Comments on: Amazing Grace

By: Benjamin Backus

Benjamin Backus — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:44:29 +0000

Bill, thank you for your thoughts about this. Onward, then!
Benjamin Backus

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:48:04 +0000

Thanks Benjamin

The short answer is it is possible, and it has happened. I have been involved in this myself. It is called being a cobelligerent. That is, one can work with others for more limited, specific ends, even though there is wider disagreement elsewhere.

In Proverbs it says, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?” Good point. While we can and should work with others for various objectives, at some point fundamental differences will emerge concerning worldviews, philosophy, theology, etc. So one needs to keep those limitations in mind.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Benjamin Backus

Benjamin Backus — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:28:50 +0000

Concerning Lessons For Today no. 3 (uniting for a common purpose): I am an atheist who does not object to early stage abortion because I truly do not believe that unborn babies have an everlasting soul. Yet I agree with many of the aims I see posted here, to counter the erosion of values (such as honesty and true generosity) and the decline of civility. Do you think it is really possible to work together on these points of agreement, when there is also disagreement about something so fundamental as abortion? Could we work together to prevent pornography from assualting children, for example, or would that be asking too much of one another? I ask because I am wondering what types of coalition might be possible in own work.
Benjamin Backus

By: John Angelico

John Angelico — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:06:44 +0000

http://www.jonathanfreedland.com/articles/archives/000332.html

David Skinner, UK

David, I read those articles, and I agree with your implied answer. I also notice that the Red Ken article skates over the thin ice of supposed “Catholic complicity” in the holocaust, despite evidence that Pius XII was actively supporting rescues of Jewish people.

And I note that no-one has so far mentioned his name-sake David Livingstone, who worked in East Africa to implement the laws passed in Britain, and to challenge the trade which continued there. That’s putting real feet onto the Gospel message!

John Angelico

By: John Angelico

John Angelico — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:44:55 +0000

In addition to Warwick’s comment, I would point out that recent changes in the Victorian Parliament may be opening a door to further radical changes locally.

Conservative Premier Steve Bracks with Deputy John Thwaites have passed the baton to John Brumby, an excellent Treasurer, and Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

Candy Broad has launched a Private Member’s Bill to remove the last barrier to abortion by amending the Crimes Act.

And in today’s Monash Journal Maxine Morand (newly promoted to Cabinet) is splashed across the front page promoting euthanasia and supporting the “Dying with Dignity Victoria” lobby group.

If the conservative influence of the former Premier diminishes, is there a risk that these measures may gain the support of the Cabinet, seeing that they are already part of the ALP platform?

John Angelico

By: Warwick Murphy

Warwick Murphy — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:06:13 +0000

Over the past year I have had opportunity to travel to Asia on two occasions. Both times involved working with NGOs working to bring women out of prostitution.
Last night my wife and I saw Amazing Grace and my mind quickly went to my experiences in Asia. Although Wilberforce had an amazing victory in the 1800s, the issue of slavery is still very much on the agenda.
Tens of thousands of women are taken as slaves each year to fill the brothels of the world. In Bangok alone there are literally thousands of working prostitutes. To my knowledge there are only four small Christian NGOs working to offer these women another option. These four groups reach maybe 150 women at a time. Do we need another Wilberforce to stir us into action?
Warwick Murphy, Melbourne

By: david skinner

david skinner — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:33:53 +0000

Who says the Media is Biased?

Friday 15th March 2007, the BBC TV presenter, Moira Stewart, of Afro-Caribbean descent, and who clearly has a vested interest in the multiculturalism that is tearing the heart out of Britain, put out a programme which was not so much a celebration of Wilberfoce’s achievement as an attempt to besmirch his name.
“Red” Ken Livingstone, Islamophile, homophile and atheist mayor of London, also, predictably, couldn’t resist putting the boot in.
http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=628
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2007/03/biting-hand-at-one-time-desire-to.html
http://www.jonathanfreedland.com/articles/archives/000332.html

David Skinner, UK

By: Ewan

Ewan — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:04:58 +0000

I wonder if Murray could tell us how much of a contributing factor the evangelical revival of Whitefield and Wesley was to the eventual success of Wilberforce and the abolitionists? Presumably the impact of this revival on the English public would have filtered through to parliament – a factor that is to date absent in our favour in our fight against abortion.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

By: MurrayA

MurrayA — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:44:59 +0000

Two major inaccuracies of the movie both involved John Newton:
1. The movie had Newton haunted by his private ghosts such that would not mention anything about the slave trade until he had one foot in the grave. This was not true. He published his “Thoughts on the African Slave Trade” in 1788, when the campaign had only just begun, and was instrumental in supplying constant ammunition for Wilberforce throughout the 20 year campaign. Newton was not some sideline observer, as the movie portrayed him.
2. The movie portrayed Newton as a monkish recluse in the Catholic mould (to curry favour with Roman Catholics?). He was anything but! He was a minister of the Church of England, a product of the Evangelical Revival, whose company was with such leaders as George Whitefield, John Wesley, William Romaine and others in the period after he gave up life on the sea. He was no ascetic monk.
Then after first toying with the idea of going into ministry with the Dissenters he entered the Established Church. After a period of ministry at Olney until Dec. 1779, he then moved to St Mary’s, Woolnoth at the end of that year. From here he exercised a powerful Evangelical ministry until his death in 1807. Like all the Evangelical leaders, he was passionately opposed to Roman Catholicism.

I did find the film quite moving, but still infected with the modern “tolerance” outlook, which forces a down-playing of the passionate convictions of Wilberforce. One other thing not mentioned was his book, “A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians…contrasted with Real Christianity” – but I daresay that would be too strong a dose of medicine for our insipid post-modernism!

Murray Adamthwaite

By: Jonathan Sarfati

Jonathan Sarfati — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:17:35 +0000

Another lesson: the fallacy of “Keep religion out of politics”. This is probably the most common trap that Christians can fall into today. But Wilberforce faced exactly the same attitudes. For example, Lord Melbourne (1779–1848), a future Prime Minister of the UK after whom the city is named, pontificated: ‘Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.’ Likewise the 4th Earl of Abingdon (1740–1799) spouted, ‘Humanity is a private feeling, not a public principle to act upon’.

And if a supporter of prenatal baby butchery says, ‘Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!’ point out that this is just like, ‘Don’t like slavery? Don’t own slaves!’

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane