eChurch Blog

A Belfast church has defended a decision to permit a conference taking place at one of its buildings which promotes a therapy claiming to help people “convert” from homosexuality.

Gay Rights groups outraged by the event are set to picket the one-day conference today organised by the Core Issues Trust and held in Belvoir Church of Ireland.

Core Issues claims people are not born gay and that they can change.

A number of speakers attending the conference, entitled ‘Interrogating the Pejoratives: Considering Therapeutic Approaches and Contexts for those Conflicted in Sexual Identity’, will focus on reparative therapy which seeks to change sexual orientation.

The controversial therapy intends to help gay people “get rid of unwanted same-sex longings”.

Core Issues, a Northern Ireland-based group which, according to its website, is a non-profit Christian initiative “seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change”.

But the conference has sparked anger among gay rights groups and unions who warn such therapy is “dangerous”.

….continue reading

Just because this needs to be said over and again:

Every year 105,000 Christians are killed because of their faith.

This shocking figure was disclosed by Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne, representative of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, at the “International Conference on Inter-religious dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims,” sponsored the Hungarian presidency of the European Union (EU) in Gödöllo, near Budapest.

“Every five minutes”, Introvigne said in his speech, “a Christian is killed for his faith.” The figure does not include the victims of civil wars, or wars between nations, but only the people put to death because they are Christians.

“If these figures are not cried out to the world, if this massacre is not stopped,” Introvigne continued; “if it is not recognized that the persecution against Christians is the first worldwide emergency with regard to religious discrimination and violence, dialogue between religions will only produce wonderful symposia but no concrete results.”

….continue reading

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

Assist News Service - Christian doctors to prescribe ‘spiritual healing’ for sickness

Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion – UK Bill to Amend 1996 Arbitration Act

Harry’s Place – Anglican vicar shills for Hamas support network in Malaysia

Sultan Knish – The Rise of the Post-American Empires

The Biblical World – When “D” stands for degree

Listverse – The top 10 misused English words

Commercial for Prodigy (early version of the Internet). Recorded in 1990.

This is the tenth installment of my posts based on the book: Spirituality and Psychiatry, which was kindly sent to me by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

The first part can be found here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, the fifth here, the sixth here, the seventh here, the eighth here, and the ninth here.

This chapter begins thusly:

Spirituality has been part of the professional code of practice for physicians and other healthcare professionals in the UK since the inception of the National Health Service (NHS).

[.....]

There is a lack of published material on the provision of formal spiritual care services within the health sector. It certainly appears to be a hotchpotch of policies and influences. It would seem that in the reforms that saw mental health trusts splitting off from acute and community trusts, many pastoral care departments were left behind. With no specific service level agreements or funding streams, this area of care was, and still is, often ignored.

Page 190

In my opinion, and experience, this will not come as an enormous shock to users of mental health care provision in the UK.

I have oft noted on this blog, my anecdotal observations of a disproportionate number of Christian in-patients in psychiatric wards. In view of this, it was validating to read the following corroboration:

Interestingly, the national census of in-patients in mental health hospitals carried out by the Commission for Health Inspection, National Institute of Mental Health England (NIMHE) and the Mental Health Act Commission (Commission for Audit and inspection, 2005) found a surprisingly high percentage of religious affiliation, even if it does not equate with religious belief.

Page 195

Why should this be the case? This is a question I have asked of many and never received a satisfactory response. My adversaries have used this to assert that a person must be prone to mental illness in order to accept the Christian narrative. My response is:

It is either that Christianity is the religion of the mad, which I’m happy with, or Christians are for some reason more prone to mental problems. Or perhaps Christ came for the sick…..

This chapter cites much of the legislation and policies surrounding spirtitual care provision in mental health services and notes some of the successes and some of the failures. It would seem that spiritual care within the NHS is as much a ‘postcode lottery’ as everything else.

Within this chapters section looking at who is responsible for providing a spiritually-orientated approach within mental health – should be multidisciplinary of course – a specific document is cited as providing a particularly valuable supportive spiritual framework. This document is called the Wellness and Recovery Action Plan – WRAP. This is what’s noted of the WRAP:

It approaches spirituality as a dimension for empowerment and growth. It incorporates concepts such as meaning and purpose as goals for well-being and embraces the work of faith communities.

