eChurch Blog

Should personal experience of natural evil such as a catastrophic earthquake turn folk away from belief in an all-powerful benevolent God? This fascinating study indicates exactly the opposite:

Abstract

On 22 February 2011, Christchurch New Zealand (population 367,700) experienced a devastating earthquake, causing extensive damage and killing one hundred and eighty-five people. The earthquake and aftershocks occurred between the 2009 and 2011 waves of a longitudinal probability sample conducted in New Zealand, enabling us to examine how a natural disaster of this magnitude affected deeply held commitments and global ratings of personal health, depending on earthquake exposure. We first investigated whether the earthquake-affected were more likely to believe in God. Consistent with the Religious Comfort Hypothesis, religious faith increased among the earthquake-affected, despite an overall decline in religious faith elsewhere. This result offers the first population-level demonstration that secular people turn to religion at times of natural crisis. We then examined whether religious affiliation was associated with differences in subjective ratings of personal health. We found no evidence for superior buffering from having religious faith. Among those affected by the earthquake, however, a loss of faith was associated with significant subjective health declines. Those who lost faith elsewhere in the country did not experience similar health declines. Our findings suggest that religious conversion after a natural disaster is unlikely to improve subjective well-being, yet upholding faith might be an important step on the road to recovery.

The entire report is worth reading; however, if you would prefer a more concise synopsis then I recommend reading Connor Wood over on Patheos (Science on Religion) entitled simply: Does suffering drive us to religion? Yep.

Last month Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill lamented Orthodox bloggers publicly insulting each other, which I can only imagine must be an Orthodox phenomenon as it doesn’t happen in Catholic or Protestant Internet circles:

…that the diversity of ideas inherent in church circles sometimes assumes absurd forms in the Internet environment.

“In the web space groups of church liberals and conservatives are appearing that are not looking for the truth, divine truth but a means of finding fault, stinging each other. This is a very sad tendency,” he said at a diocesan assembly in Moscow ahead of New Year.

He said that divisions and feuds within the church “are evidence of infantility, childishness in faith which sometimes assumes ruffian forms.”

It would now seem the good Patriarch is advocating the strategy of sowing wheat among the web-tares:

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on Saturday lamented a high number of antichurch internet posts and said the Russian Orthodox Church he leads should be present in social networks to tell the truth to its audience.

“Blogs and social networks give us new opportunities for the Christian mission” at a time when the Church comes under attacks more often than before, the patriarch said. “Not to be present there means to display our helplessness and lack of care for the salvation of our brothers.”

“Now that social media shows a huge interest, although not always a sound one, in church life, our duty is to convert it for a good cause, to create conditions for young people to know about Christ, know the truth about the life of people inside the Church,” Patriarch Kirill said.

“When a person makes a query on church life in an internet search engine, he finds a lot of lies, hypocrisy and hatred,” the patriarch said at a meeting of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Bishops Council in downtown Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral.

“These are the visible results of activity by the enemy of mankind,” he said.

This of course comes hot on the heals of the superb address given by the Pope on social media, which I think can be summed up as follows:

“Go into all the digital world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15 with slight modification)

I’m probably posting this as I’m surfacing from a long dark tunnel.

An international longitudinal study purports to find a greater incidence of developing a major depression among ‘participants reporting a spiritual understanding of life’:

Spiritual and religious beliefs as risk factors for the onset of major depression: an international cohort study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Several studies have reported weak associations between religious or spiritual belief and psychological health. However, most have been cross-sectional surveys in the USA, limiting inference about generalizability. An international longitudinal study of incidence of major depression gave us the opportunity to investigate this relationship further. Method Data were collected in a prospective cohort study of adult general practice attendees across seven countries. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months. Spiritual and religious beliefs were assessed using a standardized questionnaire, and DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression was made using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Logistic regression was used to estimate incidence rates and odds ratios (ORs), after multiple imputation of missing data.

