END

BBC News The Right Reverend Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, was to argue a gay lifestyle should not stop clergy becoming bishops. But he said taking part would not help the church at this time. An Anglican commission is examining the implications of the election of Bishop Robinson, a practising homosexual. The openly-gay divorced father-of-two was consecrated in 2003 amid protests from traditionalists. Prayed long and hard He was due to speak on 11 March, proposing the motion “This House believes a gay lifestyle should be no bar to becoming a bishop.” But he said in a statement he had thought and prayed long and hard about the invitation. He said: “It has become clear to me that for me to participate would not be in the best interests of the Anglican Communion at this delicate moment in its history.” The Reverend Richard Kirker, general secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, was due to speak with Bishop Robinson. He said he was deeply saddened by the decision, “all the more so as it seems likely to all he was put under pressure to withdraw.” “It will seem strange to all fair minded people that while others discuss and debate him in a very personal and often offensive way, he finds himself forced into silence,” he said. “The Church has once again shot itself in the foot.” ‘Gagging order’ The Oxford Union, which attracts high-profile speakers ranging from farmer Tony Martin to Hollywood star Clint Eastwood, said the cancellation was a blow to free speech. Oxford Union President Edward Tomlinson said: “It is a shame the archbishop’s newly appointed commission should act as a gagging order, rather than as a catalyst for discussion. “I understand that Bishop Robinson is a figure of totemic importance in this debate, and his love for the Anglican Communion has meant for the time being he believes silence to be the best course of action. “As the president of the most famous debating society in the world, and as a committed Anglican, I look forward to the day when free discussion of this matter can and does take place.” END

Anglican Communion News Service — ACNS 3792 2 March 2004 The Most Revd Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA, celebrated the Eucharist at Canterbury Cathedral this morning on this his 19th anniversary as a bishop. The normal daily mass, in the Chapel of Modern Day Saints and Martyrs, was attended by the members of the Joint Standing Committee, a conference of Church of England Diocesan Secretaries and regular worshippers. He was assisted at the altar by the Cathedral’s Precentor. Today’s agenda for the Joint Standing Committee includes a budget report from the Most Revd Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, chairman of the Inter Anglican Finance Committee. [Image: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/37/75/acns3792low-res.jpg] Click for larger, hi-res image Full story: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/37/75/acns3792.cfm

By Eric Gorski, Denver Post The Colorado Episcopal Diocese projects a 20% pledge shortfall in 2004—$350,000 below target—due to conservative parishioners restricting diocesan giving in protest of Bishop Gene Robinson’s consecration. Some parishes redirected funds to causes like a Tanzanian hospital or Habitat for Humanity. At Grace and St. Stephen’s (Colorado Springs), pledges to the diocese fell from $107,000 to $11,000. Bishop Rob O’Neill acknowledged the emotional stakes but questioned the protest’s effectiveness, noting that diocesan funds support youth ministry and new congregations—not “a political agenda.” Nationally, the shortfall is milder (~6%). England: Archbishop of Canterbury Meets with AMIA Leadership 3 March 2004 Archbishop Rowan Williams hosted AMIA bishops Chuck Murphy and T.J. Johnston at Lambeth Palace, along with sponsoring Primates Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda) and Yong Ping Chung (South East Asia). Bishop Murphy called the talks “constructive” and said they increased mutual understanding. The meeting—originally scheduled for October 2003 but postponed due to the Robinson crisis—reflects growing engagement with AMIA, a Rwanda-affiliated missionary effort with 65 U.S. congregations focused on church planting and evangelism among the unchurched. Nigeria: Primate Shuns London Talks Over Robinson Consecration Lagos, 2 March 2004 Archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of Nigeria’s 17-million-member Anglican Church, boycotted the London Anglican Consultative Committee meeting in protest of ECUSA’s presence. In a letter from General Secretary Oluranti Odubogun, Akinola stated he “could not sit down with ECUSA” without undermining African leaders who have severed ties over Robinson’s consecration. The letter recalled African bishops’ 2003 warning that ECUSA would “remove themselves from the fellowship” if Robinson’s ministry was not rescinded. Akinola remains “baffled” that the Anglican Communion Office treats the issue as if it “does not really matter.” (Note: Entry 448—“Nigeria: Primate’s Snub Points to Communion Split”—has been removed as a near-duplicate of 446, though it adds context about the Joint Standing Committee and Central Africa’s stance. That key detail is retained in the intro summary above.) Bad Doctrine Turned Episcopal Church Into a Political Circus — By Bishop Kelshaw Bishop Terence Kelshaw, Diocese of the Rio Grande Following the Plano meeting, orthodox Episcopalians formed the Network to remain in ECUSA while resisting doctrinal revisionism—not to schism, but to uphold biblical orthodoxy. Kelshaw rejects majority rule in matters of faith: “The majority is not the arbiter.” He warns that bad doctrine—not disagreement—has weakened mission, politicized parishes, and turned the Church into a “caricature of the political circus.” The Network, he insists, is voluntary and pastoral: sign on if you wish; stay if you choose—but let Scripture, not sentiment, guide the Church. Pittsburgh: NACDP Network Moves into High Gear March 2–4, 2004 The Anglican Communion Network’s Steering Committee met in Pittsburgh and elected Convocation Deans for regional structures (Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Mid-Continental, Western, FiFNA). They defined the Network as a “biblically driven missionary movement,” adopted mission/vision statements, and approved forming a Missionary Society to welcome those leaving ECUSA and seekers of orthodox Anglicanism. The American Anglican Council was named provisional Secretariat. Six dioceses (Central Florida, Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, Springfield) and FiFNA have ratified association. Ireland: Church of Ireland to Have Same-Sex Blessings “Within Two Years”? Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy Rev. Dr. David Short (Vancouver), whose parish left the New Westminster diocese after same-sex rites were approved, warned Church of Ireland leaders that similar developments may follow within two years—mirroring the trajectory of his former diocese. He criticized the “listening process” that prioritizes experience over Scripture and stressed that biblical authority—not cultural accommodation—must guide communion. Short noted that New Westminster’s conservative parishes now uphold Anglican orthodoxy more faithfully than their bishop and have gained recognition from five Primates and Archbishop George Carey.

2 March 2004 The Most Revd Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA, celebrated the Eucharist at Canterbury Cathedral on his 19th anniversary as bishop. The service, held in the Chapel of Modern Day Saints and Martyrs, was attended by members of the Joint Standing Committee, Church of England Diocesan Secretaries, and regular worshippers. He was assisted by the Cathedral’s Precentor. Today’s agenda included a budget report from Archbishop Robin Eames. Oxford: ECUSA Gay Bishop Cancels Oxford Union Debate BBC News The Right Reverend Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, withdrew from an Oxford Union debate where he was to propose: “This House believes a gay lifestyle should be no bar to becoming a bishop.” In a statement, he said participation would not serve the Anglican Communion at this “delicate moment.” The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement’s Richard Kirker expressed disappointment, suggesting pressure led to the withdrawal and calling it another instance of the Church “shooting itself in the foot.” Oxford Union President Edward Tomlinson lamented the loss of free speech, calling the Eames Commission a “gagging order” rather than a catalyst for discussion.

Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.—Prov. XXII. 6. I suppose that most professing Christians are acquainted with the text at the head of this page. The sound of it is probably familiar to your ears, like an old tune. It is likely you have heard it, or read it, talked of it, or quoted it, many a time. Is it not so? But, after all, how little is the substance of this text regarded! The doctrine it contains appears scarcely known, the duty it puts before us seems fearfully seldom practised. Reader, do I not speak the truth? It cannot be said that the subject is a new one. The world is old, and we have the experience of nearly six thousand years to help us. We live in days when there is a mighty zeal for education in every quarter. We hear of new schools rising on all sides. We are told of new systems, and new books for the young, of every sort and description. And still for all this, the vast majority of children are manifestly not trained in the way they should go, for when they grow up to man’s estate, they do not walk with God. Now how shall we account for this state of things? The plain truth is, the Lord’s commandment in our text is not regarded; and therefore the Lord’s promise in our text is not fulfilled. Reader, these things may well give rise to great searchings of heart. Suffer then a word of exhortation from a minister, about the right training of children. Believe me, the subject is one that should come home to every conscience, and make every one ask himself the question, "Am I in this matter doing what I can?" It is a subject that concerns almost all. There is hardly a household that it does not touch. Parents, nurses, teachers, godfathers, godmothers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters,—all have an interest in it. Few can be found, I think, who might not influence some parent in the management of his family, or affect the training of some child by suggestion or advice. All of us, I suspect, can do something here, either directly or indirectly, and I wish to stir up all to bear this in remembrance. It is a subject, too, on which all concerned are in great danger of coming short of their duty. This is preeminently a point in which men can see the faults of their neighbours more clearly than their own. They will often bring up their children in the very path which they have denounced to their friends as unsafe. They will see motes in other men’s families, and overlook beams in their own. They will be quick sighted as eagles in detecting mistakes abroad, and yet blind as bats to fatal errors which are daily going on at home. They will be wise about their brother’s house, but foolish about their own flesh and blood. Here, if anywhere, we have need to suspect our own judgment. This, too, you will do well to bear in mind. As a minister, I cannot help remarking that there is hardly any subject about which people seem so tenacious as they are about their children. I have sometimes been perfectly astonished at the slowness of sensible Christian parents to allow that their own children are in fault, or deserve blame. There are not a few persons to whom I would far rather speak about their own sins, than tell them their children had done anything wrong. Come now, and let me place before you a few hints about right training. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost bless them, and make them words in season to you all. Reject them not because they are blunt and simple; despise them not because they contain nothing new. Be very sure, if you would train children for heaven, they are hints that ought not to be lightly set aside. I. FIRST, THEN, IF YOU WOULD TRAIN YOUR CHILDREN RIGHTLY, TRAIN THEM IN THE WAY THEY SHOULD GO, AND NOT IN THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD. Remember children are born with a decided bias towards evil, and therefore if you let them choose for themselves, they are certain to choose wrong. The mother cannot tell what her tender infant may grow up to be,—tall or short, weak or strong, wise or foolish he may be any of these things or not,—it is all uncertain. But one thing the mother can say with certainty: he will have a corrupt and sinful heart. It is natural to us to do wrong. "Foolishness," says Solomon, "is bound in the heart of a child" (Prov. xxii. 15). "A child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame" (Prov. xxix. 15). Our hearts are like the earth on which we tread; let it alone, and it is sure to bear weeds. If, then, you would deal wisely with your child, you must not leave him to the guidance of his own will. Think for him, judge for him, act for him, just as you would for one weak and blind; but for pity’s sake, give him not up to his own wayward tastes and inclinations. It must not be his likings and wishes that are consulted. He knows not yet what is good for his mind and soul, any more than what is good for his body. You do not let him decide what he shall eat, and what he shall drink, and how he shall be clothed. Be consistent, and deal with his mind in like manner. Train him in the way that is scriptural and right, and not in the way that he fancies. If you cannot make up your mind to this first principle of Christian training, it is useless for you to read any further. Self-will is almost the first thing that appears in a child’s mind; and it must be your first step to resist it. II. TRAIN UP YOUR CHILD WITH ALL TENDERNESS, AFFECTION, AND PATIENCE. I do not mean that you are to spoil him, but I do mean that you should let him see that you love him. Love should be the silver thread that runs through all your conduct. Kindness, gentleness, long-suffering, forbearance, patience, sympathy, a willingness to enter into childish troubles, a readiness to take part in childish joys,—these are the cords by which a child may be led most easily,—these are the clues you must follow if you would find the way to his heart. Few are to be found, even among grown-up people, who are not more easy to draw than to drive. There is that in all our minds which rises in arms against compulsion; we set up our backs and stiffen our necks at the very idea of a forced obedience. We are like young horses in the hand of a breaker: handle them kindly, and make much of them, and by and by you may guide them with thread; use them roughly and violently, and it will be many a month before you get the mastery of them at all. Now children’s minds are cast in much the same mould as our own. Sternness and severity of manner chill them and throw them back. It shuts up their hearts, and you will weary yourself to find the door. But let them only see that you have an affectionate feeling towards them,—that you are really desirous to make them happy, and do them good,—that if you punish them, it is intended for their profit, and that, like the pelican, you would give your heart’s blood to nourish their souls; let them see this, I say, and they will soon be all your own. But they must be wooed with kindness, if their attention is ever to be won. And surely reason itself might teach us this lesson. Children are weak and tender creatures, and, as such, they need patient and considerate treatment. We must handle them delicately, like frail machines, lest by rough fingering we do more harm than good. They are like young plants, and need gentle watering,—often, but little at a time. We must not expect all things at once. We must remember what children are, and teach them as they are able to bear. Their minds are like a lump of metal— not to be forged and made useful at once, but only by a succession of little blows. Their understandings are like narrow-necked vessels: we must pour in the wine of knowledge gradually, or much of it will be spilled and lost. "Line upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," must be our rule. The whetstone does its work slowly, but frequent rubbing will bring the scythe to a fine edge. Truly there is need of patience in training a child, but without it nothing can be done. Nothing will compensate for the absence of this tenderness and love. A minister may speak the truth as it is in Jesus, clearly, forcibly, unanswerably; but if he does not speak it in love, few souls will be won. Just so you must set before your children their duty,—command, threaten, punish, reason,— but if affection be wanting in your treatment, your labour will be all in vain. Love is one grand secret of successful training. Anger and harshness may frighten, but they will not persuade the child that you are right; and if he sees you often out of temper, you will soon cease to have his respect. A father who speaks to his son as Saul did to Jonathan (1 Sam. xx. 30), need not expect to retain his influence over that son’s mind. Try hard to keep up a hold on your child’s affections. It is a dangerous thing to make your children afraid of you. Anything is almost better than reserve and constraint between your child and yourself; and this will come in with fear. Fear puts an end to openness of manner;— fear leads to concealment;—fear sows the seed of much hypocrisy, and leads to many a lie. There is a mine of truth in the Apostle’s words to the Colossians: "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged" (Col. iii. 21). Let not the advice it contains be overlooked. III. TRAIN YOUR CHILDREN WITH AN ABIDING PERSUASION ON YOUR MIND THAT MUCH DEPENDS UPON YOU. Grace is the strongest of all principles. See what a revolution grace effects when it comes into the heart of an old sinner,—how it overturns the strongholds of Satan,—how it casts down mountains, fills up valleys,— makes crooked things straight,—and new creates the whole man. Truly nothing is impossible to grace. Nature, too, is very strong. See how it struggles against the things of the kingdom of God,—how it fights against every attempt to be more holy,—how it keeps up an unceasing warfare within us to the last hour of life. Nature indeed is strong. But after nature and grace, undoubtedly, there is nothing more powerful than education. Early habits (if I may so speak) are everything with us, under God. We are made what we are by training. Our character takes the form of that mould into which our first years are cast. "He has seen but little of life who does not discern everywhere the effect of education on men’s opinions and habits of thinking. The children bring out of the nursery that which displays itself throughout their lives."—Cecil. We depend, in a vast measure, on those who bring us up. We get from them a colour, a taste, a bias which cling to us more or less all our lives. We catch the language of our nurses and mothers, and learn to speak it almost insensibly, and unquestionably we catch something of their manners, ways, and mind at the same time. Time only will show, I suspect, how much we all owe to early impressions, and how many things in us may be traced up to seeds sown in the days of our very infancy, by those who were about us. A very learned Englishman, Mr. Locke, has gone so far as to say: "That of all the men we meet with, nine parts out of ten are what they are, good or bad, useful or not, according to their education." And all this is one of God’s merciful arrangements. He gives your children a mind that will receive impressions like moist clay. He gives them a disposition at the starting-point of life to believe what you tell them, and to take for granted what you advise them, and to trust your word rather than a stranger’s. He gives you, in short, a golden opportunity of doing them good. See that the opportunity be not neglected, and thrown away. Once let slip, it is gone for ever. Beware of that miserable delusion into which some have fallen,— that parents can do nothing for their children, that you must leave them alone, wait for grace, and sit still. These persons have wishes for their children in Balaam’s fashion,—they would like them to die the death of the righteous man, but they do nothing to make them live his life. They desire much, and have nothing. And the devil rejoices to see such reasoning, just as he always does over anything which seems to excuse indolence, or to encourage neglect of means. I know that you cannot convert your child. I know well that they who are born again are born, not of the will of man, but of God. But I know also that God says expressly, "Train up a child in the way he should go," and that He never laid a command on man which He would not give man grace to perform. And I know, too, that our duty is not to stand still and dispute, but to go forward and obey. It is just in the going forward that God will meet us. The path of obedience is the way in which He gives the blessing. We have only to do as the servants were commanded at the marriage feast in Cana, to fill the water-pots with water, and we may safely leave it to the Lord to turn that water into wine. IV. TRAIN WITH THIS THOUGHT CONTINUALLY BEFORE YOUR EYES—THAT THE SOUL OF YOUR CHILD IS THE FIRST THING TO BE CONSIDERED. Precious, no doubt, are these little ones in your eyes; but if you love them, think often of their souls. No interest should weigh with you so much as their eternal interests. No part of them should be so dear to you as that part which will never die. The world, with all its glory, shall pass away; the hills shall melt; the heavens shall be wrapped together as a scroll; the sun shall cease to shine. But the spirit which dwells in those little creatures, whom you love so well, shall outlive them all, and whether in happiness or misery (to speak as a man) will depend on you. This is the thought that should be uppermost on your mind in all you do for your children. In every step you take about them, in every plan, and scheme, and arrangement that concerns them, do not leave out that mighty question, "How will this affect their souls?" Soul love is the soul of all love. To pet and pamper and indulge your child, as if this world was all he had to look to, and this life the only season for happiness— to do this is not true love, but cruelty. It is treating him like some beast of the earth, which has but one world to look to, and nothing after death. It is hiding from him that grand truth, which he ought to be made to learn from his very infancy,—that the chief end of his life is the salvation of his soul. A true Christian must be no slave to fashion, if he would train his child for heaven. He must not be content to do things merely because they are the custom of the world; to teach them and instruct them in certain ways, merely because it is usual; to allow them to read books of a questionable sort, merely because everybody else reads them; to let them form habits of a doubtful tendency, merely because they are the habits of the day. He must train with an eye to his children’s souls. He must not be ashamed to hear his training called singular and strange. What if it is? The time is short,—the fashion of this world passeth away. He that has trained his children for heaven, rather than for earth,—for God, rather than for man,— he is the parent that will be called wise at last. V. TRAIN YOUR CHILD TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE. You cannot make your children love the Bible, I allow. None but the Holy Ghost can give us a heart to delight in the Word. But you can make your children acquainted with the Bible; and be sure they cannot be acquainted with that blessed book too soon, or too well. A thorough knowledge of the Bible is the foundation of all clear views of religion. He that is well-grounded in it will not generally be found a waverer, and carried about by every wind of new doctrine. Any system of training which does not make a knowledge of Scripture the first thing is unsafe and unsound. You have need to be careful on this point just now, for the devil is abroad, and error abounds. Some are to be found amongst us who give the Church the honour due to Jesus Christ. Some are to be found who make the sacraments saviours and passports to eternal life. And some are to be found in like manner who honour a catechism more than the Bible, or fill the minds of their children with miserable little story-books, instead of the Scripture of truth. But if you love your children, let the simple Bible be everything in the training of their souls; and let all other books go down and take the second place. Care not so much for their being mighty in the catechism, as for their being mighty in the Scriptures. This is the training, believe me, that God will honour. The Psalmist says of Him, "Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name" (Ps. cxxxviii. 2); and I think that He gives an especial blessing to all who try to magnify it among men. See that your children read the Bible reverently. Train them to look on it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, written by the Holy Ghost Himself,—all true, all profitable, and able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. See that they read it regularly. Train them to regard it as their soul’s daily food,—as a thing essential to their soul’s daily health. I know well you can not make this anything more than a form; but there is no telling the amount of sin which a mere form may indirectly restrain. See that they read it all. You need not shrink from bringing any doctrine before them. You need not fancy that the leading doctrines of Christianity are things which children cannot understand. Children understand far more of the Bible than we are apt to suppose. Tell them of sin, its guilt, its consequences, its power, its vileness: you will find they can comprehend something of this. Tell them of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His work for our salvation,—the atonement, the cross, the blood, the sacrifice, the intercession: you will discover there is something not beyond them in all this. Tell them of the work of the Holy Spirit in man’s heart, how He changes, and renews, and sanctifies, and purifies: you will soon see they can go along with you in some measure in this. In short, I suspect we have no idea how much a little child can take in of the length and breadth of the glorious gospel. They see far more of these things than we suppose. As to the age when the religious instruction of a child should begin, no general rule can be laid down. The mind seems to open in some children much more quickly than in others. We seldom begin too early. There are wonderful examples on record of what a child can attain to, even at three years old. Fill their minds with Scripture. Let the Word dwell in them richly. Give them the Bible, the whole Bible, even while they are young. VI. TRAIN THEM TO A HABIT OF PRAYER. Prayer is the very life-breath of true religion. It is one of the first evidences that a man is born again. "Behold," said the Lord of Saul, in the day he sent Ananias to him, "Behold, he prayeth" (Acts ix. 11). He had begun to pray, and that was proof enough. Prayer was the distinguishing mark of the Lord’s people in the day that there began to be a separation between them and the world. "Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" (Gen. iv. 26). Prayer is the peculiarity of all real Christians now. They pray,—for they tell God their wants, their feelings, their desires, their fears; and mean