Page 199

To be frank this took me by surprise, and as I have WRAP to hand, I thought I’d see if I could spot this. The following is the questions they may be referring to:

b. This is what carries a sense of meaning and significance for me, this is what inspires me and reminds me of my values.

This is the only example I can find which may refer to spirituality, which is not much considering the WRAP I have in front of me has some 20 pages of questions. I will note however that this is the second question on the list, which demonstrates its importance.

However, this is not to denigrate the WRAP which is a fabulous tool for those recovering from a psychiatric ‘crisis’. If you are in recovery and have not completed a WRAP, you should bring this up with your mental health care team.

Spiritual care is dependent on staff training, and it’s disappointing to note that only about a third of UK medical schools teach on spirituality within their undergraduate curriculum.

The rest of the chapter looks at the role, training, and pressures on NHS Chaplains and it’s worth noting that clinical staff, as well as partnering with chaplaincy staff, should also be recipients of spiritual care.

There are 100 chaplains employed by 40 of the 75 mental health trusts in England and Wales. Less than half work full time in mental health.

As much ink is spilt on the topic of NHS Chaplains, especially by the likes of the National Secular Society, I won’t cover this section. It goes without saying that I’m in favour of NHS chaplains and would like to see them further embedded in NHS culture.

If you wish to read further on the work of hospital chaplains, then I would guide you to their professional bodies, namely, The College of Healthcare Chaplains, the Scottish Association of Chaplains in Healthcare, and the Association of Hospice and Palliative Care Chaplains.

At the end of the day, spiritual care should be the shared responsibility of all who work in the NHS.

I shall finish by citing a portion of the conclusion:

With massive and perpetual organisational pressures on the NHS, the humane imperatives of spirituality can be easily forgotton. It is a tribute to the dedication and preceptiveness of so many people that the spiritual dimension is now firmly on the agenda. There exists such a great deal of legislation, policy and guidance that NHS trusts can no longer ignore this aspect of patient care. Spiritual care can be seen as a unifying and encouraging presence in the NHS, but only if the whole approach is anchored to a clear system of governance and a set of values that celebrate cultural diversity.

Page 206

Following the recent controversial political comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the following was one of the questions in a YouGov poll on behalf of The Sunday Times:

Is it right or wrong for senior clergy to comment on political issues?

The results show an almost even split:

Right – The Church has a contribution to make to political debates 45%

Wrong – The Chucrh should not involve itself in debate about politics or government policies 44%

Don’t know 11%

The YouGov poll can be found here in PDF format. BRIN have more detailed results.

What do you say? Is the Church to avoid issues ‘of the world’ such as politics, or should it be salt and light in these arenas?

Returned last night from my jolly to Oxford with wifey. Loved it. What a beautiful and spiritual place of learning. I’m not normally one for cities but this truly is one of a kind.

As it’s end-of-year examination time, some of the colleges were closed to us, but it was fun seeing the students in their gowns sporting carnations, the colour of which denote their progression through their exams.

The Bodleian library tour was the highlight for me. They have literally millions of books as they’re a copyright library, meaning they receive a copy of literally everything published in the UK, including obscurities such as Harry Potter written in Latin and ancient Greek?

On the subject of the the Bodleian library, they are hosting a superb exhibition on the creation of the King James Bible, which runs until the 4th Sept.

Anyway, here’s a piccy of me in the Oxford University Vice Chancellors chair in the Convocation House:

Now there’s a man in his rightful place!

Thanks go to WorldofNic for mentioning the Oratory on Twitter, at which we celebrated Mass.

I bought myself an ‘Oxford University’ t-shirt as a memento and am wondering why as I’ve never studied there, but it does have a better ring to it than ‘Essex University’.

There’s loads more but it’d probably just bore you. If you haven’t been to Oxford then you really should go.

I know I’m a little behind the times due to my Oxford Jolly, but scanning through the news feeds it seems that every blogger and his dog has commented on the recent media furore following an article written by the ABC, that appeared in the New Statesman.

I thought the most insightful thoughts on this came from Bishop Nick Baines, and I reproduce them here with kind permission:

I have been out all day visiting clergy and parishes in Airedale. Time was tight and I wasn’t able to get stuck in to the Rowan Williams media frenzy – although I did manage to do two quick radio interviews in-between meetings. Having read the actual article in the New Statesman, I am wondering if the media are actually feeding from the wrong menu. If Rowan wanted to attack the government, he could have done it better than this. But this isn’t the purpose of his article. It clearly suits the agenda of the media to look for conflict where there is only debate.