RESULTS:

The analyses included 8318 attendees. Of participants reporting a spiritual understanding of life at baseline, 10.5% had an episode of depression in the following year compared to 10.3% of religious participants and 7.0% of the secular group (p < 0.001). However, the findings varied significantly across countries, with the difference being significant only in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group [OR 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-4.68]. The strength of belief also had an effect, with participants with strong belief having twice the risk of participants with weak belief. There was no evidence of religion acting as a buffer to prevent depression after a serious life event.

CONCLUSIONS:

These results do not support the notion that religious and spiritual life views enhance psychological well-being.

A few things to note. I don’t have access to the full study and so have no way of knowing how they defined ‘spiritual or religious’ belief. We also have the causality problem, within which we cannot tell if spirituality / religion precipitated depression, or if those with underlying depression were drawn to  ’a spiritual understanding of life’.

This aside, I was drawn to this study for three reasons.

The first is the strange anomaly of the UK finding. Why would it be that specifically in the UK the religious / spiritual group reports three times higher incidence of depression compared with the secular group? If we take the study findings at face value and accept that spirituality / religion precipitates depression, then would this indicate that it is particularly cognitively difficult to hold this worldview within the social environment of the UK?

The second point of interest – which is perhaps connected to the first – is the finding that strength of belief has an impact, with those of ‘stronger belief’ being more prone to depression than those with ‘weak belief’.

The third point, is of course the conclusion itself; namely, the assertion that a religious / spiritual worldview does not create a buffer against depression.

I’m probably not alone in reading material that contradicts this conclusion; however, from my own personal perspective, I can attest to the fact that my Christian religion most certainly does not counteract, or in any way, mitigate my own depression. In fact, quite the contrary.

I will say that my religion does give comfort in relation to making some sense of suffering.

The question on my mind is simply: Is the Christian religion supposed to create a buffer against suffering; mental or otherwise?

I think not.

LEAD, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom

Lead Thou me on!

The night is dark, and I am far from home-

Lead Thou me on!

Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see

The distant scene – one step enough for me.

I was not ever thus, nor pray’d that Thou

Shouldst lead me on.

I loved to choose and see my path, but now

Lead Thou me on!

I loved the garish day, and, in spite of fears,

Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still

Will lead me on,

Over moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till

The night is gone;

And with the morn those angel faces smile

Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

Here is a recent message on social media given by the Pope which warrants reproducing here without comment from me:

“Social Networks: portals of truth and faith; new spaces for evangelization.”

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

As the 2013 World Communications Day draws near, I would like to offer you some reflections on an increasingly important reality regarding the way in which people today communicate among themselves. I wish to consider the development of digital social networks which are helping to create a new “agora”, an open public square in which people share ideas, information and opinions, and in which new relationships and forms of community can come into being.

These spaces, when engaged in a wise and balanced way, help to foster forms of dialogue and debate which, if conducted respectfully and with concern for privacy, responsibility and truthfulness, can reinforce the bonds of unity between individuals and effectively promote the harmony of the human family. The exchange of information can become true communication, links ripen into friendships, and connections facilitate communion. If the networks are called to realize this great potential, the people involved in them must make an effort to be authentic since, in these spaces, it is not only ideas and information that are shared, but ultimately our very selves.

The development of social networks calls for commitment: people are engaged in building relationships and making friends, in looking for answers to their questions and being entertained, but also in finding intellectual stimulation and sharing knowledge and know-how. The networks are increasingly becoming part of the very fabric of society, inasmuch as they bring people together on the basis of these fundamental needs. Social networks are thus nourished by aspirations rooted in the human heart.

