eChurch Blog

Here we go again, some Christians pressurising for censorship as usual.

The Christian community is adept at fighting for its own freedoms as exemplified yesterday in the Lords defeat of the governments so called ‘equality bill’, however, some quarters of the Christian community are not so keen to extend freedoms to others.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t like advertisements for an extramarital dating service, but the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has refused to intervene, because the advertisement does not offend against “widely accepted moral, social or cultural standards”. The ASA says:-

“Whilst not everyone will agree with the advertiser’s service, the poster’s content and presentation were not explicit and it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible.”

But this does not satisfy some Christians and why is that? This is because according to their own regenerated heart, they know that this is morally unacceptable, so they pressure those that do not have a regenerated heart to conform. How can we impose our God given morality on the unregenerated, if they are slaves to sin?

All too often we see headlines like this, emblazoned: “Christians attack” or “Christians condemn” this or that, and wag their fingers and say “No, no, no”. How does this make us look in the eyes of non-Christians? Whilst we trumpet our own ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ and then pronounce everyone else’s to be unacceptable to us. This is not right. You cannot demand ‘special excemptions’ to protect your own freedom of expression and then actively oppose others.

This will only backfire and create more publicity for the ‘wrong doers’ and we all know that the only bad publicity, is no publicity. This again makes us look like religious censoring extremists, as in the shameful case of Dr Bridget McConnell, the head of Glasgow’s museums and art, who has been under siege from Christian fundamentalists.

Telegraph:-

A Facebook group, Stop marital affair.co.uk advertising publicly in the UK, has gained more than 1,000 members in its first two days.

Jon Kuhrt, who works for a Christian charity in London, created the protest group after the ASA declined to act on his complaint about a billboard in Merton which read: “HELLO GIRLS. Get instant excitement at MARITALAFFAIR.co.uk.”

The advertisement, which also featured a picture of a man with no shirt on and a bra slung over his shoulder, are for a website which claims to deliver “uncomplicated adult fun” for “bored housewives looking for a bit on the side”.

The website’s homepage says: “Marital affair delivers a dating arena for those looking for adult dating and extramarital relations. Sexual needs are there to be met and sometimes life is better when the complications are left at the door.”

In an ASA letter reproduced on the Facebook page, Mr Kuhrt is told the agency will not act because the advertisement does not offend against “widely accepted moral, social or cultural standards”.

The letter adds: “Whilst not everyone will agree with the advertiser’s service, the poster’s content and presentation were not explicit and it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible.”

On his Facebook page, Mr Kuhrt highlights the “trauma and suffering caused to individuals and communities by the damage of affairs and the breakdown of relationships they cause.”

Members of the group have been urged to e-mail the ASA to register their disgust.

One user said: “This is a sick world and agencies like this will only make it sicker. Complaint has been filed. Very glad to be able to do something that is positive.”

I wish that these groups would stop running around condemning everyone and hold out the love and light of the Gospel, which is the only real solution, and start dealing with others as Christ has dealt with us.

We cannot have it both ways, we must allow for freedom of speech and expression for all – regardless of whether we find their speech and expression offensive – thus, we can express our freedoms and continue to share the full counsel of God, the Gospel, the Good News of our Lord and Saviour.

Christian should be rejoicing the defeat of potentially intrusive legislation yesterday and chill out, as this behaviour only causes resentment towards Christians and an inevitable backlash.

Cross-posted from The Point of no Return Blog

The world yawns as Ezekiel’s tomb in Iraq is being desecrated, but it’s just the latest in a long line of Islamist outrages committed against non-Muslim minorities. Where these non-Muslim minorities have been ‘ethnically cleansed’, such desecrations are against their memory. Clifford May writes in the San Angelo Standard Times:

SAN ANGELO, Texas — In 2001, the monumental sixth century Buddhas of Bamiyan were dynamited on orders from Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. The United States and other Western governments issued protests. Afghanistan’s Islamist rulers shrugged them off.

