The New Calvinism considered #4 Conclusions and counsels
Thanks to those who are still following this little sequence. Today we are finishing off.
Caveats and characteristics ∙ Commendations ∙ Cautions and concerns ∙ Conclusions and counsels
Conclusions and counsels
My conclusion essentially is this: be Calvinists. Don’t be New Calvinists or Old Calvinists, whatever those distinctions really mean. Live before God rather than before men. You do not need to capitulate and ride the current of the moment. There is no need to jump on the bandwagon just because it is going past at speed, glowing with the power of the newest technology and applauded by adoring fans. You do not need to panic and circle the wagons, eminently suspicious of everyone who may not be “one of us.” You do not need to lash out, making your wagons in chariots of war in which to ride down and trample upon the enemy.
We may not always agree with them, but we must remember that we are dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ, and should treat them in all respects as such until their doctrine or practice prove that they are otherwise. That means that we must recognize that we are united in Christ, although we do have differences of opinion, some of them significant. God is their Father and our Father, and He is in control of all things for the glory of His name and the good of all His redeemed people. None of Christ’s will be lost. The purposes of our heavenly Father are being accomplished in the earth. His kingdom is advancing. Our responsibility is to live before God to the praise of His glory. We must set our own house in order first, and ensure that our doctrine and our practice marry, that we manifest degrees of heat and of light that are coordinate with and complementary to one another. We neither know all we should do, nor do all we know, and it is in the equal march of faith and life, knowing and doing, telling and showing, that we gain the platform that will enable us to serve our friends who differ from us in other respects. C. H. Spurgeon, speaking of the attitude of some toward those holy Arminians John and Charles Wesley, said, “I am afraid that most of us are half-asleep and those that are a little awake have not begun to feel. It will be time for us to find fault with John and Charles Wesley, not when we discover their mistakes, but when we have cured our own. When we shall have more piety than they, more fire than they, more grace, more burning love, more intense unselfishness, then, and not till then, may we begin to find fault and criticize.”
I can sincerely say that it is in this spirit that I have written. Our first responsibility is to set our own house in order, and to set out to live in accordance with the light we have received, stirring up our fires of grace and piety and holy endeavor. But be Calvinists. I presume that you believe what you believe because you actually believe it, and have not simply inherited or assumed it. You have, I trust, thought through your convictions. You have searched the Scriptures to see whether the things you have learned from godly men are true, and you have anchored yourself at certain points of doctrine and their corresponding practice because you are persuaded that those things are true and right before God and that you will live accordingly.
If we have done this with a good conscience, then we should hold fast to our convictions and live them out to the praise and the glory of God. Enjoy these things! Enter into the sweet realities of the God that we know in His Son, Jesus Christ, and graciously defend the truths you have come to love and the practices that flow from the principles. You are not obliged to give them up any more than our New Calvinist brothers are obliged to give things up just because we disagree with them. There is and should be scope for us to speak together as those who love the Lord: “To the law and to the testimony!” Let us be ready both to learn with humility where we have something to learn and to teach with modesty where we have something to teach.
The New Calvinism is in some respects a splendid and many-colored thing. It contains within it some fearful tensions. It has within it some wonderful prospects and it contains within it some significant dangers. But remember that mere fads never last. I am far from saying that the New Calvinism is a mere fad, but there is an appetite for novelty in the world and among professing Christians that will carry people into this movement on a wave of enthusiasm. The novelty will not last forever. I suspect that when the freshness and the newness wears off, we will be left with many people asking at least two questions. Some will say, and are already saying, “What next?” They will look for the next fad, the next new wave, and will jump aboard and be carried on to whatever seems new and stimulating. But some will ask, and are already asking, “What more? What else is there? What am I missing? This is the God that I want to know and serve. How can I know Him more? How can I know Him better without losing that sense of wonder because of God’s love and grace toward me in Christ Jesus? How can I grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? How can I grow in holiness, becoming more and more like Christ Jesus?”
We need so to live and so to speak that when somebody asks, “What more?” we have a reputation and a relationship that enables us credibly to hold something out, to offer with humble joy the blessings that we have received, just as much as we receive with humble joy whatever blessings we may be offered.
