eChurch Blog

Polycarp has just posted his Friday Question and it’s a good one, so do hop over and put in your two-penneth if you get a mo:

Question of the Day: What is Wrong with the World Today?

You can give religious reasons or secular reasons, etc… but, what do you think, if anything, is wrong with people in the world today? The United States? You own country? Are people more miserable, anxious, and heartless, or is it just me? Are we losing a Western Humanist expression, in which we value humanity? What about individualism? Is anyone self-sufficient?

Hat-tip The Spitoon

One Law for All

A new report by One Law for All has found Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals to be in violation of UK law, public policy and human rights (see report here).

The report is being launched to coincide with a 20 June 2010 rally on the issue of Sharia law.

Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:

- Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

- Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.

- There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

- Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.

- These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.

- There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised.

[.....]

The full report can be downloaded here.

Continue Reading

Interestingly, the heresy featured in the below article has been the source of much contention on a Christian forum recently, and so I was chuffed to see Michael cover this one and help us clarify this thorny issue.

I will be featuring Michael’s upcoming post on modalism, when it becomes available.

Cross-post by C Michael Patton of Parchment & Pen:

I have been teaching theology now for over ten years. Teaching theology carries the burden of not only education, but one of correction. When it comes to heresies about the doctrine of the Trinity, there are two that stand out more than any other as being common among average Christians: subordinationalism and modalism. I will talk about modalism soon, but here I want to devote our time to subordinationalism.

We need to be careful as subordinationalism comes in two varieties, one orthodox and the other heretical. The orthodox version is called “functional subordinationalism,” while the unorthodox version is called “ontological subordinationalism.”

Ontological Subordinationalism

To subordinate something is to distinguish and lessen the value of that which is subordinated. The word “ontological” comes from the Greek, ontos meaning  ”essence,” “stuff,” or “substance.” So, Ontological Subordinationalism is to lessen the value of the substance. When it comes to the doctrine of God, Ontological Subordinationalism is the belief that there is a hierarchal subordination among the members of the Trinity in their essence.

For example, many people think that God the Father is the greatest and most powerful among the members of the Trinity. Christ comes in second and the Holy Spirit third. In order to do this, the Ontological Subordinationalist must distinguish between the members of the Trinity in their essence. Orthodox Christianity finds this heretical due to the fact that the Trinity is united in essence. Each member of the Trinity, though distinct in person, shares in the same substance. This sharing makes it impossible for any member to be less in any way in their essence. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all equal in essential power, authority, and dignity. There cannot be one that is subordinate to the other in their essence since this would divide the essence making three Gods. The Bible is clear that God is one in essence (Deut. 6:4; 1 Tim. 2:5), but three in person. Therefore, the Father is not more powerful than the Son, nor the Son more powerful than the Holy Spirit. All three are equal and eternal.

Functional Subordinationalism

While orthodoxy does not allow for any hierarchy in the essence of the members of the Trinity, it does allow for a hierarchy in function or role among the members of the Trinity. Jesus tells us in John 14:28 that his Father is greater than he is. The greatness of which he speaks is tied to Christ’s role as redeemer and, possibly, as Son. While on the earth Christ submitted to the Father in everything in order to qualify to be the representative of mankind on the cross. The same is true of the Holy Spirit as he is sent by the Father and the Son and is in submission to their guidance (John 16:13-15).

One may ask how it is that one can be subordinate in role yet equal in essence. Yet we have many examples to which we can compare this relationship. While a king enjoys a role or function that is greater than his subject, the essential humanity of the both is equal. An officer who pulls you over for a traffic ticket has greater authority and power than you, yet his essential being is no greater. In the marital relationship (for those who hold a complementarian theology), the husband is the head of the wife, but they share equal value and dignity before God. Among the members of the Trinity, at least for the purpose of redemption, their is a functional hierarchy, even though there is not an ontological hierarchy. There is legitimate disagreement throughout church history about whether this functional hierarchy is temporary or eternal, but we wont go there now.

Any time we make Christ or the Holy Spirit a lesser God than the Father, we have fallen into the heresy of Ontological Subordinationalism. It is important for us to understand that there is one God who eternally exists in three persons, all of which are fully God, all of which are equal.

There’s some good stuff out there today on the Interweb, and as I’m feeling lazy, I’m just going to link to them:

Maggie Dawn – Mitregate: the latest church row

Bish Nick Baines – The mystery of ignorance

Heresy Corner – Discriminatory regimes continue to push anti-discrimination agenda at UN

Mark Vernon (Guardian) – Belief news roundup

Marc Cortez – What makes a view of government/law Christian?

Modernity – BP’s message thus far

Francis Sedgemore – Cooking the Iraq body count books

Anglican Samizdat – Mitregate

PolyCarp – The Muslims who dream of Jesus

Jim West – Over At Megiddo…

Michael Merrick – Balls and St. George

Church Mouse – The Church & Media Network annual conference

Clerical Whispers – The number of Christians in the Middle East is swiftly declining

Rosh Pina Project – Are Jews For Judaism Irresponsible?

OK, that’s all I can remember off the top of my hat.