The culture of social networks and the changes in the means and styles of communication pose demanding challenges to those who want to speak about truth and values. Often, as is also the case with other means of social communication, the significance and effectiveness of the various forms of expression appear to be determined more by their popularity than by their intrinsic importance and value. Popularity, for its part, is often linked to celebrity or to strategies of persuasion rather than to the logic of argumentation. At times the gentle voice of reason can be overwhelmed by the din of excessive information and it fails to attract attention which is given instead to those who express themselves in a more persuasive manner. The social media thus need the commitment of all who are conscious of the value of dialogue, reasoned debate and logical argumentation; of people who strive to cultivate forms of discourse and expression which appeal to the noblest aspirations of those engaged in the communication process. Dialogue and debate can also flourish and grow when we converse with and take seriously people whose ideas are different from our own. “Given the reality of cultural diversity, people need not only to accept the existence of the culture of others, but also to aspire to be enriched by it and to offer to it whatever they possess that is good, true and beautiful” (Address at the Meeting with the World of Culture, Bélem, Lisbon, 12 May 2010).

The challenge facing social networks is how to be truly inclusive: thus they will benefit from the full participation of believers who desire to share the message of Jesus and the values of human dignity which his teaching promotes. Believers are increasingly aware that, unless the Good News is made known also in the digital world, it may be absent in the experience of many people for whom this existential space is important. The digital environment is not a parallel or purely virtual world, but is part of the daily experience of many people, especially the young. Social networks are the result of human interaction, but for their part they also reshape the dynamics of communication which builds relationships: a considered understanding of this environment is therefore the prerequisite for a significant presence there.

The ability to employ the new languages is required, not just to keep up with the times, but precisely in order to enable the infinite richness of the Gospel to find forms of expression capable of reaching the minds and hearts of all. In the digital environment the written word is often accompanied by images and sounds. Effective communication, as in the parables of Jesus, must involve the imagination and the affectivity of those we wish to invite to an encounter with the mystery of God’s love. Besides, we know that Christian tradition has always been rich in signs and symbols: I think for example of the Cross, icons, images of the Virgin Mary, Christmas cribs, stained-glass windows and pictures in our churches. A significant part of mankind’s artistic heritage has been created by artists and musicians who sought to express the truths of the faith.

In social networks, believers show their authenticity by sharing the profound source of their hope and joy: faith in the merciful and loving God revealed in Christ Jesus. This sharing consists not only in the explicit expression of their faith, but also in their witness, in the way in which they communicate “choices, preferences and judgements that are fully consistent with the Gospel, even when it is not spoken of specifically” (Message for the 2011 World Communications Day). A particularly significant way of offering such witness will be through a willingness to give oneself to others by patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence. The growing dialogue in social networks about faith and belief confirms the importance and relevance of religion in public debate and in the life of society.

For those who have accepted the gift of faith with an open heart, the most radical response to mankind’s questions about love, truth and the meaning of life – questions certainly not absent from social networks – are found in the person of Jesus Christ. It is natural for those who have faith to desire to share it, respectfully and tactfully, with those they meet in the digital forum. Ultimately, however, if our efforts to share the Gospel bring forth good fruit, it is always because of the power of the word of God itself to touch hearts, prior to any of our own efforts. Trust in the power of God’s work must always be greater than any confidence we place in human means. In the digital environment, too, where it is easy for heated and divisive voices to be raised and where sensationalism can at times prevail, we are called to attentive discernment. Let us recall in this regard that Elijah recognized the voice of God not in the great and strong wind, not in the earthquake or the fire, but in “a still, small voice” (1 Kg 19:11-12). We need to trust in the fact that the basic human desire to love and to be loved, and to find meaning and truth – a desire which God himself has placed in the heart of every man and woman – keeps our contemporaries ever open to what Blessed Cardinal Newman called the “kindly light” of faith.

Social networks, as well as being a means of evangelization, can also be a factor in human development. As an example, in some geographical and cultural contexts where Christians feel isolated, social networks can reinforce their sense of real unity with the worldwide community of believers. The networks facilitate the sharing of spiritual and liturgical resources, helping people to pray with a greater sense of closeness to those who share the same faith. An authentic and interactive engagement with the questions and the doubts of those who are distant from the faith should make us feel the need to nourish, by prayer and reflection, our faith in the presence of God as well as our practical charity: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1).

