PASTOR YOUCEF: REAL REVELATION-STYLE PERSECUTION

The imminent execution of Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is real Revelation-style persecution of Christians, in contrast to the minor inconveniences for UK Christians.

And yes not being allowed to wear a cross at work is a minor inconvenience.

The White House has rightly condemned Iran for reportedly issuing the order for Pastor Youcef to be hanged. But such condemnation shows how powerless the United States of America, for all its economic and military might, is to stop the persecution of Christians in Islamist countries it does not invade.

And even in Islamist countries it does invade.

Anti-Christian authorities in nations such as Iran that are determined to persecute the Lord Jesus Christ's servants are able to do so. And the book of Revelation warns us that they will be until the victorious Lamb of God returns:

And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months; it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain (Revelation 13v5-8 -RSV).

With his martyrdom apparently imminent, Pastor Youcef is one of the saints about to come out of the great tribulation;

they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7v14).

Refusing repeatedly to renounce the Name of Christ, he has been prepared to endure unto death, revealing to us Western Christians how relatively little we endure.

This piece - David Cameron & Holy Communion - appeared on Archbishop Cranmer.

GEORGE CAREY & THE DILEMMA OF THE INSIDE STRATEGY

This first appeared on VirtueOnline:

George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, has come out all guns blazing in the battle against same-sex marriage in the UK. In this, he bears some resemblance to the Robert Vaughan character in The Magnificent Seven. VOL readers may recall the demoralised gunslinger cowering behind a wall in the heat of the battle for the oppressed Mexican village but then finding his courage and gunning down a group of bandits, before expiring heroically.

God willing, Lord Carey will be totting his spiritual and moral six-gun for a while yet from his mount in the House of Lords and the Daily Mail. UK Christianity certainly needs his new-found outspokenness. He is the most prominent public figure behind the new Coalition for Marriage, backed by evangelical groups such as the Christian Institute, Christian Concern and the Evangelical Alliance.

C4M has been formed to defend the current UK legal definition of marriage as 'the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others' against Prime Minister David Cameron's bid to redefine this wonderful God-created institution.

Lord Carey was the classic product of the post-1960s Anglican evangelical inside strategy. Back in the glam rock days of the 1970s, younger Anglican evangelicals were being encouraged by their leaders to engage with the denominational structures of the Church of England and gain positions of influence in the hierarchy. George Carey was one of them, becoming Bishop of Bath and Wells in the 1980s before being the surprise choice as Archbishop of Canterbury by the then Prime Minister Mrs Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

It may be an over-statement to describe him as cowering behind a wall but his time as Archbishop was not especially marked by bold outspokenness for orthodox Anglican truth against liberal revisionism. The issue he spoke most passionately in favour of at the beginning of his tenure was the ordination of women, a liberal preoccupation.

The Anglican grouping that seemed to irk him most was Reform, whom he accused of bully-boy tactics over quota-capping (that is the witholding of the parish share paid by local churches to dioceses).

He was supportive of the orthodox Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 over the passing of Resolution 1.10, so was arguably beginning to find his form towards the end of his time as Archbishop of Canterbury.

But no conservative evangelical diocesan bishop was appointed during his time whilst some most unfortunate liberal appointments were made. He refused to provide conservative evangelical opponents of women priests with their own flying bishops but was happy to allow Anglo-Catholics theirs.

Far from transforming the institutional Church of England as an evangelical, George Carey seemed to have been transformed by the institution.

He seemed to be the personification of the failure of the Anglican evangelical inside strategy.

But then he retired as Archbishop just as New Labour was enacting a slew of politically correct legislation in the Noughties. Freed from the burden of office in a theologically mixed denomination, Lord Carey has spoken up boldly both in Parliament and in the popular press in favour of traditional marriage and family life and, most effectively, for Christian freedom of expression in the UK.

It is not an over-statement to say that without Lord Carey's bold parliamentary advocacy a 'religious hatred' law could well have been passed under New Labour in 2006 severely impeding Christians from proclaiming the supremacy and uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ against other worldviews, particularly Islam.

Whilst the institution Lord Carey once led has been less than prophetic against political correctness, he has been.

And therein lies the rub - it is the former Archbishop of Canterbury who is standing up for Christianity in the UK against political correctness. However, if he had not pursued the inside strategy and become Archbishop of Canterbury, then he would not have the platform he currently has to speak up for Christian truth on the national stage.

