Seven Deadly Sins – Part 2, Lust – Rev. Canon Robert Wills, Th.D.

This is the second of a multi-part series on the Seven Deadly Sins written by Father Robert Wills, Canon Theologian of the Mid-South Diocese, ICCEC. A new part will be posted on a regular basis. As a note, Canon Wills notes these are the Seven Deadly Sins recognized by a group of monks in the 5th Century.
JZ Holloway.

Lust—The Desire for Physical Pleasure Above All Else

In contemporary usage, LUST is a strong craving or desire, especially sexual desire. The KJV and earlier English versions frequently used lust in the neutral sense of desire. This older English usage corresponded to the use of the underlying Hebrew and Greek terms which could be used in a positive sense: of the desire of the righteous (Prov. 10:24), of Christ’s desire to eat the Passover with His disciples (Luke 22:15), or of Paul’s desire to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23). Since lust has taken on the primary meaning of sexual desire, modern translations often replace the KJV’s lust with a term with a different nuance. NRSV, for example, used crave/craving (Num. 11:34; Ps. 78:18); covet (Rom. 7:7); desire (Ex. 15:9; Prov. 6:25; 1 Cor. 10:6); long for (Rev. 18:14).

The unregenerate (preconversion) life is governed by deceitful lusts or desires (Eph. 4:22; 2:3; Col. 3:5; Tit. 2:12). Following conversion, such fleshly desires compete for control of the individual with spiritual desires (Gal. 5:16-17; 2 Tim. 2:22). First John 2:16-17 warns that desires of the flesh and eyes are not from God and will pass away with the sinful world. Here lust or desire includes not only sexual desire but also other vices such as materialism. James 1:14-15 warns that desire is the beginning of all sin and results in death. Jesus warned that one who lusts has already sinned (Matt. 5:28). Part of God’s judgment on sin is to give persons over to their own desires (Rom. 1:24). Only the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer makes victory over sinful desires possible (Rom. 8:1-2).

PURITY

Purity is the opposite of Lust. The Old Testament has a lot to say about purity. Lust is the absence of purity.  Three Old Testament concepts or ideas are translated as “purity” in English.

1. Flawless: The primary Hebrew root word for pure (athr) often refers to pure or flawless gold: (1 Kings 10:21; Job 28:19; Ps. 12:6). hr  and other Hebrew words for “pure” are used to describe other objects such as salt (Ex. 30:35), oil (Ex. 27:20), and incense (Ex. 37:29). Thus, a basic Old Testament meaning is that of “refined, purified, without flaw, perfect, clean.” Note Lamentations 4:7.

2. Ritual Purity: To be ritually pure means to be free of some flaw or uncleanness, which would bar one from contact with holy objects or places, especially from contact with the holy presence of God in worship. God is the ideal of purity, and those who are to come in contact with God’s presence are also to be pure. Habakkuk 1:13 indicates that God’s eyes are too pure to look upon evil.

The altar for sacrifice was purified so that it would be prepared for worship (Lev. 8:15; Ezek. 43:26). The objects of gold used in the tabernacle and Temple were also pure in this sense; this would be true of the incense in Exodus 37:29. The Levites were to purify themselves for service in the tabernacle (Num. 8:21). When that which was unclean or impure came into contact with that which was holy, danger resulted and could even lead to death. This is probably the background for the preparation made for the theophany, a manifestation of God’s presence, in Exodus 19 and for the death of Uzzah when he was unprepared (not purified) to touch the ark of the covenant, a most holy object (2 Sam. 6:1-11). Malachi 1:11-12 contrasts the pure offerings of Gentiles with blemished offerings given by God’s people; such a state necessitated purification (Mal. 3:3-4).

Purity qualified one to participate in worship, an activity central to the life of ancient Israel. Breaking that purity was a serious matter. Ritual impurity came as a result of bodily emissions (Lev. 15), by way of disease or menstrual flow, or discharge of semen. This chapter also shows that such impurity could be spread by contact, for anything coming into contact with the unclean person had to be purified. Leviticus 12 also discusses impurity associated with childbirth, probably because of the discharge of blood. Blood related to the mysterious power of life, and any loss of blood called for purification. Ritual impurity also came as a result of contact with a corpse since death was an enemy of God (Num. 19). Participation in war could thus cause impurity. Impurity, finally, was brought on by contact with foreign gods. This was probably the background of the need for purification when the people returned from Exile in Babylon. The priests and Levites purified themselves first and then the people and then the city gates and wall (Isa. 52:11; Ezra 6:20; Neh. 12:30). This also prepared them for worship.

3. Ethical Purity Thought and behavior befitting the people of God are pure (Pss. 24:4; 73:1; Pro. 15:26; 22:11; 30:12). Such purity of thought is to result in conduct which is appropriate for people (Ps. 119:9; Prov. 16:2; 20:9,11; 21:8). Notice also the pure prayer of Job 16:17.

Since Psalms 15 and 24 speak of qualifications for worship in terms of ethical purity, it is important not to distinguish sharply between ritual and ethical purity in the Old Testament. God expects ethical purity, and sin results in uncleanness. Thus sin and ritual uncleanness stand together in the Old Testament as unacceptable to the Lord. Their counterparts–ethical and ritual purity–also stand together.

Most New Testament uses of words for purity relate to cleanness of some type. Old Testament meanings are often reflected. Perfection is the meaning in Mark 14:3; this is mixed with religious purity in Hebrews 10:22; 1 John 3:3.

Ethical purity dominates in the New Testament. The person who is in right relationship with God is to live a life of purity (2 Tim. 2:21-22; Titus 1:15 and references to a pure heart–Matt. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 9:14; Jas. 4:8; 1 Peter 1:22). Purity is also listed among virtues (2 Cor. 6:6; Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 4:12; compare Mark 7:15).

Purification through sacrifice is also mentioned in the New Testament and applied to the death of Christ, a purification which does not need repeating and thus is on a higher level than Old Testament sacrifices (Heb. 9:13-14). The sacrifice of Christ brings purification; Christ cleansed as a part of the work of the high priest and His blood cleanses from sin (1 John 1:7).

James 4:8  Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

James 4:9  Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom.

James 4:10  Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.

What Does Scripture Say?

The Bible has a lot to say about Lust and Purity.

Prov 6:25  Do not lust after her beauty in your heart, Nor let her allure you with her eyelids.

Prov 6:26  For by means of a harlot A man is reduced to a crust of bread; And an adulteress will prey upon his precious life.

Prov 6:27  Can a man take fire to his bosom, And his clothes not be burned?

Prov 6:28  Can one walk on hot coals, And his feet not be seared?

Prov 6:29  So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; Whoever touches her shall not be innocent.

Prov 11:6  The righteousness of the upright will deliver them, But the unfaithful will be caught by their lust.