In the digital world there are social networks which offer our contemporaries opportunities for prayer, meditation and sharing the word of God. But these networks can also open the door to other dimensions of faith. Many people are actually discovering, precisely thanks to a contact initially made online, the importance of direct encounters, experiences of community and even pilgrimage, elements which are always important in the journey of faith. In our effort to make the Gospel present in the digital world, we can invite people to come together for prayer or liturgical celebrations in specific places such as churches and chapels. There should be no lack of coherence or unity in the expression of our faith and witness to the Gospel in whatever reality we are called to live, whether physical or digital. When we are present to others, in any way at all, we are called to make known the love of God to the furthest ends of the earth.

I pray that God’s Spirit will accompany you and enlighten you always, and I cordially impart my blessing to all of you, that you may be true heralds and witnesses of the Gospel. “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15).

From the Vatican, 24 January 2013, Feast of Saint Francis de Sales.

BENEDICTUS XVI

I’m having trouble embedding the audio file here and as I have limited patience this morning I shall guide you to Peter’s blog to listen to a conversation that took place between Peter Ould and Steve Chalke, hosted by Justin Brierley at Christ Church Woking:

I’m still in the process of listening to this myself as we have a ‘snow day’; schools are shut and noise abounds.

Let me know your thoughts, or of course, comment on Peter’s blog.

Following my earlier post on an upcoming Christian seminar pushing the validity of ‘Reparative Therapy’ or ‘Gay Conversion Therapy’ I received the following Tweet:

@echurchblog I’d suggest that the real problem is not psychological but spiritual.

— Ploughboy (@MPloughboy) January 21, 2013

This set off a lightbulb within me and a chain of thoughts.

If Christians regard homosexuality as a spiritual issue – and the practice as a sin – then why turn to ‘gay conversion’ psychological therapy.

Is it that some Christians believe homosexuality to be a mental disorder that can be treated? This explanation is the only reason I can think of to advocate psychological therapy.

If not a mental disorder, then continuing this line of reasoning, if psychological therapy is appropriate for this particular ‘spiritual problem’ then why not all spiritual issues?

Why is psychological therapy not advocated for all sinful temptations?

Could it not be equally argued that all sinful temptations are environmentally produced – as opposed to hard-wired – and in need of rectification through psychological therapy, as is posited for sexual orientation.

If sexual orientation is a mental disorder to be ‘cured’ through therapy, can we confidently even consider the practice of homosexuality as sin any longer?

Are sexual orientation temptations in some way qualitatively different to any other temptations of the flesh?

Of course, the irony is that those Christians pushing for Conversion Therapy are usually to be found most ardently in the anti-psychology camp.

These thoughts have only just occurred to me and so I’m thinking on the fly.

Feel free to chip in.

Guest post by Edmund Standing:

Reading the Gospel of Matthew, and indeed the New Testament in general, it is all too easy to narrow one’s focus to the apocalypticism that (in various ways) can be seen to run throughout. Indeed, since the publication of Albert Schweitzer’s seminal work The Quest of the Historical Jesus, there has been a strong tendency among many scholars to arguably place an excessive and reductive emphasis on this element of the writings of the early Christians. I once advocated such a simplistic approach and through it felt justified ultimately in dismissing the New Testament and the message of Jesus. In time, I have come to reject this reductive approach and at some point may offer some thoughts on the issue of apocalypticism in the New Testament.

However, for now I would like to look at a very different aspect of the teachings of Jesus, in particular the remarkable extent to which the picture of Jesus in Matthew illustrates someone who deeply reiterated and expanded upon the Hebrew wisdom tradition. Reading Matthew in conjunction with the Book of Proverbs uncovers the extent of the centrality of wisdom teaching in the message of Jesus. This post is by no means an extensive study or a final word, but rather very much a work in progress and an attempt to begin to consider the significance of this phenomenon.

