eChurch Blog

So the left-leaning Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral, Dr Giles Fraser, has martyred himself resigned over the Occupy St Paul’s Cathedral Occupy the London Stock Exchange protests.

Apparently he is upset at plans to forcibly remove protesters from St Paul’s steps, saying he could not support the possibility of “violence in the name of the church”.

This has prompted a predictable outpouring of vitriol against St Paul’s and the Church of England in general, with many that have not darkened the door of a church in years pontificating on Christian morality.

To be fair, this vitriol has been ongoing since the Cathedral announced it had to close its doors due to heath and safety reasons. This despite the fact that the Cathedral had kindly hosted their protest for a week.

In fact, to observe #occupylsx Twitter stream over the last week, you could be forgiven for thinking that the very Raison d’être for the protests was the evil cathedral itself. Of course, the Cathedral was the protesters best buddy whilst they were accommodating them without complaint.

All talk of greedy bankers and corrupt Capitalism is most certainly notably absent right now, as the protesters rail against Christians; blather on about money changers and set up Facebook pages and Twitter streams to ‘save’ the poor Canon.

The Bishop of London Rt Revd Richard Chartres has issued the following statement:

“This demonstration has undoubtedly raised a number of very important questions. The St Paul’s Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.

“Nevertheless, the time has come for the protestors to leave, before the camp’s presence threatens to eclipse entirely the issues that it was set up to address. The Dean and the Chapter, who are responsible for St Paul’s, have already made it clear that the protest should come to an end and I fully support that view.”

Hear, hear.

The protests have morphed into an anti-St Paul’s Cathedral movement and they have lost sight of their original goals; whatever the heck they actually were.

It’s time to do the decent things and move on and ‘occupy’ something that is a little more relevant to the cause; stop cussing St Pauls, the Church of England, and Christians in general, and stop bleating on about Giles Fraser, who according to some sources didn’t like his job anyway.

I have featured Believe TV here in the past when they were punished by Ofcom for claiming that televangelist Paul Lewis’ ‘Miracle Olive Oil Soap’ cured cancer.

What I now report on, I do so with an even heavier heart, as it comes against the backdrop of the harrowing news that three people in London with HIV have died after they stopped taking life saving drugs on the advice of their Evangelical Christian pastors.

Ofcom have again found Believe TV to be in breach of their rules; this time for claims of miraculous healing of HIV and Cancer.

Here is the nature of the complaint that was investigated:

A complainant alerted Ofcom to two alleged claims of serious illnesses being cured. These were broadcast on Believe TV on 25 June 2011. The claims were included in a programme which lasted around 20 minutes promoting the work of the church known as the Victorious Pentecostal Assembly (“VPA”). The claims appeared as onscreen text while images of the pastor of VPA, Alex Omokodu, were shown giving “healing” to followers at the church. The onscreen text claims referred to by the complainant were shown on the bottom third of the screen in white lettering on a black background: “HIV IS HEALED” and “CANCER IS HEALED”.

Firstly, Believe TV were found to be in breach of Rule 2.1

Rule 2.1 states that generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material. This rule is specifically concerned with the protection of viewers from harm.

In assessing whether there was a breach of Rule 2.1, Ofcom therefore had to consider whether the claims broadcast could have encouraged viewers to believe that the serious illnesses featured, in particular cancer and HIV, could be cured through the work of the VPA (without orthodox medication). If this were the case, there was a potential for harm because some viewers with serious illnesses – who may therefore be more vulnerable – might have understood on the basis of what they saw on Believe TV that they could be cured by the work of the VPA, and as result either not sought medical advice or stopped following a course of recommended medical treatment. This clearly could be very harmful.

Believe TV were also found to be in breach of rule 4.6 which states:

Rule 4.6 states that religious programmes must not improperly exploit any susceptibilities of the audience. The Ofcom guidance on this Code rule makes clear to broadcasters that when “they are soliciting an actual response from their audience”, they must take care and recognise the possible risk to audience members, particularly the vulnerable.

You can read the full judgement on this link, pages 7-11.

My thanks go to my good friend Gordon for alerting me of this.

THIS MUST STOP!

The Daily Mail is featuring the plight of housing manager Adrian Smith, who made some private comments relating to the proposals for ‘gay marriage’ on Facebook and has been demoted as a result.

He works for Trafford Council Housing Trust and made the comment on his private Facebook page – in his own time – that ‘gay marriage’ is an ‘equality too far’

Adrian Smith was found guilty of gross misconduct by the Trust, demoted and had his wages slashed.

Caroline Farrow has posted on this and Peter Ould had this to say:

Extraordinary. For having a conversation much tamer then some of the things that people leave as comments on this blog (not to mention the stuff that doesn’t get past my homophobia filter) a man is demoted. And don’t forget, this is for expressing an opinion on a piece of legislation that is currently not even on the statute book but being considered!