what they say. The nominal Christian may repeat prayers, and good prayers too, but he goes no further. Prayer is the turning-point in a man’s soul. Our ministry is unprofitable, and our labour is vain, till you are brought to your knees. Till then, we have no hope about you. Prayer is one great secret of spiritual prosperity. When there is much private communion with God, your soul will grow like the grass after rain; when there is little, all will be at a standstill, you will barely keep your soul alive. Show me a growing Christian, a going forward Christian, a strong Christian, a flourishing Christian, and sure am I, he is one that speaks often with his Lord. He asks much, and he has much. He tells Jesus everything, and so he always knows how to act. Prayer is the mightiest engine God has placed in our hands. It is the best weapon to use in every difficulty, and the surest remedy in every trouble. It is the key that unlocks the treasury of promises, and the hand that draws forth grace and help in time of need. It is the silver trumpet God commands us to sound in all our necessity, and it is the cry He has promised always to attend to, even as a loving mother to the voice of her child. Prayer is the simplest means that man can use in coming to God. It is within reach of all,—the sick, the aged, the infirm, the paralytic, the blind, the poor, the unlearned,— all can pray. It avails you nothing to plead want of memory, and want of learning, and want of books, and want of scholarship in this matter. So long as you have a tongue to tell your soul’s state, you may and ought to pray. Those words, "Ye have not, because ye ask not" (Jas. iv. 2), will be a fearful condemnation to many in the day of judgment. Parents, if you love your children, do all that lies in your power to train them up to a habit of prayer. Show them how to begin. Tell them what to say. Encourage them to persevere. Remind them if they become careless and slack about it. Let it not be your fault, at any rate, if they never call on the name of the Lord. This, remember, is the first step in religion which a child is able to take. Long before he can read, you can teach him to kneel by his mother’s side, and repeat the simple words of prayer and praise which she puts in his mouth. And as the first steps in any undertaking are always the most important, so is the manner in which your children’s prayers are prayed, a point which deserves your closest attention. Few seem to know how much depends on this. You must beware lest they get into a way of saying them in a hasty, careless, and irreverent manner. You must beware of giving up the oversight of this matter to servants and nurses, or of trusting too much to your children doing it when left to themselves. I cannot praise that mother who never looks after this most important part of her child’s daily life herself. Surely if there be any habit which your own hand and eye should help in forming, it is the habit of prayer. Believe me, if you never hear your children pray yourself, you are much to blame. You are little wiser than the bird described in Job, "which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear" (Job xxxix. 14–16). Prayer is, of all habits, the one which we recollect the longest. Many a grey-headed man could tell you how his mother used to make him pray in the days of his childhood. Other things have passed away from his mind perhaps. The church where he was taken to worship, the minister whom he heard preach, the companions who used to play with him,—all these, it may be, have passed from his memory, and left no mark behind. But you will often find it is far different with his first prayers. He will often be able to tell you where he knelt, and what he was taught to say, and even how his mother looked all the while. It will come up as fresh before his mind’s eye as if it was but yesterday. Reader, if you love your children, I charge you, do not let the seed-time of a prayerful habit pass away unimproved. If you train your children to anything, train them, at least, to a habit of prayer. VII. TRAIN THEM TO HABITS OF DILIGENCE, AND REGULARITY ABOUT PUBLIC MEANS OF GRACE. Tell them of the duty and privilege of going to the house of God, and joining in the prayers of the congregation. Tell them that wherever the Lord’s people are gathered together, there the Lord Jesus is present in an especial manner, and that those who absent themselves must expect, like the Apostle Thomas, to miss a blessing. Tell them of the importance of hearing the Word preached, and that it is God’s ordinance for converting, sanctifying, and building up the souls of men. Tell them how the Apostle Paul enjoins us not "to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is" (Heb. x. 25); but to exhort one another, to stir one another up to it, and so much the more as we see the day approaching. I call it a sad sight in a church when nobody comes up to the Lord’s table but the elderly people, and the young men and the young women all turn away. But I call it a sadder sight still when no children are to be seen in a church, excepting those who come to the Sunday School, and are obliged to attend. Let none of this guilt lie at your doors. There are many boys and girls in every parish, besides those who come to school, and you who are their parents and friends should see to it that they come with you to church. Do not allow them to grow up with a habit of making vain excuses for not coming. Give them plainly to understand, that so long as they are under your roof it is the rule of your house for every one in health to honour the Lord’s house upon the Lord’s day, and that you reckon the Sabbath-breaker to be a murderer of his own soul. See to it too, if it can be so arranged, that your children go with you to church, and sit near you when they are there. To go to church is one thing, but to behave well at church is quite another. And believe me, there is no security for good behaviour like that of having them under your own eye. The minds of young people are easily drawn aside, and their attention lost, and every possible means should be used to counteract this. I do not like to see them coming to church by themselves,—they often get into bad company by the way, and so learn more evil on the Lord’s day than in all the rest of the week. Neither do I like to see what I call "a young people’s corner" in a church. They often catch habits of inattention and irreverence there, which it takes years to unlearn, if ever they are unlearned at all. What I like to see is a whole family sitting together, old and young, side by side,—men, women, and children, serving God according to their households. But there are some who say that it is useless to urge children to attend means of grace, because they cannot understand them. I would not have you listen to such reasoning. I find no such doctrine in the Old Testament. When Moses goes before Pharaoh (Ex. x. 9), I observe he says, "We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters: for we must hold a feast unto the Lord." When Joshua read the law (Josh. viii. 35), I observe, "There was not a word which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them." "Thrice in the year," says Ex. xxxiv. 23, "shall all your men-children appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel." And when I turn to the New Testament, I find children mentioned there as partaking in public acts of religion as well as in the Old. When Paul was leaving the disciples at Tyre for the last time, I find it said (Acts xxi. 5), "They all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed." Samuel, in the days of his childhood, appears to have ministered unto the Lord some time before he really knew Him. "Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him" (1 Sam. iii. 7). The Apostles themselves do not seem to have understood all that our Lord said at the time that it was spoken: "These things understood not His disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of Him" (John xii. 16). Parents, comfort your minds with these examples. Be not cast down because your children see not the full value of the means of grace now. Only train them up to a habit of regular attendance. Set it before their minds as a high, holy, and solemn duty, and believe me, the day will very likely come when they will bless you for your deed. VIII. TRAIN THEM TO A HABIT OF FAITH. I mean by this, you should train them up to believe what you say. You should try to make them feel confidence in your judgment, and respect your opinions, as better than their own. You should accustom them to think that, when you say a thing is bad for them, it must be bad, and when you say it is good for them, it must be good; that your knowledge, in short, is better than their own, and that they may rely implicitly on your word. Teach them to feel that what they know not now, they will probably know hereafter, and to be satisfied there is a reason and a needs-be for everything you require them to do. Who indeed can describe the blessedness of a real spirit of faith? Or rather, who can tell the misery that unbelief has brought upon the world? Unbelief made Eve eat the forbidden fruit,—she doubted the truth of God’s word: "Ye shall surely die." Unbelief made the old world reject Noah’s warning, and so perish in sin. Unbelief kept Israel in the wilderness,—it was the bar that kept them from entering the promised land. Unbelief made the Jews crucify the Lord of glory,—they believed not the voice of Moses and the prophets, though read to them every day. And unbelief is the reigning sin of man’s heart down to this very hour,— unbelief in God’s promises,— unbelief in God’s threatenings,— unbelief in our own sinfulness,— unbelief in our own danger,—unbelief in everything that runs counter to the pride and worldliness of our evil hearts. Reader, you train your children to little purpose if you do not train them to a habit of implicit faith,—faith in their parents’ word, confidence that what their parents say must be right. I have heard it said by some, that you should require nothing of children which they cannot understand—that you should explain and give a reason for everything you desire them to do. I warn you solemnly against such a notion. I tell you plainly, I think it an unsound and rotten principle. No doubt it is absurd to make a mystery of everything you do, and there are many things which it is well to explain to children, in order that they may see that they are reasonable and wise. But to bring them up with the idea that they must take nothing on trust, that they, with their weak and imperfect understandings, must have the "why" and the "wherefore" made clear to them at every step they take,—this is indeed a fearful mistake, and likely to have the worst effect on their minds. Reason with your child if you are so disposed, at certain times, but never forget to keep him in mind (if you really love him) that he is but a child after all,—that he thinks as a child, he understands as a child, and therefore must not expect to know the reason of everything at once. Set before him the example of Isaac, in the day when Abraham took him to offer him on Mount Moriah (Gen. xxii.). He asked his father that single question, "Where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?" and he got no answer but this, "God will provide Himself a lamb." How, or where, or whence, or in what manner, or by what means,—all this Isaac was not told; but the answer was enough. He believed that it would be well, because his father said so, and he was content. Tell your children, too, that we must all be learners in our beginnings, that there is an alphabet to be mastered in every kind of knowledge,—that the best horse in the world had need once to be broken,—that a day will come when they will see the wisdom of all your training. But in the meantime if you say a thing is right, it must be enough for them,—they must believe you, and be content. Parents, if any point in training is important, it is this. I charge you by the affection you have to your children, use every means to train them up to a habit of faith. IX. TRAIN THEM TO A HABIT OF OBEDIENCE. This is an object which it is worth any labour to attain. No habit, I suspect, has such an influence over our lives as this. Parents, determine to make your children obey you, though it may cost you much trouble, and cost them many tears. Let there be no questioning, and reasoning, and disputing, and delaying, and answering again. When you give them a command, let them see plainly that you will have it done. Obedience is the only reality. It is faith visible, faith acting, and faith incarnate. It is the test of real discipleship among the Lord’s people. "Ye are My friends if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John xv. 14). It ought to be the mark of well-trained children, that they do whatsoever their parents command them. Where, in deed, is the honour which the fifth commandment enjoins, if fathers and mothers are not obeyed cheerfully, willingly, and at once? Early obedience has all Scripture on its side. It is in Abraham’s praise, not merely he will train his family, but "he will command his children, and his household after him" (Gen. xviii. 19). It is said of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that when "He was young He was subject to Mary and Joseph" (Luke ii. 51). Observe how implicitly Joseph obeyed the order of his father Jacob (Gen. xxxvii. 13). See how Isaiah speaks of it as an evil thing, when "the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient" (Isa. iii. 5). Mark how the Apostle Paul names disobedience to parents as one of the bad signs of the latter days (2 Tim. iii. 2). Mark how he singles out this grace of requiring obedience as one that should adorn a Christian minister: "a bishop must be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity." And again, "Let the deacons rule their children and their own houses well" (1 Tim. iii. 4, 12). And again, an elder must be one "having faithful children, children not accused of riot, or unruly" (Tit. 1. 