Isn't that illustrative of the dilemma around the inside strategy for Anglican evangelicals in the Church of England?

This piece about the new Coalition for Marriage appeared on Christian Today.

CHURCHES MUST RALLY FOR MARRIAGE

The peaceful public demonstration in which Christian virtue can be argued for is God's gift to Britain.

Fallen humanity never finds difficulty in staging a riot or an act of violent disorder. But the phenomenon of an orderly, respectful rally for a good cause grew in the biblically-enriched cultural soil of a Christian-influenced Parliamentary democracy.

The new Coalition for Marriage, launched today, has a spiritual and moral responsibility to honour the historic legacy of the great public campaigns of Britain's Christian past, such as those against the slave trade in the 18th century and against industrial exploitation in the 19th. Those campaigns for humanity against injustice were advanced by large-scale public meetings.

C4M, which is backed by the Christian Institute, CARE, Christian Concern, the Evangelical Alliance, and the Family Education Trust, is gathering signatures for a petition against the Coalition's bid to redefine marriage. That is a positive move but a petition, however long, presented to the Prime Minister by a delegation does not have the same impact as a mass demonstration in central London.

If local churches around the UK cannot get their members out in significant numbers for a rally on an issue as biblically central as this one, then public Christianity in the UK would be sounding its own death-knell by default.

The consequences of same-sex marriage for local churches, Christian outreach networks to children and young people and church schools would be catastrophic. Political correctness would be given free rein to corrupt the minds of the next generation with its poisonous ideology.

The Lord Jesus Christ publicly defended the God-created institution of monogamous, heterosexual, life-long marriage. He did so before large crowds in the course of his public ministry in Galilee and argued the biblical case against powerful vested interests (see Matthew 19v1-12 and Mark 10v1-12).

We his followers must take our Lord's lead and avail ourselves of the privilege of peaceful public demonstration, which faithful British Christians in the past campaigned for at great personal cost and exercised.

A rally featuring Bible teaching, Christian advocacy and public prayer in central London against the destructive politically correct drive to countermand the Word of God is imperative.

REASONS FOR STAYING IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Cranmer's Curate has been challenged to explain why he is staying in the Church of England rather than joining the Baptists. Your curate would politely refute any comparison between staying in and propping up the bar in the hospitality suite of The Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Here is why cc is not leaving:

• Why should it be assumed that the institutional Church of England will continue on its liberal trajectory indefinitely? God has not revealed his secret will for the Church of England or for his Church in England. It is quite possible that in the future the Church of England, if it still exists, will decide to reverse the liberalising measures passed by the General Synod in the past 25 years. It is quite possible that a future Archbishop of Canterbury will be a member of Reform, and that the Reform Covenant will be included in the official doctrine of the Church of England. The biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God involves believing that the Church of England is reformable.

• A new orthodox Anglican denomination in the UK following the advent of women bishops would benefit from gospel partnership with those staying in the Church of England and vice versa. A new parallel structure is becoming necessary for the deployment of young Anglican evangelical ministers in Bible teaching, evangelism and church planting. Starting off in ministry as a confessing Anglican in the Church of England is certainly a different proposition from staying in once established. It would be for the over-all benefit of orthodox Anglican ministry in the UK for some of us to stay in the institutional Church and continue to contend for the gospel.

• Because the confessional basis of the Church of England is sound, it is possible to contend for the biblical gospel within it. Our historic formularies in our 39 Articles of Religion, our Book of Common Prayer, and our Ordinal are biblically faithful. Those historic repositories of biblical truth mean that in disputes with liberal revisionists in the denomination one can argue for biblical orthodoxy from a sound basis not only about the content of what one is teaching but also the manner in which one is teaching it. If any one claims that the Church of England disparages robust biblical instruction, then they should read the BCP exhortation before the invitation to the Lord's Supper. Here is a flavour:

Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come to the holy Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, must consider how Saint Paul exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us:) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily.

• The Church of England remains represented in some of the most socially, morally and economically challenging parts of the country. In some areas it is the last Christian presence left standing. A new orthodox Anglican denomination is going to have to work very hard not to get confined to affluent suburban areas. The Church of England provides platforms for the biblical gospel, or to pursue the nautical analogy, life boats for the salvation of souls drowning in the icy waters of militant secularism. If applied properly, the system of accountability in our connectional Church, with large church ministers operating under the same episcopal licence as small church ones, serves gospel growth in a diversity of settings.