So be Calvinists. Do not panic blindly. Do not capitulate foolishly. Do not strike wildly. Live before God and be determined to learn of Christ in dependence on the Holy Spirit. Serve the triune God and be ready to serve His saints wherever you find them. Ω
Caveats and characteristics ∙ Commendations ∙ Cautions and concerns ∙ Conclusions and counsels
The Wanderer 
It would be wise instead of giving way and drawing upfront conclusions and putting a fence around scriptural analysis as if to bound and prevent any other conclusions, arbitrarily, than might differ from Mr. Walker’s, or even of Mr. Spurgeon (since the Scriptures are our ‘only rule of faith and practice’, and we are taught to be examining Bereans who even questioned the apostle Paul), by words like “after all we are dealing with brothers and sisters”, to permit more open debate and consideration (even as the Puritans did at the Westminister Assembly, permitting all to speak freely as long as appealing to the Word). There is a false love that promotes fear of persons, and partiality, that prevents truth-telling under the excuse of being “uncharitable”, while yet “love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth”.
There are many of us that are concluding that the errors of modern new Calvinism (pop Calvinism, that is trendy in particular, and defined by the movement that Dr. Peter Master’s first called attention to) are much more dangerous, even heretical in doctrine, not just practice, than conclusions drawn by Mr. Walker. And yes this does call out personalities, for men are responsible for that which they teach, and the apostle Paul warns in Romans to “mark them” which cause separation upon different teachings different than the inspired apostles (scripture), and that we are to beware of those who bring in “subtle” changes, and that though Paul himself would speak any different, or “an angel from heaven”, it should not be received. Thus it is the apostle Paul’s doctrine that fences and sets bounds for evaluation and criticism of other teachers, lest we be deceived by men “who have crept in unawares”, under pretense of “grace” and orthodoxy (Jude). Should we not be more like the noble Bereans then?
To prove that others see the errors to be more serious, please consider the “95 Theses Against New Calvinism” posted and called attention to here below, and it will be readily seen that the errors are more pernicious and dangerous to the truth of foundational doctrines that have been suggested in these posts. This is not “striking wildly”, but from some who have done some heavy homework in this and experienced the opposition first hand that comes from pointing out its errors, who has been met with outright persecution for attempting to maintain the truth against their innovations.
That 95 Theses Against New Calvinism can be found through this post here:
http://5ptsalt.com/2011/12/17/the-95-theses-against-new-calvinism/
William
Friday 23 December 2011 at 20:58
Greetings, William, and thank you for dropping by. A couple of thoughts on your approach and your understanding of mine. If you go back to the opening post, you will find that this analysis has been slightly overtaken by events (naturally, I like to think that some of my concerns have been vindicated!) and that I would, of necessity, employ stronger language about some of those more recent developments and be more wary in using the language of spiritual fraternity for those who teach heresy or endorse and embrace such teachers. Furthermore, as I am sure you are aware, the Berean spirit is not merely one of examination: these noble people “were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17.11). There is a genuinely (i.e. formed and bounded by the Bible) charitable spirit in receiving the apostle, and a readiness to search the Scriptures to determine whether or not his words were true. I think that a Berean spirit should manifest the same gracious readiness to give a man a hearing and the same scrupulous attention to the Word of God in assessing what is heard.
If it becomes plain that someone is in error then our Biblical duty has several possible strands. When the apostle is writing to Timothy he encourages him to discern the nature of the case in front of him and respond accordingly, in some cases cutting the cancer swiftly out of the body (while remembering that the Lord overrules all) and in others correcting those in opposition with humilty in the interests of their repentance and recovery:
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. (2Tim 2.15-26)
With regard to those “95 Theses,” thank you for drawing our attention to them, and your warnings concerning a failure to recognise real issues. There were some of those ‘theses’ that obviously have specific reference, and several that clearly each referred to the same specific concerns. Some of them I think I would agree with, but I was not sure if I agreed with all of them, not least because I think some of them needed development in order to ensure that they themselves were not leading in a subtly wrong direction (I am not saying that they necessarily were, just that they were not all sufficiently clear). Others seemed mere truisms, and I am not sure there is anything to be debated on them.