Mat 5:28  “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Rom 1:26  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

Rom 1:27  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Rom 1:29  being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

Rom 1:30  backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

Rom 1:32  who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

1 Th 4:3  For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

1 Th 4:4  that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,

1 Th 4:5  not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

1 Th 4:6  that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.

1 Th 4:7  For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.

James 4:2  You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask.

James 4:3  You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

James 4:4  Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

2 Pet 1:3  as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,

2 Pet 1:4  by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1 John 2:16  For all that is in the world; the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life; is not of the Father but is of the world.

1 John 2:17  And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

1 Cor 10:1  Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,

1 Cor 10:2  all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

1 Cor 10:3  all ate the same spiritual food,

1 Cor 10:4  and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

1 Cor 10:5  But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

1 Cor 10:6  Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.

1 Cor 10:7  And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

1 Cor 10:8  Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;

1 Cor 10:9  nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;

1 Cor 10:10  nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

1 Cor 10:11  Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

1 Cor 10:12  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

1 Cor 10:13  No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

1 Cor 10:14  Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

1 Cor 10:15  I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.

1 Cor 10:16  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor 10:17  For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

Gal 5:16  I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Gal 5:17  For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Gal 5:18  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Gal 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,

Gal 5:20  idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,

Gal 5:21  envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:22-23  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Gal 5:24  And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Gal 5:25  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1 Tim 4:12  Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

Titus 2:12  teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.

Seven Deadly Sins – Part 1, Intro & Gluttony – Rev. Canon Robert Wills, Th.D.

This is the first of a multi-part series on the Seven Deadly Sins written by Father Robert Wills, Canon Theologian of the Mid-South Diocese, ICCEC. A new part will be posted on a regular basis. As a note, Canon Wills notes these are the Seven Deadly Sins recognized by a group of monks in the 5th Century.
JZ Holloway.

THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS
PART 1

What is sin?
Sin is any action by which humans rebel against God, miss His purpose for their life, and surrender to the power of evil rather than to God. One of the central affirmations throughout the Bible is humanity’s estrangement from God. The cause for this estrangement is sin, the root cause of all the problems of humanity. The Bible, however, gives no formal definition for sin. It describes sin as an attitude that personifies sin as rebellion against God. Rebellion was at the root of the problem for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3) and has been at the root of humanity’s plight ever since.

Four levels of sin:
Original Sin—Adam’s Sin Baptismal Regeneration Baptismal Confession
Personal Sin—All have sinned Being Born Again Personal Confession
Corporate Sin—National Being Spiritually renewed Corporate Confession
Generational Sin—Sin of the fathers Being Delivered Specific Renunciation

1.        Gluttony—Misuse of  Our Daily Bread.

Gluttony is a reversal of creation—the spoiling and corruption of bread and wine and all that goes with them. At its root is eating and drinking to sustain one’s self apart from God.  It may kill through over eating or poor nutrition, but also causes social problems when people withhold food from the needy and hungry.  It is manifested any time we eat without being thankful to God—feeding our flesh while displacing and displeasing God. Gluttony occurs whenever self and self comfort is placed above God. The desire for power or self advancement can also reflect Gluttony. Adam and Eve sinned the sin of Gluttony when they at of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to become like God.

A GLUTTON is one habitually given to greedy and voracious eating. Gluttony was associated with stubbornness, rebellion, disobedience, drunkenness, and wastefulness (Deut. 21:20). A more general meaning for the Hebrew term as a “good-for-nothing” (Prov. 28:7 TEV) is reflected in some translations: wastrel (Deut. 21:20 REB); profligate (Deut. 21:20 NIV; Prov. 28:7 REB); riotous (Prov. 28:7 KJV). When Jesus was accused of being a “glutton and wine-drinker” (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34), it was in this expanded sense of being one given to loose and excessive living. The Bible knows gluttony makes one sleepy and leads to not working and poverty (Prov. 23:21).

We should pray, be thankful and trust God for our sustenance.

Mat 6:11  Give us this day our daily bread.

Mat 6:12  And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.

God is no a Glutton and neither should we be gluttons.

Luke 11:11  “If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish?

Luke 11:12  “Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

Luke 11:13  “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Gluttony has bad results.

Prov 23:21  For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe a man with rags.

Rebellion is at the root of gluttony.

Deu 21:18  “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them,

Deu 21:19  “then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city.

Deu 21:20  “And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

Deu 21:21  “Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Deu 21:22  “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,

Gluttony disrespects one’s parents and God the Father.

Prov 28:7  Whoever keeps the law is a discerning son, But a companion of gluttons shames his father.

Prov 28:8  One who increases his possessions by usury and extortion Gathers it for him who will pity the poor.

Prov 28:9  One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination.

Prov 28:10  Whoever causes the upright to go astray in an evil way, He himself will fall into his own pit; But the blameless will inherit good.

Jesus implied that the religious Pharisees were gluttons.

Mat 23:25  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.

Mat 23:26  “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

What do the apostles say about this?

1 Pet 4:3  For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles; when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries.

1 Pet 4:4  In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you.

1 Pet 4:5  They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

Eph 5:18  And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,

St. Paul had some strong words against gluttony for the Corinthian Church.

1 Cor 11:20  Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

1 Cor 11:21  For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

1 Cor 11:22  What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

1 Cor 11:23  For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;

1 Cor 11:24  and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Cor 11:25  In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

1 Cor 11:26  For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

1 Cor 11:27  Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1 Cor 11:28  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

1 Cor 11:29  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

1 Cor 11:30  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

1 Cor 11:31  For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

1 Cor 11:32  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

1 Cor 11:33  Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

What is God’s answer to avoiding gluttony?

Rom 6:1  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

Rom 6:2  Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Rom 6:3  Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Rom 6:4  Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:5  For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Rom 6:6  knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Rom 6:7  For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Rom 6:8  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Rom 6:9  knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

Rom 6:10  For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Rom 6:11  Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 6:12  Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.

What is God’s answer to avoiding gluttony?

Rom 6:1  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

Rom 6:2  Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Rom 6:3  Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Rom 6:4  Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:5  For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

Rom 6:6  knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Rom 6:7  For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Rom 6:8  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Rom 6:9  knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

Rom 6:10  For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Rom 6:11  Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 6:12  Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.

Eve of Change: Britain in 1914

Eve of Change: Great Britain in 1914

The year 1914 saw three initial crises come to a point in England, and then saw these three crises swallowed whole by the First World War. The first crisis was the question of Irish Home Rule, the second was the question of Women’s Suffrage, and the third labor strikes, was already occurring, as well as the seemingly going to increase in size and number. These however would be overshadowed by the invasion of France by Germany after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which would plummet Great Britain, and the rest of Europe, into a war that would last until 1918. Along with these crises, however it is also important to note the political and social environment which surrounded Britain in that year.