First, it is clear that some commentators haven’t actually read the original article, but are responding to the second-hand articles produced by others. Good for a story and venting a little spleen, but not terribly useful.

Second, whatever answers people want to give to the questions he articulates, is anyone seriously suggesting that the questions aren’t the right ones?

Third, aren’t some of the attacks on him simply a form of distraction therapy for people who find his questioning embarrassingly on target?

One of the more bizarre elements of this business is the suggestion that the Archbishop of Canterbury shouldn’t interfere in politics. That view assumes that either politics is the preserve of those who think they have a right to occupy a fantasy ‘neutral’ space or that politics has nothing to do with real life. At least David Cameron acknowledged the right (if not the imperative) for the Church to speak out on such matters. However, his response seems to be to reporting on the Archbishop’s article rather than the content of the article itself.

It is worth noting also that the article is the leader written by Rowan as guest editor of this edition of the New Statesman. It introduces articles by several politicians who go on to address the questions raised in ways which the Archbishop might find unconvincing. In other words, the leader has to be seen in the context of the whole and read as an introduction to what is intended to be an intelligent discussion of the very themes the Archbishop thinks should be raised more widely.

I would love to ask some of the screaming commentators when they last trod the pavements of some of the poorest communities in our cities and rural areas. When did they last encounter people who are genuinely bemused by what is going on with the economy, education or the NHS? When did they last listen to the stories of those who constantly lose out and for whom the future looks hopeless?

David Cameron (interestingly) was heard to say that he disagreed that people whould be paid to stay out of work. I have no idea to which question that was deemed to be a relevant answer. Identifying the consequences of economic and other policies on poor people is not to say that they should be kept in perpetuity by the State. But it is to ask what sort of society we wish to shape, how we will cope with the dispossessed or the disaffected (who won’t simply disappear quietly into the ether), and which values should run through that society. Indeed, the Archbishop is asking politicians – not just the government, but those failing to state a credible alternative – to articulate the values and philosophical assumptions underlying their  determined policies.

Why is that request deemed inappropriate or odd? Do we not think that our democracy is impoverished if we simply accept electoral apathy, political disconnectedness or lack of engagement with the public discourse on those values that will shape us – wittingly or unwittingly? Do we really not need a more diligent and intelligent debate about which values we wish as a society to espouse – or do we just accept uncritically the notion that pragmatism should be unchallenged? Shouldn’t the electorate have been given an opportunity to know where any potential goverment might take education or the NHS – or are we just to accept that elections are to be seen as a sort of shadow boxing after which the lights can be changed and the shadows ignored in favour of some other substance?

When the frenzy has ended and the calmer commentators are picking over the bones of this matter, I dare to think that the questions and challenges put by the Archbishop will be seen to be the right ones – prophetic in the best sense of the word. As he says towards the end of his article:

… a democracy capable of real argument about shared needs and hopes and real generosity: any takers?

Yep, I’m in Oxford on a jolly.

Wifey has a grueling itinerary planned.

So blogging will be non-existent until the weekend.

In the meantime, feel free to use this post as an open thread, to alert of us of anything happening in the world we should know about, or anything else you want to say for that matter.

See you in a couple of days.

The Jerusalem Post has an article citing Gaddafi as saying:

“We only have one choice, we will stay in our land dead or alive”

And he’s dead right, he has no other choice. He is not being offered any other viable way out. Consider this snippet from the International Crisis Group:

Their repeatedly proclaimed demand that “Qaddafi must go” systematically confuses two quite different objectives. To insist that, ultimately, he can have no role in the post-Jamahiriya political order is one thing, and almost certainly reflects the opinion of a majority of Libyans as well as of the outside world. But to insist that he must go now, as the precondition for any negotiation, including that of a ceasefire, is to render a ceasefire all but impossible and so to maximise the prospect of continued armed conflict. To insist that he both leave the country and face trial in the International Criminal Court is virtually to ensure that he will stay in Libya to the bitter end and go down fighting.

Gaddafi has absolutely nothing to lose.

As Charles Reed notes:

Rather than seeing a change of direction as a sign of weakness, NATO Heads of Government should recall the advice given by Jun Tzu, the famous Chinese General, who noted in The Art of War that in war it is sometimes necessary to “build your enemies a golden bridge to retreat across.”