eChurch Blog

Talked to one of those smug, self-satisfied, ‘I’m in a proper church where we don’t baptise babies and keep to the way the early church used to do it (in the fifties?)’ types.

SOURCE

In the fifties

Previous post here.

The Leeds-based charity Catholic Care are to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in the hope of quashing the ruling forbidding them to exclude gay people when considering potential adoptive parents.

….continue reading

Talking Philosophy have an interesting post asking if it’s really possible for men to think nothing.

Like all men, I purport to be able to think nothing. To be specific, if a man is asked by his significant other “what are you thinking”, then the best bet is that he will respond by saying “nothing.” It is, of course, tempting to infer that a man says this because he is aware that saying what he was really thinking will result in a look of disgust, a slap, or both. However, men do claim to actually be thinking of nothing (at least at times). This raises the obvious question of whether or not this is even possible.

In the past my wife used to often ask me what I was thinking about, especially when I was staring vacantly. I used to search my mind and could honestly only answer ‘nothing’.

Now, my wife used to find this a little perplexing, and would ask me how it was possible to think nothing.

Some would say that being unable to recollect what you were thinking about a few moments ago, might be some kind of psychological defense mechanism to avoid answering truthfully. Rubbish. I can – and often do – think nothing.

Given my wife’s astonishment at my ability to think nothing, I have come to the conclusion that in this particular skill, men and women are indeed wired differently.

My wife now rarely asks me what I’m thinking about.

To refuse consumerism’s dictates in this respect, the church needs to remember both its eternal ordination and its historical situation. For the former, this is simply the recognition that Jesus Christ himself has ordained the church’s existence, and God has secured its future. If the church were ever to pass away, then onlookers might rightly conclude that the story it had told was all wrong. Fortunately, the church’s continued existence does not depend on us. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be good stewards. But it does mean that we should back off from acting as if the patriarch is dead and we are the inheritors of the family business. No, the head of the church is very much alive.

SOURCE

Michael Barber – The Sacred Page – has posted his third article in response to Dr Jim West’s questions for Catholics.

Michael tackles the biblical or theological justification for believing that the dead pray for us, which can be found here.

The first article on ‘grace vs works’ can be found here.

The second article on the Catholic understanding of the Saints and the common objections from Protestants, can be found here.

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Mundabor’s Blog – Catholic Blogging In 17.5 Easy Steps

The Divining Blog – 25 Myths About Religions Around the World

Epiphenom – How chilled are the religious and non-religious?

David Lindsay – Malta can now look forward to the British-style social breakdown

Messianic Jewish Musings – Zion Theology #1

Science and Religion Today – Could Paying Attention to All the Research Telling Us How to Be Happier Actually Make Us Less Happy?

Bishop Nick Baines – The Wrong Question

Get Religion – The church of O is pantheistic

That was the question asked in a survey on behalf of The Sunday Times by YouGov.

64% of respondents affirmed the assertion that clergy spousal unfaithfulness should be reported by the media, with 23% Disagreeing and 13% unsure.

Of the ten categories of individuals in the questionnaire, only politicians surpassed Clergy.

Here are the results of those who thought the media should report adultery.

a senior politician – 71%

a backbench politician – 65%

a local clergyman – 64%

a local councillor – 62%

a top professional footballer – 59%

a senior executive of a major corporation – 58%

a well-known actor – 56%

a television presenter – 55%

a former reality TV star – 51%

a normal member of the public – 30%

It just goes to show how important the public perceives the moral behaviour of our clergy and desire public exposure of those who transgress.

Hat-tip: Brin – Survey results in PDF here.

It’s been widely reported that the Catholic Church has withdrawn permission for an annual Methodist Ordination service to be held in Liverpool Cathedral.

This has caused no small amount of indignation.

Permission had initially been granted for the service by Archbishop Patrick Kelly, but subsequently reversed after “advice” from the Vatican.

The Catholic Herald notes:

The proposed ordination service was roundly attacked by Catholic bloggers earlier this year. One called it “sacrilege”, while others criticised it for the confusion it would bring.

“It might result in people who protest against Catholic truth… conducting a service in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in whose presence they don’t believe,” Ben Trovato wrote on the blog Countercultural Father. He continued: “It might lead people to imagine some equivalence between Methodism and the One True Church founded by Christ.”

And so the question has been raised as to the possibility of the Vatican picking up on the discomfort of these Catholic bloggers, and intervening and proffering their advice to the Archbishop accordingly.

One Catholic blogger certainly seems to think so.

If this is the case, then it would indicate that Catholic bloggers now wield such power, that they are able to inform and influence the Vatican itself.

I seem to be writing a great deal around the subject of mental illness recently, almost to the point where I feel like a one-trick pony. Believe me when I say that blogging on this subject has to be a passion, as it’s certainly not conducive to generating lots of Internet traffic.

I can only hope that my posts on this subject are useful to someone.