• Because women were not ordained presbyter when our historic formularies were framed, one can remain in the Church of England in good conscience as an opponent of women presbyters and now bishops. What happens if cc were to find himself in a diocese with a women bishop? Unfortunately, he would not be able to recognise her orders, and then it would be for the institution to decide what to do with the curate. If the diocesan authorities wished to deprive him of office, then that would be a matter for them.

• The current Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a formidable opponent of political correctness. Her latest declaration that the established Church is 'under-appreciated' is a superbly timed shot across the bows of the Coalition's same-sex marriage galleon. Her speech at Lambeth Palace last week could have upheld Article 18 - 'Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ' - with greater clarity and force. But while she remains Defender of the Faith, the Church of England has a skilful advocate of Christian truth in Her Majesty. She is also, as her Christmas broadcast demonstrated, arguably the best mass-audience Christian evangelist in the country.

So, the curate stays at the crease until he is given out in the proper manner or forcibly removed by the ecclesiastical Praetorians of political correctness. He intends by God's grace to keep on preaching the glorious and eternal gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching the infallible and inerrant Holy Scriptures as a Church of England minister until he is called up to higher service.

And that is not a reference to the Baptist Union of Great Britain.

REVIEWING JOHN RICHARDSON'S STRATEGY

This is the review by Cranmer's Curate in March's Evangelicals Now of an important book by the Revd John Richardson (see Ugley Vicar under Top Blogs):

Reclaiming the Land

A STRATEGY THAT CHANGES THE DENOMINATION
By John Richardson
Lulu.com. 104 pages. £3.25 from Lulu.com
ISBN 978 1 447 856 672

This is a passionate book because John Richardson is passionate about the conversion of England through the Church of England. Its quality merits wide readership by evangelicals whether or not they are Anglicans.

Readers need to be aware, though, that its underlying thesis is seriously open to question.

Mr Richardson begins in 1945 with the publication of the Church of England's superb report Towards the Conversion of England.

This report exposed the crying need for the re-evangelisation of the English people and the fact that the institutional church was ill equipped for the task. Mr Richardson then argues that because the challenge remains unmet in both nation and church, Anglican evangelicals should now be more committed to the institutional renewal of the Church of England for the sake of evangelism.

This is a noble aim but the fact is that Towards the Conversion of England was inspired and driven by Archbishop William Temple, who died in 1944. He wanted to see the nation converted to Christianity.

Therein lies the difference between the top leadership of the Church of England then and now.

Furthermore, anti-evangelistic liberalism has now been institutionally entrenched through the ordination of women to the presbyterate - another difference with then.

But this is nonetheless an important book - classic Richardson in its fine writing and intellectual panache.

SOFT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS EXPLAINS SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL PRAYERS

Why is the political establishment in the United Kingdom backing Christian prayers in council meetings and in Parliament?

The answer lies in a real practical distinction between hard and soft political correctness.

Hard core PC activists such as the National Secular Society which brought the High Court action against Bideford Town Council to get Christian prayers off the municipal agenda want Christianity out of the public square. But moderates in politically correct terms are prepared to allow houseroom to the 'faith sector' and are happy to allow public prayers in the council chamber.

That is because such a concession poses little threat to the onward march of the PC agenda. Moderate PCs enjoy the ceremonial trappings of a constitutional monarchy with a liberal and ineffectual established church. Their ardour for equality does not extend to being willing to sacrifice their place in the procession. Or on the pay scale.

Such self-interested affection for national heritage is broadly the explanation for soft PC support for Christian prayers in the political space.

Christians should not be overwhelmed by residual support for a small aspect of public Christianity. The Gospel we preach is that Jesus Christ is Lord over the whole of life, including the deliberations in the Parliament and Councils of this Realm.

In pursuing our calling to proclaim the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ against the dictates of political correctness, we need to be mindful of the spiritual reality that prayer and Christ-centred action are welded together in the Bible. The prayer meeting of the Jerusalem Church as described in Acts 4 typifies this nexus. The believers' prayer understood the opposition God's Gospel was encountering within the framework of Psalm 2 - 'the kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Anointed' (Acts 4v26 - RSV).