Wisdom is mentioned in a number of places in Matthew. We read that ‘wisdom is vindicated by her deeds’ (Matthew 11:19). In Matthew 12:42, Jesus states: ‘The queen of the South will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!’ And in Matthew 13:54-56, Jesus’ wisdom is remarked upon as follows:

He came to his home town and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?’

The teaching which astounded those who encountered Jesus has strong parallels in the wisdom teachings of the Book of Proverbs, as can be seen in the following comparisons:

The straight and narrow road

In Matthew 7:13, Jesus teaches of two paths: ‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it’.

In Proverbs, the theme of walking on the path of righteousness appears time and again. We read of ‘the paths of justice’ (Proverbs 2:8), ‘those whose paths are crooked’ (2:15), ‘walk[ing] in the way of the good, and keep[ing] to the paths of the just’ (2:20), how God ‘will make straight your paths’ (3:6), of ‘the path of the wicked’ (4:14), of ‘keep[ing] straight the path of your feet’ and ‘not swerv[ing] to the right or to the left’ (4:26-27), of the ‘path of the righteous’ and the paths of righteousness and justice (4:18; 8:20), of how ‘the righteousness of the blameless keeps their ways straight’ (11:5), and so on.

The theme of the lamp

Jesus teaches his followers that they are ‘the light of the world’ and should be like a lamp that ‘gives light to all in the house’. ‘In the same way,’ he states, ‘let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.’ (Matthew 5:14-16) Jesus also teaches that:

‘The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!’ (Matthew 6:22-23)

Turning to Proverbs, we find clear parallels as we read that ‘the light of the righteous rejoices, but the lamp of the wicked goes out’ (Proverbs 13:9; 24:20) and that ‘haughty eyes and a proud heart – the lamp of the wicked – are sin’ (21:4).

On enemies

Jesus’ teachings on how we relate to enemies are radical and certainly go against the grain of how we tend to react to those who are hostile towards us. He challenges the authority of the notion that justice should be based on retribution in kind (‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’) and instead teaches: ‘If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also’ (Matthew 5:38-39). He continues:

‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’ (Matthew 5:43)

Again, while these teachings are radical, they are also firmly rooted in the Hebrew wisdom tradition:

Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will help you. (Proverbs 20:22)

Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble. (Proverbs 24:17)

Do not say, ‘I will do to others as they have done to me; I will pay them back for what they have done.’ (Proverbs 24:29)

If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink.(Proverbs 25:21)

On riches

Jesus warns against the accumulation of worldly riches, stating:

‘Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.’ (Matthew 16:19-20)

And, again, he asks how it will profit anyone ‘if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life’ (Matthew 16:24-26).

There are precedents for this teaching in Proverbs, where it is stated that ‘riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death’ (Proverbs 11:4) and that ‘those who trust in their riches will wither, but the righteous will flourish like green leaves’ (11:28).

On the poor

Jesus teaches of the importance of kindness to those who are poor and who suffer, and identifies this as being central to our relationship with God:

Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” (Matthew 25:34-36)

Similarly, Proverbs emphasises the theme of helping the poor and of how this is tied in with our relationship with God, for ‘whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full’ (Proverbs 17:17) and ‘those who are generous are blessed, for they share their bread with the poor’ (22:9).

