The Evangelical Alliance released this announcement last week:

"The retiring General Director of the Evangelical Alliance will bring his passion for justice for the poor to two new roles as he joins Tony Blair's Faith Foundation and becomes the first International Director of Micah Challenge . . ."

Mr Edwards, a British immigrant from Jamaica, is an honorary Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral. He was a probation officer for fourteen years, and the senior pastor of Mile End New Testament Church of God for ten years.

The announcement continues . . .

He has been appointed as a member of the International Religious Advisory Council to the Faith Foundation, which will give advice and help to Tony Blair on the Foundation’s work and plans.

Mr Edwards said:

“I am honoured to be part of this Foundation, which aims to demonstrate the power faith has for good in the modern world."

Mr Edwards has been closely involved with Micah Challenge International—a Christian campaign challenging governments around the world to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015—since its inception in 2000.

“I am really looking forward to getting stuck in and leading this global coalition into an exciting phase of mobilising and campaigning towards 2015 . . ."

Read the entire story . . .

This is not really a political blog. And I am not a campaigner for any one political party. Nor have I ever even been a member of a party. Nothing in this post should be taken as a personal endorsement of any candidate or even as a suggestion that I have already cast my own vote. As of yet, I don't know that much about Alan Craig myself. I just want to give you this opportunity to hear more about a Christian who is standing for office and clearly not getting as much media coverage as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

Over the last few days I received, via e-mail, the following two press releases, which I thought I would share with you in their entirety. Before I do, let me say a couple of things myself about the forthcoming London mayoral elections. For my American readers, some useful background for you is that in the UK very rarely will an openly professing Christian stand for any political office as it is considered a handicap by all our main parties.

When thinking about the fact that there is a Christian standing for London mayor and deciding whether to vote for him, it is worth considering two little-known facts. First, if every churchgoer in London were to actually vote and they all used their first preference vote for Alan Craig, then he would easily become mayor. Second, if even just a small percentage of Christians voted for him as the first choice, then put one of the main party candidates second, he would definitely serve on the London Assembly.

The election will be decided by a simple process as I understand it. The top two candidates from the first preference votes will go into a run-off where the second preference votes are added to the first preference ones to decide who will be mayor. Thus, one should always vote for one of the smaller candidates first if you support them, and want both your preferences to be counted as, contrary to popular understanding, a second preference vote for a less popular candidate is wasted.

Here is the text of both press releases, with the newest one first:


Election Broadcast by the Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party
On Wednesday 23rd April 2008 television viewers in London will have the chance to see a Christian vision of London for the GLA Elections.

6.25 pm ITV
6.55 pm BBC1
It will also be available on the BBCi-player and broadcast on BBC Radio.

A preview will be published from 11.55 pm Monday 21st April on the Christian Choice website:

http://www.thechristianchoice.org.uk/
A speech by Alan Craig on the importance of marriage made at the Kensington Temple Hustings is now available on YouTube at:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNKeWMiI6c

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



For Immediate Release: Sunday 20th April 2008

Christian Leaders Announce Backing for Alan Craig's London Election Campaign
Christian leaders are urging London voters to back Alan Craig of the Christian Choice in his campaign for mayor and the London Assembly. The group comes from a range of church backgrounds—Anglican, Roman Catholic, the Black Majority Churches, and the Free Church—and say Alan Craig is the outstanding candidate to run the capital. Councillor Craig also tops the London List of Assembly candidates for the Christian Choice, and needs just 5% to qualify for a seat.

Human rights campaigner and a Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords, Baroness Cox of Queensbury said:

“Among all the candidates running for London Mayor, Alan Craig stands out above the crowd. He has shown leadership in industry and for years he's been devoted to bringing change to the inner-city through serving the community in London's East End.

But it is his Christian qualities which make him distinctive—brave in facing-up to political correctness, standing by ordinary Londoners and confronting issues like the threatened Mega Mosque, which other politicians won't touch. London won't do better than to choose Alan for mayor.”