Girded with that biblical understanding, they pray for boldness to speak the Lord's word in the teeth of the threats from the powers that be (v29). And then in the power of the Holy Spirit, they act on their prayer by proclaiming Jesus Christ's Messianic rule (v31).

That kind of God-centred, biblically-driven prayer united to Christ-proclaiming action will get UK Christians into trouble, even and perhaps especially from those supportive of prayers at a council meeting.

A longer version of this post - The politically correct only tolerate safe Christianity - has appeared on Christian Today.

LIGHT OF CHRIST THROUGH SAT-7

Cranmer's Curate this week received a visit from two ambassadors for Sat-7, a Christian satellite channel for the Arab world, which has more than 15 million viewers.

Fred and Judith Winks are based here in north Sheffield and the story they told about Sat-7 was astonishing. The youth group may have heard of it but cc had not until contacted by Mr and Mrs Winks.

Launched in 1996 with its charitable trust based in the UK, it provides a range of Arabic, Turkish and Farsi programes to countries ranging from Morocco to The Lebanon to The Sudan to Iran. It eschews American-style televangelism but people come to faith in Jesus Christ through Sat-7. It provides counselling services for viewers in the countries in which it operates.

Sat-7 is finding that its viewers are receptive to God's good news of the forgiveness of all sin through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They already believe in God and believe they will be judged. The message of sins forgiven is a healing balm they want, unlike us nonchalant Britishers who think we don't need it, brainwashed into unbelief as we are by our politically correct media and educational establishment.

Here is Sat-7's testimony about a convert in Iran:

One Iranian viewer named Reza began calling the Iranian counselling centre. He described himself as a drug dealer, thief and gangster. He said one night while he was flipping through channels he accidentally came across Sat-7 PARS and it made him think. The show he was watching was called Noor-e Omeid ("Light of Hope"). It's a short, two-part programme where a host, standing in and around a lighthouse, talks about how we are all living in darkness and need a saviour to see the light - and Jesus is the Light. Reza called the counselling number and gave his life to Christ. His young daughter also became a follower of Jesus.

REPENTANCE NEEDED FOR CofE's DEFENCE AGAINST CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS

The argument deployed by the London clergy calling on the Church of England to allow civil partnership ceremonies shows why the current ban is such an easy door for the vandals of political correctness to kick in.

The signatories to last week's letter to The Times seized upon the decision by the General Synod in 2002 to allow clergy to conduct marriage services for divorced persons:

We, the undersigned, believe that on the issue of holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches incumbents/priests in charge should be accorded the same rights as they enjoy at present in the matter of officiating at the marriage of divorced couples in church. Namely, that this should be a matter for the individual conscience of the incumbent/priest in charge.

One glaring name on the list of signatories is Dr Martin Dudley, rector of St Bartholomew The Great, Smithfield. He was the clergyman who conducted a pseudo-marriage service for two homosexual clergy in 2008.

Those clergy who choose to flout the fragile ban on civil partnerships in church can justly point out that the General Synod institutionalised liberal attitudes to the Bible in its decision to allow remarriage after divorce. The General Synod thus left a gaping hole in the Church of England's defences against politically correct advocates of civil partnership ceremonies on its premises.

The Church of England should have taken Jesus Christ at his Word: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10v9 - AV). And indeed it can do so once again. It can rescind the permission for clergy to conduct marriage services for divorcees.

Repentance is the only way to secure the Church of England's defences against the vandals of political correctness.

WHY BISHOPS SHOULD SPEAK UP FOR BUSINESS

Socially Marxist political correctness now dominating the governance of the UK has anti-business tendencies, even if it does not set out to nationalise the means of production, distribution and exchange. Here are some of the Christian reasons why Church of England bishops should be speaking up more boldly and prophetically for business in the House of Lords:

• Bishops should be supporting an economic order that gives the maximum liberty to Christians to proclaim and live out the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Marxist countries disallowing private enterprise have provided testimony to the impact on Christianity when the State has a monopoly of employment. It is significant that it is government employees who are suffering most from the current politically-correct harrassment of Christians in the West.

• Bishops should support the job creation that thriving businesses make possible. The unemployment that a successful commercial sector counter-acts should be a matter of major ethical concern for Christian leaders. The impact of unemployment particularly on young people is morally devastating for a society. Men and women are made in the image of God to exercise dominion over creation (see Genesis 1v26). Businesses provide many of the jobs that allow the exercise of that dominion under God, for which humanity is created.