Indeed, Proverbs is unambiguous on this issue, stating that ‘those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honour him’ (14:31) and also that ‘those who mock the poor insult their Maker’ (17:5). Further teachings on the poor include:

Whoever gives to the poor will lack nothing, but one who turns a blind eye will get many a curse. (28:27)

The righteous know the rights of the poor; the wicked have no such understanding. (29:7)

Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. (31:8-9)

Jesus commands: ‘Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you’ (Matthew 5:42), and Proverbs warns: ‘Do not say to your neighbour, ‘Go, and come again; tomorrow I will give it’ – when you have it with you’ (Proverbs 3:28). ‘If you close your ear to the cry of the poor, you will cry out and not be heard’, warns Proverbs (21:13), and Jesus warns: ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven.’ (Matthew 7:21)

The bread and the wine

In Matthew’s account of the Last Supper, we read of Jesus gathering his disciples together for a final Passover meal. He breaks a loaf of bread and commands them to eat from it, stating that the bread symbolises his body (which will be broken on the cross). He then passes round a cup of wine, stating that this wine symbolises his blood (which will pour out from his body during the Crucifixion) (Matthew 26:26-28). Even here, there are echoes of the wisdom tradition.

In Proverbs, two kinds of bread and wine are spoken of. Firstly, we read of the ‘wicked’, who ‘eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence’ (Proverbs 4:17). This is contrasted with the bread and wine of the Wisdom of God. Wisdom calls:

‘You that are simple, turn in here!’ To those without sense she says, ‘Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Lay aside immaturity, and live, and walk in the way of insight.’ (9:4-6)

Concluding thoughts

Comparing Matthew and Proverbs, then, we see the extent to which Jesus’ message stands in continuity with the Hebrew wisdom tradition. Jesus here is not the negation of what has come before, nor does he essentially teach anything that was not already present, but rather he re-states these commands with great force and with such authority that the people who hear him are amazed and, indeed, in many cases repulsed.

These radical teachings from the Hebrew tradition in many ways do invite a sense of revulsion in the reader. How tempting it is to say that this is too much, that the burden these teachings place upon us is too heavy to bear. But it is here that we recall that at the same time as these many demands are placed before us, we are also assured by Jesus:

‘Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ (Matthew 11:28-30)

So, then, we are here presented both with radical challenges and also the prospect of a God who at the same time brings rest. Perhaps Christianity has often placed too much emphasis on the rest and not enough on the action. Certainly, looking at Jesus’ teachings and those of Proverbs, there is no room for a casual response. The ‘religion’ expressed here is not one of passive ‘spirituality’ or merely one of sitting around waiting to be taken up to some fluffy heaven in the sky. It stands against all conceptions of religion as quietism and escapism and calls upon the reader to become fully immersed in the here and now.

An article on Anglican Mainstream caught my attention entitled: ‘Beyond Critique’ – LGBT Mental Health Issues.

It’s advertising an upcoming Core Issues Trust ‘Briefing Seminar’ in London in association with Christian Concern. The seminar is rather boldly called: Beyond Critique: The Misuse of Science by UK Professional Mental Health Bodies.

Media Statement from Core Issues Trust

The Royal College of Psychiatrists is a highly respected institution which is trusted by the nation, as are the UK’s largest counselling and psychotherapeutic professional bodies, the  British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) and the UKCouncil for Psychotherapy (UKCP). The latter have issued professional practice statements and guidelines  forbidding their members to assist clients to reduce homosexual feelings, under any circumstances. All three organisations promote a biological causation of homosexuality,  sidelining significant research findings which suggest the profound influence of environmental experiences in childhood on an individuals’ sexuality.

A 2007 submission by the Royal College of Psychiatrists to the Church of England is a debatable document which may mislead the Church and the general public. It goes beyond science in identifying societal discrimination as the primary cause of the high incidence of various mental health issues experienced in the LGBT community. We call on the Church to reconsider this document, together with its likely consequences for counsellors, psychotherapists, and their clients who share traditional values, in the light of the best scientific research.

One consequence of the position taken by the professional bodies is that vulnerable individuals seeking to reduce unwanted same-sex attractions are now denied professional help to pursue their legitimate therapeutic goals. Although these organisations criticise attempts to “pray away the gay”, they are now making it more likely that amateur therapists and informal church-based ministries will be the only way open to people who want to reduce same-sex attractions, even if they are seeking to protect their marriage and family. Such therapeutic  approaches will not be supported by professional competencies, protection, regulation, supervision or professional indemnity insurance. This is analogous to promoting the practice of back street abortion, which society has striven so hard to eliminate.