Mgr John Armitage, Vicar General of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brentwood, praised Alan Craig for his years of service in London's East End:

“He is a committed Christian, a man of integrity who has a passion for the common good. His service of the people in one of the most socially deprived areas in the country has given hope and encouragement to many people. He has a true desire to serve and help to build strong local communities in London.”

Prominent leader in the Evangelical Alliance and founder of Icthus Christian Fellowship, Roger Forster, said:

“A vote for Alan Craig of The Christian Choice can put the name of Christ officially onto the Greater London Authority, which after so many years must be a good thing. I have every confidence concerning the Christian commitment, integrity and intelligence of Alan.”

Dr Sola Fola Alade leads the Trinity Chapel congregation of major black church, RCCG. He wrote:

“Alan is an honourable and compassionate Christian man. I know him to be a visionary leader who is not afraid to stand for justice and truth. He has shown himself to be a selfless leader, one who has now become a voice of the voiceless and a defender of the helpless. Though a Christian, he is one who reaches out to people regardless of class, colour, or creed.”

Rev Lyndon Bowring, Executive Chairman of campaign group CARE, said:

“Alan Craig is an outstanding Christian leader and a man of the people. London and the GLA needs him and I wholeheartedly commend him to you in the forthcoming mayoral and GLA elections.”

Writing in Christianity Magazine, Premier Christian Radio broadcaster and Chief Executive, Peter Kerridge, wrote:

“Personally, I hope Alan Craig gets onto the London Assembly where I believe his influence would make a positive difference.”

Former London mayoral candidate for the Christian Peoples Alliance, Ram Gidoomal CBE, praised Alan Craig's business credentials:

“London deserves better than simply a politician for mayor. That's why Alan Craig is so different—he walks the talk—spending years in sacrificial service in one of London's most deprived communities. But unlike other mayoral candidates, he comes with significant business experience. He understands that to stay ahead, the capital has to stay competitive, have a high quality of life for all its citizens, and be the British engine-room of innovation and investment. He makes a formidable candidate.”

Christian author, speaker, writer, and founder of Pioneer, Gerald Coates, concluded:

“Alan Craig is just what we need and is suitably equipped to be Mayor of London. He was a successful senior businessman, has more recently worked among the deprived and vulnerable, and is a politician with considerable experience and expertise.”

Colin Dye of Kensington Temple and J. John of the Philo Trust are also backing the campaign.

The Christian Choice is the united electoral option of the Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party. It is committed to serving all Londoners regardless of race, faith or background.

For more information:
E-mail: press@cpaparty.org.uk
Telephone: 07873 625396
View: http://www.thechristianchoice.org/?page=endorsements

Promoted and published by P Vickers, The Christian Choice, 85 Tarling Road, London E16.

The following video is the one referred to in the first press release above:

PRESS RELEASE

6 March 2008

One of the UK's most senior Christian leaders, the Reverend Joel Edwards, will be leaving his post as General Director of the Evangelical Alliance UK after more than a decade of valued service.

Mr. Edwards completed two five-year terms as General Director for the Alliance last year, but wanted to stay on until he had finished work on a new vision for evangelicalism, outlined in his new book An Agenda for Change.

Due to depart in September, he will spend his final six months as General Director presenting this vision to the church on a tour of the UK and America.

Mr. Edwards announced his resignation to staff at a celebration of his twenty years working for the Evangelical Alliance and its sister organization, the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance.

He said:

"These twenty years have been absolutely magnificent and have provided lots of exciting opportunities for me and the Alliance.

But I believe God is saying that now is the right time for me to hand on the baton to someone new, who can lead the next generation of evangelicals to implement our renewed vision for society.

The vision I and the Alliance have worked on together is clear: our future as evangelicals is to be at the heart of spiritual and social transformation for our society."

Mr. Edwards, who was the Alliance's first black General Director, has progressed and deepened the diversity of the Alliance while bringing credibility and attention to evangelicals in the ecumenical and secular spheres. In the UK he strengthened the voice of evangelicals in the media and in Parliament, while on an international level he was fundamental to the formation of Micah Challenge, a movement calling governments to account for justice for the poor.