The King of Great Britain was George V. [1] The Government was controlled by the Liberal party, with H. Asquith as Prime Minister, D. Lloyd George as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Earl Grey as the head of the Foreign Office.[2] Others in office in 1914 included Winston Churchill, Earl Beauchamp, Viscount Haldane, E. Montagu, and F. Acland. [3] E. Asquith was the leader of the Liberal Party, with the Earl of Crewe as its leader in the House of Lords. [4] The leadership of the Conservative Party was A. Bonar Law in the House of Commons, with the Marquess of Lansdowne in the House of Lords. A Henderson led the Labour Party in the House of Commons.[5] The Irish National Party was led by J. Redmond.[6]

Parliament was broken down, by these four parties with the Liberals in the majority with 275 seats. Next, the Conservative Party held 273 seats. The Irish Nationalist Party held 82 seats, followed by the Labour Party with 40 seats. This Parliament had been seated since the election of December 19, 1910. [7] Parliament met from February 10 to September18 for a total of 130 days, averaging a work day of just over seven hours. A total of 168 bills were passed. Again 1914, Parliament begins meeting again on November 14.[8] According to the book, “British Political Fact 1900-1979” on one “critical vote” was made in the House of Commons, and it is described as: “Government wins guillotine on Budget despite 22 Lib. Abstentions, on Lib. No; setback leads to abandonment of Revenue Bill.”[9] Also according to the book, the House of Lords had no critical votes in 1914. [10] Also mentioned is a major piece of criminal justice legislation, The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which “required Summary Courts to give time for payment of fines.”[11] 1914 also saw two members of Parliament change party allegiance. B. Kenyon in February switched from the Labour Party to the Liberal Party, and W. Johnson followed suit in April. This would bring the Labour party from 40 members to 38 and the Liberal Party from 275 to 277 members in the House of Commons.[12]

In August of 1914, there were a total of eighteen offices that comprised the Civil Service in Britain. These offices included the Admiralty, the War Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, the Irish Office, the Scottish Office, the Treasury, the Home Office, Agriculture, Education, Labour (not to be confused with the political party), Housing and Local Government, Munitions, National Insurance, the Post Office, Board of Trade, and Works. These offices employed a total of 779,520 persons.[13]

The total population in 1914 was 46,048,000 persons.[14] The majority of the population was between the ages of ten and twenty-nine years old, this group making up an average of a little over 36%. The next group was between the ages of thirty and forty-nine years old, which made up roughly26%. Roughly 21% of the population was under the age of ten years old. Along with this, life expectancy, for both males and females, was in the range between fifty and sixty years of age.[15]

In regards to the economy, the Governor of the Bank of England was W. Cunliffe.[16] The Net National Income was 2,209₤, with the Income Tax at the Standard Rate in ₤ of ½.[17] The major areas of production in 1914 were steel, coal, and raw cotton. Steel production was at almost eight million tons, with coal just over two and a half million tons. Raw cotton consumption was over 2 billion pounds. Also, over 46,000,000 acres was being used for agricultural cultivation.[18] British imports were worth almost 700,000,000₤ while exports were worth 431,000,000₤. Britain also re-exported almost 100,000,000₤ worth of goods.[19] The total revenue of the Central Government was just at 225,000,000₤, with roughly 60,000,000₤ of this coming from the Income Tax. The National Debt at the end of 1914 was 649,800,000₤.[20] The major economic landmark that occurred in 1914 happened on August 1. It concerned War emergency measures, which included temporarily increasing the Bank Rate to 10%.[21]

In the religious realm, the Church of England was the official and primary religious organization, with over thirty-three million members. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the Primate and Head of the Church of England, was Archbishop Randall Thomas Davidson.[22] Also, the bishop of London was A. Winnington-Ingram, and the Archbishop of York was Archbishop C. Lang.[23] Although the Church of England, also known as the Anglican Church, was the official religion in England, the Anglican Church in Wales was disestablished on May 19.[24] Along with the Church of England in Britain, you also had the Episcopal Church in Scotland, the Baptist Union, the Congregational Union, the Presbyterian Church in England, the United Reformed Church, The Methodist Church, and the Church of Scotland.[25] These denominations made up the majority of the Protestant groups in Great Britain. The Roman Catholic Church had an estimated five and a half million members, while the Jewish Community had roughly 250,000 members.

The question concerning domestic policies towards Ireland had been an issue since the Great Famine in Ireland in the 1840’s. The term Home Rule was given to the movement, lasting from 1870 to 1914, to give the island of Ireland domestic autonomy.[26] It is important to note that the crisis of what to do with Ireland came to a head once the legislation giving Ireland Home Rule passed. The Protestants in Northern Ireland were Unionists, wanting to remain wholly part of Great Britain, fearing that the Irish Catholics would control Ireland, and therefore persecute them.[27] The resistance to Home Rule became so great that in 1912, the northern Protestants signed a declaration towards resisting Irish Home Rule by any means necessary.[28] This was done once Home Rule for Ireland was passed in that same year.[29] Conservatives in the British Parliament, including Balfour and Bonar Law, supported the promised armed resistance of Irish Protestants.[30] Eventually, the Catholics also created their own force, known as the Irish Volunteers.[31] Eventually, Parliament was to give the Home Rule process a six year exclusion for four counties in the northeast, to see how Home Rule worked in the rest of the island. It was to give the majority of Ireland full Home Rule, while keeping the four northern counties under the direct rule of Britain.[32] Even with this compromise, violence still broke out in Ireland. Redmond, leader of the Volunteers, asked for investigations and debates concerning the continued violence in Ireland in the House of Commons. However, soon after he asked this towards the end of July, Austria would declare war on Serbia, following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Once Britain entered the war, soon after hostilities broke out, Asquith, the Prime Minister, and his Cabinet, decided to “shelve” the Irish Question for the duration of the war.[33] Though the coming Great War would keep Great Britain together, the Irish Question was not solved, only delayed until the end of the war.[34] The war breaking out on the continent of Europe was seen as a merciful reprieve from this issue. [35]

Another major issue coming to a head in 1914 was the question of Women’s Suffrage. Though the movement can be dated back to the 1860’s[36], between 1910 and 1911, attempts were made to pass a Bill which would pacify the movement. However, because of people like Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, who was a leader in the Suffragette campaign, many Cabinet members, and members of Parliament, lost sympathy for the movement. This was due to her, and others in the movement, use of violence and embarrassing tactics, such as self starvation.[37] Though the movement, by the time of 1914, was seen as many as an embarrassment, it had allowed for an enabling of women’s rights, and by this time, women were attending school and college.[38] As a note, the Liberals, who controlled the government, were generally in favor of extending the voting franchise to women. Though this was the case, they also saw it as a very complex issue. Many Liberals were convinced that if women were enfranchised, they would in turn support the Conservative Party, which was also known as the Unionist Party.[39] If this would happen, then their position on issues such as Irish Home Rule could possibly be compromised, as well as their term in government leadership. Likewise, the Conservative Party saw women as being too sympathetic and sentimental. Therefore, they were convinced that if women were enfranchised to vote, then they in turn would support the Liberal Party.[40] Because of the thoughts, by both the Liberal and Conservative Parties, women would not be enfranchised until after the First World War. The fear of women supporting their political enemies was greater then their possible support for the enfranchising of women.

