eChurch Blog

Because the last time I checked, the unique identity of man is not defined by where he wants to put his penis. Identity is not gained, nor will it ever fulfill, if it is no more than a great narrowing of the human person to a single characteristic — in this case his sexual characteristic. Gay Man? Really? No one demands heterosexuals to “accept their identity” and define themselves as Straight Men. Such a thing would be a grave insult to the fantastic complexity of their being. Yet this is the modus operandi of the Activist…….

SOURCE

I have noted in the past my growing weariness with the Culture Wars and have said such thing as:

I feel that in some respects the church’s mission has been subverted into a cultural war that detracts from her true purpose; namely, the Kingdom. By this, I mean the kingdom not of this world, but of the one to come, and that indeed is already amongst us, and growing at a furious and unprecedented rate globally.

And:

I feel that getting sucked into the vortex of the cultural wars is exactly what those most opposed to the Church would wish for, and we play into their hands.

Although I know some will react negatively to Bad Catholic’s blog post entitled: Why I don’t Care, I have to commend this to your attention as for me it superbly articulates the problems at the heart of the Culture Wars.

It’s a challenging and refreshingly honest post that powerfully resonated with me; do take the time to hop over and give it a read.

1 insult + 1,000 compliments = 1 insult.

SOURCE

This is a fascinating read and one far too complex to synthesise and so here’s the intro with a link to the article:

Mcgrath v Dawkins, Amazon and others [2012] EWHC B3 (QB) -read judgment

In an interesting ruling on a strike-out action against a libel claim, a High Court judge has delineated the scope for defamation in blog posts and discussion threads where the audience is small and the libel limited.

Background

….continue reading

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

This Act has been used against Christians on quite a few occasions, most recently in the case of Jamie Murray, owner of the Salt & Light Coffee House.

This was a truly bizarre incident in which the displaying of Scripture on a video screen prompted a police visit following a complaint. The police notified Murray that he was displaying offensive or insulting words which breached Section 5 of the Public Order Act; in other words, the Biblical texts contravened the act.

The Christian Institute have been long campaigning for the removal of the word ”insulting” from the act, and it’s interesting to note today the National Secular Society announce their intention to pressure for reform of this act, alongside The Christian Institute, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, and others.

A website has been set up and a Twitter account.

The campaign will officially launch at the House of Commons today.

This act must be reformed to remove the word “insulting” which is so ridiculously subjective, ambiguous and arbitrary, over-zealous police may be deployed by folk against anyone they feel may have so much as slighted them.

Christians should support this reform if we wish to continue our freedom to express our faith in such ‘sensitive’ times.

That’s what I’m calling it: “Lisa’s Identity Clause”.

It comes about from a collection of blog posts I’ve read on Lisa Graas’ blog looking at the issue of identity, and more specifically, identity as a Christian suffering from mental health issues.

I have been meaning to blog about this before now, but am prompted to do so now following a brief exchange with Lisa on Twitter over an article on BeliefNet today.

The crux of “Lisa’s Identity Clause” is that we are not our disorder. For example, folk will say: “I am Bipolar”, but is this strictly true? Is this not to frame our entire identity on one facet. OK, this particular facet may permeate many areas of our lives, but it is not the entirety of who we are, or what makes us, us.

I understand the compulsion to embrace a psychiatric diagnosis and can certainly see how this may empower a person to more fully understand their own modes of behaviour and such. But I think it is an error to define ourselves entirely by this. There is no equivalent in the physical disease world; I mean, folk don’t go around saying “I am diabetes”.

I think that in our modern world identity issues are more prevalent than we might imagine, and in this regard it is no coincidence that Scripture urges us to take our identity from Christ. Our own identities may shift on uncertain sands, but His identity is fixed.

I think we as Christians have to be wary of too fondly embracing labels in order to define ourselves.

I’ll leave off my thoughts at this point and hand over to Lisa who articulates this far more eloquently and succinctly than I could.

I’ll finish with one of my favourite phrases which is: We suffer that we may comfort those that suffer.

By the way, it’s the Feast of St. Dymphna today, the Patron of those suffering nervous and mental afflictions!