Katei Kirby, Chief Executive Officer of the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance (ACEA) said: "Joel has played a significant part in uniting and engaging the diversity of evangelicals in the UK. He leaves a living legacy of gracious and consistent Christian leadership that is both exemplary and inspiring."

Derek Tidball, Chair of the Alliance council, said: "Joel is a greatly valued friend and ambassador for the Alliance, and has worked tirelessly in the name of Christ during his time as General Director.

We are very thankful for his contribution to the evangelical world and are already exploring ways in which we can continue to work together."

Mike Talbot, Chair of the Alliance board, said: "Joel is an evangelical statesman who has made a significant contribution to the witness of the church in this land. He is respected across the Christian community, and beyond, and loved for his graciousness and his passion for the good news of Christ.

We will be very sad to see him go, but we are excited about the opportunities that will open up for him in the future."

Mr. Edwards plans to continue his active involvement with Micah Challenge International, which he chairs. He also remains passionate about issues of human rights and freedom of conscience, and will continue to champion these through his role as a commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

NOTE
Mr. Edwards, a British immigrant from Jamaica, is an honorary Canon of St Paul's Cathedral. He was a probation officer for fourteen years and the senior pastor of Mile End New Testament Church of God for ten years.

Mr. Edwards was offered the post of General Secretary of the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance in 1988, becoming UK director for the Evangelical Alliance UK four years later and General Director of the Evangelical Alliance UK in 1997. He received a medal of appreciation for services to Jamaica in 2003, an honorary doctorate from St. Andrews University last year, and is a published author.

More about his book and tour can be found at An Agenda For Change.

Christianity Today has published online a short news item about the UK which I wrote for them. The article, entitled Surprise Appointment, begins as follows:

The appointment of Joel Edwards, general director of the U.K.'s Evangelical Alliance, as a commissioner to the nation's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has drawn complaints from gay activists.

Formed to enforce legislation guaranteeing age, ethnic, disability, gender, and sexual preference equality, the EHRC brings together the U.K.'s three previous equality commissions. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which went into effect on January 1, added prohibitions against treating anyone "less favorably than he treats or would treat others" on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, concessions within the act allow religious organizations to define standards of sexual behavior for their members and leaders. . . .

Read more . . .

The UK EA has freely released some legal framework documents that may be of particular interest to you if your church is in Britain and is led by one of its employees and/or decisions are not taken by a vote of the full membership. Legal changes have led to the following announcement:

"The Evangelical Alliance and the Charity Commission have announced the completion of three model governing documents that provide guidance for independent churches. These documents are the culmination of four years of work.

The documents set out the proper checks and balances required to allow paid church leaders to take appropriate leadership responsibilities as church charity trustees, manage any potential conflicts of interest, and offer churches a legal structure to help govern their charity.

The work, initiated in 2003, was primarily designed to strengthen accountability and governance of new independent churches. The model governing documents have been drawn up by the Evangelical Alliance, African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance, Anthony Collins (solicitors) and Stewardship, in partnership with the Charity Commission . . ."

I should say before I start—there is a reason why I don't usually blog about politics. It's not normally something I feel strongly about. But right now a thought is welling up within me—something I suspect many people are feeling and few are willing to ask:

Is it time for the Labour Party to fire their new leader and our prime minister?

There — I've asked the unthinkable. Although, of course, since I am not a Labour MP, nor even a member or committed supporter of any political party, there is nothing I can do to bring about Brown's downfall, other than perhaps write this post. But if you are a Labour MP reading this post, all I can say to you is perhaps you need to ask yourself, "Is it time to consider putting country before party, and begin to explore the possibility of changing your leader?" All it would take is the confidence to stand up to him. I'm sure many of you must be wondering why none of you had the courage to stand against him in a true leadership election. That surely was Brown's first mistake—not ensuring that there was a true open contest for the leader's chair.

