eChurch Blog

I didn’t support the recent “crucifix” legal case involving nurse Shirley Chaplin.

If the health trust is simply asking for this necklace (and ALL protruding necklaces) to be concealed underneath the clothing, or removed, then we see no problem with Christians following this instruction for health and safety reasons.

[.....]

As long as these health and safety rules are enforced uniformly, then what’s the problem?

The premise being that the Department of Health adopt an equable and even-handed approach toward all [religious] medical workers in relation to uniform regulations.

It would appear that I was both amiss and somewhat naive to take this approach:

MailOnline:

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed for religious reasons to opt out of strict NHS dress codes introduced to prevent the spread of deadly hospital superbugs.

The Department of Health has announced that female Muslim staff will be permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty.

This is despite earlier guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths.

The Department has also relaxed its ‘no jewellery’ rule by making it clear that Sikhs can wear bangles, as long as they can be pushed up the arm during direct patient care.

The move contrasts with the case of nurse Shirley Chaplin, who last week lost her discrimination battle against Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust, which said the cross she has worn since she was 16 was a ‘hazard’ because it could scratch patients.

In relation to the Shirley Chaplin case I also said:

I would now add to this statement the fact that wearing religious symbols is not a requirement of Scripture, nor is it a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith and therefore, should constitute no infringement of Christian religious freedoms, when requested to remove.

The MailOnline Continues:

Yet Islamic experts are divided about how Muslim women should dress as the Koran is ambiguous on the matter.

Health officials drew up the revised rules on the advice of Islamic scholars and a group called Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS (MSCP), which is part of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Read All

And this is what happens when you attempt to adopt a balanced and counter-alarmist approach in the UK, to wit, you end up with egg splattered all over your face.

There is much frenetic activity in the Christian blogosphere currently, especially on the US side, relating to professor Bruce K. Waltke.

Bruce Waltke is a noted and highly regarded evangelical scholar of the Old Testament and last week he featured a video on Biologos. This video has now been removed, however, he was seen not only to endorse evolution, but said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.

Sounds pretty tame and sensible to me, however, he has been forced from his job as a result.

Here is a synopsis of the video:

Today’s entry was written by Bruce Waltke. Bruce Waltke is a world-renowned Old Testament scholar, Biblical translator and expositor. He served on the translation committee of both the New American Standard Bible and New International Version — two of the most popular modern translations of the Bible produced in the twentieth century. Waltke is a professor emeritus of Old Testament studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia and a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

In this video conversation Bruce Waltke discusses the danger the Church will face if it does not engage with the world around it, in particular with the issue of evolution, which many evangelicals still reject.

Waltke cautions, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

We are at a unique moment in history where “everything is coming together,” says Waltke, and conversations—like those initiated by BioLogos—are positive developments. “I see this as part of the growth of the church,” he says. “We are much more mature by this dialogue that we are having. This is how we come to the unity of the faith—by wrestling with these issues.”

Waltke points out that to deny scientific reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world. For us as Christians, this would serve as our spiritual death because we would not be loving God with all of our minds. It would also be our spiritual death in witness to the world because we would not be seen as credible.

While Christians may still disagree with one another on some issues, Waltke emphasizes that it is important that we are really interacting in a serious way—and trusting God as truth. Testing these things but holding fast to that which is good will bring greater understanding and unity among Christians.

If we don’t do that, Waltke cautions, we are going to die. If we refuse to engage with the greater cultural/scientific dialogue, we may end up marginalized and that would be a great tragedy for the Church.

This episode has now become so controversial that a joint statement from Dr. Bruce Waltke and Darrel Falk – President of The BioLogos Foundation – has now been issued, which you can read here:

Biologos – Joint Statement by Darrel Falk and Bruce Waltke

InsideHigherEd has an excellent summary of “happenings” here:

InsideHigherEd – The Video That Ended a Career

NearEmmaus has noted:

…..the news on this controversy has spread quickly. The story written by USA Today can be found here. The coverage provided by Christianity Today can be found here. I am sure there are a dozen more outlets.