The final major issue of 1914, before the impending war, was the issue of the labor strikes that were occurring and seemingly increasing. Britain for centuries had unions, known as guilds, for skilled laborers. These included masons, carpenters, and the like. However, with the industrialization of the 19^th Century, non-skilled laborers, such as dock workers, began to form their own unions.[41] Due to working conditions, these unions would organize strikes. These strikes, which in 1910 began to be very large, continued all the way up until the declaration of war against the Alliance powers of Continental Europe. In fact, before war was inevitable in Europe, a large strike was looming for November 1 in an attempt to get the work week reduced to forty-eight hours.[42] Beyond the planned strike in November, there were two major strikes that had already occurred before the beginning of World War I. The first was a builders strike in London on January. Over 200,000 people were affected and over two and a half million working days lost. The second strike consisted of miners in Yorks. Over 150,000 people were affected with just over two million working days lost.[43]

Although the strikes would be halted due to war, the unions were still a very large force. The largest group of unions was the Trades Union Congress. Over 200 unions were associated with the Congress, constituting over two million members who were affiliated with the Congress.[44] The Trades Union Congress consisted of 560 delegates, with Mr. W. Davis as its president.[45] All in all, there were a total of over twelve hundred trade unions which represented over ten million workers.[46]

On a social note, the publication of books was one the rise by 1914. From 1900, in which 5000 books were published, the publication of books had doubled by 1914. The Harmsworth type of journalism was flourishing. This type of journalism was named for Harmsworth himself, who owned the Daily Mail, and by 1914 also owned The Times, and the style could be seen in these, and other periodical publications. In the arts, Theatre had made wonderful progress, with, most notably Bernard Shaw. Also working in the realm of Theatre was Galsworthy and Barrie. Also, Harley Granville-Barker made his name known as an actor-manager, which was something never successful before. Barker revolutionized Shakespearean production by returning to the original text and using it verbatim.[47]

Along with Theatre, the year 1914 was part of the period of the novel. Social criticism was a major feature, especially with writers such as H. G. Wells and Galsworthy. Also, Wells was a pioneer in the realm of science fiction, which shows that during this period there was much progress in scientific knowledge as well. Other novelist included Henry James and George Moore. Also, there were many philosophical writings, especially from those like Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore. Poetry, in its lyrical form, was not very popular; however there were poetic narrators such as John Masefield.[48]

Other areas of the arts also flourished up until World War I. Painting followed the French lead in Impressionism and Post-impressionism. Elgar and Vaughan Williams were very successful in musical composition, and much work was done in gathering together the disappearing songs of English folk.[49]

Architecture and craftsmanship were still being heavily influenced by William Morris. However, town planning and building began to move away from the more traditional concepts by rich businessmen such as Lever and Cadbury. The growing towns led many people to get away to the country on Sunday afternoons. Cycling grew in popularity, and it caused cycling clubs to form. Also, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, which had been formed in 1906, continued to grow strong in 1914.[50]

With everything that was going on in Great Britain, from the crisis in Ireland, to women’s suffrage, labor strikes, and even in the arts and journalism, the one item that remained at the head in the news headlines was the possibility of civil war in Ireland. However, the idea of Germany as a threat, to both Britain and the rest of Europe, had surfaced due to previous wars, as well as novels written at the time. Though this was the case, the Irish crisis still dominated the headlines. [51] Even once Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, the seemingly inevitable civil war in Ireland continued to dominate the headlines, and it was not until war was actually declared that this would change.[52]

On June 28 of 1914, while riding in the streets of Sarajevo, Serbia, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was assassinated[53] by a Serbian terrorist from the organization known as the Black Hand.[54] This, however, only set the spark to a fuse that had already been laid. Austro-Hungry, along with Germany and Italy had signed a mutual protection pact, forming what is now known as the Triple Alliance. Likewise, Great Britain, with France and Russia had also agreed on a pact, though kept secret from the general public, called the Triple Entente.[55] Along with these alliances between the European powers, war plans were also devised. The most famous of these is the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined how Germany would fight a war if one was started, based upon the theory that all of Europe would be involved, thus, involving all of Europe in its plan. Along with these alliances, the general attitude toward Germany in Britain was extremely dim and cautious.

Great Britain’s foreign policy can be called “Splendid Isolation.”[56] Though Britain was heavily involved in world trade, it typically attempted to stay out of continental Europe’s affairs, being more concerned with its own territories and problems. As mentioned before, the crisis in Ireland dominated the majority of British politics, therefore leaving little time for the House of Commons, or anyone else for that matter, to worry about what was going on in the rest or Europe or the world. Despite of this, the German Kaiser, William II tried desperately to garner an alliance and treaty with Britain, but Britain steadily refused. His desire stemmed from him being partly English himself, being Queen Victoria’s grandson. Ultimately, this led the German state leading attempts to antagonize Britain into some sort of alliance. The Kaiser accomplished agitating the British by using everything from building up the German navy, to running guns to the Boars in Africa during the Boar War, and even sending guns and munitions into Ireland.[57] This eventually became too much for Great Britain, and would eventually lead them into secretly agreeing to the Triple Entente, and eventually lead them into war.[58]

Despite all of this, in July 1914, and in early August, Lord Edward Grey, at the behest of the British Government, led the mediation between the continental European powers in hope of a peaceful solution.[59] Grey had a strong desire for peace, also he was committed to the promise that he knew Britain had made with France concerning the Triple Entente. Grey’s attempt to mediate the problem in Europe was met head on with what the solution the German Chancellor, Bethman Hollweg, desired. This desire was to ensure the success of Austria’s policy towards Serbia, without a large war.[60] This ultimately failed, and now war seemed inevitable.[61]

On August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia, then abruptly invaded Luxembourg on their way to France.[62] This, on the German side, was all done in accordance with the Schlieffen plan, which called for a quick, decisive invasion and victory in France, then a turn to the Eastern front to face Russia. This plan was based upon the assumption that it would take at least a month for Russia to be able to mobilize its troops. This would enable Germany to have time to attack and neutralize France first, then face Russia, making a possible two-front war into two wars or one front each.[63]

Although Britain still did not want to enter into a European conflict, it soon became clear that it would be necessary. Lloyd George even said that he was “aghast at the bare idea of our plunging into the European conflict.”[64] However, because of the agreement with France and Russia, as well as treaty obligations with Belgium, which had made the country neutral, Britain would soon find itself in what would become the First World War.[65]

On August 3^rd, 1914, at 11:00pm, Great Britain served an ultimatum to Germany to halt its invasion. This was done in response to Germany making demands on Belgium to allow them unrestricted passage on their way to invade France. On August 4^th, control of the railways, under a provision from 1871, was taken from the private sector and put in the hands of the government. On the afternoon of August 5^th, the first meeting of the British Council of War was held, with Lord Kitchener being made Secretary or War. On August 8^th, the Channel Fleet of the British Royal Navy was deployed to patrol the Channel between Britain and continental Europe. From August 12^th – 22^nd the British Expeditionary Force was transported to France, most by ship, some by airplane.[66] This shows just how quick the British response truly was, especially being in the beginning of the 20^th Century. Also, it shows that even though the government of Great Britain did not want to fight, they were willing to honor their word and pledge, and not only to do it, but to respond quickly.