In 2010, Al-Kifl, the tomb of the Prophet Ezekiel, near Baghdad, is being desecrated. On the tomb are inscriptions in Hebrew and an ark in which a Torah was displayed centuries ago. Iraq’s Antiquities and Heritage Authority, under pressure from Islamists, is erasing the Hebrew words, removing the Hebrew ornaments and planning to build a mosque on top of the grave.

So far, we’re hearing protests from almost no one. But this is not just another “Where is the outrage?” story. The larger and more alarming trend is that in a growing number of Muslim-majority countries a war is being waged against non-Muslim minorities.

Where non-Muslim minorities already have been “cleansed” — as in Afghanistan and Iraq — the attacks are against their memory. Ethnic minorities also are being targeted: The genocidal conflict against the Black Muslims of Darfur is only the most infamous example.

Connect these dots: In Nigeria last week, Muslim youths set fire to a church, killing more than two dozen Christian worshippers. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have been suffering increased persecution including, this month, a drive-by shooting outside a church in which seven people were murdered.

In Pakistan, Christian churches were bombed over Christmas. In Turkey, authorities have been closing Christian churches, monasteries and schools. Recently, churches in Malaysia have been attacked, too, provoked by this grievance: Christians inside the churches were referring to God as “Allah.” How dare infidels use the same name for the Almighty as do Muslims!

Many Muslims, no doubt, disapprove of the persecution of non-Muslims. But in most Muslim-majority countries, any Muslim openly opposing the Islamists risks being branded an apostate. And under the Islamist interpretation of Sharia, Islamic law, apostates deserve death.

Not so long ago, the Broader Middle East was a diverse region. Lebanon had a Christian majority for centuries but that ended around 1990 — the result of years of civil war among the country’s religious and ethnic communities.

The Christian population of Turkey has diminished substantially in recent years. Islamists have driven Christians out of Bethlehem and other parts of the West Bank; almost all Christians have fled Gaza since Hamas’ takeover.

There were Jewish communities throughout the Middle East for millennia. The Jews of Iran trace their history back 2,700 years but about eight out of 10 Iranian Jews have emigrated since the 1979 Islamist Revolution; only about 40,000 remain.

The Jews of what is now Saudi Arabia were wiped out shortly after Muhammad and his followers established a new religion and began to build a new empire in the 7th century A.D. But Jewish communities survived elsewhere until after World War II when Jews were forced to abandon their homes in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and other countries.

In many cases they were driven out by Muslims furious over the establishment of the modern state of Israel. But how odd is it to protest the creation of a safe haven and homeland for Jews by making your own Jewish citizens homeless and stateless?

Read article in full

This keeps catching my eye whilst scanning the Catholic news and so here is some info:-

(CNA).- The suffering of persecuted Christians across the world will be documented in a new website. The site features documentaries, statistics, and interviews with those who live in areas of persecution. The website Where God Weeps, located at http://www.WhereGodWeeps.org, is produced by Catholic Radio and Television Network (CRTN) in cooperation with Aid to the Church in Need (ACN).

It complements CRTN’s television and radio series on persecuted Christians, also called Where God Weeps, which are broadcast by the Eternal Word Television Network.

Drawing on resources such as ACN’s report on the persecution of Christians, “Persecuted and Forgotten,” the website also interviews cardinals, bishops, priests, missionaries and lay experts.

The site features a monthly focus on particular countries where Christians endure persecution, an ACN press release reports. The monthly feature will show a 12-minute documentary, key statistics, political and social facts, and an interview with a leading Church figure in the country.

Additionally, the website includes a breaking news page and a “how to help” section featuring ACN-supported projects.

“The media platform provides an important opportunity for people wanting to find out more about the suffering Church and how they get involved,” explained Mark Riedemann, director of CRTN.

Riedemann noted that the Jan. 25 launch date, the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, points to the “essence” of the website’s aims. St. Paul was a persecutor of Christians but converted and became a champion of their faith.

He added that the website aims to reflect evidence that the persecution of Christians has increased. In some countries persecution threatens the survival of the Church.

