eChurch Blog

‘If you are carried in our Lord’s arms you will seldom see his face’

Dom. H. John Chapman, Downside, Feb 1929

If, like me, you are given to worrying about the future, which let’s face it, is effectively worrying about something that doesn’t exist, then you might resonate with these words contained in the hymn: Lead Kindly Light, by John Henry Newman.

I must confess that at times I find the Catholic Church rather macabre. James notifies us that the heart of St John Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests, is to be brought to the Diocese of Shrewsbury next summer.

I guess the reasons I find this practice a little odd and macabre are two-fold.

Firstly, I’m not a cradle Catholic and have only come to the Catholic church in recent times, and so am simply not used to this sort of veneration. Secondly, I think it must be a general lack of understanding on my part.

It might of course help if I actually experienced something of this nature. I’m led to believe there’s a relic of a saint in every altar; in every Catholic Church.

Perhaps I will grow to understand and appreciate this aspect of Catholicism in time.

I hope so.

And of that 83%, three-quarters were ‘strongly opposed’.

British Religion in Numbers have all the details.

Overall the Conservative Party risks losing 57% of Christian votes, if they go ahead with legalizing gay marriage, and not one respondent claimed this move would predispose them to vote Conservative.

Here are some of the concerns raised:

85% were concerned that the value of marriage would be further undermined

78% that it would be harder to argue against ‘other novel types of relationship’ such as polygamy

88% that schools would be required to teach the equal validity of same-sex and heterosexual relationships

93% that clergy would have to conduct gay marriages against their consciences

And we need to be smart in our approach. How do you do that? I have always believed that, as a general principle. You don’t win the fight by leaving the ring. You don’t walk away from the battlefield and let bigots spread hate unchallenged. You engage – confident in the power of argument.

SOURCE

Following my post yesterday relating to spirituality within health care, I noted the National Secular Society conflate the terms ‘Religion’ and ‘Spirituality’.

Are they right to do this; do ‘Religion’ and ‘Spiritualty’ effectively mean the same thing?

I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts, especially given that Wifey and I appear to have somewhat different ideas on this.

The floor is yours.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has come under considerable fire for insisting that ‘spiritual health’ should be part of an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill.

Dr John Sentamu told peers: “I am one of those who believe that human beings are psychosomatic spiritual entities.”

Here is a snippet from the National Secular Society (NSS) on this matter:

“When spirituality is considered as part of healthcare, the non-religious often lose out, even when the term is made very broad. At a time when the NHS is facing severe cuts, surely the most important thing is to treat patients and keep them alive long enough to worry about the state of their souls?”

Firstly, as spirituality is already considered a part of healthcare, how on earth do the non-religious lose out. Are they saying that resources would be taken away from the non-religious. Wouldn’t it be more the case that their care will remain exactly same, but with an enhanced spiritual care facet available for those that need and request it.

Secondly, I think that conflating ALL spirituality with religion is flawed. It’s not hard to find folks practicing their spirituality in a non-religious manner. If what the NSS are really trying to say is that the ‘non-spiritual’ would lose out, then wouldn’t that be their own choice, as presumably they wouldn’t wish to be involved in this side of care.

As for ‘keeping folks alive long enough to worry about their souls’, well this is a luxury that is simply not always available, and sounds to me quite a brutal approach. Coupled with this, might be the fact that attending to the patients spiritual needs, may indeed enhance life expectancy anyway.

Especially in life-shortening illnesses, spiritual support may be as simple as having someone listen to the patient. It’s not all about providing answers, and from a Christian perspective, pastoral theology guides us in how to love wisely, and surely everyone is looking for that.

In my palliative care training during the week, we broke into small groups and discussed our ‘spiritual experiences’. Now do bear in mind that the groups were a mixed bag of folks from all different backgrounds, ages, belief-systems, and none. The one striking observation was that everybody – without exception – had a spiritual experience to relay. Whether is was: walking the dog, observing nature, music, myths, births, dreams, or whatever; everybody described their experiences of feeling ‘spiritual’.