It was thought, both in Britain and in the rest of Europe, that the war was going to be a short one. Therefore, for Britain, their commitment would be of a limited variety, and would not require any great or prolonged use of its resources. Even if the war was to be longer then expected, the general agreement was for there still to be only a small commitment when it came to men, and use the diversified resources from its far reaching areas of the British Empire. Also, Britain was well suited for Blockading at sea, diversionary expeditions, financial aid, and resupplying missions were her strengths, and that’s were Britain fully expected to be used during the first few months of the war. [67]

Even though the government did not want to get involved in and fight in the war, it was clear that the English people enthusiastically supported Britain’s entrance. In a sense, this was seen as a war that needed to be fought, and therefore the people reacted in jubilation. [68]However, it is important to keep in mind that wars up to this point had been fairly quick, and not very bloody. Because of this, it was easier for the people to be jubilant, especially those not having to go fight themselves.[69] Even so, the jubilance was not only in those who could not fight, but those who could fight showed they were more then willing to do so.

From August to September in 1914, Great Britain saw what Peter Simkins described as a “recruiting boom.”[70] Even before war was declared, young men waited in lines to sign up for the upcoming war. From August 4^th to August 8^th, an average of 1,640 men enlisted every day. On August 9^th, a Sunday, over 2,400 men signed up for enlistment.[71] After August 7^th, more recruiting offices were opened throughout London and the rest of the country. Moreover, when recruitment started to fall off towards the end of September, news came in of the British Expeditionary Force engaging the Germans at the Battle of Mons, and then being forced to retreat, led to a resurgence in young men coming into volunteer for enlistment.[72] Ironically, the British had never followed the French sense of a nation at arms, relying on the countries professional army. Though many still believed the war was for others to fight, recruitment still remained to be high.[73]

With the start of the war, the British Admiralty deployed the British Royal Navy into the North Sea to be ready to encounter the German Navy. While the navy was being deployed, and being completely used, the plan for ground troops was different. As before mentioned, the British Expeditionary Force was sent to France, and this was the only plan at the outset of the war that the British had for using ground troops.[74] At the Battle of the Mons, the British force met the large German First Army. Even though the British force fought well, it was eventually forced into retreat. The French plan at first was for a quick, retaliatory strike into Germany. However, with quick defeats, the French commander J.J.C. Joffre realized that defense was going to be the key. This is what he implemented at the Battle of the Marne.[75] Though the British Expeditionary Force played on a small role in the Battle of the Marne, they played a major part in the First Battle of Ypres, which last from October 18^th to November 18^th. The British force was able to stop the German attempt to outflank the Allied line in what was termed “the race to the sea.”[76] In doing so, the fighting of movement on the Western front came to an end six weeks before the end of 1914.[77]

The British Expeditionary Force had performed with much honor, and for its small size, very well. However, the British government now, at the end of 1914, realized that they had to raise a much larger and massive army. Also, it would have to ensure that this army was fully equipped to handle the German army and the rugged conditions of trench warfare which was now being invented on the Western front.[78]

The battle that was supposed to be done by Christmas, had now turned into a war with no end in sight. A war in which the British government envisioned only a light commitment, would now demand the entire country to take part in the effort of stopping the German invasion of France. In ways, Britain was lucky, for it halted the coming civil war in Ireland, and took the countries eyes off of its own problems an placed them on the world’s. However, though by the end of 1914 Great Britain had not lost many men, by the end of the war in 1918 many lives would be lost.

1914 was a year that was split in two. For the first half, the Irish crisis dominated the headlines and the gossip of the people. However, with the assassination of a foreign Archduke in a country many of the people in Britain had never heard of, all eyes would eventually turn to Germany and the rest of continental Europe.[79] However, even though these two events were the largest events that captured the attention of the British people, other events, such as the Women’s Suffrage movement and the labor issues also caught attention. Also, even with the bleak times, both domestic and foreign, theatre, novels, architecture, music, and many other things were able to flourish and grow in Great Britain.

---

[1] Butler, David & Sloman, Anne. British Political Facts 1900-1979, (St. Martin’s Press, 1980). 379

[2] Ibid., 5

[3] Ibid., 5-6

[4] Ibid., 149

[5] Ibid., 135

[6] Ibid., 167

[7] Ibid., 206

[8] Ibid., 169

[9] Ibid., 174

[10] Ibid., 200

[11] Ibid., 279

[12] Ibid., 216

[13] Ibid., 264

[14] Ibid., 293

[15] Ibid., 295

[16] Ibid,. 346

[17] Ibid., 348

[18] Ibid,. 350

[19] Ibid,. 352

[20] Ibid., 356

[21] Ibid., 343

[22] Fryde, E.B., Greenway, D.E., Porter, S., Roy, I. Handbook of British Chronology, (University College, London, 1986). 235

[23] Butler, David & Sloman, Anne. British Political Facts 1900-1979, (St. Martin’s Press, 1980).469

[24] Vexler, Robert I. England: A Chronology and Fact Book 1485-1973, (Oceana Publications, 1974). 61

[25] Butler, David & Sloman, Anne. British Political Facts 1900-1979, (St. Martin’s Press, 1980).470-472

[26] Steinberg, S.H. A New Dictionary of British History. (Edward Arnold LTD., 1964), 161

[27] McCaffrey, Lawrence J. The Irish Question: 1800-1922, (University of Kentucky Press, 1968) 151

[28] Ibid., 152

[29] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 14, 2008

[30] McCaffrey, Lawrence J. The Irish Question: 1800-1922, (University of Kentucky Press, 1968) 152-153

[31] Ibid., 156

[32] Ibid., 158

[33] Ibid., 159

[34] Ibid., 160

[35] Pelling, Henry. Modern Britain: 1885-1955, (Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD, 1960). 54

[36] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 17, 2008

[37] Pelling, Henry. Modern Britain: 1885-1955, (Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD, 1960). 55

[38] Ibid., 62

[39] Pearce, Malcolm & Stewart, Geoffrey. British Political History 1867-2001: Democracy and Decline, (Routledge, 2002). 207

[40] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 17, 2008

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Butler, David & Sloman, Anne. British Political Facts 1900-1979, (St. Martin’s Press, 1980). 338

[44] Ibid., 340

[45] Ibid., 330

[46] Ibid., 340

[47] Pelling, Henry. Modern Britain: 1885-1955, (Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD, 1960). 60-61

