eChurch Blog

Click here to read previous post:-

BBC

The Supreme Court has ruled a Jewish school in London did act unlawfully by only offering places to pupils it considered to be ethnically Jewish.

Court president Lord Phillips said the school broke race relations legislation by restricting its admissions.

The case against the JFS was brought by a man whose son was not given a place because he was not regarded as Jewish under rules set by the Chief Rabbi.

The parents were angered at having their Jewish status questioned.

Lord Phillips, the president of the Supreme Court, said the justices had come to a split decision on the matter, five to four.

‘Not racist’

“The majority of the court has concluded that the JFS admission policy does discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin and is, in consequence, unlawful,” he said.

“A minority disagrees, considering that the admission requirement is exclusively a religious requirement and does not depend on ethnic origin.”

But he stressed that while the school had acted unlawfully over its admissions, it should not be regarded as racist.

“The majority have made it plain in their judgments that the fact that the JFS admission policy has fallen foul of the Race Relations Act certainly does not mean those responsible for the admissions policy have behaved in a way that is racist, as that word as generally understood.”

The school went to the Supreme Court after three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled in June that the entry criteria had racially discriminated against the boy, known as M.

Read More

Cranmer has blogged about this one and so has Melanie Phillips, oh and Ruth Gledhill. The British Humanist Association have also released a statement about this, but they’re not getting a link, you can find your own way there.

Wow, do you reckon that the Reverend Mark Sharpe might be a crap vicar?

BBC

Vicar sues church over bullying claims

A vicar from Worcester is taking his diocese to an employment tribunal over claims he was forced out of his “toxic parish”.

The Reverend Mark Sharpe said he was retiring on health grounds after being bullied by parishioners who poisoned his dog and slashed his car tyres.

The union Unite said there was a 40-year-history of clergy leaving abruptly or in poor health.

The Diocese of Worcester said it denied any claims his family had been bullied.

Mr Sharpe, a former naval chaplain, won an employment tribunal against the Ministry of Defence for a sexual harassment case in 2006.

He was given an undisclosed pay out for claims he was subjected to pornography on board HMS Albion in 2004 and left his post after two weeks.

‘Climate of fear’

He then took up up the role of the vicar of Teme Valley South ministry in 2005, from which he resigned in September 2009.

He said: “My family and I have been living in a climate of fear in a supposedly rural idyll.

“There have been too many incidences of harassment over the last four years for them to be the odd coincidence.”

“My career has been ruined, my health and that of my wife and children has been shattered and my family has suffered terribly from all the strain,” he added.

He moved his family out of the rectory in Hanley, Broadheath, Worcester, earlier to an undisclosed address in the UK.

Unite said when the diocese appointed him it knew he was moving to a “toxic parish” and had failed to exercise a duty of care towards him.

Mr Sharpe said when he took on the role only one out of the four parishes he was responsible for was registered as a legal entity.

Read More

And here is some more from Worcester News

A VICAR who claims he was forced out of his home by a four-year campaign of intimidation by villagers has accused Church leaders of leaving his family “to rot”.

The Rev Mark Sharpe cannot bring himself to set foot in a church because he says the Diocese of Worcester washed its hands of him when he and his family became a target for abuse by his own parishoners.

But the diocese denies all Mr Sharpe’s allegations and says he is only leaving his home because he has resigned.

The father-of-four claims he has had car tyres slashed, excrement smeared over the family car, broken glass strewn over his drive, his pet dog poisoned and his central heating oil stolen three times.

He also says the family have been sworn at, their post tampered with and the internet and phone connections cut since they moved to the Teme Valley South Ministry in January 2005.

Mr Sharpe, aged 42, was due to leave the rectory at Hanley Broadheath near Worcester today having resigned as vicar.

Unite, the union which represents faith workers, has called for the resignation of the Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev John Inge and the Rt Rev David Walker, the Suffragan Bishop of Dudley, for failing to help him in his time of need.

Mr Sharpe and his family today moved to rented accommodation elsewhere in Worcestershire. However, he declined to reveal where for fear the attacks on him and his family would continue.

He said: ‘My career has been ruined, my health and that of my wife and children has been shattered, and my family has suffered terribly from all the strain.