I’ve made my position clear on ‘Reparative Therapy‘ or whatever you want to call it, and that is quite simply I know that no amount of ‘therapy’ would alter my hard-wired sexual proclivity, so why should it anybody else? However, if a person seeks treatment for an unwanted sexual attraction, I feel they should be free to do so, and psychotherapists should be free to offer this service privately.

Again, personally, I don’t think Christian organisations or Churches should be promoting ‘gay conversion therapy’; however, they should be free to do so. This said, I do have a problem with importing Canadian extremists to support this endeavour.

On this link you can view the seminar flyer in PDF and you will note the involvement of this guy:

Dr Joseph Berger

Consulting Psychiatrist in Toronto, Canada, doubly certified as a Specialist in Psychiatry by both the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He has been an Examiner for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for 25 years in the Oral portion of the Board Certification Examination, and at one point in his career, taught and supervised as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto. He remains in practice.

Professor Berger has seen many clients with same-sex desires, fantasies and behaviours, and has successfully treated a number of such people who have become heterosexual, have married, and have had children, in fulfilling relationships. He has published in this area of work. Dr Berger has served as a scientific advisor to the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH). He has been a past President of the Ontario District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association, and was a representative to the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association for 8 years for the Ontario District Branch. He is author of the book “The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry” Butterworth Lexis Nexis 2002.

I had a an urge to find out more about this chap and it turns out that in 2006 NARTH went into a tailspin after they published Dr Berger’s article within which he advocated:

“I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex – but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings…On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary…It is a mistake for various interfering, ignorant, and biased busybodies to try to “counsel” the other children into accepting the abnormal. It is very healthy to be able to draw the line between what is healthy and what is sick.

So Dr Berger advocates the mechanism of bullying by a child’s peers for the purpose of behaviour modification. I’m not alone in finding these comments morally abhorrent.

The irony of inviting this man to take a key role in an seminar that seeks to address “the high incidence of various mental health issues experienced in the LGBT community” is bloody palpable. In fact, this seminar shouldn’t be called: ‘Beyond Critique’ but ‘Beyond Irony’.

And you know what, the truth is, I only checked this guy out on a curious whim.

The ever thickening alliance between the UK Christian Right and their extremist overseas counterparts is troubling. And if you need evidence of this I suggest you follow Richard Bartholomew who charts this in forensic detail.

To be upfront, I didn’t know what the issue was with the government Workfare scheme. I’ve not really been interested in this until this morning, when I read Johnny Void’s provocatively entitled post: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness (unless thou is the Salvation Army fibbing about workfare).

Void’s post alleges the Salvation Army continuous to use Workfare workers and he links to a rather grim story in the Daily Record (Scotland). Void also links to a Jobcentre referral to Mandatory Work Activity letter (dated 17th Jan) which clearly cites the venue as an Salvation Army shop.

I spoke briefly with Void and he Tweeted:

@echurchblog and this about scheme Salvation Army are using: johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/wor…

— johnnyvoid (@johnnyvoid) January 19, 2013

So, where to start with finding out about Workfare; Wikipedia of course:

Workfare in the United Kingdom refers to government workfare policies whereby individuals must undertake work in return for their benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial. Supporters argue that such policies help people move off of welfare and into employment (See welfare-to-work) whereas critics argue that they are analogous to slavery and counterproductive in decreasing unemployment.

OK, where too next, Twitter of course, and the link given by a couple of folk was on the Boycott Workfare website, which I’ll let you read, but I will cite their raison d’etre:

Boycott Workfare is a UK-wide campaign to end forced unpaid work for people who receive welfare. Workfare profits the rich by providing free labour, whilst threatening the poor by taking away welfare rights if people refuse to work without a living wage. We are a grassroots campaign, formed in 2010 by people with experience of workfare and those concerned about its impact. We expose and take action against companies and organisations profiting from workfare; encourage organisations to pledge to boycott it; and actively inform people of their rights.