When I wrote a post last month entitled "The Beginning of the End for Brown?" I certainly did not expect to see what we have seen since then. I must stress that I am not a committed Tory supporter, and am not even sure that David Cameron would do a vastly better job. Rather, I am beginning to feel that for the good of the nation, and for the good of Brown's increasingly long and persecuted-looking face, it's time to draw this more swiftly to the conclusion we know is coming. I still remember the look of relief on Major's face when he lost the election to Blair. I genuinely don't think it's going to do Brown much good to hang on, and more importantly than that, I'm starting to have serious doubts about what this is going to do to our nation.

In the short months since Brown took over from our properly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, let's look at the catalouge of errors, and in particular the indecision we have seen from Brown.

• We saw the foot-and-mouth crisis handled badly, with premature declarations that we were "free" of the illness, and allowing the lab that leaked the virus to go on working, resulting this past week in an astonishing second leak. A decisive leader would have shut the lab down and ensured that such labs did not work next to farms again.
  
  
• In the Northern Rock fiasco, we saw early dithering about whether to bail the bank out or let it go bust. It seems we, the taxpayer, have now loaned up to perhaps a staggering 30 billion to this bank. I can only assume that much of this has gone on enabling Northern Rock to repay loans made by other banks who should have known better. Surely there may well be other banks at risk. The extension of the ad hoc "savings guarantee" to all bank deposits in the UK suggests this might be the case. In the meantime we still don't know what is going to happen to Northern Rock. A decisive leader would have either let the bank go bust or simply nationalized it. To allow this drain on the public finances, which now exceeds the primary school budget, to continue to grow is inexcusable. We have even been told that the loans might be illegal under EU law! To preside over the first run on a UK bank in 150 years is both shameful and obviously preventable and predictable (e.g. up front offering the savings guarantee but no loan, for example). What is shocking is that so many other crises are ongoing that this latest growth in the bank's national debt barely gets a mention. A decisive leader might have seen this crisis coming and prevented it, or could have acted in a much clearer way from the beginning instead of what is now shameful and dangerous indecision.
  
  
• Brown has presided—the most damaging of all of the above for Brown personally as it happened in his old department—over the biggest data security breach I suspect has ever occurred anywhere in world history. Brown expects us to believe that the system he approved to be put in place allowed a junior official to simply download the names, addresses, phone numbers, and bank accounts of every child in the UK and their parents. If that is so, then he should resign in shame for that alone. It is simply unbelievable. I suspect that it also isn't quite true, as Nick Robinson hints in his sharing of an email trail with us. A decisive leader would have never allowed a careless culture to arise, and would have called in the police to investigate what was surely a breach of the law.
  
  
• Brown has also, by his own admission, presided over a Labour Party which broke the law flagrantly over voter donations. He has not looked too good in refusing to initially call in the police, and in almost trying to blame his deputy in the whole "I know nothing about this man" bit. A decisive leader would have either demanded the head of his deputy before making his announcement or wholeheartedly supported her. Also, what kind of party is so casual about its fund raising?

Surely any one of these things would be enough to bring down the CEO of a company that had failed us all so badly. This is our government. None of these crises are in one sense massive—if we were to face a more serious situation, I would be very concerned indeed. Yet all of them have been made worse, not better, by our Prime Minister and his government. Am I the only one who thinks it is Brown himself who should resign?

UPDATE
One thing I forgot to mention was picked up by the BBC yesterday. The deathly power of humour to a politician. Here's what they said: they first quoted from Vince Cable the following devestating put-down about Brown.

The prime minister had been transformed, he said, from "Stalin into Mr Bean."

The PM's face fell.

Opposition MPs fell about.

Quite a few Labour members struggled not to do the same.

The truly worrying thing, from the Brownite perspective is that, just now, a man who's worked hard to establish strength, sound judgement and deadly seriousness as his defining characteristics seems to be in danger of becoming a figure of fun. . . .

Tony Blair was generally despised or admired.

Margaret Thatcher was often both, at once.

Recoverable?

I cannot remember an exquisitely delivered one-liner hitting home against either of them in quite the same way as we saw this week

Other blogs and main stream media are also strongly criticizing Brown this weekend. This includes the following:

* The Spectator
* The Quiet One
* Matthew Parris of the Times who says the following:

What possessed Gordon Brown to declare, before he had the least reason to know it to be true, that there was one individual alone, Labour's general secretary, who knew about the fake donors just as the media began unearthing all the others, and, as I write, are still unearthing? Didn't that great strategist, that colossus of a political intellect, pause for a moment to wonder whether there might be more to come out?