“I need the Church to compensate us for the damage it has caused so we can rebuild our lives. The bishop of Worcester won’t even meet with us. He leaves us to rot.”

Unite has blamed what it calls “a culture of neglect and bullying” within the Diocese of Worcester and has called for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Rowan Williams, to set up an immediate investigation.

Rachael Maskell, Unite’s national officer representing the community and non-profit sector, said: “This is a toxic parish with a 40-year history of clergy leaving abruptly or in broken health.”

Unite had been negotiating a settlement for Mr Sharpe, who has been off sick suffering from stress since April 2006.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Worcester said: “The Bishop of Worcester is disappointed and surprised that Unite has deemed it fit to go to the press over this matter, which is listed for an employment tribunal hearing in May 2010, an adjournment previously having been agreed between the parties at the request of the Rev Mark Sharpe’s solicitors due to, among other things, his ill health.

“It would be wholly inappropriate to comment upon a case which is yet to be heard by the employment tribunal and will be before an employment tribunal on the basis that the Rev Mark Sharpe’s allegations including that with regard to a culture of neglect and bullying or otherwise, are wholly denied.

“The Rev Mark Sharpe and his family have not been forced to leave the vicarage. He has been given time to find alternative accommodation since he decided to resign.”

Gosh, I bet the Diocese are glad he’s going….but not as much as the parishoners by the sound of it

Guest Post by Caral:-

I personally did not accept Christ. God was responsible for everything, I was unable to accept Him, or chose Him, I was in complete depravity, dead in my sin, I was unable to reach for Him, or even recognise who He was, until God’s irresistable Grace drew me and dragged me, in spite of me, to the Father, who then handed me over to His Son.

God gave me His wonderful gift of grace that opened my eyes to the truth of Him, He gave me His marvellous gift of faith, to ensure that I will not be lost from His hand. In Baptism of water and Spirit He united me into Him, Father Son and Holy Ghost, to dance forever in the wonderous Triune relationship. I was predestined and chosen, like us all, to this relationship before the foundation of the world.

It was ALL HIM and nothing of me.

Simply brilliant post from Fr. Edward Tomlinson, over at the The Saint Barnabas’ Blog, I wish I could write like this without getting all steamed up, but I can’t.

This is Part 1 & Part 2

Part 1

The Chinese have a proverb; ‘if a man has a woman, he’s happy for a day. If a man has a cow, he’s happy for a week; but if he has a garden, he’s happy for a lifetime!’ Not the finest example of Oriental wisdom. Surely we chaps can have more fun with our women than our cows? The mind boggles…perhaps the author of this ancient proverb also discovered we can drink milk…well you tell me how that discovery was made?!! Nevertheless the proverb does strike a chord with regard to gardening. For, as every monastic community will testify, and multiple studies demonstrate, tending the land is beneficial for the soul. Those who garden find peace, fulfilment and joy.

Not that this lousy horticulturist is an expert ‘in the field’ (hoe, hoe!)…far from it. The best gardening tip I offer is- don’t take my advice! Yet despite profound ignorance in matters floral I have harvested one tiny colonel of wisdom in my life- that the soil is every bit as important as the plant. How often we wrongly check blooms for disease when the real problem lies buried underground.

Now to Christian life where, like a wilting rhododendron chocking in an alkaline soil, the church is floundering rooted to modern culture. Where all too often we gaze inwards, bewildered at the rotten fruit we find, when we need to gaze outwards to the true source of our malaise- the anti-Christian values drip feeding into souls by means of a rampant, secular agenda. How can the ten minute homily compete with the modern ‘values’ of the BBC that enter our ears by the hour?

The effect of the secular media on the life of the Church is examined in Brown’s book ‘the Death of Christian Britain’, where the author clearly demonstrates how the Christian decline, with its severe drop in church attendance, coincides perfectly with the rise of modern media. Indeed faith tapers off at precisely that point when ‘family values and faith’ were dropped by the West in pursuit of a new brand of consumerism nurtured by a spirit of individualism, 1962 to be precise. According to Brown it was this time in modern history that heralded the dawning of the secular age.

