eChurch Blog

Another day, another martyr in Islamic lands.

I’ve also read today that Sudan’s president has confirmed plans to adopt an entirely Islamic constitution and strengthen sharia law, raising the threat level for Christians in the country.

Militants from the Islamic extremist al Shabaab beheaded a 17-year-old Somali Christian near Mogadishu last month, a journalist in the Somali capital told Compass.

The militants, who have vowed to rid Somalia of Christianity, killed Guled Jama Muktar on Sept. 25 in his home near Deynile, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from Mogadishu. The Islamic extremist group had been monitoring his family since the Christians arrived in Somalia from Kenya in 2008, said the source in Mogadishu, who requested anonymity.

The Islamic militants, who are fighting the transitional government for control of the country, knew from their observations of the family that they were Christians, the source said.

“I personally know this family as Christians who used to have secret Bible meetings in their house,” he said.

Based on talks with the boy’s parents and their neighbors, the source said al Shabaab members arrived at Muktar’s home at 6 a.m., when his parents, whose names are withheld for security reasons, were already at work at their retail space at the Hamarweyne market on the outskirts of Mogadishu.

The extremists found Muktar as he was preparing to go to school, he said.

“The neighbors heard screaming coming from the house, and then it immediately stopped,” the source said. “After awhile, they saw a white car leaving the homestead.”

….continue

Being as I seem to be having a day of blogging about blogging; I thought I’d continue the theme.

I must confess to having a strange penchant for reading things relating to psychopaths.

I even blogged about psychopaths becoming Christians and was somewhat surprised by the level of interest.

Anyway, I was busy reading a piece entitled: “How to spot a psychopath: Speech patterns give them away“, when I came across this quote:

And finally, while most of us respond to higher-level needs, such as family, religion or spirituality, and self-esteem, psychopaths remain occupied with those needs associated with a more basic existence.

Their analysis revealed that psychopaths used about twice as many words related to basic physiological needs and self-preservation, including eating, drinking and monetary resources than the nonpsychopaths, they write.

By comparison, the nonpsychopathic murderers talked more about spirituality and religion and family, reflecting what nonpsychopathic people would think about when they just committed a murder, Hancock said.

The researchers are interested in analyzing what people write on Facebook or in other social media, since our unconscious mind also holds sway over what we write. By analyzing stories written by students from Cornell and the University of British Columbia, and looking at how the text people generate using social media relates to scores on the Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Unlike the checklist, which is based on an extensive review of the case file and an interview, the self report is completed by the person in question.

So, our personality types even infiltrate our online discourse.

Isn’t this interesting; well at least my rather strange mind thinks so. I mean, it would surely be easy for a psychopath to feign online interest in spiritual matters wouldn’t it? And perhaps even thrive in such environment.

I found this concept fascinating and wonder what my psychiatrist would make of my online interactions.

In fact, I wonder what psychiatrists would make of the Christian blogosphere; full stop.

10,021 legitimate comments received to be specific.

To think, I’ve read the most of these.

And some say blogging is a time consuming business! Ha!

I say ‘legitimate’ as I receive somewhere in the region of 500 spam comments per day; thankfully, the software takes care of these for me. And this number doesn’t include the countless obnoxious comments I’ve deleted

Although this is a small number in comparison to the longstanding big hitting bloggers; I still never imagined my little niche blog would garner so many comments when I started out.

This blog continues to have a very low comment to visitor ratio; with the vast majority of you never saying a word. Feel free to simply say Hi on this blog post if you’d like. Let us know where you’re from, or where you blog, or whatever……

A heartfelt thank you to everybody that has contributed.

Up until a few years ago, I used to proudly self-identify as an evangelical; not any longer.

It’s not that I don’t consider myself an evangelical in the ‘proper’ sense, but that I don’t recognise how the term is often employed nowadays.

In view of this, a recent blog post written by Professor John Byron, resonated deeply with me:

As you may know, I am uncomfortable with the Evangelical label. I often bristle when I or something I am associated with is labeled as “Evangelical.” While I would describe my faith as historically evangelical, I do not subscribe to most of what is attributed to Evangelicalism today. I have sometimes suggested that we need a new label since this one has been hijacked.

I totally agree. I often observe on Christian forums those espousing the strangest of views; self-declaring themselves as evangelical. In some blog lists on the Internet, this blog is listed under the heading ‘evangelical’ and quite frankly that makes me cringe.

The good professor is dead right; we do need a new label to describe ‘Evangelical Proper’.