• As Bible teachers, bishops should be pro-work. Whilst Christians should be concerned to avoid the idolatry of wealth, private enterprise undeniably fosters a work ethic. In his excellent column in the Yorkshire Post of January 28th arguing against episcopal opposition to the Government’s welfare reforms, Bill Carmichael highlighted the biblical ethical imperative to productive work, quoting from the Apostle Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3v10 – RSV).

• Bishops should be supporting the work of Anglican Cathedrals. Businesses are generous to Cathedrals in supporting their pro-bono projects and contributing to the expense of maintaining their buildings. That has been one of the difficulties the anti-capitalist Occupy movement camping outside Cathedrals has caused Deans and Chapters. How can the willing recipients of a business’s generosity avoid the charge of hypocrisy if they support anti-capitalism?

• Bishops should affirm churches that pay their way in parish share. Net-giving parish churches to Church of England dioceses are often well-supported by people working hard in the commercial sector. In such local parish churches, high earners can be instructed “not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6v17) and be exhorted “to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Timothy 6v18-19).

Finally, it would be a refreshing, though unlikely, eventuality to hear a Church of England bishop come out in favour of lowering the current 50 per cent tax rate for high earners on the ground that such a move would encourage job-creating inward investment into the UK.

This piece - The cavalry are not coming for Reform over women bishops - appeared on US-based orthodox Anglican news service, VirtueOnline.

Here is Cranmer's Curate on BBC Radio Leeds debating women bishops. He was on in the third hour of the Sunday breakfast programme.

CONCERNS OVER PLAN TO HOMOGENISE CLERGY TRAINING

Serious concerns are due to be voiced at next week's General Synod over a plan to homogenise pre- and post-ordination training.

The Phase 2 Report of the Ministry Council Working Party into the Church of England's Higher Education (HE) and Initial Ministry Training (IME) practices was approved by the House of Bishops last December. The report is to be examined at the upcoming Synod in London.

There were concerns that the report was going to be ratified by Synod 'under the radar' in the midst of the main business of women bishops. But according to Anglican evangelical campaign group, Reform, one of the parties concerned about the proposals, the report is not going to a vote at this Synod and will be properly scrutinised.

Just to explain the report's terminology, IME 1-3 is theological training at college or on a course before ordination; IME 4-7 is post-ordination training for curates.

The Working Party's stated vision is as follows:

We believe that there are compelling reasons for the Church of England, with our partner institutions, to develop a suite of HE Awards with a single validating HE partnership which would provide the main highway of training and formation for IME 1-3, which would also provide dioceses with an option for IME 4-7 and for Reader training; and would also make provision for independent students pursuing a variety of vocations in discipleship and ministry.

The Working Party, chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Steven Croft, who was Warden (head) of the evangelical theological college in Durham, Cranmer Hall, from 1996 to 2004, recommends that

the Church of England, with our partner churches establish a single suite of HE awards suitable for IME 1-7, Reader training and independent students, with a single HE set of validation arrangements as outlined in this report.

The report's bustling timetable presupposes ratification at this month's Synod. May 2012 is cited as the target date for identifying the validating university for the new awards through a tender process. With the vote delayed until at least summer's Synod, that date is presumably having to be put back. The report states September 2015 as the target for transferring all accredited Church of England training institutions to the new regime.

The concern over homogenised clergy training is essentially this: currently ordinands who wish to be trained in line with the doctrine of the Church of England as expressed in Canon A5 can be theologically educated at Oak Hill or Wycliffe Hall.

At those colleges, the Reformed theology of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion is clearly upheld. The perspective expressed in the Book of Common Prayer that the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ propitiated the wrath of God on sin is clearly upheld. Rigorous and responsible biblical studies, including biblical theology, are taught in line with the Church of England's doctrinal stance that the Bible is the Word of God written. Pro-active biblical evangelism and apologetics, in line with the Ordinal's stipulation that clergy are called to seek out Christ's sheep dispersed abroad, are also positively taught.

What will happen to these confessional Anglican emphases under a homogenised training regime?

Perhaps such fears are groundless but they cannot be dispelled until the new homogenised curriculum and syllabi are published.

What should be non-negotiable in clergy training is the New Testament fact that Bible teaching is at the heart of pastoring the precious flock of Jesus Christ.