Again, please be assured that I have no intention of bypassing or short-circuiting ongoing engagement and discssion. If you look again at my initial caveats you will see that I am not claiming the last word on these matters. These are my present conclusions from my particular perspective; I am sure that others have engaged with particular men or issues at particular points on the New Calvinist spectrum and have clearer light than I do, and I need to manifest to them the same Berean attitude that I do to others.
Jeremy Walker
Saturday 24 December 2011 at 12:11
Jeremy,
Thank you for an interesting and illuminating post, I came by way of reformation 21 (Carl Trueman’s recommendation).
I’m an Australian Presbyterian and very much on the outer in regard to the new calvinism though some of my ministerial colleagues would be more across the issues. Don Carson of course is highly regarded whilst John Piper was recently in Sydney speaking to a very large audience and personally I hope to visit Redeemer Presbyterian in NY next year to hear the great man preach and see how they “do church”.
To me for what its worth Calvinism is the five points but much more: it is to hold to the Presbyterian form of church government (eldership, deacons court, Presbytery, Synod/General Assembly), to hold to the covenantal view of baptism which means paedobaptism for the children of professing parents, to hold to a high view of the sacrament of Lord’s Supper as a real but spiritual participation in our Lord Jesus Christ through partaking of the bread and wine (so, Institutes 4.17), to practice discipline at the Lord’s table, to hold to two kingdom theology and the natural law for engagement as citizens in the public domain – this last feature unfortunately to be fully regained amongst Calvinists having been lost somewhere in the 18th C.
I realise a couple of these points are contentious to a Reformed Baptist and I mention them because whilst the “new calvinism” has some defects as you have so clearly articulated, there are matters that Presbyterians who claim direct descent from Calvin (the Institutes are our bedtime reading!) cherish that our Reformed Baptist brethren seem not as yet to have grasped!
But it is Christmas time, a time of joy and fellowship in the Gospel.
Which provokes me to one last thought. People of my acquaintance who may consider themselves “new Calvinists” (whether this is so, I know not) do use the word “gospel” an awful lot – whether or not an issue or position is “gospel” seems all determining whereas I believe the Christian is to be Christ focussed, following in his footsteps (1 Peter 2). Here, incidentally, Calvin on the Christian life is most helpful (Institutes 3.6-10), the first of the four steps in the Christian life is self denial, a most difficult thing that sits uneasily with antinomianism, the second that we take up our own cross that God fashions for us out of the circumstances of our lives and follow Christ, the third that we orientate ourselves more and more to the fact that our true citizenship lies in the world to come and fourthly it is also true that in this world God gives us much richly to enjoy.
Which with Christmas Day but a few short hours away is a good place to finish and to wish Reformed Baptists every blessing for the coming year, for what we have in common is very precious indeed. Indeed I also thank my daughter and wife who are so busy preparing tomorrow’s family celebrations, that I have the time to write such a long jousting but I trust also so peaceable a post.
God bless
David
David Palmer
Friday 23 December 2011 at 23:56
Thank you, David, for your engagement on the issue. Your insights on the true Christian life were helpful; I will go back to the Institutes to have a look at Calvin’s thoughts.
With regard to “Calvinism”, what you describe I would say is rather a distinctive notion of what it means to be “Reformed.” “Calvinism” is, I think, more of a soteriological label than the broader one of “Reformed.” However, I share with you an interest about the labels that are used, even if we have some different notions of the concepts behind the labels i.e. we seem to share the view that – whatever that label “Reformed” means – it certainly means more than embracing the so-called ‘five points’ (or four of them).
With regard to the friendly jousting, as has been discussed before on this blog, Particular or Reformed Baptists would suggest that it is not so much that we have failed to grasp certain aspects of what our Presbyterian brothers often consider the high-water mark of the Reformation, but we have sought to travel on.