This simply reinforces to me that Dr John Sentamu is correct in his appraisal of humans as spiritual entities. This also reinforces the needs to incorporate this vital element into any holistic medical environment.

Now some will say – especially members of the NSS – “I’m not spiritual”, OK, fair enough, then you won’t need this aspect of care, however, many, many, others do.

So why seek to deny others this valuable part of holistic heathcare, just because you don’t need it?

The following is a cross-post written by Dr Calvin Smith of King’s Evangelical Divinity School:

I’ve previously posted on some of the issues contributing to diverse expressions of Messianic Judaism (MJ, also Messianic Jews), for example MJ self-identity as both Jewish and Christian, the movement’s relationship with (and role within) the wider Church, and Torah observance. I’m particularly concerned at how vociferous anti-Israel sentiment within segments of Evangelicalism further complicate Messianic Jewish self-identity as believers in Jesus, together with their relationship with the Church. It can’t be very easy to identify oneself as both a Jew and a believer in Jesus while some in the Church openly and systematically demonise Israel (flatly refusing to see both sides of the story). Furthermore, it makes it so much harder for a Messianic believer to share his or her faith with another Jew if what is being offered is inclusion within a body which is critical and polemically one-sided in the current Middle East conflict. That the Church has a long history of anti-Semitism only compounds that point.

Thus Messianic believers are increasingly alarmed by some of the extreme rhetoric emanating from within parts of the Church. There is considerable disquiet at the harm it is causing MJ-Gentile Christian relations, together with MJ efforts to evangelise the Jewish people. There is growing criticism, too, of how some MJs are dialoguing with anti-Israel Christians, for example through the forthcoming Christ at the Checkpoint. An open letter posted yesterday to Messianic leaders and congregations raises this very point. It provides some insight into how the movement is feels under siege and seeks to respond to the current anti-Israel rhetoric and activism evident within Evangelicalism.

Sadly, I don’t have a link to these draft regulations, but have learned today from the blog Changing Attitude:

The Home Office has today published the draft regulations to allow civil partnership registrations to take place in religious premises. The document summarises the responses received to the consultation process to which Changing Attitude contributed.

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, confirmed regulations should be in place by the end of 2011. The document proposes the regulations will come into force on 5December and churches will be able to register early in 2012.

The report details the regulations needed to enforce the Equality Act 2010, which removed the prohibition on holding the ceremonies at churches, synagogues and other religious buildings.

While the Unitarian Church and the Quakers as well as Liberal and Reform Judaism said they would hold ceremonies for gay couples, the Catholic Church and Church of England said they would not.

Of course, Changing Attitude wish to also force a change within the Church of England:

Changing Attitude is campaigning for the Church of England to allow churches and clergy who wish to register civil partnerships to do so. We took our Civil Partnerships in Church NOW! campaign to General Synod in York last July with banners proclaiming our goal in no uncertain terms.

As for the Catholic Church; yeah right!

OK, if the Unitarians and Quakers wish to pursue this line, then so be it. Perhaps this should be a matter for them rather than the state.

From a libertarian perspective (to which I currently lean) as traditional Christians (of which I am) will be horrified at such things happening, their horror should be directed not at the state for permitting these things, but at the Quakers and Unitarians for wishing to do them. If traditional Christians want freedom to proclaim that homosexual activity is wrong, and to exclude practising homosexuals from their membership, then they must be willing to allow freedom to religious bodies which think otherwise.

The concern of course, is that something that moves from prohibition, may swiftly morph into legal obligation.

That is the dilemma.

Some interesting stats on the English Defense League (EDL) over on British Religion in Numbers, such as:

Although 45% professed to be Christians, only 7% cited religion as an important personal value for them

[.....]

77% said that they tended not to trust religious institutions

Not surprising I suppose.

The stats are well worth a look.