6). Parents, do you wish to see your children happy? Take care, then, that you train them to obey when they are spoken to,—to do as they are bid. Believe me, we are not made for entire independence,—we are not fit for it. Even Christ’s freemen have a yoke to wear, they "serve the Lord Christ" (Col. iii. 24). Children cannot learn too soon that this is a world in which we are not all intended to rule, and that we are never in our right place until we know how to obey our betters. Teach them to obey while young, or else they will be fretting against God all their lives long, and wear themselves out with the vain idea of being independent of His control. Reader, this hint is only too much needed. You will see many in this day who allow their children to choose and think for themselves long before they are able, and even make excuses for their disobedience, as if it were a thing not to be blamed. To my eyes, a parent always yielding, and a child always having its own way, are a most painful sight;— painful, because I see God’s appointed order of things inverted and turned upside down;—painful, because I feel sure the consequence to that child’s character in the end will be self-will, pride, and self-conceit. You must not wonder that men refuse to obey their Father which is in heaven, if you allow them, when children, to disobey their father who is upon earth. Parents, if you love your children, let obedience be a motto and a watchword continually before their eyes. X. TRAIN THEM TO A HABIT OF ALWAYS SPEAKING THE TRUTH. Truth-speaking is far less common in the world than at first sight we are disposed to think. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is a golden rule which many would do well to bear in mind. Lying and prevarication are old sins. The devil was the father of them,— he deceived Eve by a bold lie, and ever since the fall it is a sin against which all the children of Eve have need to be on their guard. Only think how much falsehood and deceit there is in the world! How much exaggeration! How many additions are made to a simple story! How many things left out, if it does not serve the speaker’s interest to tell them! How few there are about us of whom we can say, we put unhesitating trust in their word! Verily the ancient Persians were wise in their generation: it was a leading point with them in educating their children, that they should learn to speak the truth. What an awful proof it is of man’s natural sinfulness, that it should be needful to name such a point at all! Reader, I would have you remark how often God is spoken of in the Old Testament as the God of truth. Truth seems to be especially set before us as a leading feature in the character of Him with whom we have to do. He never swerves from the straight line. He abhors lying and hypocrisy. Try to keep this continually before your children’s minds. Press upon them at all times, that less than the truth is a lie; that evasion, excuse-making, and exaggeration are all halfway houses towards what is false, and ought to be avoided. Encourage them in any circumstances to be straightforward, and, whatever it may cost them, to speak the truth. I press this subject on your attention, not merely for the sake of your children’s character in the world,— though I might dwell much on this,—I urge it rather for your own comfort and assistance in all your dealings with them. You will find it a mighty help indeed, to be able always to trust their word. It will go far to prevent that habit of concealment, which so unhappily prevails sometimes among children. Openness and straightforwardness depend much upon a parent’s treatment of this matter in the days of our infancy. XI. TRAIN THEM TO A HABIT OF ALWAYS REDEEMING THE TIME. Idleness is the devil’s best friend. It is the surest way to give him an opportunity of doing us harm. An idle mind is like an open door, and if Satan does not enter in himself by it, it is certain he will throw in something to raise bad thoughts in our souls. No created being was ever meant to be idle. Service and work is the appointed portion of every creature of God. The angels in heaven work,—they are the Lord’s ministering servants, ever doing His will. Adam, in Paradise, had work,—he was appointed to dress the garden of Eden, and to keep it. The redeemed saints in glory will have work, "They rest not day and night singing praise and glory to Him who bought them." And man, weak, sinful man, must have something to do, or else his soul will soon get into an unhealthy state. We must have our hands filled, and our minds occupied with something, or else our imaginations will soon ferment and breed mischief. And what is true of us, is true of our children too. Alas, indeed, for the man that has nothing to do! The Jews thought idleness a positive sin: it was a law of theirs that every man should bring up his son to some useful trade,—and they were right. They knew the heart of man better than some of us appear to do. Idleness made Sodom what she was. "This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her" (Ezek. xvi. 49). Idleness had much to do with David’s awful sin with the wife of Uriah.—I see in 2 Sam. xi. that Joab went out to war against Ammon, "but David tarried still at Jerusalem." Was not that idle? And then it was that he saw Bathsheba,—and the next step we read of is his tremendous and miserable fall. Verily, I believe that idleness has led to more sin than almost any other habit that could be named. I suspect it is the mother of many a work of the flesh,— the mother of adultery, fornication, drunkenness, and many other deeds of darkness that I have not time to name. Let your own conscience say whether I do not speak the truth. You were idle, and at once the devil knocked at the door and came in. And indeed I do not wonder;—everything in the world around us seems to teach the same lesson. It is the still water which becomes stagnant and impure: the running, moving streams are always clear. If you have steam machinery, you must work it, or it soon gets out of order. If you have a horse, you must exercise him; he is never so well as when he has regular work. If you would have good bodily health yourself, you must take exercise. If you always sit still, your body is sure at length to complain. And just so is it with the soul. The active moving mind is a hard mark for the devil to shoot at. Try to be always full of useful employment, and thus your enemy will find it difficult to get room to sow tares. Reader, I ask you to set these things before the minds of your children. Teach them the value of time, and try to make them learn the habit of using it well. It pains me to see children idling over what they have in hand, whatever it may be. I love to see them active and industrious, and giving their whole heart to all they do; giving their whole heart to lessons, when they have to learn;—giving their whole heart even to their amusements, when they go to play. But if you love them well, let idleness be counted a sin in your family. XII. TRAIN THEM WITH A CONSTANT FEAR OF OVER-INDULGENCE. This is the one point of all on which you have most need to be on your guard. It is natural to be tender and affectionate towards your own flesh and blood, and it is the excess of this very tenderness and affection which you have to fear. Take heed that it does not make you blind to your children’s faults, and deaf to all advice about them. Take heed lest it make you overlook bad conduct, rather than have the pain of inflicting punishment and correction. I know well that punishment and correction are disagreeable things. Nothing is more unpleasant than giving pain to those we love, and calling forth their tears. But so long as hearts are what hearts are, it is vain to suppose, as a general rule, that children can ever be brought up without correction. Spoiling is a very expressive word, and sadly full of meaning. Now it is the shortest way to spoil children to let them have their own way,—to allow them to do wrong and not to punish them for it. Believe me, you must not do it, whatever pain it may cost you unless you wish to ruin your children’s souls. You cannot say that Scripture does not speak expressly on this subject: "He that spareth his rod, hateth his son; but he that loveth him, chasteneth him betimes" (Prov. xiii. 24). "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying" (Prov. xix. 18). "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child: but the rod of correction shall drive it from him" (Prov. xxii. 15). "Withhold not correction from the child, for if thou beatest him with the rod he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell" (Prov. xxiii. 13, 14). "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." "Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest, yea, he shall give delight to thy soul" (Prov. xxix. 15, 17). How strong and forcible are these texts! How melancholy is the fact, that in many Christian families they seem almost unknown! Their children need reproof, but it is hardly ever given; they need correction, but it is hardly ever employed. And yet this book of Proverbs is not obsolete and unfit for Christians. It is given by inspiration of God, and profitable. It is given for our learning, even as the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Surely the believer who brings up his children without attention to its counsel is making himself wise above that which is written, and greatly errs. Fathers and mothers, I tell you plainly, if you never punish your children when they are in fault, you are doing them a grievous wrong. I warn you, this is the rock on which the saints of God, in every age, have only too frequently made shipwreck. I would fain persuade you to be wise in time, and keep clear of it. See it in Eli’s case. His sons Hophni and Phinehas "made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." He gave them no more than a tame and lukewarm reproof, when he ought to have rebuked them sharply. In one word, he honoured his sons above God. And what was the end of these things? He lived to hear of the death of both his sons in battle, and his own grey hairs were brought down with sorrow to the grave (1 Sam. ii. 22–29, iii. 13). See, too, the case of David. Who can read without pain the history of his children, and their sins? Amnon’s incest,— Absalom’s murder and proud rebellion,—Adonijah’s scheming ambition: truly these were grievous wounds for the man after God’s own heart to receive from his own house. But was there no fault on his side? I fear there can be no doubt there was. I find a clue to it all in the account of Adonijah in 1 Kings i. 6: "His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?" There was the foundation of all the mischief. David was an over-indulgent father,—a father who let his children have their own way,—and he reaped according as he had sown. Parents, I beseech you, for your children’s sake, beware of over-indulgence. I call on you to remember, it is your first duty to consult their real interests, and not their fancies and likings;—to train them, not to humour them—to profit, not merely to please. You must not give way to every wish and caprice of your child’s mind, however much you may love him. You must not let him suppose his will is to be everything, and that he has only to desire a thing and it will be done. Do not, I pray you, make your children idols, lest God should take them away, and break your idol, just to convince you of your folly. Learn to say "No" to your children. Show them that you are able to refuse whatever you think is not fit for them. Show them that you are ready to punish disobedience, and that when you speak of punishment, you are not only ready to threaten, but also to perform. Do not threaten too much. Threatened folks, and threatened faults, live long. Punish seldom, but really and in good earnest,—frequent and slight punishment is a wretched system indeed. Some parents and nurses have a way of saying, "Naughty child," to a boy or girl on every slight occasion, and often without good cause. It is a very foolish habit. Words of blame should never be used without real reason. As to the best way of punishing a child, no general rule can be laid down. The characters of children are so exceedingly different, that what would be a severe punishment to one child, would be no punishment at all to another. I only beg to enter my decided protest against the modern notion that no child ought ever to be whipped. Doubtless some parents use bodily correction far too much, and far too violently; but many others, I fear, use it far too little. Beware of letting small faults pass unnoticed under the idea "it is a little one." There are no little things in training children; all are important. Little weeds need plucking up as much as any. Leave them alone, and they will soon be great. Reader, if there be any point which deserves your attention, believe me, it is this one. It is one that will give you trouble, I know. But if you do not take trouble with your children when they are young, they will give you trouble when they are old. Choose which you prefer. XIII. TRAIN THEM REMEMBERING CONTINUALLY HOW GOD TRAINS HIS CHILDREN. The Bible tells us that God has an elect people,—a family in this world. All poor sinners who have been convinced of sin, and fled to Jesus for peace, make up that family. All of us who really believe on Christ for salvation are its members. Now God the Father is ever training the members of this family for their everlasting abode with Him in heaven. He acts as a husbandman pruning his vines, that they may bear more fruit. He knows the character of each of us,—our besetting sins,—our weaknesses,— our peculiar infirmities,—our special wants. He knows