Hah! I remember the story of that towing bill!

Thanks for this, Rick. I completely agree.

Excellent. Thank you!

I've never read the original book but I'm reliably informed by my son that it's superb.

A truly blessed Christmas to you and your family Rick.

Very excellent. Thanks. Of course, it's not just a tendency amongst Catholics!

“There was a scene in ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring’ where they’re in the mines of Moria, and there’s a quiet moment where Gandalf is talking to Frodo about the events of ‘The Hobbit.’ I'm a purist about the books, so I have to note that in Tolkien's actual book, this scene occurs long before the Mines of Moria, back at Bag End in 'The Fellowship of the Ring', chapter 2, before Frodo's journey even starts. I think it's too bad that so many people nowadays think of the movies as the definitive version of the Lord of the Rings, and not the books, because Jackson actually changed Tolkien's story quite a lot. I'm afraid I'm going to discover he's done the same thing to 'the Hobbit'. I believe that Tolkien did actually once say that the 'lembas' waybread of the elves (a little can keep you going for a long time) was equivalent to the Eucharist. And of course it's not hard to see Marian parallels in Elbereth.

Nice one, Ken. Just one slight caveat. You say, 'I am not saying that other religions could not have started a scientific revolution. I am saying that they didn't'. In actual fact, Islam was more advanced scientifically than Christianity in the Middle Ages (see here).

Right on, Rick - thanks for this. Love the tee-shirt, by the way!

It's not a quarrel I want to spend a lot of time on, since I know that I'm unlikely to persuade the majority of people on this site, and really, we've all probably got more pressing duties the Lord requires of us! So I'll simply point out that in my view the quotes Rick gives from the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not, in fact, 'the traditional teaching of the Church'. As an Anglican, I share with the Catholic Church a respect for the teaching of the early Church Fathers; to me, they are the primary repository of 'the traditional teaching of the Church'. And it is clear from the quote I gave from Hippolytus that in the Roman church, where he wrote about 215 A.D., it was considered illegitimate for Christians to be involved in professions that required them to use lethal force, even at the command of the State. In response to Ken's question, I'm not sure I know enough about the Amish to know what 'going Amish' would mean; I've noticed that a lot of people think they know what the Amish teach and then find out that, in fact, they don't! But if it means the Church being 'a light for all the world' and 'a city set on a hill' (Matthew 5:13-16) - with a different calling from the world and an observably different way of life whose chief characteristic is the imitation of our heavenly Father who sends his rain and sun on good and bad alike (Matthew 5:43-48) - well, yes, I plead guilty to the charge of believing that this is indeed the call of the Church. But I have to say that I'm encouraged by the direction that Pope Benedict is taking. I know that the Catholic Church is not a 'pacifist church' but stands in the just war tradition. One of my criticisms of the just war churches has been that in fact they do not uphold the church's traditional criteria as to what is in fact a just war (ensuring that civilians are not killed, for instance, which would have ruled out carpet bombing in WW2, and the use of land mines that stay around for generations and kill and maim civilians). I see the just war tradition as a friend to pacifism, not an enemy. I know that Rick's original post was not related to the war question, but to the death penalty, so it's encouraging to me to see the Pope moving beyond the teaching of the Catechism to consider the whole question of whether the death penalty is truly 'just' - knowing that in the main stream of biblical teaching, justice is a servant of reconciliation, not of vengeance. Right - I'll bow out now and continue working on my sermon for the 2nd Sunday of Advent! Blessings to you all!

Brad, you have a much more institutional view of 'the Church' than I do. You are correct that the institution of the Church is not executing anyone. But the institution of the Church did not exist when Paul wrote Romans. The Church as a community, as the Body of Christ, existed, as it still does today across many institutional boundaries. How is this relevant? Well, in your country and mine there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who work for 'the State'. Some of them are involved in the justice system. Some of them condemn criminals to death. Some of them, for all I know, carry out the sentences. In that sense, yes, the Church is indeed executing people. And I'm not even going near the question of whether or not the Church is executing people by its votes. 'Do not repay evil for evil' is not a command that Christians can leave behind when they go to work in government offices. Wherever we go, we are the Church.

Can I just say, in support of Rick, that quoting Bible verses without paying attention to the broad sweep of biblical teaching is very bad biblical exegesis for Christians. Yes, there are Old Testament verses that approve of the death penalty. But they don't just approve of it for murderers, do they? They approve of it for those who curse their parents too. If we take the one as being the authoritative 'word of the Lord' for us today, on what basis do we refuse the other? The fact is that Jesus has massively reinterpreted the Old Testament for Christians, and there is a difference between the old covenant and the new covenant. To say this is not rampant liberal socialism but New Testament Christianity according to the epistle to the Hebrews. Yes, Romans 13 does talk about the 'authority' bearing the sword. But Romans 13 assumes that the 'authority' is not Christian. Read it carefully; you will see that the apostle never uses 'you' language when he's describing the 'sword' function of the 'authority', but only 'he'. The 'you' language is in Romans 12, and in 13:8ff. And what do we find there? 'Do not repay anyone evil for evil' (v.17); 'Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord"' (v.19). Interestingly, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (usually dated around 215 A.D.) reflects this different calling of Christians - the idea that whatever the world may do, we Christians are called to a different standard. In chapter 16, in a section dealing with who may be admitted as catechumens to the Faith, we read these words: A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected (you can read the whole chapter by going to The Apostolic Tradition and scrolling down to chapter 16).

Absolutely awesome!

Hah - not going there!

Speaking of demons and temptations, C.S. Lewis somewhere has a quote that runs like this: 'The devil used to try to prevent people from doing good works, but now he's learned a trick worth two of that - he organises them!'

That's a lovely prayer, isn't it? Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, Rick.

That's a very fine post. Thanks for pointing us to it.

You're both very kind to an old geezer!

Thanks, Rick.

What gives me hope regarding Christian participation in politics is when I hear Christians saying something like this: 'You know, I used to buy the whole Liberal (or Conservative, or Socialist, or Libertarian etc. etc.) line, but I'm not comfortable doing that any more. I've come to see that there are some aspects of my political philosophy that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus. I'm going to have to rethink those things'. That's the sort of thinking that has prompted me to stop calling myself a socialist - which does not mean I'm going to adopt conservatism, either! It's harder, because it means I have to examine every aspect of a party platform and vote on a case by case, person by person basis. But I think if Christians are wanting to be true to our Lord, it's something we have to do.

Have to confess I choked up a bit on reading this. THanks, Rick.

I too am looking forward to that refocussing, Rick.

Fascinating. Like the author, I classify myself as an independent, albeit a slightly left-leaning independent (and in the context of Canadian politics too, which is somewhat different from the US scene). Have to say, though, that what this author outlines is a conservatism I could get behind.

I actually found Adrian's starting with discipleship very encouraging. I didn't find his post as objectionable as you did. The only thing I would add to it is that the evangelistic sermons in Acts usually include an invitation to baptism.

Peter Gomes will indeed be a big pair of shoes to fill. He was an outstanding preacher of the gospel. I hope your opinion of him will not change, Rick, when you learn that he was also a gay man.