As an update to this post, Google has fixed this now, I have checked. It took 19 days to fix the ‘bug’.

Fox News:-

Exclusive: Islam Is … Finally Being Fixed on Google

After nearly three weeks, Google is finally repairing a glitch that hid search suggestions for the phrase “Islam is,” which had led some to conclude that Google — whose mantra is “don’t be evil” — had been censoring its search results.

Read More

Christian Institute:-

Part 1, part 2:-

Cross-post by Mariano over at Atheism is Dead.

We now conclude our tripartite consideration of the mad Pagan skeptic having already considered Friedrich Nietzsche’s virtual prophecy about what would come about due to the death of God.

We also considered a biblical statement about humanity’s natural knowledge of God and our purposeful negation of such knowledge.

Now we will consider to what atheism has come as they seek to find meaning in a meaningless universe and seek to prop up their favored ideas upon contradictions of their own making.

This essay will be parsed as follows:
1) An Exposition of The Parable of the Mad Man
2) Neo Pagan Atheism
3) The Modern Skeptic

The Modern Skeptic

In a chapter of his book “Orthodoxy” entitled “The Suicide of Thought” G. K. Chesterton’s incomparable wit and quaint British style produces a very telling critique of secularism’s fallacious worldview:

But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.

He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.

A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.

A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.

He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines.

In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt.

By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

This was written in 1908 AD—indeed, there is nothing new under the Sun.

Let us parse this statement:

But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.

Of course, there is true and honest skepticism such as that which is enjoined in the Bible.[1] Yet, the skeptic for skepticism’s sake, the septic skeptic, the pseudo-skeptic is basically a contrarian who merely seeks to constantly find new reasons, or excuses, for their unbelief.

As for not entirely trusting anything; if these were consistent in their thinking they would not trust anything. Take, for example, those who claim to base their worldviews strictly upon reason but who cannot reason to reason. Or those who claim that nature is all that there is even though nature cannot explain nature. Or rely on science even though science is not, au fond, about facts but about the best explanation we have thus far (and these within the narrow parameters in which science functions). Thus, skeptics cannot entirely trust anything upon which they claim to premise their skepticism.

He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

My observation here would repeat some of the above. Therefore, let us focus on the fact that “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind.” When an atheist rages against God’s ethical law they are basing their rage upon something else. Arguments from outrage, certainly; but they think that their outrage is justified by appealing to—what? Some appeal to their very own personal opinions, some to moral hardwiring via evolution, etc.

But does the atheist condemn something because it is evil or it is evil because the atheist condemns it? Ultimately, atheism discredits condemnation and condemnation discredits atheism. Atheism discredits condemnation because all atheistic condemnation is based upon impotent personal preferences and thus carry no transcendent weight nor justice. Condemnation discredits atheism because it demonstrates that the atheist is appealing to the transcendent.

As the one time atheist C. S. Lewis sated,

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.
But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.
What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?[2]

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.

Atheists often rage against God’s ethical system because it interferes with their favorite activities (as is true for us all). Yet, this quandary is much like that of everyone who argues in favor of same sex marriage and against the one man and one woman only view: they too are absolutely opposed to certain forms of marriage as is any, even mildly rational, person. Thus, the atheist condemns, ex nihilo, Judeo-Christian disapproval of homosexuality while, at the same time, baselessly condemning certain other forms of sexuality. Thus, first they condemn Christian standards of sexual purity and then they condemn Christians who fail to live up to those standards.

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.

This is because not matter how much you enjoy sunsets, puppies, a good book or feeding the hungry; in the end it is as Dan Barker puts it, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter]. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.”

A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.

Oh, I miss the days of the good old fashioned atheist who were consistent in their thoughts, drew them to their logical conclusions and lived (and died) accordingly. They knew that enjoying sunsets, puppies, a good book or even feeding the hungry were nothing in view of the reality of the cosmic insignificance of humanity and everything; what is the point of polishing the brass on a sinking ship?

A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.

