eChurch Blog

My blogging friend and co-conspirator Joel, who hails from the other side of the pond, has posed his question of the day and it revolves around the theme of listening to one another.

Recently there has been much conflict within the Anglican church and today the Vernacular Curate commented thusly:

I don’t want to hear any more ‘no‘ factions fighting with other ‘no‘ factions.

He laments the “no, no, no” attitude and goes on:

don’t yell ‘no‘, yell ‘not that but this‘

[.....]

Don’t be another group of people who want to prohibit or remove something; be a group of people who want to put something exciting, pragmatic and workable in place. Shout ‘yes‘ to something; make your fame and blog fortunes on a ‘yes‘ not a ‘no‘ – ‘no‘ is killing us all.

Read All

And so in light of this my question is the same as Joel’s, namely:

…….listening to one another, and working with one another? Can we? Should we?

And, to what point is compromise a viable option? Not just in politics and the culture wars, but so too in our congregations and theological squabbles…

Do we ever seek to understand one another, to compromise where we can?

Good question indeed.

Christian Today have an article on ‘creeping persecution’ of Christians in the West, which I would like to examine.

So, to begin:

Barnabas Fund is inviting churches in the UK to dedicate one Sunday in November to the issue of persecution around the world – as well as at home.

Great idea, although I don’t think that persecution experienced in some parts of the world is comparable to that in Britain.

The theme of this year’s Suffering Church Sunday, ‘Be on Your Guard’, reflects Barnabas Fund’s growing concerns over the freedom of Christians in the West.

‘Be on your guard’? Sounds like something we should be watchful to avoid, which brings to mind this portion of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’:

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

No mention of running to the law courts. Anyway, moving on:

It [Barnabas Fund] described as “worrying” the case this week of Eunice and Owen Johns to decide whether their Christian beliefs make them unfit to foster children.

Barnabas Fund is asking churches in the UK to remember Christians in other parts of the world who are suffering for their faith but also equip themselves to be ready for persecution too.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Fund, said: “It is understandable in the West – a bastion of freedom and tolerance – Christians tend to think that persecution is something that happens only to believers in far-flung places.

“But it is becoming increasingly apparent that we too need to steel ourselves for suffering if we are going to make a stand for Christ.”

Ashley Samelson, International Programmes Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, expressed concern over the case of the Johns.

“The outright violence and injustice endured by our brothers and sisters throughout the non-Western world, like the atrocious hostage siege in Iraq on Sunday, is what we tend to consider persecution,” she said.

“But more insidious threats are creeping into Western society – and we need to be prepared.”

And this is where it all falls apart. The Johns’ case is still awaiting judgement and what an insensitive insult to cite this against the backdrop of recent events in Iraq, in which over 50 Christians were brutally massacred.

Of course we view Islamic extremists, strapped with bombs, wielding AK47′s, bursting into a church and murdering dozens as ‘Christian persecution’. Are we really expected to view a couple who have been refused respite fostering care in the same light?

If we are to view what is happening in Britain currently as persecution, then we need to find a new word to define the suffering of our brothers and sisters abroad.

A couple of days ago, Richard of Connexions made this comment:

….Meanwhile, I keep hearing Christians in Britain and America bleating about persecution. And it makes me sick.

And me!

To continue:

Samelson went on to say that full religious liberty, including the freedom to choose one’s faith, was “under attack”. She said it was being “publicly undermined” by world leaders on the international stage, including US President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British Home Secretary Theresa May, who have adopted the term “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion”.

I don’t even know what the difference between “freedom of worship” and “freedom of religion” is?

She said: “Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelise, to engage in the public square.”

No, for many of our truly persecuted brethren, it’s about the right to stay alive, to earn a livable wage, feed their families and live in a climate free from gut crunching terror and routine physical intimidation.

Source: @james_mcquillan

Today we remember Guy Fawkes, the only man in history to enter Parliament with honest intentions.

John Richardson posted a quote yesterday by Norman Kretzmann from a position called ‘Necessitarianism’, an argument I had never heard of:

Goodness does require something other than itself as a manifestation of itself. God therefore necessarily (though with the freedom associated with with counterfactual choice) wills the being of something other than himself. [...] God’s will is necessitated as regards whether to create, but fully free as regards what to create.

It would seem – if I have at all grasped this correctly – this position asserts love is compelled to create in order to share love – this is a somewhat crude rendering. Or as John coined it in his comments section:

….Thus God’s creativity is an expression of this diffusive goodness, which is inherent to God’s nature.

And

….Similarly, the necessitarian view, as I understand it, is that God created because creation flows from his nature.

This all struck a chord with me and I’m glad to say that John has pushed forward with these thoughts today, and I encourage you to hop over and take a look:

Ugley Vicar – Why are we here (Maybe)

I feel John really hits the nub and nuance of this fascinating position very succinctly indeed.