[48] Ibid., 60

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid., 61

[51] Marwick, Arthur. A History of the Modern British Isles: 1914-1999, (Blackwell, 2000). 3

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 17, 2008

[55] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 19, 2008

[56] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 17, 2008

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Medlicott, W.N. Contemporary England 1914-1964: with epilogue 1964-1974, (Longman, 1976) 11

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., 12

[62] Marwick, Arthur. A History of the Modern British Isles: 1914-1999, (Blackwell, 2000). 3

[63] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 19, 2008

[64] Medlicott, W.N. Contemporary England 1914-1964: with epilogue 1964-1974, (Longman, 1976) 12

[65] Ibid., 13

[66] Marwick, Arthur. A History of the Modern British Isles: 1914-1999, (Blackwell, 2000). 3

[67] Medlicott, W.N. Contemporary England 1914-1964: with epilogue 1964-1974, (Longman, 1976) 14

[68] Marwick, Arthur. A History of the Modern British Isles: 1914-1999, (Blackwell, 2000). 4

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid. Quote came from Peter Simkins’ book “Kitchener’s Army”

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid., 6

[75] Ibid., 7

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Ibid., 8

[79] Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660. November 19, 2008

Bibliography

Butler, David & Sloman, Anne. British Political Facts 1900-1976, New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1980.

Caesar, George H. Kitchener’s War: British strategy from 1914 to 1916, Washington
D.C.: Brassey’s, 2004.

Fryde, E.B., Greenway, D.E., Porter, S. & Roy, I. Handbook of British Chronology,
London: University College, 1986.

Jackson, Alvin. Home Rule: An Irish History, 1800-2000, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003.

Laybourn, Keith. Modern Britain Since 1906: A Reader, London: I.B. Taurus, 1999

Marwick, Arthur. A History of the Modern British Isles: 1914-1999, Oxford: Blackwell,
2000.

McCaffrey, Lawrence J. The Irish Question: 1800-1922, Lexington, KY: University of
Kentucky Press, 1968.

Medlicott, W.N. Contemporary England 1914-1964: with epilogue 1964-1974, London:
Longman, 1976

Pearce, Malcolm & Stewart, Geoffrey. British Political History 1867-2001: Democracy
and Decline, New York: Routledge, 2002.

Pelling, Henry. Modern Britain: 1885-1955, Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD,
1960.

Simkins, Peter. Kitchener’s Army: The Raising of New Armies, 1914-16, New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1988.

Steinberg, S.H. A New Dictionary of British History. London: Edward Arnold LTD.,
1964.

Vexler, Robert I. England: A Chronology and Fact Book 1485-1973, Dobbs Ferry, NY:
Oceana Publications, 1974.

Willis, K. Lecture, University of Georgia, History 3372: Britain since 1660, Athens, GA:
University of Georgia, 2008.

Silver and Gold v. Healing… the State of the Economy and more…

This was my response to a response on this article… http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/images-statues-and-pictures/#comment-96576 it follows up with some thoughts “I have been having and some preparations I am making for my next possible post.

5 Lady Godless

Father Joe said: “We bend the knee, use incense, and offer adoration to the host. We believe that it has been transformed by God. Non-believers would just say that we are peculiar or touched in the head because we worship stale bread.”

Nah. I’d just say that you were human, and that humans often do things like that. They seem to have a desire to give form to the ineffable or the abstract, so that they can possess it in some way.

Which reminds me. Recently on Wall Street, a group of Evangelical Christians gathered to lay hands on the big bronze bull statue. They wanted the economy — an abstraction made manifest in the graven image of the bull — to receive divine healing and transformation.

http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/10/forget-the-bailout-let-s-just-pray

Did those people commit idolatry, in your view?

FATHER JOE: One cannot follow both God and Mammon.

#
on November 12, 2008 at 9:19 pm6 jzholloway

Lady Godless…

When one lays hands on someone, and anoints them with oil… are they committing idolatry? No, they are simple praying for that person. When a priest walks through a house, flinging holy water throughout the rooms, and anointing the doors, is he worshiping the house? No. So therefore, I think the roles, from this, to what happened, i.e. in Deuteronomy are reversed. Instead of worshiping the mammon, they were asking God to bless it and “heal” it. Is this right… whose to say, but is it idolatry, I doubt it. Personally, I believe no one person should be rich, for it distracts us from God, and causes us to look within ourselves and to the world – to me, this is why the Apostles had the community of believers in Acts to sell their possessions and use the money to help each other and those in need… if God intended us to be rich, in my view, Peter and John would have had money when entering into Jerusalem, instead, he used these two to heal a lame man, which is far more precious then the silver or gold the man wanted. The problem is not the economy, the problem is we desire silver and gold over being healed – and not just physical or “spiritual” healing… and that desire has corrupted mankind. Silver and gold… mammon, bring only death and waste, healing brings life.

Marines Prohibit Father of Serviceman Killed on USS Cole from Expressing Opposition to Islamic Terrorism

Marines Prohibit Father of Serviceman Killed on USS Cole from Expressing Opposition to Islamic Terrorism; Thomas More Law Center Files Lawsuit
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

General – Islamic Decal 1ANN ARBOR, MI – Jesse Nieto is a 25-year Marine veteran whose honorable service to our nation included two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, and 16 of Marc’s shipmates were killed on October 12, 2000, by Islamic terrorists who bombed the USS Cole. Nieto has worked as a civilian employee at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina since 1994.
Since 2001, Nieto has displayed various decals on his vehicle expressing anti-terrorist sentiments, such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000, ” “Islam=Terrorism, ” and “We Died, They Rejoiced.” On July 31, 2008, two military police officers (MPs) issued Nieto a ticket for displaying “offensive material.”
In mid-August, after Nieto refused to remove all “offending” decals from his vehicle, the Base Magistrate issued Nieto a written order, ordering him to remove his vehicle from the base until all decals were removed and banning his vehicle from all other federal installations. The order in effect prevented Nieto from driving his vehicle to Arlington National Cemetery (a federal installation) to visit the grave of his fallen son.

General – Islamic Sticker 2As a result of the Marine Corps’ action, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, this week filed a federal lawsuit against the Camp Lejeune Commanding Officer and the Base Magistrate on behalf of Nieto in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The civil rights lawsuit challenges the military’s ban on Nieto’s speech on the basis that it violates Nieto’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. [Click here to read the complaint filed by the Law Center.]
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The banning of these decals is political correctness run amuck in the military. Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians, and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”
Continued Thompson, “I suspect the next thing the Marine command will want to do is eliminate the Marine’s Hymn since the phrase `to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.”
The lawsuit alleges that military officials have engaged in viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment and have violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by allowing some messages to be displayed but prohibiting others that they find unacceptable. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the military’s ban on “offensive” speech is impermissible because there are no objective standards guiding the decisions of government officials, thereby granting these officials unbridled discretion to determine which speech is acceptable and which speech is unacceptable.
Robert Muise is the Law Center attorney handling the Nieto case. He is also one of the Law Center’s attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” case. A military judge recently dismissed the charges against Chessani, and the government has appealed the ruling. A decision by the military appellate court is expected in the next few months.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore. org.