The atheist sees marriage as some vestigial Darwinian leftover from the reproduction activities of our ancestors up until such a time as you take an interest in their spouse. Yet, even at this point they will scientifically appeal to your concern for reproducing your DNA, which may be exactly what you wanted to do with their spouse.

After all, what is love but a bio-chemical reaction that mutated and was naturally selected for its ability to keep two breeders together? In fact, not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins reduces love to a “manifestation of brain stuff.”

He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.

A bauble is something that is small and decorative but of little real value and or a mock scepter of office carried by a court jester. In general, that which is seen as a mere trinket takes on new importance when it is threatened.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

As Richard Dawkins stated it, “We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes.”[3] Charles Darwin wrote, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”[4]

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.

This reminded me of the fact that atheists complain that God does not do anything about evil but then also complain when they find out what God will ultimately do about evil. They condemn Judeo-Christian ethics for dictating certain actions and then condemn the actions of those with whom they disagree with no foundation except for personal preferences.

Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

Ultimately, in a godless universe in which bio-organisms who think too much of themselves as they hurdle though space on a pale blue dot in the universe’s backwaters nothing ultimately matters at all as absolutely everything—from your thoughts and feeling, friends and family to the universe itself—is temporary, here one day gone the next: carpe despero.

To review: we considered Friedrich Nietzsche’s prediction that the death of God would lead to secular spirituality and atheistic self-deification. We noted a biblical statement about how the evidence of God’s existence is accessible to those who are seeking truth and not merely attempting to force reality to fit their a priori held worldview. Lastly, noted that atheism ends us in self contradiction as they move from one moment to the next condemning here, excusing there in a baseless dance of personal preferences.

[1] “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18), in the New Testament the Bereans are considered more noble (or more “fair minded”) for double checking everything that Paul told them (Acts 17:11), Thomas asked for the evidence which the others had seen and had merely retold to him (John 20:24-30), Jesus stated, “Love the Lord your God with all your…mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:36-38), etc., etc., etc.

[2] Mere Christianity, Part 2, “What Christians Believe,” ch. 6, “The Rival Conceptions Of God”

[3] Richard Dawkins, writing in the Late City Final Edition (4-9-89)

[4] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, p. 180
This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:

1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

Previous posts; here, here and here.

Some encouraging news from the Point of no Return Blog:-

Update: The Iraqi Government has ordered the Ministry of Antiquities to entrust the reconstruction of Ezekiel’s shrine at al-Kifl in Iraq to ‘specialised International Authorities’.

The surprise statement follows a storm of publicity raised by Professor Shmuel Moreh, Chairman of the Academics from Iraq in Israel. The news, spread by the blogosphere (including Point of No Return) and Israel Army Radio, that workmen had done ‘irreversible damage’ to the shrine, plastering over ancient Hebrew inscriptions, seems to have embarrassed the Iraqi government into a damage-limitation exercise of their own.

On Saturday, Iraqi TV and al-Arabiyya TV broadcast a film to show that the tomb itself was not damaged. The Iraqis are hoping that “there will be no more exaggeration about this issue.”

Professor Moreh wants the Iraqi authorities to transfer control over the restoration and reconstruction of Ezekiel’s shrine to UNESCO. It is not clear when this transfer will happen.

The Iraqis may feel that they have deflected international attention for the moment. Unless the world remains vigilant and holds the Iraqi authorities to their word, and international pressure is kept up, the Iraqis may just quietly continue destroying the original features of the shrine.

Please write to Mrs Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO, urging her organisation to take immediate control of Ezekiel’s shrine. http://www.unesco.org/webworld/portal/processing/forms/contact/en/form.php (UNESCO website)
http://www.bokova.eu/?page_id=66 (Mrs Bokova’s personal website)

Well, today’s the big day, when parliament debates the so called ‘equality bill’.

For Christians it has been a pitched battle for months and there is certainly nothing I could add to the debate. Much of the debate surrounds the issue of employment  and the ‘right’ of the religious community to be able to employ folks based on their belief systems and principles of  religion.