Interesting little article in Israel Today:

The Messianic ministry Revive Israel located just outside Jerusalem reports that its staff and partner ministries have experienced an upsurge in interest among secular and religious Israelis in the person and ministry of Yeshua (Jesus).

In their latest newsletter, Sahar S. writes that a group of 40 young Israeli college students recently visited the Revive Israel offices to ask questions regarding Jesus and the New Testament for a course on Israeli history and culture.

“They were surprised to discover that the promise of a new covenant is written in the Hebrew prophets (Jeremiah 31). The biggest news to them was that Yeshua loved the God of Israel and that His teachings were focused on a fulfillment of the moral law in the Ten Commandments (Matthew 5),” said Sahar. “A number of them came with pre-conceived ideas and even anger towards Messianic Jews. At the end of the meeting a young religious man came and admitted that his perspective had changed about who we are – Israeli Jews who believe in Yeshua.”

The group was reportedly surprised at the level of kindness shown by the Messianics despite frequent harassment of and attacks on believers in Jesus in Israel.

The newsletter also included an update on a 4-week Jews for Jesus campaign in central Israel that is currently winding down. Ze’ev N. writes that the group received contact information from no fewer than 2,000 Israelis interested in hearing more about Jesus.

I’ll email this over to Joseph and see what he makes of this….

UPDATE: My good friend Joseph has commented thusly:

Glad to see perceptions of Messianic Jews are changing in Israeli society for the better – this is also a great argument against the Christian anti-Semites who claim that Jews naturally hate Christians!

Indeed!

A fellow blogger (Gordon) has alerted me to a piece he’s written about Revelation TV. This is a fascinating article which probes right under the Revelation TV bonnet, and is packed through with pertinent data and information.

Gordon articulates this in a punchy and engaging manner, and is well worth taking the time to read.

Here’s the link to the article:

Gordon’s Blog – Revelation TV is a Christian TV stations operating from the UK but under a broadcasting licence issued by the Spanish government.

I’ve covered Revelation TV a couple of times; here, here and here.

After the recent controversy surrounding the Hyundai World Cup advert, this one from Kia entitled; Soul Hamster Commercial, is how to really do it….

Hat-tip Stuff Christians Like

One of the most important periods of my spiritual journey began after being disillusioned with the social sciences at uni, which appeared to me, to throw up more questions than they answered. At this juncture I became close friends with a Rastafarian chap who lived 50% of his life as a hermit in the mountains of Jamaica, and 50% working here in Britain.

There was no doubt that smoking weed was part and parcel of his religious experience, and he taught me a great deal, especially the Psalms of David, which he would constantly recite, even against his enemies.

I of course, never inhaled….

Anyway, he was a breath of fresh air compared to the stuffy Jehovah Witnesses who I was involved with at the time, and he showed me the living reality of God, as he was totally dependent upon God’s grace and provision.

He never spoke of Jesus Christ, and of course this is because he considered Haile Selassie to be his deliverer from God.

I learnt so much from him, especially as he allowed God to permeate throughout every sinew of his being and existence, and that’s why this particular piece written by Charles Lewis over at National Post caught my eye. It would be no exaggeration to say, that smoking weed was an essential and necessary component of his spiritual life.

I really miss him…

Holy Post

A strong selling point of the Church of the Universe is the use of marijuana as a sacrament — so assuming someone is inclined to indulge, the church is a godsend.

That link to the divine, however, did not stop police three years ago from charging two of the brethren with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Now the case, which began in April, is in one of the more unusual phases to ever take place in a Canadian court room: A debate over what exactly constitutes a religion and even whether such a definition is even possible.

Continue Reading

I’m with Solomon on this…..I want one……

If you get a chance do have a quick look at this previous post entitled; Civil Partnerships and Religious Premises, written by Young Mr Brown, and constituting the sanest musings on this issue so far.

PinkNews:

Prime minister David Cameron hosted the first reception for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in 10 Downing Street’s rose garden on Wednesday evening.

He promised the crowd the coalition government would change the law to allow religious buildings to host civil partnership ceremonies, a measure introduced in the last parliament by out gay peer Lord Alli.

The guestlist featured gay politicians, including Nick Herbert, Stephen Williams and Margot James, gay charity heads, campaigners and several celebrities such as Blue’s Duncan James.

Straight politicians including Nick Clegg, Eric Pickles, William Hague and Theresa May were present.

[.....]

After listing several election commitments on gay equality, he announced the coalition government would “make sure” religious organisations are permitted to hold civil partnerships.

He said: “I am pleased to announce today that we are taking a further step, and I think a good step and a right step – and I say this as someone who believes in marriage, who believes in civil partnership, who believes in commitment – and that is to say that if religious organisations, if churches, if mosques, if temples want to have civil partnerships celebrated at religious places of worship, that should be able to happen and we should make that happen.

“Of course those organisations that don’t want that to happen have their rights too, but we shouldn’t let some legalistic nonsense get in the way of people who want to celebrate civil partnerships in churches, and when there are churches that want that to happen, we should allow that to happen.

“I think that will be an important step forward and we are going to make sure that that does happen.”

Continue Reading