Once we accept the correlation, the pressing issue for Christians becomes clear. We face an uphill struggle because the individualistic society in which we live is not conducive to Gospel living. Put simply modern secularism is a destructive soil in which Christian lives can be planted. For Christian philosophy, rooted in family values of duty and self-sacrifice, does not strike a chord in the shallow world of celebrity and self. Furthermore this clash of cultures runs deep, affecting the very values we espouse. A problem made worse because we share a common language.

Having become detached from Christian culture, the secularist no longer possesses the vocabulary to understand us. We not only say different things, but the things we say can have widely different meanings!! The message of the Church then gets lost in translation, misunderstood or misinterpreted. Let me explain what I mean.

Take ‘justice’, something both Christian and secularist hold dear. The secular notion of justice – liberation of the individual to ‘do as thou wilt’- is clearly at variance with the Christian notion of justice -liberation of the soul through obedience to Christ. There may be overlap in discernment of injustice or desire for freedom from oppression (this can lead some to assume we share common ground) but our endgame differs hugely.

One form of ‘justice’ leads to elevation of self, a position largely dismissive of authority and tradition in which self sacrifice and obedience become an anathema. The other ‘justice’ desires the surrender of self for the other, that we may behave as Christ ordained, a position largely respectful of authority and tradition. Each understanding of ‘justice’ is not only different, but radically opposed. And the one we opt for has profound effects on the people and society we become. But more of that tomorrow….

(just time for a final shot of man and cow!)

Part 2

Yesterday I noted how our culture presents poor soil for producing true Christians. I also noted how orthodox Christianity and secular modernity are on a collision course due to diametrically opposed endgames. Finally I made the point that our relationship is made more destructive and confusing because we share a common language, (check out Fr. Jones’ superb contribution here) which can lead to cross fertilisation and confusion on all sides. Today I expand on this as regards our different understanding of ‘justice’ in order to shed light on the malaise within Anglicanism- a church that has made an abortive attempt to reconcile secular and Christian philosophy with disastrous consequences. Phew!…I need a cuppa just for writing this introduction!

Accepting the secular model of ‘justice’ (freeing people to ‘do what thou wilt’), as Western society has done, can lead to fixation on self. We see the evidence for this in the cult of celebrity that pervades modern life. Very soon this self-centredness, for the liberation secular ‘justice’ seeks is centred on self, breeds hubris. We grow cocksure and unable to recognise our weakness. This is seen in the modern scepticism of the past and the desire to deconstruct our heritage. The novel and new is embraced, look at how politicians fawn over minority faiths, but the old order is rejected, consider how Christianity is singled out for ridicule and attack.

This is quite deliberate for a new world order is being created, one based on secular and atheistic ideals. It only makes sense that the old, Christian order- which demands a very different justice requiring sacrifice, obedience and surrendering of self- is overcome. Thus a power game is played with language. In the name of ‘inclusion’ and ‘political correctness’ – the words that define secular ‘justice’- the new order is established and given ascendancy. Only that which embraces all (which naturally excludes the Christian with his/her definite creed) is afforded respect. Those who fall foul of ‘embracing all’ are labelled negatively and forced to life in the margins.

It is subtly and cleverly done but explains why Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close under accusation of ‘homophobia’, despite doing wonderful work in many cases. Note these agencies were not campaigning against homosexuals. No they were condemned for exercising judgement by only selecting heterosexual couples in accordance with belief. But with secular justice –judgment of another is an unforgivable sin, (unless perversely they are non-inclusive when they can be damned to hell as a fundamentalist) Why? Because it thwarts ‘do what thou wilt’. It is ‘me and my rights’ and anything oppressing that is glibly swept aside.

This would not be calamitous if ‘justice’ were delivered. But of course a ridiculous fantasy is at play. The secularist ‘justice’ is smoke and mirrors! Has secular liberalism really ushered in fairness or do we still rely on sweatshops in the third world? Has the political system been transformed or wrecked by immoral self seekers? Have we learnt to care for the vulnerable – or to slaughter them by abortion and euthanasia. Do we have more choice or rely on immigrants to do the work we deem beneath us? Has feminism delivered justice or is the typical feminist from a privileged university educated background and far luckier than both men and women on working class estates? I would argue this self absorbed society, with its flawed notion of ‘justice’, has bankrupt our nation spiritually, educationally, morally and financially. It is time for the liberal experiment to stop.