So here is a snippet from a couple of blog posts today, from much more learned folks than I.

Cranmer:-

Today, the House of Lords will debate the malignance and malevolence of religion in the nation’s benign, beneficial and benevolent politics. There are certain religious inequalities which need to be purged from the Equality Bill, in particular the amendment to permit sacred scriptures to be used in civil partnership ceremonies, and that to exempt religious organisations from the requirement not to discriminate in employment on grounds of sexuality.

And these amendments are unequal, for the former is concerned with rectifying an absurd infringement and offence against the conscience: it amounts to state censorship and an enforced division between the private realm of spiritual belief and the public realm of political policy. If consenting adults wish to read the Bible, the Qur’an, the Gita or the Upinishads as they make their vows, that should be a matter for them. We do not have a tradition of laïcité in the country, and the fundamentalist secularisation of society amounts to the systematic elimination of all religion from public life. Conservatives should see such a violation of conscience and property rights as utterly abhorrent.

This is not simply a matter for the Church: although, as the established faith of the nation, with 26 bishops sitting in the Upper House, it is overwhelmingly so. Yet the Labour peer, Waheed Alli, who is a gay Muslim, is more vocal than most of the bishops. He has tabled the amendment to permit the introduction of religious texts and language to same-sex civil partnerships.

Whatever one may think about civil partnerships, this is a matter of religious liberty and Lord Alli’s amendment should be supported. No single group ‘owns’ the Bible, and it is not for the State to decree when it may or may not be used. If it may legitimately be banned from the registry office, why not from Parliament itself?

The other amendment, however, is quite a different matter.

Read More

I thought this to be a keen point from Grace City:-

The House of Lords today debate whether or not to narrow the exemption in The Equality Bill.

As the law currently stands, it is lawful for churches and religious organisations to expect employees to live out the beliefs and principles of the religion they are involved with. The Labour Party are attempting to reduce the scope of the exemptions, so that fewer religious posts are free from the anti-discrimination laws of general employment.

What I do not understand, is why political parties are allowed to expect their members to act and behave in accordance with the beliefs of the party – but it is assumed that secular society ought to have the right to over rule churches’ ability to employ people who embody their beliefs?

After all, the Labour Party Handbook states:

’6. To be and remain eligible for membership, each
individual member must:
A. accept and conform to the constitution,
programme, principles and policy of the party

8. No member of the party shall engage in conduct
which in the opinion of the NCC is prejudicial, or in
any act which in the opinion of the NCC is grossly
detrimental to the party. Any dispute as to
whether a member is in breach of the provisions
of this sub-clause shall be determined by the NCC
in accordance with Chapter 1 Clause IX above of
the constitutional rules (in chapter Chapter 1
above) and the disciplinary rules and guidelines
(in chapter Chapter 6 below).’

Can the Labour Party give Churches the freedom that it gives itself?

The Bill, however it is phrased will be tested in the courts. Many assume it will be tested by a prosecution against a bishop, minister or church.

Could we perhaps instead test it in a prosecution against the Labour Party?

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

“The Pope Is the First Among the Patriarchs.” Just How Remains to Be Seen

With Benedict XVI, for the first time in history, the Orthodox have agreed to discuss the primacy of the bishop of Rome, according to the model of the first millennium, when the Church was undivided. Never before seen: the outline of the dialogue

by Sandro Magister

ROME, January 25, 2010 – This evening, with vespers in the basilica of Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls, Benedict XVI is closing the week of prayer for Christian unity.

There are some who say that ecumenism has entered a phase of retreat and chill. But as soon as one that looks to the East, the facts say the opposite. Relations with the Orthodox Churches have never been so promising as they have since Joseph Ratzinger has been pope.

The dates speak for themselves. A period of chill in the theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches of Byzantine tradition began in 1990, when the two sides clashed over so-called “uniatism,” meaning the ways in which Catholic communities of the Eastern rites duplicate in everything the parallel Orthodox communities, differing only by their obedience to the Church of Rome.