David Keen – Opinionated Vicar – has an interesting blog post in which he notes that an increasing number of outspoken blogging Anglican vicars are ending up ‘between jobs’.

I’d noticed this trend, and in the past have ventured the question if blogging itself was perhaps one of the reasons inhibiting some landing a new clerical position. I believe that in at least one case, blogging has directly led to the priest being unable to secure a new job.

Interestingly, this potential distrustful view of bloggers by the Church hierarchy, is not confined to the Anglican Church. Richard Collins – of the excellent Catholic Blog  Linen on the Hedgerow – recently received the following comment from a Diocesan Media Communications Officer, in response to his request for information relating to exorcists:

Dear Richard

Thank you very much for kindly responding with the information about your research.

I am afraid that for personal ethical reasons I am not prepared to co-operate – I believe that blogging as currently manifested should be made a serious criminal offence because of the significantly negative comments that are so often made about people who are trying to do their best are so destructive to the good of society.

‘Blogging should made a serious criminal offence’; strong stuff I’m sure you’ll agree. And this despite the Pope’s continuing call for Catholics to embrace social media.

These comments from the Communications Officer became part of a talk given by Ft Tim Finigan at a recent Catholic bloggers meeting:

That is a good example of how Catholic blogs are seen by many in the Church, especially those who hold some kind of office. Fr Bernard Bassett once summarised the sins confessed by young children as naughty, rude, fighting. That is more or less how blogs are portrayed in official circles.

David Keen goes on to confess that he often tones down his blog posts and asks if this is sensible or cowardly, or both. He continues:

I’m kept awake at night by hostile comments, or when people point out how abjectly wrong I’ve got things. So to spare myself the stress I tend to be more nuanced, to ask questions rather than make statements, to prod rather than proclaim.

Of course, being opinionated doesn’t make you right. It could just make you obnoxious. But if you’re just repeating what everyone else is saying then why say it at all?

This may come as shock to some, but I also practice toning down my blog posts and attempt to be more nuanced. Even more shockingly; I’m often sometimes wrong.

But you know what, it’s OK to be wrong, as long as you’re prepared to be open-minded and accept constructive criticism. Nobody is right all of the time; we all have our own peculiar idiosyncrasies and biases.

I will say though, that controversy attracts Internet traffic, but controversy for the sake of controversy, is not healthy nor constructive. In fact, it can easily become destructive and divisive.

It’s often pointed out to me that I’ve got things wrong and I will certainly allow through these comments if they are written in a charitable manner, but all too often they’re phrased in a nasty manner, and although I still read the comment, I don’t allow them through.

I’m fortunate in the sense that I’m a largely irrelevant, anonymous, pew sitter, who simply enjoys blogging. In this sense I’m not accountable to anybody; although, my priests do know I blog, but if they read this blog or not, is another matter.

However, I still feel accountable for what I write; to God, and to the Christian blogging community, and beyond.

There is also a degree of self-policing within the Christian blogosphere. I’ve certainly been pulled up when I’ve gone too far, or simply got the facts wrong.

All in all, there is no doubt in my mind that some of the Church hierarchy is deeply suspicious of the Christian blogosphere, and perhaps in some cases, they have good reasons to feel that way.

I’ll finish with some more sage words from Fr Finigan’s talk; the whole piece is worth a read:

Most Catholic bloggers in my experience want to do good. They do it in various ways – mothers and fathers tell stories of bringing up their children, musicians write and post music for the benefit of others, those involved in beautiful liturgy post photographs to encourage us, people share their experience and erudition in a way that has never before been so open, democratic and accessible.

This is what some people fear. If you have a vested interest in nurturing the myth that everything in the garden is rosy, it is business as usual and there is no real need for reform in the Church, the blogs are a pesky nuisance. If you want to have a Halloween Mass with a witch doing the reading and a devil giving out Communion and the priest going around at the end dressed as Barney the Bear, it is a shock to find that the whole world has seen this on YouTube.

If a Bishop reacts to Summorum Pontificum by issuing a letter posing restrictions that contravene the Motu Proprio, it is discomfiting to find his letter analysed line-by-line by canonists and people with expertise in the liturgy. If a school tries to bulldoze parents into allowing their children to be subjected to explicit sex-education that teaches them how to masturbate and shows cartoon animations of people having sex, it is obviously awkward to be named and shamed.