In what stunted imagination but Mr Brown's could the plan then be hatched to make Harriet Harman the scapegoat for receiving, on Mr Brown's own lieutenant's advice, a sum representing less than 1 per cent of the total monies paid by David Abrahams? To what bully's mind but Mr Brown's could it fail to occur that if he kicked her in the stomach she might defend herself?"

FURTHER UPDATE
Another government data breach has been revealed. This is just unbelievable!

My friend, Tony Miles, reports on the death of Rob Frost. More information is available at Share Jesus International, where reflections from his family are also available. I found this passage striking:

On the last evening of Easter People this year Rob preached, and as he left the platform he was sad that this would be the last Easter People . . . but he believed God said to him, ". . . you will not be here next year Rob." We thank God for this preparation, even though the knowledge has been difficult.

I don't often mention politics on this blog. But today I simply can't resist. This weekend, election fever was rife in the UK. One of the many oddities of our UK political system is that, right now, a man who was never directly elected by the population to be Prime Minister has the power to call an election at a time of his choosing between now and June 2010!

Because we don't have term limits or fixed terms for Parliament, Tony Blair finally stepped aside to let his Finance Minister become Prime Minister. There wasn't even a true election within the Labour party since no one stood against him. Please don't think I am merely revealing an imagined political bias if I tell you that, so far, I am definitely less impressed with Brown's leadership ability than with his financial acumen or policy-making.

After initially claiming there was no need to hold an election, immediately on taking over the premiership just three months ago, he was emboldened by the so-called "honeymoon period bounce," during which his poll ratings climbed. At times I still think he looks a bit like a boy playing with his new toys. Certainly the way he has been teasing people over the last few weeks about a possible election has seemed somewhat smug to me. He knows that he has the power to do so as and when he chooses. Since things were looking good for him, he allowed everybody to think that he was undoubtedly going to call an election. He has even been accused of "spinning" over soldiers in Iraq this past week and using civil servants against the Tories. Now opinion polls have swung the other way. It is now, in the words of Nick Robinson of the BBC, "all tosh." Calling an election is surely a power that ought not to sit in the hands of the elected (or in his case unelected) leader of our nation. This weekend has certainly underlined that for me.

Any pledge by Cameron that if he were Prime Minister he would give up the right to call an election and establish an alternative system would surely gain him some more votes whenever Brown eventually decides to go to the people!

In light of all the speculation that an announcement could be made about an election early next week (to take place, believe it or not, at the beginning of November!!) I decided earlier this weekend that I had better listen to both leaders' speeches.

I listened to David Cameron's first. The leader of Margaret Thatcher's party, Cameron spoke for his political life. Without an autocue. Without detailed notes. He was engaging. Even funny at times. He announced a massive increase in the amount of money that can be inherited free of death duties—sufficient to take the value of most of England's homes out of the equation. Unemployed who refused a "fair job offer" would lose benefits. There would be a married persons tax allowance, and the benefit system would no longer penalize people for being married or in a relationship.

That one speech changed Brown's mind—that and the weekend polls, which placed Cameron in the lead over him! Then, cynicism of cynicism! We see a somewhat humbled Brown saying he wants the election to be about his view of the future, and so it will be in the future—a future of his choosing—and, he claimed it had absolutely nothing to do with the polls!

After listening to Cameron's speech, and before Brown's announcement, I began to listen to Brown's. I didn't get very far into it, but in terms of the style and rhetoric, I certainly didn't enjoy it half as much as Cameron's. Now I feel I don't need to continue to listen.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Conservative Party (even though I do know one of their candidates, Philippa Stroud), nor as a rejection of Labour. All I am saying is that leadership is about tactics, and about good speeches. The past few weeks has surely seen Brown look beaten by Cameron on both counts. Thanks to our electoral system, he can now lick his wounds, get on with running the country, and decide just how he can respond to the political grenade demonstrated in the following speech, which is available in both video and full text from the Conservative Party website.