In Balamond, in Lebanon, the dialogue came to a halt. It hit an even bigger obstacle on the Russian side, where the patriarchate of Moscow could not tolerate seeing itself “invaded” by Catholic missionaries sent there by Pope John Paul II, who were all the more suspect because they were of Polish nationality, historically a rival.

The dialogue remained frozen until, in 2005, the German Joseph Ratzinger ascended to the throne of Peter, a pope highly appreciated in the East for the same reason he prompts criticisms in the West: for his attachment to the great Tradition.

First in Belgrade in 2006, and then in Ravenna in 2007, the international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches started meeting again.

And what rose to the top of the discussion was precisely the question that most divides East and West: the primacy of the successor of Peter in the universal Church.

From the session in Ravenna emerged the document that marked the shift, dedicated to “conciliarity and authority” in the ecclesial communion.

The document of Ravenna, approved unanimously by both sides, affirms that “primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent.” And in paragraph 41, it highlights the points of agreement and disagreement:

“Both sides agree that . . . that Rome, as the Church that ‘presides in love’ according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch, occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.”

“Protos” is the Greek word that means “first.” And “taxis” is the structure of the universal Church.

Since then, the discussion on controversial points has advanced at an accelerated pace. And it has started to examine, above all, how the Churches of East and West interpreted the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium, when they were still united.

The basis of the discussion is a text that was drafted on the island of Crete at the beginning of autumn in 2008.

The text has never been made public before now. It is in English, and can be read in its entirety on this page of www.chiesa:

> The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium

The international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches started discussing this text in Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, from October 16-23, 2009.

It has started to examine the preaching of Peter and Paul in Rome, their martyrdom and the presence of their tombs in Rome, which for Irenaeus of Lyons confers preeminent authority on the apostolic Roman see.

From there, the discussion continued by examining the letter of Pope Clement to the Christians of Corinth, the testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who identifies the Church of Rome as the one that “presides in charity,” the role of popes Anicetus and Victor in the controversy surrounding the date of Easter, the positions of St. Cyprian of Carthage in the controversy over whether or not to rebaptize  the “lapsi,” meaning the Christians who had sacrificed to idols in order to save their lives.

The intention is to understand to what extent the form that the primacy of the bishop of Rome had in the first millennium can act as a model for a rediscovered unity between East and West in the third millennium of the Christian era.

In the middle, however, there has been a second millennium in which the primacy of the pope was interpreted and lived, in the West, in increasingly accentuated forms, far from the ones that the Churches of the East are willing to accept today.

And this will be the critical point of the discussion. But the delegations from the two sides are not afraid to face it. Benedict XVI himself said this last January 20, explaining in the general audience to the faithful the meaning of the week of prayer for Christian unity:

“With the Orthodox Churches, the international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches has begun to study a crucial theme in the dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox: the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium, meaning the time in which the Christians of the East and West lived in full communion. This study will be extended afterward to the second millennium.”

The next session already has a preset place, Vienna, and a date, from September 20-27, 2010.

For all these years, the head of the Catholic delegation has been Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity.

As head of the Orthodox delegation for years has been metropolitan of Pergamon Joannis Zizioulas, a theologian of recognized value and of great authority, the “mind” of  ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, and highly respected by pope Ratzinger, with whom he has a relationship of deep friendship.

Relations have also improved with the patriarch of Moscow. In Ravenna, the Russian delegates had abandoned the work because of a disagreement with the patriarch of Constantinople on whether or not to admit Orthodox representatives from the Church of Estonia, which is not recognized by Moscow.

But in Paphos, last October, the tear has been patched up. And now the patriarchate of Moscow has friendly relations with Rome as well. Proof of this came a few months ago, the publication by the patriarchate of a book with writings by Benedict XVI, an initiative without precedent in history.

The initiative will soon be reciprocated by Rome, with writings by patriarch Kirill collected in a volume published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

A meeting between the pope and the patriarch of Moscow is now also in the realm of possibility. Maybe sooner than one might think.

