eChurch Blog

Blog post on the Pope’s upcoming visit by Aaqil Ahmed, the Head of Religion and Ethics at the BBC:

BBC Blog:

[.....]

Today – as a forty-one year-old man – I am now preparing for the first visit of a Pontiff for 28 years (and the first ever State visit) and I am in a very different place. I am obviously a lot older, I hope wiser, a father myself, and I am very proud to now be the BBC’s Head of Religion and Ethics and the Commissioning Editor for Religion TV. And this papal visit by the current pope – Benedict XV1 – rather than being a passing fascination, is on my mind every minute of every day, morning, noon and night. Why? Because I, along with many of my colleagues across BBC TV, radio and online, are getting ready to cover this historic State occasion with a myriad of eclectic programming.

The Pope’s visit from 16 -19 September is being organised and paid for by the Catholic Church (in England and in Scotland) and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It has polarised public opinion like no other before and you only have to open a paper to see that it has got the nation talking. What will happen when he gets here and, more importantly, what he may say, is sure to dominate the news agenda. His arrival on the 16 September will also mark – and be the culmination of – many months of planning and organisation (not to mention sleepless nights) for our BBC teams working on all the aspects of covering the Pope’s Visit 2010.

From the production crews working on all the live events, to the news teams across the BBC, down to the documentary producers finalising programmes giving an important insight into some of the wider issues that surround the papacy of Joseph Ratzinger, this has been an extremely busy, fraught but entirely fascinating few months.

The UK has changed a lot in those 28 years since the last time we greeted a Pontiff, and the Britain that awaits Pope Benedict XV1 as he ascends to the tarmac is a very different place than the Britain that awaited Pope John Paul 11. It is more multicultural, secular and, thanks to the recent controversies that have rocked the Catholic Church, the current Pope will no doubt be met by some very vocal groups who are against him being here altogether. However, for the majority of the many millions of Catholics in the UK, the Pope’s arrival will be much looked forward to and also celebrated.

One thing is for sure, this is a State event, that will be both newsworthy and of national interest and significance, and, as the nation’s broadcaster, it is appropriate that we cover it in the best way we can – with the scale, depth and overall balance of programming across all our platforms – TV, radio and online – that only the BBC can deliver.

I hope you manage to watch some of the coverage, and you find it as fascinating as I undoubtedly will.

You can find details of all the programmes to coincide with the Pope’s Visit 2010 by following the below link.

BBC announces event coverage of the Pope’s Visit 2010

Aaqil Ahmed is Commissioning Editor for Television. Head of Religion and Ethics

Read All

This is just classic. Hat-tip to Dr West:

Interesting survey out today by Gallup looking at religiosity rates across the world.

The United Kingdom came 109th in the league table, with 27% of its citizens saying religion was important in their lives and 73% not. Besides Estonia, only Hong Kong, Japan, Denmark and Sweden recorded lower percentages. Of our major Western European partners, Italy scored 72%, Spain 49%, Germany 40% and France 30%.

Source: British Religion in Numbers

Gallup:

Gallup surveys in 114 countries in 2009 show that religion continues to play an important role in many people’s lives worldwide. The global median proportion of adults who say religion is an important part of their daily lives is 84%, unchanged from what Gallup has found in other years. In 10 countries and areas, at least 98% say religion is important in their daily lives.

Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below $5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country’s socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world’s poorest countries — those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower — the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries — those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 — is 47%.

The United States is one of the rich countries that bucks the trend. About two-thirds of Americans — 65% — say religion is important in their daily lives. Among high-income countries, only Italians, Greeks, Singaporeans, and residents of the oil-rich Persian Gulf states are more likely to say religion is important.

Most high-income countries are further down the religiosity spectrum. In 10 countries, no more than 34% of residents say religion is an important part of their daily lives. Six of those are developed countries in Europe and Asia with per-capita incomes greater than $25,000.

In three of the four lower income countries on the list — Estonia, Russia, and Belarus — the Soviet government restricted religious expression for decades until the U.S.S.R.’s collapse in 1991. The final country is Vietnam, where the government also has a history of limiting religious practice.

Read All

As the issue of Biblical literalism seems to be a recurring theme in conversations on this blog, I’ve decided to highlight a couple of pieces which to my mind expose some of the problems endemic within the literalistic approach:

First from BioLogos:

For some Christians, it is very important to read the Bible literally unless it is impossible to do otherwise. In fact, some hold that reading the Bible literally is the only way to read it as God’s authoritative word for the church. As the logic goes, once you start down the road of not taking the Bible literally, there is no telling where that road will end. Individual Christians will be free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are binding and which parts aren’t. At that point, the Bible ceases being the authority, and we become the authority. That would mean chaos for Christian doctrine.

Literalism is seen as the safest way to maintain the doctrinal health of the church. That is why some consider it to be the default position of faithful readers of the Bible.

[.....]

Some Christians apply this line of thought is applied to the creation stories in Genesis. It is thought that, since there is no announcement or any other indication to the contrary, we have no option other than to accept this as a literal account of history.

Literalism is designed to insure that Christians not go down the slippery slope to relativism. Literalism builds a fence around the Bible. Occasionally it is necessary to take some things non-literally, but by and large all biblical interpretation is well inside the literalist fence.

As compelling as this logic may be, it runs up against some significant problems. Those problems are generated by the Bible itself. That doesn’t mean a totally literal interpretation of the Bible is always wrong. Not at all. But it does mean that literalism is not the default position that Christians should take.

Read All

Ed Stetzer has just posted a blog article entitled; Calling for Contextualization Part 6: Loving and Hating the World and although he’s not explicitly tackling the issue of Biblical liberalism, his very first paragraph highlights to me the problems that can arise if a person always adopts this approach and never contextualises:

The Scripture has a lot to say on the subject of “the world” that, on a cursory reading, can seem contradictory. Consider, for example, what the Apostle John says. In John 3:16 he wrote: “For God so loved the world…” But then in 1 John 2:15 he wrote: “Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in Him.” He records Jesus’ words in John 12:47, “For I did not come to judge the world but to save the world,” but relates Jesus’ admonition in 15:19, “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

It seems like poor John can’t seem to make up his mind about “the world,” and whether we should love it or hate it.

Read All

Taken literally are we supposed to love the world as God did, or hate it, or neither?

Another example that jumps to mind is Luke 14:26:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple”

So, even though I’m exhorted to love as God loves, in the literalist world view presumably I’m to hate my family?

Any thoughts?

The birth of a splinter Lutheran group last Friday in the US has garnered little in the way of media coverage and the Get Religion blog mulls over the reasons for this.

The new North American Lutheran Church (NALC) was an inevitability following the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s (ELCA) decision last year to allow pastors to be in non-celibate same-sex relationships.

Lutheran Core – a Lutheran coalition for reform -  lamented the decision made by the ELCA, and are the group behind the formation of the new NALC. They have released this press release (PDF) in which they rather interestingly claim that the decision to form a breakaway group was not based solely on issues of sexuality:

Lutheran CORE leaders note that the problems in the ELCA are really not about sexual behavior but rather about an ongoing movement away from the authority and teaching of the Bible throughout the ELCA, on issues far broader than simply human sexuality.

“It was not our choice to leave the ELCA, but the ELCA has chosen to reject ‘the faith once delivered to the saints,’ so now we are acting to maintain our position within the consensus of the Church catholic,” said Schwarz.

“The ELCA has decided that it is in a position of authority over the Bible itself rather than submitting to the authority of the Bible over all matters of faith and life,” Chavez said. “And unfortunately, most of the attention is given to the sexuality issues, but there are actually much more disturbing trends within the ELCA.”

On an aside, just before the ELCA took this vote to allow for non-celibate gay pastors, there was an announcement of  a new full communion agreement between the ELCA and the United Methodist Church. As part of this agreement was the decision to allow for the sharing of pastors. After the ELCA’s “gay clergy” vote, this threw up the question for the United Methodist Church as to whether they would allow non-celibate gay pastors from the ELCA to minister in their churches.

The answer was a resounding no.

I wonder if the new NALC will seek their own communion agreement with the United Methodist Church?