I would suggest that it is this inconvenient publicity that makes some officials in the Church want to make blogging a serious criminal offence. When bloggers can access the text of documents from the Holy See and compare them to what is actually happening on the ground, it must be difficult if you are trying to gloss over the Church’s teaching and discipline and carry on as normal.

We should also emphasise and celebrate the good that blogs do by way of evangelisation, catechesis and the fostering of a devout life. Never before in the history of the Church has it been so easy to find answers to difficult questions about the faith. Apologists abound who give their time freely to post good quality articles explaining how we can be certain that God exists, explaining sensitively and convincingly the Church’s teaching on questions of sexual ethics. Homeschooling parents share hints, tips, advice, and educational materials with each other across the globe. And of course the reform of the liturgy which Pope Benedict has made a cornerstone of his pontificate, has been given enormous help by the many Catholic bloggers who have posted positive examples of the liturgy celebrated well, in accordance with the liturgical norms, and with the recovery of the sacred and beautiful that is our heritage.

The BBC informs us that ‘Internet Bigot’ Stephen Birrell has been spouting anti-Catholic bile on a Neil Lennon (Manager Celtic Football Club) hate page on Facebook. He’s been jailed for 8 months for these comments.

I’ve done a little background reading on this chap and there’s no doubt that he’s a thoroughly unpleasant character, with a string of convictions to his name, including: Firearms, assault, minor drugs, bail violations, and breaches of the peace.

I’ve also had a good look at the comments he made online, for which he was jailed, and granted, it was horrible and offensive stuff relating to Catholics and Celtic supporters, but there were no threats made, nor, encouragement to commit acts of violence. Nothing of that sort. He simply vehemently dislikes both Catholics and Celtic fans and aired the same online.

You can find his comments on this link; I’m not repeating them here for obvious reasons.

I am of course fully aware of the sectarian strife in Scotland and the proposed controversial anti-sectarianism Bill. But why is this Bill controversial? Take a Liberty Scotland tell us:

We believe that introducing a law to imprison people for up to five years because of offensive sectarian chanting or online comments is extreme and illiberal.

Even the Christian Institute have been critically reporting on this bill recently.

All in all, I’m with Roger Pearse on this one; this is a political imprisonment, spurred on by recent sectarian strife and represents a serious threat to freedom of speech online.

I’m not condoning Birrell’s comments, they were vile; but from what I can make out, surely they didn’t warrant a custodial sentence.

I get hate-filled anti-Catholic comments here all the time, and I simply delete most of them and move on without a further thought.

I’m sorry, I simply couldn’t resist it.

Hat-tip

No matter how much folk try to suppress the Gospel, the Good news of Jesus will continue to spread, even in Iran:

Despite the pressures and threats on one hand and the ban of printing and selling the gospels on the other hand, Christianity is increasingly spreading among the youth and families in Iran. The word of God is making its way into many Iranian homes.

[.....]

The rapid growth of the Christian faith in Iran seems to have caused significant concern and even fear in the hearts of the leadership of the Islamic regime which has sparked increased suppression of Christians especially in the last year. After the Supreme Leader Ali Khameniei’s speech regarding the need to oppose and silence the home-based churches, a brutal and inhumane crackdown along with numerous arrests of Christians inside Iran has been witnessed. It is shameful to see the authorities show complete disregard for the sacred Scriptures of more than two billion Christians around the world, while burning those scriptures with disrespect.

Despite the pressures and threats in one hand and the ban against printing and even selling the gospels within Iran on other hand, Christianity is increasingly spreading among the youth and families and the word of God is making its way into every Iranian house.

According to the reports published by the government-run website –Hamseda- the head of the Islamic Thoughts and Culture’s research center, acknowledged the penetration of the Torah and Gospel (Old Testament and New Testament) among Iranians in a ceremony in auditorium of the office of the Islamic propaganda. He said “Today, the gospel is available in three thousand languages around the world, while the number of translations of the Quran hardly reaches one hundred.

[.....]

The fear of the spread of Christianity among the younger generation of Iran has caused the regime to use every possible strategy to crack down on the followers of Christianity and to prevent its growth among the youth and Iranian families. One of the boldest strategies is to burn confiscated Bibles. What is remarkable here is that none of the Iranian authorities took the responsibility for burning the bibles.

[.....]

In a ruling, the ministry of the Culture and Islamic Guidance has forbidden all bookstores from selling the Gospels approved by the official churches of Iran. And still the religious figures of regime acknowledge that the gospel is spreading throughout the country. Although talking about the gospel and discussing Christian theology is a risky endeavor with potentially serious consequences, Christian youth and many other people clearly talk about these issues and share the message of Christ’s love with others.