What we need is a return to the Christian understanding of justice, which comes through relationship with Christ. It transforms lives to produce such outstanding reformers as William Wilberforce, Mother Teresa et al. True justice can only be found in reconciliation with God as the revelation of Christ makes clear.

Now to shed light on the Anglican malaise. So many problems we face arise because we apply the secular notion of justice onto Christian life. It does not work. Take for example, the issue of women in the church. A secular notion of justice would demand women were entitled to ‘do what they will’. If they wish to become priests it is their right! And any who deny them can be silenced with the label of ‘sexist’ and shamed once and for all. Welcome to the typical argument of supporters of women priests.

Naturally there is a possibility the accusation is true. Perhaps the Church was/is oppressive, but that is not the point. What is interesting is that the vast majority do not even explore the Church teaching to find out. And if they do, they seek to change it that it might provide the answer they seek! The conclusion comes before the theology due to social conditioning as regards ‘human rights’.

The conflict between feminism and Christianity is not then a difference in desire for justice. The bible promotes equality within God’s design. That is to say- celebrating the difference of man and woman and calling us to work in complimentarily. Women celebrated for being women (pink does not stink!) and freeing them to be what God calls them to be! Every bit as precious as men, witnessed in Mary, Queen of All Saints, most holy being ever created. That is justice but not the sort the world demands! That is the conflict. Secular ‘justice’ demands something radically different- ‘equal and same’, a deliberate morphing of gender whereby biological difference is ignored in pursuit of pleasure. After all we must ‘do what thou wilt’.

The same – of course- can be applied to the sexuality issue. If homosexual people are to be loved this must, de facto, include a licence to sex; ‘do what you will’. When the Christian argues that homosexuals can be loved while being called to celibacy, the modern mind balks! How can one live without sex?? It seems ludicrous, we look stupid. The problem again is not homosexuality nor love nor justice but an over sexualised culture wherein the bloom of chaste Christianity struggles to survive.

Fight for women and homosexuals Christians must! But on radically different terms to the world, and there’s the rub. Our understanding of justice must be grown in a distinctly Christian soil, not influenced by the culture we live in. Otherwise, like the Anglican Church in America, and increasingly here as well, we will grow distinctly less Christian each day, pursuing secular goals whilst remaining silent on matters of faith. Environmentalism eclipsing confession!

Let the liberal Christian, so influenced by the world, understand. We orthodox do not desire to thwart justice. Far from it, we just desire justice on very different terms than this world is offering!

Original Source: EZGToons

By: Noel Piper

Over the years, we have chosen not to include Santa Claus in our Christmas stories and decorations. There are several reasons.

First, fairy tales are fun and we enjoy them, but we don’t ask our children to believe them.

Second, we want our children to understand God as fully as they’re able at whatever age they are. So we try to avoid anything that would delay or distort that understanding. It seems to us that celebrating with a mixture of Santa and manger will postpone a child’s clear understanding of what the real truth of God is. It’s very difficult for a young child to pick through a marble cake of part-truth and part-imagination to find the crumbs of reality.

Third, we think about how confusing it must be to a straight-thinking, uncritically-minded preschooler because Santa is so much like what we’re trying all year to teach our children about God. Look, for example, at the “attributes” of Santa.

He’s omniscient—he sees everything you do.

He rewards you if you’re good.

He’s omnipresent—at least, he can be everywhere in one night.

He gives you good gifts.

He’s the most famous “old man in the sky” figure.

But at the deeper level that young children haven’t reached yet in their understanding, he is not like God at all.

For example, does Santa really care if we’re bad or good? Think of the most awful kid you can remember. Did he or she ever not get gifts from Santa?

What about Santa’s spying and then rewarding you if you’re good enough? That’s not the way God operates. He gave us his gift—his Son—even though we weren’t good at all. “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He gave his gift to us to make us good, not because we had proved ourselves good enough.

Helping our children understand God as much as they’re able at whatever age they are is our primary goal. But we’ve also seen some other encouraging effects of not including Santa in our celebration.

