From here:
Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was shot at point-blank range as he stood guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa Wednesday.
The young Hamilton father was a reservist who was only on a short-term posting at the memorial, relatives and other sources have confirmed.
Bishop Michael Bird had this to say:
Bishop Michael Bird visited the armoury to pass on the message that the soldiers and their fallen comrade’s family were in his thoughts and prayers.
“We are blessed to live in this country … but maybe this is a reality check for us,” he said.
Canada is traditionally at the forefront in peacekeeping, he said. “Obviously, we live in a different world, now. We live in a violent world, but ultimately violence does not have the final say.”
Bird has it wrong: ultimately, there will be judgement and it will be not be non-violent. Those who have not received the forgiveness afforded by Christ’s atoning death on the cross will be judged; their fate will be unpleasant.
Even the less than ultimate, temporal, final say will be the exercise of force by state authorities who have the Biblically sanctioned authority to restrain evil by the sword – using violence.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Ironic that a bishop who resorts to the law courts – to state power and institutional violence, effectively – should speak thus.
Rather than using this as an occasion to denounce Michael Bird, please pray instead for Nathan’s young son, for his family, for his colleagues, and for our city of Hamilton in grief.
One does not preclude the other.
Jim Muirhead is absolutely right. Michael Bird has shown violence to orthodox Christians by forcing them out of their buildings and he has followed in the steps of Michael Ingham, both of whom can only be described as apostate.
Indeed we need to pray for Nathan’s young son and the family but we also need to pray for the conversion of people such as so-called bishops like Michael Bird who represents the bulk of so-called bishops within the ACoC.
Mr Wirrell: You are correct to observe that the two are not exclusive. Of course I did not at any point suggest they were. Yet you again raise the question of ‘violence’, which is (I woudl hazard the argument) at best inappropriate given the circumstances. My original point (that is is inappropriate to use the sacrifice of Cpl Cirillo as yet another opportunity to criticize Michael Bird (or anyone else)) stands. Indeed, given your response, it needs to be reiterated.
Patrick,
Well, you did say this:
“instead” does imply one or the other.
Perhaps you presume too much in thinking that I or others in this thread have not prayed for Nathan Cirillo’s family.
As for:
In the original post there was no denunciation, merely disagreement; are you unaware of the difference?
I can’t help but comment: Every person–regardless of their state of Grace–will be judged after death. This is implicit to an article of the Creed.
Wise counsel advises the presumed and published foreknowledge of the omniscient Judges’ verdict is contrary to the best interest of one awaiting trial in the same court.
I cannot help but respond: the apostle James makes it clear that our responsibility as Christians must be to comfort the orphans in their distress. I apologize if my previous comment was unclear, but our duty must be to try to comfort those who mourn and to uphold them in our prayers – and to give thanks for those who (like Cpl Cirillo) willingly accept danger on our behalf. This was real violence (and evil) – rather than a so-called ‘institutional violence’ to which you refer.
Riding West at sunset home to Hamilton on a less than good Friday:
may The Hope of our Risen LORD comfort all who are mourning.