our works and where we dwell, who are our companions in life, and what are our trials, what our temptations, and what are our privileges. He knows all these things, and is ever ordering all for our good. He allots to each of us, in His providence, the very things we need, in order to bear the most fruit,—as much of sunshine as we can stand, and as much of rain,—as much of bitter things as we can bear, and as much of sweet. Reader, if you would train your children wisely, mark well how God the Father trains His. He doeth all things well; the plan which He adopts must be right. See, then, how many things there are which God withholds from His children. Few could be found, I suspect, among them who have not had desires which He has never been pleased to fulfil. There has often been some one thing they wanted to attain, and yet there has always been some barrier to prevent attainment. It has been just as if God was placing it above our reach, and saying, "This is not good for you; this must not be." Moses desired exceedingly to cross over Jordan, and see the goodly land of promise; but you will remember his desire was never granted. See, too, how often God leads His people by ways which seem dark and mysterious to our eyes. We cannot see the meaning of all His dealings with us; we cannot see the reasonableness of the path in which our feet are treading. Sometimes so many trials have assailed us,—so many difficulties encompassed us,—that we have not been able to discover the needs-be of it all. It has been just as if our Father was taking us by the hand into a dark place and saying, "Ask no questions, but follow Me." There was a direct road from Egypt to Canaan, yet Israel was not led into it; but round, through the wilderness. And this seemed hard at the time. "The soul of the people," we are told, "was much discouraged because of the way" (Exod. xiii. 17; Num. xxi. 4). See, also, how often God chastens His people with trial and affliction. He sends them crosses and disappointments; He lays them low with sickness; He strips them of property and friends; He changes them from one position to another; He visits them with things most hard to flesh and blood; and some of us have well-nigh fainted under the burdens laid upon us. We have felt pressed beyond strength, and have been almost ready to murmur at the hand which chastened us. Paul the Apostle had a thorn in the flesh appointed him, some bitter bodily trial, no doubt, though we know not exactly what it was. But this we know,—he besought the Lord thrice that it might be removed; yet it was not taken away (2 Cor. xii. 8, 9). Now, reader, notwithstanding all these things, did you ever hear of a single child of God who thought his Father did not treat him wisely? No, I am sure you never did. God’s children would always tell you, in the long run, it was a blessed thing they did not have their own way, and that God had done far better for them than they could have done for themselves. Yes! And they could tell you, too, that God’s dealings had provided more happiness for them than they ever would have obtained themselves, and that His way, however dark at times, was the way of pleasantness and the path of peace. I ask you to lay to heart the lesson which God’s dealings with His people is meant to teach you. Fear not to withhold from your child anything you think will do him harm, whatever his own wishes may be. This is God’s plan. Hesitate not to lay on him commands, of which he may not at present see the wisdom, and to guide him in ways which may not now seem reasonable to his mind. This is God’s plan. Shrink not from chastising and correcting him whenever you see his soul’s health requires it, however painful it may be to your feelings; and remember medicines for the mind must not be rejected because they are bitter. This is God’s plan. And be not afraid, above all, that such a plan of training will make your child unhappy. I warn you against this delusion. Depend on it, there is no surer road to unhappiness than always having our own way. To have our wills checked and denied is a blessed thing for us; it makes us value enjoyments when they come. To be indulged perpetually is the way to be made selfish; and selfish people and spoiled children, believe me, are seldom happy. Reader, be not wiser than God;—train your children as He trains His. XIV. TRAIN THEM REMEMBERING CONTINUALLY THE INFLUENCE OF YOUR OWN EXAMPLE. Instruction, and advice, and commands will profit little, unless they are backed up by the pattern of your own life. Your children will never believe you are in earnest, and really wish them to obey you, so long as your actions contradict your counsel. Archbishop Tillotson made a wise remark when he said, "To give children good instruction, and a bad example, is but beckoning to them with the head to show them the way to heaven, while we take them by the hand and lead them in the way to hell." We little know the force and power of example. No one of us can live to himself in this world; we are always influencing those around us, in one way or another, either for good or for evil, either for God or for sin.—They see our ways, they mark our conduct, they observe our behaviour, and what they see us practice, that they may fairly suppose we think right. And never, I believe, does example tell so powerfully as it does in the case of parents and children. Fathers and mothers, do not forget that children learn more by the eye than they do by the ear. No school will make such deep marks on character as home. The best of schoolmasters will not imprint on their minds as much as they will pick up at your fireside. Imitation is a far stronger principle with children than memory. What they see has a much stronger effect on their minds than what they are told. Take care, then, what you do before a child. It is a true proverb, "Who sins before a child, sins double." Strive rather to be a living epistle of Christ, such as your families can read, and that plainly too. Be an example of reverence for the Word of God, reverence in prayer, reverence for means of grace, reverence for the Lord’s day.—Be an example in words, in temper, in diligence, in temperance, in faith, in charity, in kindness, in humility. Think not your children will practice what they do not see you do. You are their model picture, and they will copy what you are. Your reasoning and your lecturing, your wise commands and your good advice; all this they may not understand, but they can understand your life. Children are very quick observers; very quick in seeing through some kinds of hypocrisy, very quick in finding out what you really think and feel, very quick in adopting all your ways and opinions. You will often find as the father is, so is the son. Remember the word that the conqueror Caesar always used to his soldiers in a battle. He did not say "Go forward," but "Come." So it must be with you in training your children. They will seldom learn habits which they see you despise, or walk in paths in which you do not walk yourself. He that preaches to his children what he does not practice, is working a work that never goes forward. It is like the fabled web of Penelope of old, who wove all day, and unwove all night. Even so, the parent who tries to train without setting a good example is building with one hand, and pulling down with the other. XV. TRAIN THEM REMEMBERING CONTINUALLY THE POWER OF SIN. I name this shortly, in order to guard you against unscriptural expectations. You must not expect to find your children’s minds a sheet of pure white paper, and to have no trouble if you only use right means. I warn you plainly you will find no such thing. It is painful to see how much corruption and evil there is in a young child’s heart, and how soon it begins to bear fruit. Violent tempers, self-will, pride, envy, sullenness, passion, idleness, selfishness, deceit, cunning, falsehood, hypocrisy, a terrible aptness to learn what is bad, a painful slowness to learn what is good, a readiness to pretend anything in order to gain their own ends,—all these things, or some of them, you must be prepared to see, even in your own flesh and blood. In little ways they will creep out at a very early age; it is almost startling to observe how naturally they seem to spring up. Children require no schooling to learn to sin. But you must not be discouraged and cast down by what you see. You must not think it a strange and unusual thing, that little hearts can be so full of sin. It is the only portion which our father Adam left us; it is that fallen nature with which we come into the world; it is that inheritance which belongs to us all. Let it rather make you more diligent in using every means which seem most likely, by God’s blessing, to counteract the mischief. Let it make you more and more careful, so far as in you lies, to keep your children out of the way of temptation. Never listen to those who tell you your children are good, and well brought up, and can be trusted. Think rather that their hearts are always inflammable as tinder. At their very best, they only want a spark to set their corruptions alight. Parents are seldom too cautious. Remember the natural depravity of your children, and take care. XVI. TRAIN THEM REMEMBERING CONTINUALLY THE PROMISES OF SCRIPTURE. I name this also shortly, in order to guard you against discouragement. You have a plain promise on your side, "Train up your child in the way he should go, and when he is old he shall not depart from it" (Prov. xxii. 6). Think what it is to have a promise like this. Promises were the only lamp of hope which cheered the hearts of the patriarchs before the Bible was written. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,—all lived on a few promises, and prospered in their souls. Promises are the cordials which in every age have supported and strengthened the believer. He that has got a plain text upon his side need never be cast down. Fathers and mothers, when your hearts are failing, and ready to halt, look at the word of this text, and take comfort. Think who it is that promises. It is not the word of a man, who may lie or repent; it is the word of the King of kings, who never changes. Hath He said a thing, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good? Neither is anything too hard for Him to perform. The things that are impossible with men are possible with God. Reader, if we get not the benefit of the promise we are dwelling upon, the fault is not in Him, but in ourselves. Think, too, what the promise contains, before you refuse to take comfort from it. It speaks of a certain time when good training shall especially bear fruit,— "when a child is old." Surely there is comfort in this. You may not see with your own eyes the result of careful training, but you know not what blessed fruits may not spring from it, long after you are dead and gone. It is not God’s way to give everything at once. "Afterwards" is the time when He often chooses to work, both in the things of nature and in the things of grace. "Afterward" is the season when affliction bears the peaceable fruit of righteousness (Heb. xii. 11). "Afterward" was the time when the son who refused to work in his father’s vineyard repented and went (Matt. xxi. 29). And "afterward" is the time to which parents must look forward if they see not success at once,—you must sow in hope and plant in hope. "Cast thy bread upon the waters," saith the Spirit, "for thou shalt find it after many days" (Eccles. xi. 1). Many children, I doubt not, shall rise up in the day of judgment, and bless their parents for good training, who never gave any signs of having profited by it during their parents’ lives. Go forward then in faith, and be sure that your labour shall not be altogether thrown away. Three times did Elijah stretch himself upon the widow’s child before it revived. Take example from him, and persevere. XVII. TRAIN THEM, LASTLY, WITH CONTINUAL PRAYER FOR A BLESSING ON ALL YOU DO. Without the blessing of the Lord, your best endeavours will do no good. He has the hearts of all men in His hands, and except He touch the hearts of your children by His Spirit, you will weary yourself to no purpose. Water, therefore, the seed you sow on their minds with unceasing prayer. The Lord is far more willing to hear than we to pray; far more ready to give blessings than we to ask them;—but He loves to be entreated for them. And I set this matter of prayer before you, as the top-stone and seal of all you do. I suspect the child of many prayers is seldom cast away. Look upon your children as Jacob did on his; he tells Esau they are "the children which God hath graciously given thy servant" (Gen. xxxiii. 5). Look on them as Joseph did on his; he told his father, "They are the sons whom God hath given me" (Gen. xlviii. 9). Count them with the Psalmist to be "an heritage and reward from the Lord" (Ps. cxxvii. 