Response to the American Election – Abp. Craig Bates, Patriarch ICCEC

No matter your response to the politics and policies of President-elect Barack Obama, Americans can be proud of two things today.

First, we can be proud that in spite of a long, and often times hard, campaign there will be a peaceful transition of government. This is certainly not the case for many of the countries of the world. Yet, we know that young democracies long to see the day of peaceful transition. They can look to the United States as an example of hope because of how we will handle this transition.

Second, America has proven once again that the people will correct a wrong. This is primarily because America was founded on and has been rooted in the Christian value of justice. Two-hundred and twenty-one years ago, the Founding Fathers struggled with the horror of slavery. Unfortunately, after a long debate and a desire to unite a new country, they wrote into the Constitution that African slaves were to be counted as three-fifths of a human being in the representative democracy that was being born.

One-hundred and forty-seven years ago, the nation entered into a bloody civil war that had brother fight against brother, and saw the loss of life of hundreds of thousands of young men. Ostensibly the war had to do with the rights of the states versus a strong centralized government, as well as economic concerns; though much of the argument centered on the abolition of slavery. The states of the South argued for a free white man’s power and right to hold others in bondage. Although slaves were set free, the sin of racism continued in the form of segregation—whether legal or de facto segregation. Even the Supreme Court ruled in favor of “separate but equal” education.

It was only forty years ago that a presidential candidate won the votes of 10 million Americans despite having declared as a governor, “I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

It was only fifty-two years ago that a young women, Rosa Parks, refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. It was only forty-five years ago in front of the Lincoln Memorial that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King delivered the “I have a Dream” speech which stirred a generation of Americans to work for justice and equal rights for people of color. And that speech continues to stir the hearts of people today. It was only forty-four years ago that the Civil Rights Act was signed, and then a year later the Voting Rights Act. It was only forty years ago that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated. And over the past four decades we have seen African Americans become Governors, Mayors, Legislators, Senators, and high ranking officials in the Cabinet of the President. We have seen African Americans in the professions of America. Now we have an African American President.

My father used to tell me that I should be proud to be American, because it was a country where anyone could grow up and become President. Yesterday my father’s words became a real truth. Americans can be thankful that the world has seen that America truly is a country with a dream of liberty and equality, and that the two are not opposed to each other.

President Barack Obama faces many challenges and Americans will always remain loyal to their President. There will be a loyal opposition who will work with President Obama when they agree with him, and will criticize him when he is wrong. But first and foremost they will be Americans.

Now American Christians must continue to obey the Scriptures to submit to the governing authorities for their authority comes from God. We pray for those who have authority over us so that we may lead quiet and peaceful lives.

There are, however, losers in this election. The rights to life for the pre-born and the elderly are still under attack. Abortion will remain legal (but never lawful). Thousands of babies will continue to die. And, it is most likely that the new President will appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices who will be pro-abortion. These justices will most likely vote on the side of the culture of death that legalizes abortion, as well as euthanasia, genetic engineering, and embryo stem cell research.

Americans must still deal with the greed, consumerism, materialism, and hedonism that have infected the soul of the nation. A great deal of the support of slavery and legalized segregation had to do with economics. Just as today abortion is pushed in America, and around the world, as an economic solution to poverty; or it is embraced by many as an alternative to pregnancy, because those pregnancies would interfere with a materialistic and consumer-driven life style.

It was religious leaders that rose up in the abolition movement who ended slavery. Many paid a great price for freedom. It was religious leaders who rose up to end segregation in America. It continued throughout the years to be the religious community that spoke for social justice for all people.

The religious community must be a strong voice for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves—particularly the pre-born. We can be optimistic. It took a generation to end segregation, achieve voting rights, and finally have an African American in the White House. Something most of us never thought would happen in our generation. I believe, because God is on our side, we can end abortion in one generation.

Every member of the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church should support CEC for Life, because it is committed to prayer, to the humanizing of all life, and the empowerment of a new generation of those fighting for life and justice for the least among us.

By living the gospel American Christians will continue to be the Church. They will serve the King of Kings, who remains on the throne of the Kingdom that will never end. The Church will continue to preach the truth. The Church will continue to speak for justice and mercy. The Church will continue to reach out with the Good News in words and actions to the least, the lost, and the lonely. The Church will defend the pre-born by preaching the truth that Jesus came to bring life, and bring it in abundance.

May the whole International Communion pray for the American Church and for the American people.

Under His mercy,
The Most Rev. Craig W. Bates,

My Library – New Feature

On the left hand side of the page, above the calendar, I have two links for “My Library.”
Here, I have begun listing books that I own, and I am tagging them to divide them into categories, etc. If you do click on it, it will be easier to sort by tags – since I have everything from history, to science fiction, to religious books. I hope you enjoy!

Obligation… Response to Election Article

Earlier this week, I posted an article, written by Father Bob Roethel of Thomaston, GA, concerning the upcoming election. Though I really like the article, I had trouble with one sentence.

You have an obligation, both as a citizen and as a
Christian to take part in civil government, especially the election process.

Now, I agree, that as a citizen of the United States, as with any other country that has voting rights, it is important to vote, however, I do not believe one is obligated. In most elections in this country, one’s vote matters – counts completely. When you vote for the legislature, both state and federal, your vote counts, majority rules. Yet, when you vote for President, majority does not rule, just as former Vice-President Al Gore.

The Electoral College, put in place by our founding fathers, continiues to mislead the citizens of the United States into thinking that their voice is heard when they cast the vote for the Commander in Chief. Granted, there must be votes within this system for it to work, but it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of votes nationally, and still not win the presidency. Due to this system, all one has to due is win a majority of delegates, not votes. All one must do is win the large states, and essentially he or she will win the presidency. Yes, our constitution, and its amendments, guarantee enfranchisement for all males and females over the age of 18 who are citizens of the United States and who register to vote, however, citizens who vote in the states who do not have a lot of delegates, in many ways, truly do not have a voice.Yes, they can vote, and yes, their states do have delegates – and maybe, if the race is close, North Dakota’s 3 electoral votes may truly make the difference… but what are the odds?

Electoral College Map – 2008

If you look at the link posted above, you will see that the only “large” state listed in red (republican) is Texas, with 34 electoral votes, with the second largest is Georgia with 15. In blue, you have California (55), New York (31), Pennsylvania & Illinois with 21, Michigan (17). Swing states, Florida (27) and Ohio (20). Ironically, the map shows the majority of the southern United States in the red, the northern states in the blue, etc. Now, you can argue that if you win the big states, who are the big states because they have more voters, you should be the President of the United States, and that may be, but what happens when you win your “small” states by winning a huge majority of votes, but barely lose the big states. What happens when you win the popular vote – and its not even close, yet because you lost California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, etc by less then 5% of the votes? The answer is simple, you do not become the President of the United States – in other words, in this scenario, the person, who the majority of the voters in the United States voted for, goes home, and the one who was able to campaign better in the larger states goes to the White House.