Anyway, I was planning on blogging the next instalment of my series of posts based on the book: Spirituality and Psychiatry, which was kindly sent to me by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

The last post – which was on the subject of intellectual disabilities – can be found here, and I’m rather looking forward to the next chapter which is on substance misuse.

But I shall forego posting on substance misuse for the moment, as I’d like to draw your attention to the first in a series of posts by Michael Patton, on the theme of dealing with depression.

His first post entitled: Dealing With My Depression #1: Muffling Its Voice hits on an issue of utmost importance, but which may seem blindingly obvious to some, and can be summed up in this sentence:

But I have come to realize that it [depression] is representing a distorted reality that will soon pass.

Depression and – in my opinion – all mental illness has the deceptive insidious capacity to render the sufferer with the belief that their current state of mind, will always be this way, and always has been.

When in the vice-like grip of darkest depression, the simple realisation that this is a phase which will pass is almost impossible to grasp. And when we reflect backwards into the past, all memories are coloured with a our present depressed state of mind, giving the illusion that we’ve always been this way.

This phenomenon serves to exacerbate the condition.

If we can hold on to even the slenderest hope that the depression will pass, we gain a powerful tool in abating the illness and even enlivening recovery.

This simple truth – which took me years to realise – has helped me recover from periods of major depression more swiftly. I almost repeat like a mantra: “This will pass!” until I believe it and it passes.

Sometimes the most obvious things are the hardest to see.

Praying may be next to impossible when in a major depressive state, but simply repeating to Jesus that this will pass, seems to empower belief that it will do so. He can keep that slimmest hope alive, which is all it takes.

That’s my experience anyway.

Christian MP David Simpson raised the subject of the [mis]treatment of Christians – globally and in the UK – in a parliamentary debate this week.

You can read the debate here. You can watch it here (With Silverlight).

I was interested in the the MP’s Wiki page, which had this to say:

David Simpson (born 16 February 1959) is a Democratic Unionist politician and proponent of intelligent design in the United Kingdom.

[.....]

In addition to being a proponent of creationism, he is a supporter of homeopathy, having signed several early day motion in support of its continued funding on the National Health Service sponsored by Conservative MP David Tredinnick.

I bet he’s popular with the scientific community.

Anyway, in the debate, David Simpson begins by acknowledging historic brutality in the name of Christianity, and then goes on to cite atrocities in the name of atheism.

He then moves to outline the current wave of Christian persecution in foreign lands.

He urges acknowledgement of the inherent dangers for Christians that accompany what has come to be called the Arab spring.

He then moves on to briefly focus specifically on the treatment of Christians in the UK. Here’s what he said:

…..We may not even have to go to other countries to see Christian persecution, but simply look to our own back door.

I diverge slightly, but the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. In the United Kingdom, the policy seems to be that people can do whatever they like against Christianity—criticise it or blaspheme the name of Christ—as long as they do not insult Islam. It is sad because this country is based on civil and religious liberty for all. When Queen Victoria was on the throne, the secret behind England’s greatness was its open scriptures and open bible. Today, that policy is being hammered into the ground, and that concerns me greatly for the years and months that lie ahead.

He then goes onto raise the issue of Christian persecution in lands that are in receipt of foreign aid and are even part of our commonwealth.

As a Parliament and as a nation, I do not believe that we should be like the Levite and pass by on the other side. There is no doubt that many of these nations are important trading partners. Some are in receipt of aid, and others are members of the Commonwealth. It is clear that silence should not be our response. I am not advocating that we intervene directly in such countries, but we can and should apply diplomatic and political pressure on Pakistan and other countries, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) suggested. We should use as much influence as possible and apply pressure either individually or through organisations such as NATO, the EU and the United Nations. We could be far more proactive in the whole of this regard than we have been thus far. I am not saying that we have done nothing to help out, but we could do a lot more.

Recently, the MEP Peter van Dalen urged the EU to make more rights for the Egyptian Coptic community a policy priority and to develop a strategy for religious freedom. Mr van Dalen pointed out that more concrete European action is needed as the position of Christians worsens across the world. He correctly pointed out the “new big threat” towards Christians in the middle east, drawing attention to a structural neglect of, and discrimination against, Christians in several countries. In conclusion, I urge the Government not simply to chase the financial bottom line in our dealings with neighbours and partners. As one of the great economies of the world and one of the beacons of democratic freedom, we have a duty to use all of our influence to help those who suffer injustice around the world. There is a rising tide of affliction that is swelling around Christians across the world. This nation and this Parliament should be more to the fore in the campaign against that and for civil and religious liberty. I urge the Government and all hon. Members to rise to that challenge.

I’ll leave it there but do urge you to read the whole debate.

Although many of the details of global Christian persecution in this debate are distressing, it’s encouraging to note this being tackled as part of a Parliamentary debate.

It’s also heartening to hear the call for practical solutions, through mechanisms such as aid, trade and business. The truth is the UK wields considerable influence in some of the worst offending countries.