3). And then ask the Lord, with a holy boldness, to be gracious and merciful to His own gifts. Mark how Abraham intercedes for Ishmael, because he loved him, "Oh that Ishmael might live before thee" (Gen. xvii. 18). See how Manoah speaks to the angel about Samson, "How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?" (Judg. xiii. 12). Observe how tenderly Job cared for his children’s souls, "He offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all, for he said, It may be my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually" (Job i. 5). Parents, if you love your children, go and do likewise. You cannot name their names before the mercy-seat too often. And now, reader, in conclusion, let me once more press upon you the necessity and importance of using every single means in your power, if you would train children for heaven. I know well that God is a sovereign God, and doeth all things according to the counsel of His own will. I know that Rehoboam was the son of Solomon, and Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, and that you do not always see godly parents having a godly seed. But I know also that God is a God who works by means, and sure am I, if you make light of such means as I have mentioned, your children are not likely to turn out well. Fathers and mothers, you may take your children to be baptized, and have them enrolled in the ranks of Christ’s Church;—you may get godly sponsors to answer for them, and help you by their prayers;—you may send them to the best of schools, and give them Bibles and Prayer Books, and fill them with head knowledge—but if all this time there is no regular training at home, I tell you plainly, I fear it will go hard in the end with your children’s souls. Home is the place where habits are formed;—home is the place where the foundations of character are laid;—home gives the bias to our tastes, and likings, and opinions. See then, I pray you, that there be careful training at home. Happy indeed is the man who can say, as Bolton did upon his dying bed, to his children, "I do believe not one of you will dare to meet me before the tribunal of Christ in an unregenerate state." Fathers and mothers, I charge you solemnly before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, take every pains to train your children in the way they should go. I charge you not merely for the sake of your children’s souls; I charge you for the sake of your own future comfort and peace. Truly it is your interest so to do. Truly your own happiness in great measure depends on it. Children have ever been the bow from which the sharpest arrows have pierced man’s heart. Children have mixed the bitterest cups that man has ever had to drink. Children have caused the saddest tears that man has ever had to shed. Adam could tell you so; Jacob could tell you so; David could tell you so. There are no sorrows on earth like those which children have brought upon their parents. Oh! take heed, lest your own neglect should lay up misery for you in your old age. Take heed, lest you weep under the ill-treatment of a thankless child, in the days when your eye is dim, and your natural force abated. If ever you wish your children to be the restorers of your life, and the nourishers of your old age,—if you would have them blessings and not curses—joys and not sorrows—Judahs and not Reubens—Ruths and not Orpahs,—if you would not, like Noah, be ashamed of their deeds, and, like Rebekah, be made weary of your life by them: if this be your wish, remember my advice betimes, train them while young in the right way. And as for me, I will conclude by putting up my prayer to God for all who read this paper, that you…

The odd thing about Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," is this: It is successful even though it flies in the face of two distinct American theologies: iconoclastic evangelicalism and Protestant liberalism, both marked by the image of the empty cross, though for different reasons. You can't in fairness accuse the former of promoting "Christianity light," as do liberals, whose creed H. Reinhold Niebuhr described sarcastically thus: "A God without wrath brought man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without cross." Still, it is astonishing that evangelicals who, following the Reformed Protestant version of the Second Commandment, will not allow "any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" in their sanctuaries, should pour into the theaters to watch this film and be thoroughly shaken by it. What is going on here? Ministers, who will not make the sign of the cross when blessing their congregations, buy for them tickets wholesale to see for themselves the quintessential image of God, scourged, bleeding, hanging from a cross! Are we, in a sense, experiencing the end of the second great iconoclastic controversy in church history? Has the crucifix won out over the empty cross — or the absence of the cross altogether, as in some mega-churches that do not wish to trouble squeamish post-modern contemporaries with the harsh reality of Christ's suffering? Moreover, does the "Passion's" impact on Americans, which is already huge, suggest something even more profound, namely, that there is divine purpose in the denominational differences within Christ's one church? As the Rev. Aldo Giordano, secretary-general of the European Catholic Bishops' Conferences, said, "The Protestants have taught us to take Scripture more seriously." And as the Rev. Fred Anderson, senior pastor of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in Manhattan admitted, "The Catholics have always faithfully pointed to the cross to remind us of the cost of our sin to God." There is much hullabaloo both in the United States and already in Europe, where the "Passion of the Christ" won't be shown until Maundy Thursday, over the extent of the film's violence. Must a work of art be so drastic? Could it no be a little less troubling, you know, more of a politically correct balsam to the soul? Must we really know what it looked like when the Romans scourged people about to be crucified? When they beat them with whips whose leather strips bore metal balls that dug deep into the victim's muscle tearing out chunks of flesh and exposing the bone beneath, as biologist Cathleen Shrier of Azusa Pacific University describes this procedure? "It is as it was," Pope John Paul II is reported to have said after previewing the film. But is this reason enough to show this to a society that, in the sarcastic words of Boston University's church historian Carter Lindberg, "doesn't want to have crucified people hanging around"? Is this the proper form of edification, for example, for feminist theologians constantly attempting to re-imagine Christ to the point of trying to do away with "bleeding men dangling from a tree," as one of their leaders opined a few years ago at an event where they "consecrated" a Eucharist with milk and honey to celebrate female body juices? It is of course sheer coincidence that Gibson's movie opened just days before that Sunday in the year when Eastern Orthodoxy commemorates the final restoration of icons in 843 A.D. after the iconoclastic controversy that had ravaged the Greek Church for over a century. Orthodoxy, too, has also always known the empty cross, Gabriel Jay Rochelle, one of its theologians, explained. But this is only so in the Easter procession when the crucifer turns the cross he carries around so that the congregation does not see at first Christ's body. Gibson does nothing new in showing Christ's passion in its utter grisliness, Rochelle said. He simply uses contemporary means to do so. The ancient Eastern icon of the gaunt Christ figure standing in a coffin has doubtless had the same effect on the faithful centuries ago. It is called "extreme humility," a term that Gibson would presumably also accept for his Christ. Where, other than the fact that this happens to be a movie, is the qualitative difference between "The Passion of the Christ" and the haunting images of Matthias Gruenewald's Isenheim altar (1515 A.D.), where the blood flows from Jesus' feet as abundantly as in the film? Where, too, is the difference between the ugly mobs and sadistic Roman torturers in Gibson's "Passion" and the frightening rabble taunting Jesus in Hieronymus Bosch's famous painting, Christ carrying the Cross (ca. 1450)? Princeton Seminary church historian Paul Rorem finds it remarkable that evangelicals suddenly discover their interest in images, an interest the Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans have always had simply because it was God the Father who superseded the Second Commandment of Judaism and Reformed Protestantism by presenting us with the definitive image of himself — in Christ. It seems that just as Protestantism rendered an enormous service to Catholicism by guiding it back to Scripture, Gibson's Catholicism is now doing faithful Protestants a favor by showing them a dreadful sight none of us really relishes: the harshest truth of Christian faith. This may not fit into the mushy climate of post-modern pussyfooting. But perhaps the time has come to end all that and put the crucifix and the empty cross back in their proper order — there is no resurrection before death. END

"THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" – BY MICHAEL J. MCMANUS On Ash Wednesday Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" opened on an unprecedented 4,643 screens in America to packed crowds. If 300 people were in each one, 1.4 million people witnessed this epic film on its first day. In Dallas, despite a cold rainy day, 6,000 people attended 21 screenings in one theater complex at 6:30 AM, 7:30 and 8:30 thanks to a $42,000 gift by Arch Bonemma. He donated 3,000 tickets to his megachurch, Prestonwood Baptist. Members had to bring an unchurched friend. He gave another 1,000 to Dallas Theological Seminary, and others to juniors and seniors at Christian schools, to homeless shelters, and business acquaintances. Six weeks ago, Dallas clergy were invited to a private screening, but many turned it down. Arch Bonemma, 50, and his son Jacob were invited to fill in. As they walked out, Arch said to his son, "I feel I have not sacrificed enough. I want to lead a life more worthy of the sacrifice of Jesus — to be a better husband and father." Jacob replied, "I agree. We ought to reach out to our community and give them this incredibly moving experience. We need to get as many people going as early as possible, to prove Hollywood wrong that no one will want to see it." That sort of Christian generosity generated $10 million of advance sales. I know a church that bought 10,500 tickets. A new church attended by Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, bought 300 tickets. Her reaction to the film? "To be honest, I've studied Scripture, but the crucifixion was more horrid than I imagined. Based on the Bible, the Gospel writers turned their faces away. Mel Gibson studied Roman crucifixions. It was so much more brutal than I would have thought....It has a message for the church. God wants to confront the church with the horrific nature of our sins. There are a lot of people who claim Jesus as Savior, but we tolerate sin in our lives. We play around with it. God demands holiness. It's time for the church to get right with God." While evangelicals thought the film would convert many of the unchurched, I'm doubtful. However, it will deepen the faith of believers like Mrs. Lotz and the Bonnemas. Imam Yassir Fazuga, leader of a California mosque, said, "As an 'unchurched' person, I really do not think it has added any more knowledge to me about the character of Jesus. I really do not get the point of why the violence was the focal point of the movie." Frankly, that was not explained well. One needed to know the life of Christ to fully appreciate the film, plus Hebrews 9:14 and 26 that the blood of Christ "cleanse our consciences" of sin "by the sacrifice of himself." Darrell Bock, a theologian at Dallas Theological Seminary, says the film "is not designed to answer questions; it is designed to raise them." However, Bock is right that "it was an incredibly powerful film that visualizes one of the most important events of religious history. The gospels do not spend time detailing the nature of his suffering because in that time they'd have understood what crucifixion was." Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League charged that "The Passion" was anti-Semitic. I do not agree. Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin was rushed, and at night. Some said, "Where are the other members of the Council? This is a travesty." Caiaphas, the high priest, who persuaded a reluctant Pilate to order Jesus' death, was repugnant. But the Roman soldiers who laughed as they whipped him were more disgusting. Some Jews in the crowd were sympathetic to Jesus. Of course, Jesus, Mary and all the disciples were Jews. In seeing "Schindler's List" we end up hating Nazis, not all Germans. Finally, when Pilate washed his hands saying "I am innocent of this man's blood," the crowd shouted in Aramaic, "Let his blood be on us and our children," but Mel Gibson removed a subtitle with those words. And Gibson's own hands drove the nail into Jesus' hand, symbolizing the Christian belief that the sins of all of us were responsible for his death. I was troubled by the very brief Resurrection scene. One hears the stone rolled away and a healed Jesus rises to walk into the sunlight. We don't see the joy of the disciples. But everyone I interviewed felt it was "brilliantly understated," as Fuller Seminary's Craig Detweiler put it. "By doing less, he allowed the audience to believe it more." END TXT Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