I imagine there will be a forging of links between the NALC and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as they will most certainly view each other as comrades-in-arms.

Well, you’re pretty much up-to-date.

Some good news coming out of Israel relating to Messianic persecution:

Rosh Pina Project – Chief Rabbi of Efrat: Messianics in Israel face prejudice and discrimination

You’re not going to believe this one.

I walked into my cathedral this morn to be confronted by this terrifying sculpture, which I found so scary and disturbing when I first saw it online that I blogged about it here.

Now I really will have nightmares….

Just to let you know that I’ve put a new link to Chavah Internet Radio on the left hand side.

This has been put together by fellow blogger Judah Gabriel of Kineti L’Tziyon, himself a Messianic Jewish believer.

As I often listen to this, I thought I’d pop it on this blog for my own convenience and for anyone else whom may be interested.

I asked Judah for a few words of introduction and here’s what he said:

Chavah is internet radio for Yeshua’s disciples with a certain Messianic Jewish slant. Inspired by Pandora, Chavah is frictionless, easy to listen to, no sign-up required, and only the best of the Messianic music genre. Hope you enjoy!

I thoroughly commend it to your ears.

We haven’t done any psychobabble for a little while and although I’ve not received any complaints, I suspect this must have been a sad and grevious loss to your lives.

In order to redress this appalling and atrocious neglect I have an interesting piece for you.

This piece written by Dr. Stephen Diamond looks at demon possession and the recent growth in exorcisms from a psychiatric perspective.

Obviously Dr. Diamond does not view demon possession as a valid phenomena and as usual for this discipline, this piece throws up more questions than it answers.

Interestingly it’s almost as if demon possession/ exorcism presents a threat or challenge to psychiatry / psychology itself.

Still this is an interesting piece and worth a read. I’m going to feature the conclusion of the piece below (which is on page 2) and you can view page one of the piece here.

Enjoy:

Despite its continued prevalence in varying forms, most psychotherapy does not adequately treat the possession syndrome. For some bedeviled individuals, the traditional ritual of exorcism or myth of “demonic possession” serves to make more sense of their suffering than the scientific, secular, biochemical explanations and cognitive-behavioral theories proffered these days by conventional mainstream psychiatry and psychology. If psychotherapy as a healing of the soul (not just the mind) is to survive and thrive into the next century, our obsession with cognition, behavior, genetics, neurology and biochemistry must be counterbalanced by the inclusion of the spiritual and depth psychological dimension of human existence.

The truth is, most psychotherapy patients need far more than what pharmaceutical intervention and/or cognitive therapy–the two most popular so-called “evidence-based” or empirically supported modalities today–can provide. They need and deserve support and accompaniment through their painful, frightening, disorienting, perilous spiritual or existential crises, their “dark night of the soul.” They need a psychologically meaningful method to confront their metaphorical devils and demons, their repressed anger or rage, and the existential reality of evil. They need a secular spiritual psychotherapy willing to ask the right questions. In a time where so many have lost faith in God, rejected organized religion, yet still seek something transpersonal to believe in, something spiritual, something transcendental or supernatural, the notion of demonic possession has diabolically tempting appeal. For to believe that the Devil and his demons can take possession of one’s body, mind and soul is to find evidence also of God’s existence. And to make meaning from meaninglessness. This “will to meaning,” as existential psychiatrist Viktor Frankl called it, is a fundamental human drive, one which abhors a meaningless “existential vacuum.” For those who have lost faith, the myth of demonic possession can–in addtion to providing a possibility of attributing responsibility for our darkest, most despicable or spiritually unacceptable emotions, impulses and evil deeds to something or someone other than ourselves– paradoxically provide a path back to God, since God and the Devil are but two sides of the same spiritual coin. Unless psychology can provide a better or at least equally satisfying, meaningful alternate explanation of the possession syndrome–and a more effective way to deal with it– belief in demonic possession and the practice of exorcism are bound to escalate.

It’s the Feast of St Augustine of Hippo today and I didn’t know that he is in fact the patron of brewers because…

…..of his conversion from a former life of loose living, which included parties, entertainment, and worldly ambitions.

St Augustine had a massive influence on me, to which I owe him a debt of gratitude.