Mind boggling as we speak.

Indeed.

I know I don’t often post stuff like this, but I was at Mass just now and we sung a hymn that really ‘spoke’ to me. It goes like this:

Make me a channel of Your peace
Where there is hatred let me bring Your love
Where there is injury, Your pardon, Lord
And where there’s doubt, true faith in You

Oh, Master, grant that I may never seek
So much to be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
To be loved as to love with all my soul

Make me a channel of Your peace
Where there’s despair in life let me bring hope
Where there is darkness, only light
And where there’s sadness, ever joy

Make me a channel of Your peace
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
In giving to all men that we receive
And in dying that we’re born to eternal life

It’s written by Johann Sebastian von Tempelhoff who goes by the name of Sebastian Temple and is based on a prayer of St. Francis. There’s more details here if you’re interested.

And you’ll never guess what just happened. I mentioned this hymn to my wife who said: “You know that hymn is based on the prayer of St. Francis” and when I asked her how she knew this, she took a plaque off the wall with the words on it.

Shows how observant I am!

Another thing that brings me great comfort, is in the Catholic Liturgy, when we say:

Look not upon my sin, but on the faith of your church.

Amen to that.

You’ll have to forgive me for the tone of the blog post; but the radical left really does get under my skin at times.

News has broken that St Paul’s Cathedral will be closing its doors for the first time since the second world war, due to the protesters camped outside.

Twitter is ablaze with condemnation for this move, with accusations along the lines of: Jesus would support the protests, blah, blah, blah.

I’ve now heard that protesters are shouting biblical verses at the Cathedral, presumably in an attempt to shame them in some way.

The website Liberal Conspiracy is running a live update in which they seem to insinuate that the Cathedral is lying over the reasons for opting to close their doors.

This isn’t ‘Occupy the Stock Exchange’; this is ‘Occupy the Cathedral’.

Why oh why do the radical left so swiftly adopt a quasi-religious fervour?

Why do they always co-opt what they imagine is Christianity and then bash Christians with it?

Here’s my message to the radical left:

Dear radical left: Ideological showboating is not the Gospel and the church is not obligated to fall in behind your agenda.

Well, here we are again on yet another day prophesied by Harold Camping to be the rapture.

Of course, we’ve been here before.

In case you don’t know what the Rapture is; it’s the day when the lucky winners will be swept up into the clouds and the losers will be tormented here on earth.

Judging by all of the images of clothes left behind by those raptured; disturbingly, it would seem that those lifted into the clouds might be in the nude.

I was thinking the other day, imagine if Jesus decided to return today just to be ironic; that would shut me up.

Anyway, Vic the Vicar has been busy over the last few days giving us a much needed countdown, in order the we may ready ourselves for this big day.

As I’ve said in the past: It’s all in the phraseology.

There’s an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled: Vatican signs deal to collaborate on adult stem cell research.

So far so good. The second heading reads:

The unusual agreement with NeoStem allows the church, which opposes embryonic stem cell use, to be seen as taking a constructive role in one of the most promising areas of medical research.

Note the use of the word ‘unusual’.

The article continues:

In an agreement that tends to elicit the response “Really?,” the Vatican recently signed a $1-million compact with Smith’s New York company, NeoStem, to collaborate on adult stem cell education and research.

‘Really’, why ‘really’ and why ‘unusual’?

I’ll tell you what I think.

Firstly, the Times assumes that its readers will be shocked that the Vatican – which is so obviously opposed to ALL stem-cell research – would invest in such research. To give the article its due, it does go on and explore the ethical differences between embryonic stem-cell research, as opposed to adult stem-cell.

Secondly, I think the Times assumes that its readers will be shocked by the fact that the Vatican is involved in scientific research full stop. I mean, it’s surprising isn’t it, especially given that the Catholic Church and Christians in general are anti-science……

I don’t know if I’m on my own with this one, but I find it impossible very difficult to celebrate the death of another human being, irrespective of their form.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s probably better that Gadaffi is dead; it saves everybody the trouble of a messy trial and perhaps paves the way for Libya to move on. And as the good book says: If you live by the sword; you’ll die by the sword.

Having said this, did we really need the disturbing images and video plastered all across our mainstream media, of a bloodied, terrified, bewildered, old man, shortly before his death? And then we were treated to graphic images and video of an only-just-dead Gadaffi with fresh bullet wounds in his head.

Seriously, it’s simply macabre, ghoulish,voyeuristic and unnecessary.

OK, I understand that Gaddaffi’s death may need to be proven in a visual sense, but broadcast it late at night with warnings. As it stands, images are on mainstream news websites and there’s no warning; it’s just straight in your face as you enter the websites. It wouldn’t be hard to conceal the images, give an adequate warning and allow folk to access them if they wish.