The Particular Bapists of the 17th century considered themselves the third wave of the Reformation. The Continental Reformers had struck the first blows with regard to justification by faith; the Puritan movement had gone (far) beyond the half-way Reformation of Anglicanism (which – despite some outstandng men – because of circumstances peculiar to the United Kingdom, stalled in its application of the same foundational realities), pressing the principles of the Reformation into many additional spheres of faith and life; the Particular Baptists pressed them more fully into additional areas, not least the life of the church, especially with regard to its very nature and its purpose on the earth. I am generally persuaded that in terms of pursuing and applying the Biblical principles that have led and do lead to the reformation of the church, the Reformed or Particular Baptist activity of the 17th century was a further step in the right direction, and an essentially healthy heritage. By embracing it, we are on a good and right road.
One of the particular blessings of a confessional inheritance with so much common ground is that we know just how much we hold in common, and are able to enjoy fellowship on a broad, deep, shared foundation. All told, though, the Particular Baptists are not so much slipping back as stepping forward in reformation, finding the older paths and walking in them, and – in the spirit of fraternal encouragement – we invite you to join us!
May God bless you on the Lord’s day, and give us all increasing light, with heat accordingly, that we may shine ever brighter to the perfect day.
Jeremy Walker
Saturday 24 December 2011 at 11:31
[…] The New Calvinism considered #4 Conclusions and counsels « The Wanderer […]
What I Read Online – 12/24/2011 (p.m.) | Emeth Aletheia
Saturday 24 December 2011 at 12:31
Jeremy,
I trust you, your family and congregation were able to celebrate Christmas with joy. Here in Melbourne we needed to survive a hot and humid day with intense thunderstorms, whilst alas many of our fellow believers in Nigeria, the Middle East celebrated in the midst of hostility, even destruction of their churches and death.
After the required platitudes I thought our Queen’s speech ended on a superb note, though in reading the press this morning her profession of Christian faith and the naming of “our Lord” had been airbrushed out.
I was very touched by your invitation “to join us!” – all the more so since you know so little of me. We Presbyterians would put you through the wringer before letting you in, so one up for the accommodating reformed Baptists!
Truth to tell though, I really do wonder about “Reformed Baptists”, surely an oxymoron.
Baptists – ah, descendents of the Anabaptists, the third stream, the radical Reformation: congregational, believers baptism, etc, but distinct from the Lutherans and Calvinists (aka the Reformed), so is it a straddling of two streams, a kind of (perhaps unstable) balancing act!
Actually, I think the old name “Strict and Particular Baptists” might be the better one: choosy folks, with a dash of Calvinism thrown in, the l in tulip as it were.
But there I jest again, but ‘tis the holiday season, and today, recovery day for light heartedness.
Cheers
An antipodean Presbyterian brother in Christ
David Palmer
Sunday 25 December 2011 at 23:47
I don’t need to know you personally to wish your progress, brother! I am called to do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith, and I think Australian Presbyterians qualify (though some might suggest that you are only just scraping in!).
With regard to the Baptists, you should note that the Particular Baptists are less of the third stream and more of the third wave. Some of our confessions predate the Westminster and Savoy, but the 1689 was intended very specfically to demonstrate that – while in some things we were consciously reaching back to apostolic purity – there was a deliberate attempt being made to express the extent and degree of unity with “other societies of Christians before us” and to distance ourselves from some of those very abuses that you mention:
Whosoever reads, and impartially considers what we have in our forgoing confession declared, may readily perceive, That we do not only concenter with all other true Christians on the Word of God (revealed in the Scriptures of truth) as the foundation and rule of our faith and worship. But that we have also industriously endeavoured to manifest, That in the fundamental Articles of Christianity we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed our belief in the same words, that have on the like occasion been spoken by other societies of Christians before us.
This we have done, That those who are desirous to know the principles of Religion which we hold and practise, may take an estimate from our selves (who jointly concur in this work) and may not be misguided, either by undue reports; or by the ignorance or errors of particular persons, who going under the same name with our selves, may give an occasion of scandalizing the truth we profess.