Bernadette Meaden kindly linked to Public Interest Lawyers who are challenging the government’s Workfare program in the courts on behalf of their clients.

BoycottWelfare Tweeted me directly:

@echurchblog What’s wrong with charity #workfare? boycottworkfare.org/?p=1573 @salvationarmyuk

— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

The Boycott Workfare link is well worth reading; it very clearly sets out their objections to Charity Workfare. Here’s a quote:

By colluding with the government to increase the number of benefit sanctions charities are pushing vulnerable people further into poverty and destitution. Oxfam have refused to take part in workfare because they say it is incompatible with the goal of reducing poverty in the UK. When homelessness charity SHP left the Work Programme earlier this year they warned that sanctions were pushing vulnerable individuals further into poverty and leaving them with little option but to beg and steal. The increase in benefit sanctions is one of the reasons that we are seeing an increase in the use of food banks.

OK, so where are we?

Workfare is a highly controversial and contentious issue, so much so, that some big highstreet names and charities have very publicly suspended their involvement in the Workfare program.

The evidence suggests that the Salvation Army are involved in the scheme at some level, so what is the Sally Army’s formal response:

There is no mandatory voluntary work for the three sub contracts we deliver within the Work Programme. Anyone who volunteers their services to us does so in the knowledge that their benefits will not be affected.

We do not have any national agreements in place to provide mandatory 4-week work placements, but on a local level we are aware that our trading company has been approached by independent welfare to work providers which have been offering short-term work experience, locally, in some of our retail shops. We must stress that no placements are in place of paid work and we trust the decision of our local representatives to provide valuable professional experience.

We don’t take people in short-term placements for work that would otherwise be paid as we believe in empowering the person who is volunteering, by treating them with the respect that everyone in society is due. We believe strongly that every person has worth, irrespective of what they can offer society and it is our desire to help all who are willing to work, irrespective of their starting point. For some, the route to employment can be a long one with several milestones on the way.

Working in stages back into the workplace helps to build confidence as a lack of confidence is one of the overriding barriers to work. We believe that it is important that people on long term benefits ‘test’ themselves in the workplace, to gain work experience without any threat of losing benefit or having to start the process again.

It is sensible to partner with the private and voluntary sector to provide many of the programmes, not because the work will be done ‘on the cheap’ but because better value will be achieved by the flexibility of our sector to tailor programmes to individual need and achieve better results. We have the expertise and broad working base to help achieve effective outcomes.

How does this read to you? For me, I am left with absolutely no idea whether the Salvation Army participates in the Workfare scheme or not.

Whether you be for, or against, Workfare, it would strike me the prudent move as a Christian organisation, with such an morally explosive issue, would be to withdraw from the scheme and publicly state as much. Otherwise, you might just find yourself on the receiving end of responses such as this:

@echurchblog oh and Deuteronomy 24:15 and Jeremiah 22:13

— johnnyvoid (@johnnyvoid) January 19, 2013

I have Tweeted the Salvation Army direct:

@salvationarmyuk Hi, can you confirm if your organisation participates in the government #Workfare scheme?

— eChurch Blog (@eChurchBlog) January 19, 2013

I’ll let you know if I receive a response.

UPDATE: Three Tweets received from BoycottWorkfare which really cast the Salvation Army in a poor light in regard to this issue:

@echurchblog Note that until this week the @salvationarmyuk were telling people that they weren’t involved in #workfare at all.

— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

@echurchblog It was only when the MWA referral letter was posted that @salvationarmyuk deleted the claim not to be involved from their site.

— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

@echurchblog Cache of earlier @salvationarmyuk claims here: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache…

— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

Oh dear!