I’ve seen these images and videos described as murder snuff porn and although perhaps this is a little strong; I for one went to bed with violent and gruesome images of Gadaffi’s demise seared in my mind.

UPDATE: Yay, I’m not alone, both Richard Littledale and Sr Catherine have expressed the same.

I’ve been awaiting an update on a complaint made to the Charity Commission against Barnabas Aid, relating to a booklet they produced entitled: Slippery Slope: the Islamisation of the UK.

I received the following email from Barnabas Aid earlier today:

A couple of months ago you featured an article on a complaint to the Charity Commission about Barnabas Fund.

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2011/08/15/concerns-raised-charity-commission-barnabas-fund-booklet-islamisation-uk/

After waiting two months to hear from the Charity Commission, we finally approached them to ask if there was any forthcoming issues to address. We have just been informed that there is none and the complaint was checked and dismissed without reference to us.

(1) We understand that the Charity Commission can receive hundreds of complaints each year from individuals who have an ‘axe to grind’ or a policy disagreement, about all sorts of charities.
(2) Many complaints have little or no foundation and are dismissed without reference to the charity concerned.
(3) We are concerned that this complaint was pushed onto the web by the individual who had made it, and it was received some converage even though it was actuially an unfounded complaint which was subsequently dismissed by the Charity Commission.
(4) Such coverage is damaging to our reputation.
(5) Having received complete exoneration from the Charity Commission, we now request a ‘Right of Reply’ beyond what is available on just the comment section, to put the record straight. We would like to provide you with a short basic text, including quotes from the Charity Commission response to us, for an agreed final version.

I will most certainly give Barnabas Aid the ‘Right of Reply’:

The UK Charity Commission has completely exonerated Barnabas Aid after receiving a complaint about one of our Operation Nehemiah booklets.

On 7 August The Sunday Times carried an article about our campaign against the growing Islamisation of Britain, making reference to our booklet Slippery Slope. Having read the article, a lay Reader in the Church of England then filed a complaint against us with the Charity Commission.

The complainant asked whether Barnabas should be allowed to retain its charitable status when we were engaged in allegedly “divisive” activity. She suggested that “campaigning” against another religion was akin to inciting racial hatred and questioned its public benefit.

The Charity Commission have now sent us their reply to the complainant. After looking at the article and our booklet, they have concluded:

The charity, in its campaigning around “Operation Nehemiah” appears to be acting within its objects, as the campaign can be seen as promoting “the advancement of the Christian faith”. A charity can become involved in a campaign which furthers or supports its charitable purposes.

The Commission acknowledge that the campaign material fits within its aims, and that the booklet quotes sources for the claims that it makes. They quote its statement of intent, not to promote anti-Muslim fear or hatred, but to address seriously the challenge of Islam to society. They then say:

The campaign does not appear to be inciting racial hatred and the charity believes that it has public benefit in that it “is committed to maintaining Christian values of freedom of conscience, speech and religion for the next generation in church and society”.

The response ends:

We are therefore content that the charity, in carrying out this campaign, is operating within its objects and within the terms of our guidance.

The Commission’s letter thus represents complete vindication for Barnabas Aid regarding the nature and conduct of our campaign.

Since the complaint was lodged, we have been contacted by another person who is deeply unhappy about our policy of supporting only Christians, and who also intends to report us to the Commission. But the recent ruling demonstrates how careful we are to act within both the law and the charitable objects stated within our Articles of Association, and we are confident that any future complaints will receive a similar response.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Aid, said:

We warmly welcome this positive response from the Charity Commission and its exoneration of our Operation Nehemiah campaign. We have been deeply saddened that some Christians regard Barnabas Aid as preaching hatred when we raise the plight of the persecuted Church and the growing influence of Islamism and its impact on the Church and the Christian heritage and liberties of Western society. We are unshakably committed to our stated goals and will continue to pursue them with vigour, for the sake of our Lord’s persecuted people at home and abroad.

Last month I blogged about the potential reconciliation between the Vatican and the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and highlighted some of the concerns voiced by Jewish groups.

Amongst those concerns is the fact that a bishop within the society – Richard Williamson – is a noted Holocaust denier.

Well, I learned today that the Bishop has been up to his old tricks again and has posted on his blog that the Jews were solely responsible for deicide.

Predictably, Jewish groups are again calling for the Vatican to suspend reconciliation with SSPX until anti-Semitic elements are purged from the group.

At this point I want to hand you over to Dylan – A Reluctant Sinner – who has written a comprehensive blog post looking at this issue of antisemitism; with a particular emphasis on Bishop Richard Williamson and his views.