My buddy, Mark Moore, has asked us to pray for a friend of his who is a pastor facing persecution in India. See Mark's blog for the full story:

“One of our international pastors in Acts 29, Pastor Sudhakar in India, is facing tremendous persecution, having been drug out of his church on a Sunday morning and beaten by twenty men. He is now standing trial for "converting Hindus to Christianity."

As many of you may already know, Dr. D. James Kennedy, well-known pastor, teacher, and evangelist died September 5th at his home in Florida after having suffered a cardiac arrest last December.

Many Christians world-wide have been influenced by Dr. Kennedy, not the least of whom is Dr. Albert Mohler, who remembered Kennedy in this personal tribute titled "Excellency in All Things, and All Things to God's Glory—The Legacy of Dr. D. James Kennedy," Here is a portion of that tribute:

"My indebtedness to Dr. Kennedy is very personal. I was a young Southern Baptist who as a teenager had serious questions about the big issues of the Christian faith. Dr. Kennedy's ministry at Coral Ridge addressed those big questions. He was unafraid to take on the intellectual challenges of the faith. He was kind to a Baptist teenager, introducing me to Francis Schaeffer and dignifying my questions. He clearly enjoyed talking theology and he was the first person I had ever met who demonstrated this joy. He was kind. I was hooked. In no small way my own calling as a theologian can be traced to Dr. Kennedy's influence. I was inspired by his intellectual engagement and motivated by his vision of excellence for God's glory."

Dr. James Kennedy, the well-known pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has been unable to preach during 2007 due to poor health and has now formally retired. His daughter made the announcement this morning.

More information can be found at Assist News Service, and the full press release can be read here.

HT: Denny Burk through Justin Taylor.

The much beloved wife of Billy Graham has died. There is lots of coverage on the CT Blog

Justin Taylor says it well when he writes "I join others around the world in thanking God for a life well lived in quiet, unashamed, faithful service to the Lord and his kingdom."

I am glad for the work of this couple who have represented Jesus well to the whole world for decades. I wonder if we will ever see their like again. It is astonishing to think of all that they did, and of the selfless way Ruth supported her husbands ministry to the crowds and world leaders.

Billy and Ruth were constants in a changing world. Ruth's passing reminds us no man goes on forever. With Billy now retired, and John Stott to preach only one more sermon a generation of world-class Christian leaders has passed away.

We should pray for world class leaders to be raised up to take their place. I am sure we can all think of several beginning to rise to significant influence. But, I wonder if we will in fact see just one or two rise to such prominence as say Stott and Graham had - between them embodying Evangelicalism to several generations.

The Associated Press has reported the following:

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell has died, a Liberty University executive said Tuesday. He was 73.

Earlier, the executive said Falwell was hospitalized in "gravely serious" condition after being found unconscious in his office.

Ron Godwin, the executive vice president of Falwell's Liberty University, said Falwell was found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital. Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but "he has a history of heart challenges."

Read more . . .

I have often said that one aspect of the American political system that is sensible is term limits for the president. It is no great surprise to anyone that Tony Blair has today announced his intention to resign as prime minister at the end of June.

In so doing, he has achieved a rare thing in British politics — leaving power at a time of his choosing and at a moment which many feel will place him in a good light. In a move that has been carefully choreographed, his announcement comes shortly after the monumental events that occurred in Northern Ireland earlier this week and before a round of international conferences, which Tony Blair will still lead before what appears to be the inevitable takeover by Gordon Brown, who is the current Chancellor/ Finance Minister.

Tony Blair clearly wants to be remembered as the politician who thought the unthinkable in Northern Ireland and brought Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams to the same table for peace.

He was very emotional at times in his speech, and the BBC has made the video of the whole speech available, as well as the transcript. In the video, Blair shows us once again what a master communicator he is, and I found myself quite choked as this announcement reflects the end of a chapter in the life of my country.