He also points out just how treachourous it can be for an Evangelical scholar to openly embrace theistic evolution and asks if it might be prudent to be silent on the subject, especially when your pay cheque and reputation is at risk:

NearEmmaus – Why Should Evangelical Scholars (Openly) Embrace Evolution?

Creationism and evolutionism are very much hot potatoes in the US right now, as we have also had a new school science textbook controversy:

Bartholomew’s Notes – Reference to Creationism “Myth” Creates Textbook Controversy

And a very unhappy P Z Myers is lamenting over new research on American attitudes which reveal that the majority of US citizens reject human evolution and the Big Bang.

This issue is not likely to go away anytime soon…

To me personally Gordon Brown seems the most authentic and heartfelt out of the three, which surprised me in all honesty as he comes across surprisingly spunky.

What do you reckon?

Catholic Herald:

Will you press for a reduction in the month for which abortion is allowed?

Fr Kevin Delaney, Reading

My own view is that we do need to review the abortion limit. I think that the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible. So I supported the two amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have changed this and I’ll continue to support a modest reduction in the abortion limit. But what’s really important here is that Members of Parliament are always allowed a free vote on this issue. This is an issue of conscience, so it would be wrong to put pressure on Parliamentary colleagues when it comes to voting on this.

Will you vote against any attempt to legalise euthanasia/assisted suicide?

Again, it’s an issue of conscience, so it should be subject to a free vote in Parliament. But my personal view is that that if assisted dying is legalised, there is a danger that terminally ill people may feel pressurised into ending their lives if they feel they’ve become a burden on loved ones. I don’t believe anyone should be put in this position. So no, I don’t support any change in the law.

I’ve come to this view because I think there is a very fine, but at the same time very important, line to be drawn between allowing nature to take its course under some incredibly painful circumstances and on the other hand allowing doctors or others (however well-intentioned) to accelerate death. I think it would be wrong to tread over this line, because there are very serious implications for our families, and for our society as a whole.

Will you press for the overturning of the Human Embryology Act?
- Rev Michael Puljic

No, that’s not something we’re considering. It was a contentious Act, and there were a number of things in it which I for one had some concerns with. I also thought that the Government should have been much more open and allowed Labour MPs a free vote throughout the entire passage of the Bill, as we did for our Conservative MPs. But my overall view was that the old HFE legislation did need replacing, that there have been big changes in technology and opinion since the 1990 Act, and that the attempt to bring the legislation up to date was welcome.

Continue Reading

A highly valued commentator (Goy) recently made this comment:

Thought this site was beyond neoliberal pseudo-science, this is self-hating nonsense

And you know what? This comment is justified.

In order to avoid extremes and attempt to walk a balanced path I have found myself tending to extremes. How ironic.

It can be hard for us humans to walk a balanced path, as we are rather akin to pendulums, especially when we go through paradigm shifts.

Blogging exposes those paradigm shifts to the world, but I will acknowledge when I have got it wrong, which is pretty much all of the time.

So please do bear with me.

We are pilgrims and hopefully we never stand still in our journey and quest of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, however, unfortunately at times we ourselves have to walk through the path of error, in order to recognise and understand that error.

Of course a reaction to the realisation of error can be to swing straight into an antipodal error.

Nobody told us it would be easy eh, including Jesus.

Narrow is the path!

Associated Press

[.....]

The SGP, which says it draws its inspiration from the Bible, has argued that restricting leadership roles to men is justified by religious freedom.

“The constitutional right to freedom of religion does indeed give the party the right to express its opinions,” said Judge Detmer Beukenhorst, reading a summary of the court’s ruling in The Hague.

“But in a democratic country, political ideals and programs can only be carried out within the boundaries set by laws.”

The ruling said the party’s policies are in conflict with the 1979 U.N. Treaty for the Rights of Women and it instructed the Dutch government to take unspecified measures to force the SGP to change.

Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin was quoted by Dutch paper De Volkskrant Friday as saying he hoped the SGP would “draw its own conclusions” from the ruling.