And although we do differ from our brethren who are Paedobaptists; in the subject and administration of Baptisme, and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that Ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification, and discharge of those duties, and services which we owe unto God, and in his fear to each other: yet we would not be from hence misconstrued, as if the discharge of our own consciences herein, did any wayes disoblige or alienate our affections, or conversation from any others that fear the Lord; but that we may and do as we have opportunity participate of the labors of those, whom God hath indued with abilities above our selves, and qualified, and called to the Ministry of the Word, earnestly desiring to approve our selves to be such, as follow after peace with holyness, and therefore we alwaies keep that blessed Irenicum, or healing Word of the Apostle before our eyes; if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless whereto we have already attained; let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, Phil 3. v. 15, 16.
I trust that you enjoyed your holiday, and am glad that you appreciated the Queen’s speech (how very Presbyterian of you!).
Jeremy Walker
Friday 30 December 2011 at 17:06
Jeremy,
An excellent series – and thank you. I have wondered at times whether anyone in the UK really appreciated what your Reformed brethren in the States are up against when it comes to interacting with the New Calvinism. Temptation abounds on every side – both to recoil in un-Christian sectarianism and to retreat in un-manly compromise. You addressed both sides of this very well here, and I thank you.
Our Presbyterian friend from Down Under illustrates another challenge which the Reformed Baptist faces in regard to the New Calvinism. Some decades ago a Presbyterian who heard for the first time of Reformed Baptists might curiously inquire, “What are those?” Today’s Presbyterian is more likely to assume that he’s already heard of us; everyone has heard of John Piper after all! Many Presbyterian brethren who, like David, have had no serious interaction with confessional Reformed Baptists and no idea what we are or what we stand for dismiss us without a hearing. At least some, again like David, do show while showing greater courtesy and Christian love than some of the more bombastic young Presbyterian authors here in the states. The temptation, then, is to more and more acerbically distance ourselves from the New Calvinists in order to assert our claim to being truly among the Reformed, but what good does that do? It leads me to fear that the days of fellowship and cooperation between genuine Presbyterians and genuine Reformed Baptists may be coming to an end – to the great detriment of both. When the sort of fellowship around Puritan preaching which has characterized, for instance, the Banner of Truth conferences is lost, the damage to the church is considerable.
Thank you, then, as much as anything, for the irenic spirit in which you have addressed both this issue and also your critics.
tom.chantry@yahoo.com
Monday 26 December 2011 at 19:52
Thank you, Tom, both for dropping by and for your kind words. The New Calvinism here in the UK is more dominated by the charismatic element (think New Frontiers, if that means anything to you – sort of SGM on steroids) so it introduces a further and particular tension here. The New Calvinist juggernaut imposes pressures across the board, and feeling the thrust of a partiuclar part of the spectrum can make it harder to give a fairer assessment of the whole.
As you rightly say, our friend David is a lot less aggressive than some, for which I am grateful. Some of my dearest friends in ministry are like-minded Presbyterians, and it is the very extent of our common heritage in faith that gives us so much on which we can stand together. I do not believe for one moment that they are ignorant of the things that divide us, or of how significant those things are, but the realities that tie us together are made of strong stuff.
I trust that you will know much grace and wisdom as you seek to navigate the specific channels and hazards of your own place, to the glory of God.
Jeremy Walker
Friday 30 December 2011 at 17:13
[…] Calvinism Conclusions and counsels Jeremy Walker’s last post on the subject (with links to previous four […]
Check out | HeadHeartHand Blog
Wednesday 28 December 2011 at 12:49
Hello Tom Chantry,
I do know a little about Reformed Baptists – in the second half of the 1980’s my wife and I were members of an FIEC church in St Albans, England with a Congregational background (no Presbyterian Church in the area) that had a Reformed Baptist pastor. Having said that there are very few Baptists in Australia who would want to associate with Calvinism.
On the Presbyterian side one of the things that has happened is a regrouping amongst Presbyterians so that there are now specific bodies that are much more confessionally bound at a denominational level rather than just at a congregational level. The Presbyterian Church in America and the Presbyterian Church of Australia are both good examples of this, having parted company from previous liberal (and dominant, though now declining) elements.