First, I think children are glad to realize that their parents, who live with them all year and know all the worst things about them, still show their love at Christmas. Isn’t that more significant than a funny, old, make-believe man who drops in just once a year?

Second, I think most children know their family’s usual giving patterns for birthday and special events. They tend to have an instinct about their family’s typical spending levels and abilities. Knowing that their Christmas gifts come from the people they love, rather than from a bottomless sack, can help diminish the “I-want-this, give-me-that” syndrome.

And finally, when children know that God’s generosity is reflected by God’s people, it tends to encourage a sense of responsibility about helping make Christmas good for others.

Karsten, for example, worked hard on one gift in 1975. On that Christmas morning, his daddy stepped around a large, loose-flapped cardboard box to get to his chair at the breakfast table. “Where’s Karsten?” he asked, expecting to see our excited three-year-old raring to leap into the day. Sitting down, I said, “He’ll be here in a minute.”

I nudged the box with my toe. From inside the carton, Karsten threw back the flaps and sprang to his full three-foot stature. “And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them . . .” He had memorized Luke 2:8-20 as a gift for his dad. Karsten knew the real story.

In fact, a few days later, he and I were walking down the hall at the church we attended then. One of the older ladies leaned down to squeeze his pink, round cheek and asked, “What did Santa bring you?” Karsten’s head jerked quickly toward me, and he whispered loudly, “Doesn’t she know?”

Yep these are the actual astounding words of  the Guardian’s Associate Editor Michael White on BBC Radio London’s Breakfast Show.

In Israel they murder each other a great deal. The Israeli Defence Forces murder people because they don’t like their political style and what they’ve got to say and it only means that people more extreme come in and take their place.

WOW.

Anyway, check out Honest Reporting and Biased BBC for more comments.

It really is no wonder that they had to set up a dedicated blog to combat anti-semitism at the Guardian.

Check this link out:-

100 Reasons why the ‘Copenhagen’ Governments and other proponents of “man-made” Global Warming theory of Climate Change are completely wrong

Cranmer

The victory was shortlived – 17 months, to be precise.

Christian registrar Lillian Ladele has lost her appeal against a ruling that she had not been discriminated against by being disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships in north London.

She became a registrar in 2002, when state-authorised unions were an exclusively heterosexual affair. When the law changed, she felt she could not carry out such ceremonies ‘as a matter of religious conscience’.

She claimed she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by Islington Council.

An employment tribunal found that the council had unlawfully discriminated against her, but this was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which said there was no basis for concluding that any discrimination had occurred.

Last month, Ms Ladele’s counsel, James Dingemans QC, told the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Justice Smith at the Court of Appeal that she had never wanted to undermine the human rights or respect due to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities. But he pointed out that human rights laws must also be there to protect people with committed views about marriage.

It appears not.

Or at least for Christians.

Perhaps if Ms Ladele had been a Muslim, her appeal might have been successful. For it is an odd country indeed in which a Christian registrar can lose her job for upholding the orthodox teaching on marriage while Muslims may win massive payouts for being obliged to handle bottles of alcohol, cook sausage and bacon or dispense the ‘morning after’ pill , or sell an ‘unclean’ Bible in the normal course of their jobs.

Dismissing her case, Lord Neuberger said: “It appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.”

But Mr Dingemans told the appeal judges that Ms Ladele believed marriage should be “between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others”. He added: “Modern human rights jurisprudence was not intended to obliterate religious beliefs held for millennia.”

But the EAT found that the council was not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs, but because her refusal to carry out civil partnership ceremonies involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

They said: “The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of the duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely-held Christian beliefs.”

Cllr Ruth Polling, Islington Council’s Executive Member for Equalities, said: “This is very welcome news. The judgement is the right one as it confirms all public sector employees must carry out their duties without discrimination and Islington was right to insist this of all our staff. We are delighted it provides much-needed clarity for employers across the country.”

Since the legislature has also decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy include the right of a woman to terminate the baby within her womb (which is a ‘facility’ or a ‘service’ provided by the NHS), Cranmer awaits the day when Christian doctors and nurses will have their exemption on the grounds of religious conscience removed

The Christian Institute