In a statement, the SGP criticized the ruling as “incomprehensible” and said it would have no immediate effect.

“The SGP knows that it is dependent on God in all circumstances and will go on no less strongly carrying out its mission,” it said. “That is, bringing Biblical values into the governance and organization of the Netherlands.”

Please see my post earlier today to get an idea what “bringing Biblical values into the governance and organization of the Netherlands” really means. At least the BNP allow female candidates!

It then unveiled its list of candidates for national elections in June — with no women among them.

The SGP draws most of its support from members of various conservative Calvinist churches, notably the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, in an area known as the Dutch Bible Belt.

Read All

Just because I found this moving:

Chicago Tribune:

The fire climbed the wooden archways inside the sanctuary at Edgebrook Lutheran Church, feeding on the pews and hymnals, spreading fast. Flames rolled over the balcony, burning the carved symbols of the sacraments, melting stained glass windows and eventually exploding through the roof.

Outside, members of the congregation huddled together on the sidewalk.

“Do you think it could have been Jim?” someone asked.

“Don’t say that,” snapped Jack Anderson, 59, a retired contractor who had been a member since he was 2 years old. “Don’t say anything until we know.”

Many in the congregation knew that Jim Deichman struggled with mental illness. But they had welcomed him anyway, reaching out to the man who, they believed, needed little more than acceptance and support.

And Deichman — a square-jawed, white-haired 62-year-old who came to church every Sunday in a rumpled dark suit — did his best to reach back. He volunteered to work as an usher, helped with the rummage sale and read Scripture during services.

But on Jan. 31, a firefighter found Deichman standing in an alcove, as smoke filled the sanctuary. His hair and clothing were disheveled; his face was contorted in fury. Suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and raging against enemies that only he could see, he had allegedly set a blaze that would leave the church in ruins.

Nine weeks later, as Deichman sits in a mental health unit of the Cook County Jail charged with arson, many at Edgebrook Lutheran have come to view the fire as a powerful symbol, not just of the themes of hope and rebirth they will celebrate Easter Sunday, but also of the central tenet of their faith.

“Love your neighbor,” says Neil Hansen, 63, an accountant. “There are a lot of people out there like Jim, people who need to be loved, people who need help.”

But giving help is not always easy.

Continue Reading

Will the Iranian authorities never leave these brave women in peace?

Previous post here.

The Christian Post

Maryam Rostampour, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, were summoned for a court hearing on April 13.

According to Elam Ministries, which has been following their case from the beginning, the women are still in frail physical condition from their time in prison. The two had spent 259 days in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison where they were reportedly subjected to psychological abuse and their medical requests were ignored.

Since their conditional release on Nov. 18, the women have been recuperating and receiving medical treatments. Elam reported on Thursday that they “remain unwell, weak and suffering from various illnesses.”

Despite their sufferings, Rostampour and Amirizadeh are “determined to be faithful to the Lord and speak the truth in court whatever the consequence of personal cost,” the ministry said.

The two young females were arrested March 5, 2009, on charges of anti-state activity and “taking part in illegal gatherings” because of their participation in house church activities. Reports from sources inside Iran said the women were pressured by the Iranian judge and by authorities inside the prison to denounce their Christian faith and return to Islam.

Rostampour and Amirizadeh refused to deny Jesus Christ as their savior, which led to their prolonged prison sentence.

During an Aug. 9 court hearing, the women stated in front of the judge, “We love Jesus,” “Yes, we are Christians,” and “We will not deny our faith.” In October, a third charge of apostasy was added to their case.

“Maryam and Marzieh have greatly inspired us all,” said Sam Yeghnazar, director of Elam Ministries, in an earlier statement. “Their love for the Lord Jesus and their faithfulness to God has been an amazing testimony.”

Though the two female converts were released last fall, they were released conditionally and did not receive complete freedom. They’ve been living on edge not knowing when they will be summoned to court and what authorities will do to them.

Christians are urged to pray for the safety, faith and freedom of Rostampour and Amirizadeh.

Original Source: EZGtoons