Now, I know this does not answer the article, but I wanted to talk for a moment about the electoral system of the United States. Is it important to vote? Yes, of course. Should you vote? It is your right to do so, gained and preserved by those who have preceded us for the past 200+ years. Yet, ironically, the country we broke from, Great Britian, has an electoral system which not only allows for the party who gains the most votes to win the most seats, but also allows for more then two parties, giving the opportunity for lesser parties to gain seats in their legislature. This country, who is “for the people, by the people,” who, as Fr. Roethel pointed out, has our Declaration of Independence begin, “We the People…,” does not completely allow the people to decide… and why was this? Why was the Electoral College put in place? Thats a good question. If we are truly created equal, then our votes should matter just as much as everyone elses does. We no longer have slavery, so the 3/5’s compromise is obsolete, also, education concerns – saying that ultimately the states would know best because of the lack of extensive education in the young country – are also obsolete. Were the founding fathers scared? Quite possibly, yet, it should not matter anymore. Yet, we still have the Electoral College, which, to me, reduces my vote to nothing more then a state wide contest, and once that contest is over, the vote no longer means anything, only the states won and lost. Is this truly a “We the People” process? Its not to me.

Now, going back to the “obligations” we have concerning the government. As Christ said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesae’s,” well, what is “Caesar’s?” Taxes are the first obvious answer, especially since that was the context in which Jesus says this, however, St. Paul in his epistles elaborates even further. We are to pray for and bless those in authority over us – i.e., in this case, the government. We are to support them and obey they law – at least in the case in were it does not disagree with Scripture – as Fr. Mike pointed out to me, even though the Apostles were banned from teaching about Jesus, they still did it – and even in this case, they still ultimately submitted, both Sts. Paul and Peter were crucified in Rome for their disobedience to the Roman Empire, but they went willingly – remaining to give honor, just not their worship.

Voting is not honoring those in authority over us – it is the process of selecting those who will be in authority over us. If we say that voting is an obligation – in the context of honoring those in authority over us, then we would be forced to vote for those who are in authority over us at this time, or in the case of this year, the party who is in authority – i.e. the Republican Party for President, and the Democratic Party – or the incumbents, in the other races. Also, if we believe, as St. Paul says, that all authority comes from God, and God places those men and women into positions of authority, then you could argue that, unless you know exactly who God wants in office, and you vote for that person, you could be playing a dangerous game – attempting to play God. Now, do I believe by voting you are playing God, no, but I also do not believe that we are obligated to vote – to we have that right, yes, is it an obligation, no. Is it a sin if you do not vote? I do not believe so. Are you a bad citizen if you do not vote? I do not believe so. Is voting important, again, yes, but to say it is an obligation I believe is incorrect.

The Faithfulness of God – Father Michael Birdsong

This is an article written by Father Michael Birdsong. It was posted on http://www.midsouthdiocese.org/ as well as sent out by email. This article is posted by request of the author who is a regular contributor on this blog. JZ Holloway

For sometime now I have wanted to just sit myself down and think of how faithful the Father is to perform his promises especially in the lives my biological father and myself. We would, as you could say, did not have the greatest relationship; nor did he with his own father. In my early youth I could not understand how someone could not attempt to see their child. Yet now I can understand that he was feeling guilty for his own failures in life.

In my youth I heard many times that “God is faithful” and had prophesies spoken over me that, one day, I would lead my biological father to the Lord. So, as I entered the ministry, I thought that I had “arrived” and the time had come to “win him to the Lord.” So, I set out for North Carolina to do just that – only to return home to Alabama with my tail between my legs wondering if, indeed, he would ever accept the Lord. I wondered if my dad would ever do what I wanted him to do– that is, just love me.

Then, sometime ago, the Father spoke to me, as well my step-father, to just be the love of Christ to him and to release him to the Father. During that time, I became more aware of what the Father had already blessed me with: a loving husband for my mother and a step-father for me that loved me like I was his own. In fact, I began to love him more and more each day but my step-dad never let me forget  that one day I would see the salvation of my biological father and would reconcile with him. I did not know how or when.

After my marriage and two children, I began to wonder again and say to myself, “My father has two grand children and has only seen them three times in fourteen years. Why?” But it was not for me to wonder why. “God is faithful,” I reminded myself.

Two years ago, my father became ill and was in and out of the hospital. For most of that time he basically became helpless. On Sunday March the 9, 2008 ,I received a call from my uncle that Dad was in grave condition and had been transported from Huntsville, AL to Birmingham. I knew by this that the situation was critical. The next morning my son and I set out for the trip. On the way I would think about the promise that the Father had given me and that the promise was not going to happen. I imagined that I would have to fight all the memories of what I called “wasted time.”. I was a mess. It was at that time my son put his hand on mine and said, “Daddy the Lord told me that your Dad will not make it through the night, but he also said it would be OK.” Needless to say, I had to repent.

I arrived at the ICU after visiting hours, but wearing clerics. The head nurse asked if I needed to see someone. “I need to see Michael Birdsong.” She asked who I was and I replied, “Michael Birdsong Jr.” Her face went pale and she began to say to me that I may not like what I was about to see. She shared that he had two heart attacks that morning and was on a respirator. When I arrived at the room, my son with me, it was just as I expected.

The Lord just said, “Be a son.” I took his hand and said, “Daddy I’m here.” As much as one can smile with a tube in their throat, his smile was there and he became conscious. The nurse asked, “What did you do?” I told her that I just said, “Daddy I’m here.” She began to explain how he had been unconscious all day. For the next three hours my son and I were with him, just being sons. After I was gently told it was time to go, I stood and was able to hear him whisper for the first time in many years, “I love you.” Afterwards he grasped my purple stole three times as I was trying to leave. Finally, I asked, “Are you trying to tell me that you repent of all your sins?” He nodded his head and tried to speak the word, “Yes.” I was able to pray for him, bless him, and give him the absolution of the Father. That night at 11:45 PM, Dad went to be with the Lord.

While it is always a sad time to lose someone, it was one of the best of my life as I got to see and learn many things:

1. My son was able to see me honor my father.
2. My own relationship with my son was strengthened during this time.
3. I learned to be, “a son.”

It became a revelation to me that sometimes we as priests and deacons try so hard to be “all to all” that we forget to be sons to our heavenly Father. The Father had ordained this time for me to be with my Dad. My father responded when I, with a loving and true heart, said, “Daddy I’m here.” Let us all learn to be a son.

Father Mike Birdsong is a Priest-in-Residence at The Cathedral of St. Michael and All Angels, Thomaston, GA