__________

The complete text of the document of Ravenna from 2007:

> Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority

__________

The message sent on November 25, 2009, by Benedict XVI to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, on the occasion of the feast of Saint Andrew:

> “Your Holiness…”

__________

The important interview given by metropolitan of Pergamon Joannis Zizioulas, head of the Orthodox delegation in October of 2009, during the session in Paphos on the island of Cyprus:

> Metropolitan Zizioulas: Defend ecumenical dialogue against those who oppose it

Cross-posted from Cranmer’s Curate

Could anyone have predicted 20 years ago that moves towards the institutional convergence of Anglicans and Methodists would result in an alliance to combat specifically ‘Islamaphobia’? One wonders what John Wesley and George Whitefield would have made of the following job advert:

Sheffield Methodist District

Challenging Extremism in South Yorkshire

This is a new project, funded by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, to challenge Islamaphobia, racism and divisive politics.

We wish to recruit: Project Manager – Full time, salary £35,000 To lead the project, develop its work, and build strong and broad partnerships Communications Officer – 0.6 FTE, salary £27,000 pro rata To develop consistent key messages and build communications capacity in the community.

The application pack is said to be available from an e-mail address at the Anglican Diocese of Sheffield. The employer is thus the Sheffield Methodist District with the Diocese of Sheffield having placed the advert. So, two Christian denominations are closely involved in the organisation of these two secular-funded roles which are not restricted to professing Christians and are clearly aimed at the wider community.

The questions raised by this for the Church’s mission are far from trivial.

What place does challenging ‘Islamaphobia’ have in the Church’s mission? If ‘Islamaphobia’ is defined as a refusal to show Christian love and hospitality towards Muslims with whom Christians ought to be sharing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, then it certainly deserves to be challenged.

But that is not the politically-correct definition of ‘Islamaphobia’. In fact, the orthodox doctrine of the Church of England would have to be branded ‘Islamaphobic’ according to PC criteria. Article 18 of the 39 Articles of Religion – Of Obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ – pronounces ‘accursed’ those who claim that people can be saved by the ‘Law or Sect’ that they profess: ‘Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved,’ it affirms.

Furthermore, this PC-defined form of extremism is to be challenged in the wider non-Christian community who have no interest in Christian evangelism and little commitment to biblical authority. Thus, it would seem that the Church, with funding from the State, is getting involved in preaching PC morality to the community rather than the gospel.

Challenging racism is clearly something the Church must engage in – racism is a barrier to the gospel and is a profoundly unloving attitude, unworthy of Christians. That is why I (His Grace’s curate) personally support the ban on clergy being members of the British National Party: membership of a racist political party intrinsically constitutes conduct unbecoming.

But surely challenging racism where it is found is part of the role of front-line clergy engaged in evangelism in their communities. The cost of the project manager approximates to that of a full-time minister deployed in a parish, and the cost of the communications officer to that of a youth worker. Should the Church be involved in deploying secular-funded central staff dedicated not only to challenging racism but also ‘Islamaphobia’ as apparently defined by PC criteria and ‘divisive politics’?

Surely in a democracy politics is inherently divisive – people are allowed to vote for different parties and debate the issues freely and disagree openly: one is permitted to divide along party lines.

Furthermore, is not ‘Christianaphobia‘ as great if not a greater problem now in British society than ‘Islamaphobia’, and of more immediate concern to Christian organisations such as the Sheffield Methodist District and the Diocese of Sheffield? What about the situation faced by Christians in the public sector suspended or fired from their employment simply for offering to pray with clients or for saying ‘God bless’?

What about the situation faced by Christian street preachers accused of hate speech simply for affirming the Bible’s teaching?

What about the situation faced by confessing Anglicans who wish to uphold the doctrine of the Church of England?

There is no doubt that an Anglican-Methodist partnership led by John Wesley and George Whitefield would have spent the money on a full-time evangelist – even if that meant losing the grant from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.