Again, in the above we see Stuart’s magical Christian ability to change anything into whine

SOURCE: Part of a deleted comment, but you must admit this one’s quite witty.

The following is part of comment by “Sr Agatha” (deleted) in response to this post, within which the Extraordinary Form of Mass was briefly mentioned:

How about you stopping your meds, telling your psychiatrist (or whoever) to sod off and just attend an Extraordinary Form of the Mass as often as possible – with the odd dash of Unction, confession and prayer and let’s see if this cures you of your mental health problems.  Give it a year and if there is a significant improvement (verified by a psychiatrist) then you can write garbage like this.  But you won’t do that, will you, you won’t put your money where your mouth is…

I don’t think I really need to comment on this do I, except perhaps:

You sound like a fundy “Sr Agatha”.

Anyhow, on a more serious note, I found my way to an old post of Lisa’s in which she talks about scrupulosity in relation to mental health.

Scrupulosity is a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. (Wiki)

Although I knew this term from the psychological world, I hadn’t realised the Catholic Church had covered this issue and I reproduce some of the article here just for general interest:

An unfounded apprehension and consequently unwarranted fear that something is a sin which, as a matter of fact, is not. It is not considered here so much as an isolated act, but rather as an habitual state of mind known to directors of souls as a “scrupulous conscience.” St. Alphonsus describes it as a condition in which one influenced by trifling reasons, and without any solid foundation, is often afraid that sin lies where it really does not. This anxiety may be entertained not only with regard to what is to be done presently, but also with regard to what has been done. The idea sometimes obtaining, that scrupulosity is in itself a spiritual benefit of some sort, is, of course, a great error. The providence of God permits it and can gather good from it as from other forms of evil. That apart, however, it is a bad habit doing harm, sometimes grievously, to body and soul. Indeed, persisted in with the obstinacy characteristic of persons who suffer from this malady, it may entail the most lamentable consequences. The judgment is seriously warped, the moral power tired out in futile combat, and then not unfrequently the scrupulous person makes shipwreck of salvation either on the Scylla of despair or the Charybdis of unheeding indulgence in vice.

….continue

There’s no doubt I’ve been afflicted with this at times; has anybody else?

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

Everyday Theology – The Top 10 Most Read Books in the World

Nathan Bingham – Grief — A Forgotten Apologetic

BorderlinePhD – The Unthinkable Thought of Borderline Pride

Nationlal Secular Society – Ofcom may close TV station after show condones murder for blasphemy

What’s Wrong with the World – Christianity, Philosophy, and the integrated mind

Roads From Emmaus – “Aren’t You Supposed to Hate Me?”: Calvinism and the Politics of the Damned

Parchment and Pen – The New Other “Me”

PsychCentral – Emptiness

There’s some agitation over The Law Society’s decision to ban an upcoming conference due to take place at their headquarters on the topic: “One Man, One Woman. Making the case for marriage for the good of society”.

The Catholic Herald have more details on the conference and speakers etc, but I want to highlight the reasons given by The Law Society for the cancellation:

“However, where an event does not fit within this company’s diversity policy, it is a step we must take.

“The nature of your event has recently been drawn to our attention, and it is contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage.”

The interesting factor here is that when The Law Society came under criticism for hosting anti-Israeli extremists, they stated:

The Law Society cannot fairly said to be hosting the event in any respect.

[......]

The Law Society has entered into a normal market transaction. This is not, however, simply a matter of money. There is no reason for the Society not to accept a booking such as this and the Society must exercise caution in entering into normal market transactions, treating all potential renters consistently and fairly. Whilst many individuals may disagree with the pronouncements that may emerge from the event, this is a lawful organisation arranging a private event.

Whilst of course I recognise that you will not regard this as satisfactory, and I am disappointed that you are offended by this, I do not believe that the Society has grounds to cancel or reject bookings such as this. In the circumstances I am not sure that either of us will mutually benefit from further correspondence on this point.

Well that’s interesting isn’t it!

So The Law Society wouldn’t / couldn’t cancel a conference because they were not “hosting” the event, but simply “entering into a normal market transaction”.

Are The Law Society treating all potential renters consistently and fairly?

I think not….

With thanks to Alan A