Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Archbishop of Canterbury Faults British Society for 2011 Rioters

Link to article is above.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a New Year message that the violence that occurred during the summer of 2011 was due to the people and country being "suspicious and hostile" towards the youth and failing to provide good role models. He also called on all to give these people love and support so they can "flourish". Yeah, that's what we all want - Islam flourishing in Britain and elsewhere.
Since he made sure to place the blame squarely at the feet of  the victims, he apparently felt the need to at least express his disapproval of the violence. He used words such as angry, lawless, and horrific" for the acts themselves.

The summer riots were close to fully the work of immigrants, particularly Muslim ones. These people are the beneficiaries of an extraordinarily generous welfare system and make full advantage of it. Fraud and other abuses of the British Social Services system are rampant. Britain has allowed the unimaginable - Sharia courts hearing cases and passing judgments in an echo of the European Dark Ages where people were governed by the code of laws of their particular ethnic group. The nation has spent incredible amounts of money on public recreational facilities in areas of high Islamic immigrant populations. The immigration policy itself is very generous; with high quotas and provisions to easily bring family members to join earlier immigrants in Britain.

The manner in which many among this community show their appreciation is to engage in a plague of gang rapes of ethnic British girls, threatening to take over Britain and impose Sharia law, abusing returning-home British troops, effectively making many of their areas no-go zones for ethnic British, looting, robberies, mass-arsons, and other sorts of riotous activity.

The man who sits in the seat of many great British/English men, including Thomas a' Becket*, has now typified the assumption of Dhimmitude common among many in positions of authority and taken on the status of a sheep. What is even worse is that he shows no concern for the victims of the riots. This man reminds me of an abused spouse who makes excuses for the batterer's actions for years until the abused is either permanently injured or killed. An even more accurate comparison would be that of a parent who does nothing but make excuses for his/her spouse as the other abuses and terrorizes their children.

Western Church leaders have historically called for public order. Although there certainly were times when Church officials spoke in support of the downtrodden, they never called for destruction of property or society. If the Church can be at fault in the past it would be due to failing to stand up often enough for the poor v. the nobility. In this case, we do not even have the downtrodden but spoiled, coddled, thugs with a sense of entitlement. Suspicious? British people get blamed for that? It is easy for Williams to say that as his family members are not in danger in the street. Hostile? Who, the British police? - They are kid-glove wielding gentleman compared to what they face. Then who, the ethnic British? That is sort of like a high school student who withdraws from other students due to incessant bullying and gets blamed for being a loner.
This is yet another Neville Chamberlain-type act that is threatening to further weaken the West.

The historical church bodies such as Catholic, Orthodox, and the Mainline Protestants, are simply not doing their job. The only Christian bodies making any effort to address the threat of militant or otherwise violent Islam are those of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist branches.

This is a double-edged sword as the latter are also engaged in a constant campaign to either enlist members of the former into their bodies or to convince the Churches themselves to abandon core doctrines such as baptismal regeneration. The Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are doctrinally in direct descent from the Anabaptists (rebaptizers) who sprung up in Europe after the reformation had already been in full swing.

They, adhering to the newly-developed doctrine that fixed Christian regeneration (The process of becoming one who is born again in Christ) to an event in a person's life where he accepts Jesus as Savior and God.(Lord) The Anabaptists felt that the reformers (Lutheran, Calvinist - Dutch Reformed, etc.) had not done enough of casting off established doctrinal beliefs or practices. Different sub-bodies have had slightly modified versions of this such as "Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" but all hold that baptism is nothing but an outward act or ceremony for a newly-reborn person. At the time this interpretation of Christian scriptures was brand-new on the Christian spectrum. Evangelicals of the modern era have gone to great lengths to present their practice/belief on this subject as having been practiced by the Apostles and other first-century Christians. They have, however, been unable to provide any historical evidence to indicate that early Christians did not believe in Baptismal regeneration; indeed, no evidence of the denial of baptismal regeneration exists for any point prior to the 16th century (with one possible exception for a radical proponent of communal societies in 15th century Bohemia).

Extant writings of the Church fathers of the first three centuries of the Christian era contain scores of references to the belief in Baptismal regeneration. Christ’s words to Nicodemus referring to being "Born again" were universally and essentially solely held to refer to baptism. These also are clear that cases of a direct act of God on an individual where he is regenerated prior to baptism are exceptions to normal practice.

None of this discourages Evangelicals from assertively proselytizing other Christians to persuade them to embrace this modern form of belief. Like Moslems, who hold that Mohammed’s revelations and teachings were not new but were exactly the same as the original belief system of the God of Abraham, Evangelicals have no qualms with advertizing their position as the original Christian idea of regeneration.

This is why Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox often are confused when discussing their faith with evangelicals. The latter will inevitably resort to asking if and when one of the former was born again. Those of the older faiths have not been schooled on the differences in beliefs and will wonder why the Evangelical is asking such a question. They are thinking and/or saying ‘Well, I was baptized as an infant and brought up in the faith’. This does not satisfy the Evangelical mind, and more questions will follow. They will be asked when they gave their hearts to God, if they belief that Jesus is their personal Lord and Savior, or if they know that only faith in Jesus saves. More confusion ensues. They will answer that they have believed as long as they can remember, that of course they believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world, that he is God and therefore Lord, and that, contrary to what an Evangelical was told by his Pastor, none of the traditional churches have ever taught that good deeds/works earn salvation.

The Evangelicals may walk away thinking that the person with whom he is speaking is in fact a saved Christian. More likely he will conclude that the poor soul is actually not a Christian and needs to be “saved".

More will follow in other posts on the differences between traditional Christian Churches and those of Evangelicals/Fundamentalist. Save to say for now that, regardless of the critical differences of belief and their unwillingness to allow the title of Christian to those of the old faiths, Evangelicals are almost the only Christians making any appreciable effort to expose the threats posed by Islam today and give moral and political support to the State of Israel. The traditional Churches, either out of fear or reprisals, guilt over past injustices, or out of some bizarre idea of placating the Left or Islamic societies, continue to hold their tongues and do little to help themselves or others directly threatened by either one.

*English martyr who was killed by those who supported Plantagenet King Henry II of England. My personal take on the circumstances of the dispute itself (not the murder) between the Archbishop and the King is that Henry was probably more in the right. The example of Becket's stand for what he believed in is nevertheless one which a leader of the Church should seek to emulate.

No comments:

Post a Comment