Whether you agree or disagree with Blair’s actions, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a master politician, probably the master politician of his generation anywhere in the world today. He has an astonishing self-belief, and closed his statement with a claim that Britain is the greatest nation on earth, something which almost no other Brit I know would dare to say! There is no doubt that such confident leadership is a great need of people, particularly in these days. Blair will be missed, more than some of us realise.

The following quotes from his speech stood out to me:

• “I have been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me, but more especially for the country.”
  
  
  
• “Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.”
  
  
  
• “I looked at my own country, a great country — wonderful history, magnificent traditions, proud of its past, but strangely uncertain of its future, uncertain about the future, almost old-fashioned.”
  
  
  
• “So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning, for sweeping away all the detritus of the past.”
  
  
  
• “Expectations were so high, too high - too high in a way for either of us.”
  
  
  
• “There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: 'More jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter,' — this one.”
  
  
  
• “Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values, the minimum wage, paid holidays as a right, amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe, equality for gay people.
  
  Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty, climate change, the fight against terrorism.
  
  Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world — its interdependence.
  
  This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future.”
  
  
• “But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.
  
  I may have been wrong. That is your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.
  
  I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future.
  
  This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers.
  
  People often say to me: 'It's a tough job' — not really.
  
  A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents, who visited me in Parliament the other week.
  
  Tough is the life my dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke. I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation.
  
  The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.
  
  It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short. Good luck.”

Lig Duncan has been part of a committee that has been considering the teachings of the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP), and especially N. T. Wright, for several months on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in America.

They have now made a number of clear declarations as listed below, and the closing paragraphs of the report suggest to me that they have concluded that to hold these views should become inconsistent with continuing as a minister or preacher in a PCA church. They make a number of requests of the General Assembly which meets later this year which include

"That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

I am not qute clear what happens next if this report is adopted — will we eventually see some kind of exclusionary process for those who hold to these ideas? (HT Justin Taylor)

The Declarations of the PCA Committee
"In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV (Ed = Federal Vision), and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
   
   
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption, and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
   
   
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards."

The whole article is well worth a read, but I offer the following excerpts as a taste of the way they strongly criticize N. T. Wright in particular:

• NT Wright’s "...version of Paul’s teaching on election and covenant stands in stark contrast to the confessional formulation of these themes. Both cannot be right as faithful presentations of the Pauline teaching on election and covenant."
  
  
• "We often hear proponents and sympathizers of the NPP and FV who are part of confessional Reformed communities say, that while they go beyond the Westminster Standards in what they affirm, they do not contradict the Westminster Standards. But it is evident that the version of covenant and election taught by the NPP and FV is incompatible with the views of the Westminster Standards. In fact, these two approaches to covenant and election are not complementary ways of looking at the biblical data, but irreconcilably contradictory alternative accounts of the biblical data . . ."
  
  
• "The Committee would suggest that the FV proponents have in effect provided an alternative hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. They have done so 1) by concentrating their efforts on the “objectivity” of the covenant, 2) by stressing the “covenantal” efficacy of baptism, 3) by focusing on the undifferentiated membership of the visible church, 4) by holding the view that the “elect” are covenant members who may one day fall from their elect status, and 5) by highlighting the need for persevering faithfulness in order to secure final election . . ."
  
  
• "To put it briefly, according to Wright, justification is chiefly the status of covenant membership, the status of belonging as a member of God’s people."
  
  
• "While Wright notes that justification (covenant membership) is a declaration that an individual’s sins are already forgiven, it does not mean that there is a transfer of God’s or Christ’s righteousness to sinners. As he argues, 'The righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness…God’s righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s own property. It is the reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he bestows upon them in so doing.'"
  
  
• ". . .according to Wright, the traditional idea of 'imputed righteousness, whereby sinners are accepted and accounted as righteous in God’s sight because of the righteousness of Jesus, is incorrect: “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas which can be passed around the courtroom.'"
  
  
• "Thus, the idea of a “gracious transfer” is simply not found in the biblical texts, according to Wright. In dealing with Romans 4:3-5, Wright understands the “book-keeping metaphor” of “counted” (ESV) as referring to the individual’s “status of being a member of the covenant…according to Wright, the language of Romans 4 does not represent “imputation” of “Christ’s/God’s righteousness” to the ungodly."
  