TV Program Transcript — Australian Broadcasting Corporation Reporter: Tony Jones President Bush’s statements have naturally echoed here in Australia, where, late last year, the Prime Minister argued passionately against legalising gay marriage. “You’re talking here about the survival of the species,” Mr. Howard told an interviewer in Darwin. But at least one very senior churchman is offering up a third way—not gay marriage as such, but recognition of lifelong friendships between two homosexuals, which would give them the same legal status as a heterosexual married couple. TONY JONES: Archbishop Carnley, President Bush says he’s been driven to act by activist courts to prevent the meaning of marriage being changed forever. Do you have any sympathy for his action? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: I think I understand where he’s coming from. I think he’s wanting to defend the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman from attack. Whether he’s quite right in his analysis of that, I very much doubt—because I think you have to remember that homosexual people only make up less than 10 per cent of the community, and I think the other 90 per cent is able to sustain the institution of marriage if it wanted to. I think the interesting thing about the present is that marriage between heterosexual peoples is a bit shaky these days. I think there’s so much divorce and fracture of relationships and de facto relationships—and a disinclination to commit at all. So I think that’s probably more serious than what is happening amongst gay people. TONY JONES: Do you think it would change the equation at all if gay couples did not use the term ‘marriage’, did not appropriate that term? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: I personally do think that. I think it would help their cause—in fact, I’ve always argued that marriage is properly used of male and female relationships, and we should in fact term same-sex relationships friendships in the first instance, rather than marriage. I don’t know of too many gay people who, if they are in a long-term committed relationship, want to see themselves as husbands and wives, for example. I think it’s a much more equal relationship of friends. TONY JONES: Tell me—George Bush was obviously horrified by this, but what did you think when you saw the thousands of gay couples lining up to have their unions made legal outside San Francisco City Hall? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Well, I was rather uncomfortable with it myself a bit. I thought it was all a bit frivolous—and you had to ask yourself whether these relationships were really serious, long-term, committed relationships—or if this was just a bit of a stunt. And I think real, solid relationships probably are formed in private and quietly—rather than that very public, festive kind of atmosphere. TONY JONES: But you’re not opposed to gay unions being made legal. ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Well, it depends on the reason. I think I understand it if same-sex partnerships want to be legalised in some way—for holding property together, for example, to secure inheritance, superannuation payments, and—very importantly—to claim the responsibilities or rights of next of kin if one of them happens to die. I think I can understand all that. So to register a relationship for those purposes I think is understandable—and I don’t think you have to use the term ‘marriage’ of it. TONY JONES: The President—and here the PM—have got themselves deeply involved in this issue. Do you think it would be divisive in Australia if it became an election issue here as it’s clearly going to be in the US? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Oh, I think it would be divisive—because I think people take strong views on either side on this issue. Some people are very threatened by gay people claiming to be entering into a relationship which is more or less a marriage. I think people would divide over it. It would be a divisive issue. I have no doubt about that. TONY JONES: Since our laws are essentially based on a system of morality, would you be at all concerned that changing the laws to create legal gay unions would somehow give moral righteousness to those unions? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Yes. That would be the next step, I think. That’s a question that is very greatly debated at the moment—particularly in the Christian churches themselves. There is a very open debate about how we should deal pastorally with gay and lesbian people. I think we have to acknowledge that—and I think we have to acknowledge that even Christian people read the biblical texts relating to homosexual relationships in different ways. So there’s certainly a debate going on about that—but I think that’s quite a different debate from the debate about legalising relationships so that one person can be recognised as the next of kin of another, for example. I don’t think that’s a difficult moral question at all. TONY JONES: I know that a few years ago you recommended that your church consider blessing monogamous, committed gay relationships. Do you still believe that? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: I think I was talking in terms of the blessing of a friendship. If you think of same-sex relationships in the terms of the category of friendship, I think that takes a lot of heat out of it—because I think there’s nothing wrong with blessing friendships. I think that’s perfectly all right. But that avoids—or doesn’t address—the moral question of what is to happen in terms of behaviour within those relationships. I think that’s another question. TONY JONES: But it is effectively a way of blessing a gay marriage without calling it marriage—a sort of splitting hairs, isn’t it? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Well, no—I don’t think it is splitting hairs. Because I think it is possible for people to be friends, even to live together in the same house, for example. We used to think when I grew up of same-sex relationships as relationships between people we called bachelors—and we didn’t even think of what might happen in bedrooms. And I think what happens in bedrooms is very much more an individual decision that couples must make according to their own conscience—and I think the churches can give them advice on that. Unfortunately, the churches’ advice at the moment is probably pretty various—different advice—and that’s because we’ve not reached the point of a mature mind on it. We’re still debating the issues. TONY JONES: A mature mind… I mean—you have suggested to your own church that it needs to come to terms with the reality of gay relationships. What do you mean essentially by that? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Well—they exist. Gay relationships certainly exist. And whilst some heterosexual people might say that those relationships are unnatural, if you talk to the gay people themselves, they’ll say what is unnatural for them would be a heterosexual relationship. So you cannot appeal to a kind of natural law to solve this problem. I think it’s a much more complex problem—and I think the churches have got to look again at the biblical material, they’ve got to look at the natural law argument, and just think through the whole issue. And I think you have to do that realising that there certainly are in the world real people who are in real same-sex relationships. You cannot avoid it. TONY JONES: You mentioned, looking again at the biblical material—and to some degree you have been doing that in one of your recent papers—you seem to suggest that there are parts of the Scriptures which appear to accept same-sex relationships. ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Oh, well—yes. The story of David and Jonathan, for example—a very intense friendship of two males. I think that’s a very clear story in the Scriptures. And the story of Ruth and Naomi too—two women with a very intense and loyal friendship. I think they are clear stories that can be brought to bear on this particular issue. TONY JONES: In the case of David and Jonathan—it’s in the Book of Samuel, I think—it talks about a relationship that is wonderful, even greater than that of a woman—a love even greater than that of a woman. Are they, do you believe, the Scriptures there talking about a homosexual relationship? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: No—I don’t think they are. I think they’re talking about a relationship between two men of a very deep and loyal kind. I think they’re not talking about a homosexual relationship as we would think of one today—because the concept of a homosexual person, an exclusively oriented homosexual person, is a 19th-century concept. It was a discovery of the 19th century. So that certainly wasn’t in the minds of the biblical writers. I think when the biblical writers wrote, they thought that all human beings were heterosexual—and what we could call today homosexual behaviour was therefore a deviant behaviour. But we might not think of that in that way today. TONY JONES: There are not hints, do you believe, in that section of the Scriptures that their relationship may have been sexual? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: I don’t think there are too many hints. Some writers try and read that into it—but I think it is a neutral text on that one myself. TONY JONES: And you also raise, somewhat ambiguously—if I may say so—the question of Jesus and His relationships with men. And in particular you refer to the disciple—the male disciple in this case—whom Jesus loved. ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Yeah—a good example of a same-sex relationship—of what I would call friendship: a deep loyalty and love. It is nothing to do with sexuality at this point. TONY JONES: But when the issue of sexuality is raised alongside these examples—what is the point you are seeking to make? Because those who oppose your way of looking at it would simply say: if there’s no sex involved, it isn’t a homosexual relationship—no comparison. ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Well—I think the first category to clarify is whether you are going to speak of same-sex relationships as marriage or basically friendship—and I think they are two different things. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman—a husband and wife—basically for the purpose of mutual support, but also for bringing children into the world and to create an intergenerational family. And I think basically a homosexual relationship is a relationship of a different kind—and that’s why I don’t want to use the category of marriage in relation to it. I think it’s fundamentally a friendship. Now—just what behaviours can go on in that relationship is what we have to sort out. TONY JONES: In recognising, though—as you call it—the reality of those relationships, do you believe the Church should ultimately accept gay sex as being a legitimate part of that relationship? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: Well—it’s hard to know. I think if you did a count of Christians in churches these days, you’d get a mixed message. But there are certainly a lot of people I know in Christian congregations who are not too fazed by the presence of gay couples in the congregations. Just what those gay couples do at home—and in their bedroom—is just not a question that people raise. They accept them simply as human beings—and relate to them as human beings and support them as human beings—and I think that’s probably a good thing. TONY JONES: Can I ask—what do you think about that? Do you believe what they do in the privacy of their own homes—that is, gay sex—is immoral? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: I think it’s basically a question for them to decide. I think it’s a personal question—an individual question—and they have to decide that in accordance with their own conscience. And I think the Church is in the position where it must clarify its teachings so that it can point them in one direction or another. And it just is a fact in the Christian churches at the moment that there is great diversity on that matter. So my role in the Anglican Church, for example, is to try and lead our congregations through a study process—to come to terms with the complexities of the issue—and to study the texts and the various arguments that are put together for and against homosexual behaviour—and just commend it to homosexual people as the best advice we can give them for the moment. But I think in the course of time that will clarify. TONY JONES: Archbishop—one final question: it comes out of what you just said. Do you regard sexual morality as being subjective? ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: No—no, I don’t. I think it has to be argued publicly. I think it’s possible to say, for example, that it is objectively quite clear that promiscuity is a bad thing. I think we can say that—and we can say it for good reason. We can say it is a health hazard, for example—and so I would say very clearly and objectively that promiscuity is a bad thing, and that faithfulness in relationships is a very good thing. I think that’s objectively supportable too. I think the problem is when you start to talk about same-sex relationships—long-term, committed relationships—you have got something which can qualify to be called faithful. And if the Bible is in support of faithful relationships, that particular argument would lead you to support faithful same-sex relationships. So that’s the kind of debate we’re in. TONY JONES: Archbishop—unfortunately, we’re out of time. We could probably talk about this for a great deal longer—but we thank you very much for taking the time to join us tonight. ARCHBISHOP PETER CARNLEY: It’s a pleasure—and the churches will talk about it for a great deal longer, I can assure you. END

The Primate of Australia, the Most Rev. Peter Carnley of Perth, has issued a stinging attack on the evangelical Diocese of Sydney and its leader, Archbishop Peter Jensen. “Sydney Anglicanism,” Dr. Carnley argues in his book Reflections in Glass, is out of synch with “mainstream Anglicanism” and holds fundamentalist or erroneous views on Scripture, women clergy, lay presidency at the Eucharist, bioethics, fetal embryo research, ecumenism, and interfaith dialogue. In his new book, Dr. Carnley takes issue with the prominence that evangelicals give to the doctrine of the atonement. The Church’s traditional teaching of the atonement—whereby a sinless Christ takes upon Himself the sins of the world and pays the debt of this sin through His atoning death upon the cross—is “uncompromisingly cruel” and a medieval accretion. The Evangelical doctrine of a penal substitutionary atonement, he argues, paints God as a cruel master who demands payment of sin from the innocent Christ, and is unjust. It is wrong for Evangelicals to make the atonement a core doctrine of the faith, he argues, as it was only fully articulated in the medieval era and was not defined by the creeds and councils of the undivided Church.