Part of rediscovering your confessional heritage means that doctrines that previously were held lightly, perhaps even with embarrassment or at least with uncertainty become precious. Thus whilst adult or believers baptism (note my eschewing “..” or “so called”!) is a precious doctrine for Baptists, covenant baptism for the children of believing parents is equally tenaciously held by these (confessional) Presbyterians.
Having said all that, there nevertheless can be fellowship but it will be at a personal level or in the context of a Bible teaching conference where contentious issues are avoided or in certain parachurch associations (Summer beach missions) or banding together to oppose regressive Government legislation (easy abortion, same sex marriage, etc). And of course we know in the world to come, in the presence of our God and all the people of God drawn from every tribe and tongue down the centuries of time, all these distractions, as important as we find them now, will no longer exist – or something similar along these lines.
David Palmer
Thursday 29 December 2011 at 19:37
David, not knowing if Tom will be back, might I chip in? Without wishing to put words in Tom’s mouth, I wonder if both he and I might suggest that an FIEC church with a Congregational background is an unlikely stamping ground for a Reformed Baptist, unless he were unusually winsome and/or feisty and prepared to go in for the long haul in the work of reformation! Of course, it is also possible that he were willing to suspend his convictions about the nature of the church for some particular reason, but I imagine all three of us would suggest that such a state of affairs would be an anomaly indeed, and surely a temporary arrangement, or a very carefully managed one.
With regard to your other comments, see some of my earlier responses to yourself and Tom. I do agree that the things on which we disagree are not insignificant, and I also believe that some of the errors of, say, the Federal Vision or the charismatic movement, are making those divisions more clear and necessarily more contentious. I have no difficulty with disagreement so long as it does no dishonour to Christ either in the matter or the manner of it.
As for Reformed or Calvinistic or Particular Baptists in fellowship with similarly persuaded Presbyterians, I agree that there are a good number of informal environments or common causes in which fraternal relationships can be readily and warmly enjoyed. I have some good and godly friends there in the Antipodes who would stand very much where I do, so you are not alone (and you can take that in whichever sense you wish!).
Jeremy Walker
Friday 30 December 2011 at 17:28
Hello Jeremy,
Best to leave off an interesting discussion.
I can assure you my statement concerning The Independent Chapel in St Albans is entirely correct.
With best wishes for the new year, may God bless your ministry, including this blog – you write well, the topic for this entry you had researched well – I found it helpful.
David
David Palmer
Friday 30 December 2011 at 19:51
No doubt we could join those who have been turning about these issues for more time than we might wish to calculate. By the way, I was casting no nasturtiums on your statement about the chapel at St Albans, I am just querying whether or not those involved were using those designations with anything like their full meaning if they could sustain the pressures of the situation you describe.
Please drop by from time to time, and may the Lord bless you and keep you, and make his face to shine upon you, not least in the coming year.
Jeremy Walker
Friday 30 December 2011 at 20:07
Yes, I will – I’ve added you to my Bookmarks and will keep an eye on you!.
I am taking some lessons in the new year on setting up a blog – I’ve registered “Sundry Matters” and hope some other colleagues will join me. My interests are fairly broad ranging.
So, this year I’ve written on
climate change and energy issues (http://ap.org.au/images/2011AP/AP0211.pdf, scroll down to p25);
(same sex) marriage (http://ap.org.au/images/2011AP/AP0611.pdf, p12f and again http://ap.org.au/images/2011AP/AP0911.pdf, scroll down to p30f)
and old earth creationism v a YEC colleague (http://ap.org.au/images/2011AP/AP1011.pdf, p25f)
I’ve just completed 7 years as Convener of the Church & Nation Committee of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria which has involved me in a broad range of ethical issues and more recently defending (and this with colleagues across the Catholic – Protestant – Orthodox divide) freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, writing quite extensively – here are two examples: http://ap.org.au/images/2009AP/AP0609.pdf – p29f and http://ap.org.au/images/2009AP/AP0809.pdf – p26f.
David Palmer
Saturday 31 December 2011 at 01:00