  
• "The question is then raised, when does this justification occur? For Wright, justification is an eschatological judgment that is applied in the present time “as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future.” This "whole life" includes both the membership badge of “faith” as well as faithful responses by the individual to life among God’s people. The place where Wright argues this most forcefully is in his exposition of Romans 2. There, Wright suggests that the justification of God’s people occurs “on the basis of works” (cf. Romans 2:6). When he describes what this “basis” represents, he suggests that it is not so much the accomplishment of particular works, but rather the “seeking for them”: the godly are “defined in terms of that for which they seek and the means by which that quest is pursued.”"

My old friend, Paul Rees, passes on a heart-rending letter from Turkey in a post entitled Gospel Growth: The Protestant Church of Smyrna.

The Langham Partnership sent out the following announcement today:

"John Stott would like his many friends around the world to know that, having reached the age of 86 in April, he has taken the decision finally to retire from public ministry after fulfilling one final speaking engagement at the upcoming Keswick Convention in July.

He will be moving from his flat in central London where he has lived for more than 30 years, to a retirement community for Anglican clergy in the south of England, which will be able to provide more fully for his present and future needs. Dr Stott has made this decision with the strong belief that it is God's provision for him at this stage."

The ministry of this man has spanned many decades and he was truly a leader among leaders. He will be sorely missed. It seems quite timely that this announcement should occur this week when the atonement is once again stirring controversy. A new generation of God's people wrestling with this subject may not have the man himself, but they do still have his book The Cross of Christ. A few days back I shared a quote from that book, which is often used by those who disagree with penal substitutionary atonement to argue that Stott does not believe the version of PSA being defended in modern times. I thought it would be fitting to share another quote that makes plain that, in fact, he most certainly did uphold the glorious doctrine of Jesus' penal substitutionary death.

"How then could God express simultaneously his holiness in judg­ment and his love in pardon? Only by providing a divine substitute for the sinner, so that the substitute would receive the judgment and the sinner the pardon. We sinners still of course have to suffer some of the personal, psychological, and social consequences of our sins, but the penal consequence, the deserved penalty of alienation from God, has been borne by Another in our place, so that we may be spared it. I have not come across a more careful statement of the substitu­tionary nature of the atonement than that made by Charles E. B. Cranfield in his commentary on Romans . . . He writes:

"God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved."

—John Stott

Up until now, I have mostly resisted getting drawn into commenting on US politics. I still think I probably won't do too many of these kinds of posts — I've always thought it was none of my business! But tell me, my fair readers, do you want me to talk more about all this?

I thought yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court upholding the ban on partial birth abortion would throw the upcoming presidential election into sharp relief, and I was right. Here’s what some of the candidates had to say:


DEMOCRAT

• Hillary Clinton — "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
  
  
• Joe Biden — No comment yet.
  
  
• Chris Dodd — No comment yet.
  
  
• John Edwards — "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake — starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose.”
  
  
• Mike Gravel — No comment yet.
  
  
• Dennis Kucinich — No comment yet.
  
  
• Barak Obama — "I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

REPUBLICAN

• Sam Brownback — "I'm delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the expression of life in the Constitution. I hope that some day we’ll see all life respected at all stages and protected in this land and around the world."
  
  
• John Cox — "Against abortion and for life without any exceptions. Life begins at conception."
  
  
• Rudy Giuliani — "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."
  
  
• Duncan Hunter — No comment yet.
  
  
• John McCain — "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
  

• Ron Paul — No comment yet.
  
  
• Mitt Romney — "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."
  
  
• Tom Tancredo — "Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb. Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions. This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, 'I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade.'"
  
  
• Tommy Thompson — "I commend the United States Supreme Court for upholding the nation’s ban on partial-birth abortions. This decision sends a clear message that the United States values life and has no tolerance for this gruesome, abhorrent way to take a life. There is no place for partial-birth abortions in this country, and I am plea