Pope Benedict XVI is ranked the fifth most powerful man on earth according to Forbes:

Forbes – The World’s Most Powerful people

Interesting to also note China’s President Hu Jintao outranking President Obama.

Ah, Biblical psychobabble, my favourite:

Psychology Today – The Mystery of Happiness

It’s an encouraging article as it happens, well worth a read.

I’ve had my fair share of failure, but the irony for me was that when I was at my most successful in worldly terms, I was at most most depressed and unfulfilled. But then I am a little weird.

Anyway, this gives me an apt opportunity to trot out one of my cherished maxims:

Failure is the back door to success

In my mind, every striver is a winner even if they fail. It’s those that won’t try that have failed already, which leads me nicely to another favoured aphorism:

It’s better to try and fail than not try at all

I’d rather have on my epitaph: “He tried, he failed, but at least he gave it a go”.

I’m suffering from man flu which – as men will know – is akin to child birth in terms of physical suffering.

Anyway, here’s a few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Ugley Vicar – Why are we here?

Connexions – Christians in Iraq

Parchment and Pen – My Problem with Christian Apologetics

Practical Shepherding – What are some spiritual benefits of physical sickness?

British Religion in Numbers – Religion of Prisoners

A Grain of Sand – Is Elitism Really Necessary?

Catholic Herald – We shall not experience life in Christ as disembodied spirits

Catholic Care are the last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales continuing to fight the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

The law outlawed discrimination against gay couples in the provision of goods and services and was pushed through Parliament in 2007. It meant that Catholic adoption agencies were obliged to assess same-sex couples as potential adopters or foster parents.

Whilst other Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales changed their policies (and severed their ties with the church hierarchy) or closed, last March, Catholic Care won the right to appeal against The Charity Commission which had rejected its plea to an exemption under the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

The reason Catholic Care won this unexpected victory is that the government inserted a clause in the 2007 Equality Act, Regulation 18, which states:

Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a person to provide benefits only to persons of a particular sexual orientation, if—
(a) he acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and
(b) the restriction of benefits to persons of that sexual orientation is imposed by reason of or on the grounds of the provisions of the charitable instrument.

In other words, charities can continue to discriminate if the stated aim of the charity was to provide services to people of a particular sexual orientation. (This loophole was inserted to ensure that gay charities could not be sued for discrimination by heterosexual couples.) Catholic Care simply wrote an explicit reference to serving heterosexuals into its constitution, and won their case to appeal.

Back in August Catholic Care lost its appeal to restrict its service to heterosexual couples after the Charity Commission found there was no justification for barring gay and lesbian parents.

Andrew Hind – Chief Executive of the Charity Commission – said at the time:

“In certain circumstances, it is not against the law for charities to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, because the prohibition on such discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law, such discrimination can only be permitted in the most compelling circumstances.

“We have concluded that in this case the reasons Catholic Care have set out do not justify their wish to discriminate.”

Today I’ve learnt that Catholic Care are going to continue the fight and have released this statement:

The Trustees of Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) (“the Charity”) have confirmed that they are appealing the recent decision by the Charity Commission for England and Wales to refuse consent to change the Charity’s objects regarding its adoption services.  The amendment sought by the Charity would permit it to restrict the provision of adoption services on the grounds of sexual orientation.

This Charity sought the restriction so that it could continue to offer adoption services in accordance with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and to allow the Charity to rely on Catholic funds.

The Charity needs to draw on these funds as the funding received from local authorities is not sufficient to provide the services to the high standards offered by the Charity.

The Charity filed the appeal on 28 September 2010 with the Charity Tribunal (the First Tier General Regulatory Tribunal (Charity)) which hears appeals against decisions of the Charity Commission. The appeal requests that the Charity Commission’s decision be reviewed.

As this matter has already been heard by the Charity Tribunal and the High Court, a request has been made for the appeal to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal so that this is heard by a panel including a High Court Judge.

A spokesperson for Catholic Care stated:

“We were very disappointed by the Charity Commission’s ruling and the decision to appeal has not been taken lightly.  We believe that we have very strong grounds for the appeal and are convinced of our case.

There are many children in need of a family and we want to continue to support families seeking to adopt and children in need of adoption. However, if upheld the Charity Commission’s decision will lead to the closure of the Charity’s services.

The Charity is not seeking to prevent same sex couples from adopting children; the Charity is simply seeking to ensure that it can deliver a valuable service in accordance with both the law and the religious ethos of the Charity.”

No date has been confirmed for the initial hearing but the Charity hopes that it will take place before the end of the year (2010).

Catholic Care have been providing adoption services for over 100 years, time will tell if they can survive Labour’s ‘equality’ legacy.

This was a search term that brought someone to this blog earlier today:

My husband committed suicide and broke my heart

Broke my heart too. If you happen to read this post, would you be so kind as to remember this person in your prayers. God knows who she is.

You’ve got to read this one:

BBC: Paris girl ‘survives six-storey fall unharmed’

No wonder they’re calling it a miracle.