….read all

For me it always starts with ‘blogging block’; I just don’t seem to be able to find anything worth blogging about, and I’m never sure if this is because there is nothing interesting to blog about; or whether it’s more reflective of my state of mind.

Then comes a crisis in confidence. Everybody else seems so damn smart and knowledgeable on any given subject; that I feel like a know-nothing fraud.

Do any other bloggers – or commenter’s for that matter – ever go through anything similar; or is this peculiar to me?

The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests have gone global and yesterday in London came the: ‘Occupy the London Stock Exchange’ protest.

It would seem that police prevented protesters from setting up camp outside the London Stock Exchange, and so they moved to St Paul’s Cathedral Churchyard.

Ekklesia’s Associate Director Jill Segger appears to have been on the scene and has written a piece that you can view here.

I want to pick up on a few points raised by Jill Segger.

Segger is unhappy that police used some force to remove protesters from St Paul’s Cathedral:

The largely good natured interaction between protesters and police seemed to change rapidly after the Met announced its intention to move people from the the steps of St Paul’s “to maintain the integrity of the cathedral.”

[.....]

There is no suggestion that the protesters presented any threat to the fabric of the cathedral or were behaving in anything other than a non-violent manner.

Firstly, it should be noted that three police officers were assaulted yesterday.

Secondly, the police are quoted as saying that it was “illegal and disrespectful” to camp in front of the cathedral, but they later announced they would not be moving anyone on from the site.

Thirdly, officers were genuinely concerned about the cathedral’s pillars being damaged by people sitting on its steps.

Segger goes on to attack the Cathedral clergy directly; my comments are in red.

It is reasonable to ask where the clergy of St Paul’s were during the time which led up to this violence. Standing in solidarity with those protesting the impact of injustice and greed on the innocent and vulnerable would seem to have been the obvious course for followers of Jesus. (It is indeed laudable for the Church to stand in solidarity with the poor in the face of injustice, but what has that got to do with running around the streets of London?) As would opening the cathedral doors to offer shelter from the night air and sanctuary as violence erupted. (Why should the Cathedral open its doors and risk damage to that most sacred space?) The presence of clerics might well have defused the situation – Met officers would presumably be aware of the kind of publicity which would result from raising their batons to the Dean or hurling members of the Chapter down the steps of their own cathedral. (Oh so Segger would like clergy to act as a human shield for the poor defenceless protesters.)

[.....]

Their cause is essentially a moral one with which the church could have no possible quarrel. That it apparently did not recognise this is a cause for sorrow.(What is their moral cause? We know what they stand against; but we don’t know how they’d propose to solve anything; because they’ve got no answers in reality.)

[.....]

An opportunity to witness to the way of the rabbi who threw the money changers and traders out of the temple was lost. It seems that the caution of Establishment has once again obscured his radical message. (Note the use of the term ‘Establishment’ to refer to the Cathedral. This is the crux for Ekkleisa, namely, the CofE represents the enemy. Anyway, what on earth does this all have to do with Jesus cleansing the House of God? If Segger had her way the House of God would have been crawling with protesters and police.)

The irony is that these protesters think of themselves as anti-Capitalists and so they demonstrate against the bank bailouts, which were the very antithesis of capitalism. Oh, and another thing; the richest ten per cent in our society pay 53.3 per cent of all income tax.

Well done St Paul’s Cathedral for not getting involved. I’ll wrap up with a few sage words from Sultan Knish:

This isn’t really about Wall Street or corporations, it’s about protest as identity. I have seen the future and it’s a man in a red shirt and a megaphone shouting at a crowd which repeats everything he says. This is the face of the left, the Human Microphone is the society they want to impose on us.

[.....]

Radicalization is about protest with no other purpose but protest. Its goal is to block streets, get arrested, write about the experience and then come back tomorrow and train the newest arrivals to do the same thing all over again. The demands don’t really matter.

[.....]

Activism is about disrupting democracy through force of will. Shout the loudest and your agenda moves up to the top. Given a choice between a vocal agenda and a muted opposition, the public will often go along with the vocal agenda. And even if it doesn’t, the politicians will.

UPDATE: A church in Rome has been attacked and vandalised by protesters.

UPDATE II: Services have continued as normal in St Paul’s today and clergy have said they have no problem with the protesters presence; they support their democratic right to protest, and have no issue as long as protesters treat the site respectfully.