The Rt. Rev. George Wayne Smith Bishop of Missouri 28 February 2004 Bishop Smith, As with your letter of 26 February, I write to you with deep sadness in the aftermath of recent events. With the receipt of your letter, however, I feel that I must now make my voice heard and respond to the issues you have raised. As you have chosen to address only the symptoms of the sickness which has invaded the Body of Christ, I must prayerfully remind you of their cause. I would bring to your attention the words of the Apostle Paul to his son Titus: “For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word he has been taught.” (Titus 1:7–9). When the House of Bishops, with your blessing, confirmed the election of Gene Robinson to be a Bishop of Christ’s Church, they did not merely express a loving acceptance of homosexuals, as Christ would have done. What they did was endorse homosexuality, adultery, and the violation of the sacred vows of marriage as exemplary expressions of faith in accordance with God’s word. Yet God’s word is abundantly and indisputably clear on this subject. Adultery and homosexuality are not blameless, just, holy, or temperate—they are sins. These opposing views cannot be reconciled. To appoint as a steward of God a man who is openly and unrepentantly guilty of these sins is to deny and abandon the power and authority of God’s word, as given to us in Scripture. This, tragically, is just what the House of Bishops has done. And I would ask you—if the church is no longer firmly founded upon the rock of God’s word, what is it founded upon? Where does it derive its authority? The answer appears to be that you, and many of your fellow bishops, have chosen to found it upon the ever-shifting sands of popular culture. But a church that does not abide by the word of God clearly cannot be God’s church—so whose church has the Episcopal Church of the United States become? I saw an interview with Gene Robinson in which he said that if people chose to leave his church because of his election, that was their problem. I think that statement, aside from revealing the actual depth of his spiritual commitment, encompasses the truth of the matter. The Episcopal Church has now become Gene Robinson’s church—a church of man, not of God. You say in your letter that the Episcopal Church is spacious enough to encompass vastly divergent opinions and that we need not assent to exactly the same theologies. Indeed, the Episcopal Church, in seeking to accommodate the fickle desires of men, has now become so spacious—and encompasses such vastly divergent opinions—that it is no longer possible to find within it the theology contained in the gospel of Christ. Again, I commend to your attention the words of the Apostle Paul, to the Churches of Galatia: “As we said before, so say I now again: if any man preach any other gospel than that you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:9–10). Also consider Paul’s admonition to the Colossians: “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and stabilized in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:6–8). The breadth of theology that the Episcopal Church is now willing to embrace is precisely why it continues to diminish. Those who are in search of God seek a rock upon which to anchor their lives—not a weathervane to show them which way the wind blows. That rock is the unchanging word of God, as given to us in His Scriptures. The Episcopal Church has become a weathervane. Throughout your letter runs an undercurrent—the implication that we are being blindly and reluctantly herded down a path by a priest and wardens who are acting without our knowledge or consent. You say that the leaders of the Church of the Good Shepherd have taken us from the fold of the Episcopal Church. I tell you in all truth that they have not taken us anywhere. We have remained steadfastly where we were, and they have remained with us. It is the small and ever-shrinking Episcopal Church that has left us. You have left the Church of the Good Shepherd, the much vaster fold of the vibrant and growing Anglican Communion, and the body of Christ’s wider church on Earth. Having denied the authority of Scripture, having deviated from 2,000 years of Christian tradition, and having ignored the pleadings of godly men from around the world, the Episcopal Church has been justly and widely rebuked and condemned for its faithless actions by those who still remain true to the word and works of God. When the House of Bishops chose to abandon adherence to Scripture, they also abandoned any pretense of godly authority. Yet you would have it otherwise—you would admonish us not to break with an Episcopal Church that has been admonished for breaking with the teachings of God, and with the accepted doctrines of the Anglican Communion. Bishop Smith, unlike the Episcopal Church, we choose to remain faithful to those doctrines—and within that communion. You enjoin us from doing what you yourself have done. You urge us to acquiesce, to come along, and to join the Episcopal Church in its retreat from God’s teachings. But we have other guidance: “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:8–11). Goodbye, I say—but not God speed. You tell us that you offered to allow us pastoral oversight by a bishop acceptable to both you and Father Paul. I tell you that Paul was right, and wise, to reject this compromise—for it reduces the momentous issues with which we are wrestling to a personal dispute between you and our rector, a dispute which ends whenever either of you eventually retires from the stage. But this is not an issue of personalities—it is an issue of faith, an issue of doctrine. Paul may retire, you may retire, but the actions of the General Convention, and the repudiation of the word of God by the Episcopal Church, will remain. A temporary accommodation does not alter this fact in any way—and it would be to our eternal disgrace if we allowed ourselves to be tempted from the difficult path of truth by such an empty solution. You warn us of anger—but we act not in anger, rather in steadfast faith. And though anger does not sustain (look to yourself as well, Bishop Smith), faith surely does—as it surely will. You warn us of the consequences of severing our ties with the Episcopal Church—the ill that has befallen those who have gone before. You tempt us with the sweet prospect that we can avoid the dissent, the disunity, and the inevitable collapse which you predict—and which you do not wish to see befall us. That all will be forgiven if we, and Father Paul, simply recant. All we need do to avoid these evils is accept the actions of the House of Bishops, deny the authority of Scripture, ignore the tenets of the Anglican Communion, and agree to remain within the grasp of a church that has abandoned God in favor of men. In short—we only need accept heresy as gospel. As Jesus said to Peter: “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matthew 16:23). Finally, I was so struck by something about your letter that I could not in good faith close without pointing it out to you. You refer to Constitutions, to charters, and to canons—but never once to Scripture. Indeed, your entire tone is more that of a corporate executive than of a Steward of God. I beg you to prayerfully reflect upon this—and consider God’s will—as I leave you with one final passage: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” “And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods.” (Joshua 24:15–16). Yours in Christ, Erik H. White Parishioner, Church of the Good Shepherd St. Louis, MO.

News Analysis — By David W. Virtue Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison, in his monthly diocesan message “The Power of Time,” says that Anglican understanding of core doctrine is the ‘power of time’ and not the substance of the ‘faith once delivered.’ He cited Michael Peers, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, a revisionist bishop like himself, whose tenure saw a massive departure from the church and the closing of hundreds of parishes. But ‘time’ of its very essence deals with chronology—the interval between two events or the hour of the day. It has no substance in and of itself. But then Bennison shows his hand. He said, “when that question was raised at the Primates’ Meeting last October over Gene Robinson’s consecration, we agreed that the core doctrine of Anglicans is a belief in the power of time.” So Bennison’s argument is that given enough ‘time,’ the whole communion will come around to believing that the consecration of a divorced sodomite to the episcopacy will be ratified and brokered into the Anglican Communion. Time will do it—nothing else. Not the faith, not Scripture, not theology, not the church’s history—just time. With ludicrous logic, “time” itself becomes a ‘core doctrine.’ This is a fantasist’s dream. In time anyone who wants to have a “core” bi-sexual relationship may do so. All they have to do is move through a period of “reception,” but in the meantime the bi-sexual can maintain the relationship because the Episcopal Church gives them that right because of local option. Bennison goes on to illustrate his point by recalling Dean Inge (1860–1954) of St. Paul’s, London, who questioned the resurrection of Jesus. Citing a professor, he says, “Look, the dean will die someday. Then there will be a new dean who will believe in the resurrection and, so, too, at that point will the old dean!” Really. And what Biblical texts does Bennison use to sustain the view that anyone, especially a bishop, gets to have a second crack at salvation having spent his life decrying what he was ordained to uphold and preach? And was Bennison thinking of himself perhaps? Then Bennison goes on to argue that “given enough time, insoluble problems sort themselves out…without our intervention.” Bennison reels off a string of historical events where the church allegedly believed one thing and then changed its mind—and concludes with this priceless line: “through the process of reception, the whole church tests new ideas and embodies them only when it finds them credible.” So the Episcopal Church finds sodomy credible, but the Global South bishops—in fact, 95 percent of the Anglican Communion—don’t. And Frank Griswold goes ahead and participates in a consecration he swore he wouldn’t, or at least until the mind of the church had been announced—which it hasn’t done. Furthermore, Bennison makes no mention of Scripture as part of that decisive “reception.” Presumably that’s irrelevant. Then Bennison drops a clanger. He says this: “The Eames Report makes clear why we must maintain the communion of St. James the Less, Philadelphia, All Saints’, Wynnewood, and Good Shepherd, Rosemont.” Bennison has failed miserably to live by the Eames Report. He has taken “intervention” to new heights. He has sued these parishes in court for their properties; he is suing their vestries; he has tried tossing Fr. Ousley out of his rectory; and he has inhibited and deposed the president of Forward in Faith North America, Fr. David Moyer, the rector of a thriving congregation. To top off his bulldozer approach to traditionalists, he told the Church of England’s leading traditionalist Bishop John Broadhurst that he was not welcome to preach and celebrate at Good Shepherd last summer. For Bennison, “reception” means receiving any lunatic idea of the moment—from his own Visigoth Rite, to ordaining sodomites to the priesthood (add a bishop to that list), and much more. Where does “reception” end…on a plain with Sufi Rumi and Frank Griswold? Bennison doesn’t get it. Fully three quarters of the Anglican Communion are not in communion with ECUSA or him. They have “received” that—and that will be a permanent “reception” unless he repents. And if we are in a time of patience and waiting, why did ECUSA mandate women’s ordination in 1997 at the General Convention in Philadelphia when both Rome and Orthodoxy have spoken definitively against this—and it is even a minority position in the Anglican Communion? Furthermore, “reception” is constantly being pre-empted by something called local option—which means anything goes, even if you can’t get a resolution passed at General Convention. It is the most dishonest, disingenuous misuse of the church’s constitution to be found. And Bennison knows that—that is why his “message” in the March issue of the Pennsylvania Episcopalian is a complete fiction. Bennison talks about “openness.” He writes: “openness needs to be recognized and accepted by those on both sides of the debate.” Really. What “openness” is Bennison exercising with multiple lawsuits and his coercive and heavy-handed acts on parishes that don’t conform to his brand of openness? Openness for Bennison is using the canons and constitutions on parishes that don’t conform to his understanding of openness—which means deep-sixing the “received” teaching of the Christian Faith, which he no longer “receives.” Bennison cannot, with any honesty or integrity, uphold basic “core” doctrines because he doesn’t believe them. He wouldn’t answer four doctrinal questions as a means to end the controversy. All Bennison had to do was affirm what every Sunday School child has learned for 2,000 years. Bennison: “There needs to be an openness to the possibility of the new thing being accepted by the church or rejected by the church. It also entails a willingness to live with diversity throughout the ‘reception’ process.” So Frank Griswold’s total disobedience and high-handed action in consecrating V. Gene Robinson was in the spirit of “reception” or “time”—when all the Primates signed off saying they would never ordain a known sodomite—and Bennison says this is acceptable? Bennison: “Living with diversity throughout the ‘reception’ process” is another way of saying, ‘I’ll do whatever I damn well please and you had better accept it as ‘diversity’—and whether it is received or not, we will go right on doing it anyway.’ Can you imagine the Episcopal Church renouncing V. Gene Robinson’s orders if the vast majority of the Anglican Communion says it will never, never, never accept that consecration as authentic and true—that broken communion with ECUSA is forever unless it repents of its action? If that day ever comes, the heavens would rent and God would announce that his beloved son Frank would sit at His right hand forever and ever—and we would have to worship him throughout all eternity while he, Frank, was dressed in the finest soutane available. Trust me—it will never happen. The Diocese of Pennsylvania is in financial free fall. Bennison is short over half a million dollars to run the diocese. Checkbooks are closing, parishioners are leaving, he is closing down churches and will close more in the future. Historic churches are selling off their artifacts and more. And Bennison is reinventing the faith—hoping that time will take care of everything. END