eChurch Christian Blog

I’m posting this one as I feel that this is an important clarification on some recent news media confusion:-

Damian Thompson – Telegraph

Catholic fury over The Times’s coverage of Pope Benedict XVI

There is international outrage in Catholic circles over a headline in The Times this morning that many people regard as utterly misleading and part of the newspaper’s reliably biased coverage (reinforced by vicious cartoons) of anything to do with Pope Benedict XVI.

The headline, over a story by Richard Owen, reads: “Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry.” A universally admired Catholic journalist contacted me this morning and accused The Times of (and I am toning this down for legal reasons) an extremely serious error of judgment.

Continue Reading

Further Internet Links:

SCRUB ALERT: The Times reopens its bear-baiting pit

Guardian: Pope being set up over Munich sex abuse case, says Vatican – Benedict XVI’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, suggests ‘tenacious’ plot to implicate pontiff in cover-up

Catholic News Agency: Vatican: Pope was ‘completely extraneous’ to Munich sex abuse decision

Interesting observations in the Catholic Herald.

I’m glad the headline mentions climate change in relation to churches as recently I came across the term eco-theologian. This term was used in all seriousness on a so called Christian website. Now tell me that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not a religion in its own right.

In my ‘umble opinion there is a troubling trend for some churches to breathe deeply of the prevailing “spirit of the age” and then throw the Scriptures away offer a “church” fully formed through the zeitgeist prism, in the naive hope that this will make them popular and appealing to the world. Of course it doesn’t work anyway, as these churches simply morph into irrelevant clouds without rain.

Catholic Herald

How often do we hear it said that parishes have got to “connect” more with their parishioners, give them what they want, make them feel involved, help them to participate? We are constantly told that the majority of Catholics apparently don’t want too much emphasis on sin or judgment but would rather that the Church was a welcoming place that emphasised the good in people and provided a community focus. I have no doubt at all that this is true if by “Catholics” is meant the existing parishioners who occupy and control most parishes in this country today. But in what sense are they the majority of Catholics, and what, if anything, is being done for the remainder who have chosen quite deliberately to absent themselves from this vision of Catholicism?

According to the latest statistics available, those baptised into the Catholic faith in this country number as many as five million people and yet of these a little more than 800,000 actually attend Mass in England and Wales, which includes all the recently arrived immigrants. Official statistics show that nearly a third of all those who attended Mass in 2005 were over 65 and this percentage is rising rapidly. If we consider the immigrant factor and then consider all those baptised as Catholics over the past 40 years it suggests that of those children baptised as Catholics in this country since 1965, as many as 90 per cent have abandoned the practice of their religion by adulthood. The stark reality is that parishes are dominated by ageing clergy and laity and the vision we have now is being shaped largely according to their tastes and preferences. They are of a generation that was brought up by a Church that imposed on them a keen sense of moral obligation to attend Mass. They simply want to make it as diverting and pleasant an experience as possible for themselves. Unlike these older parishioners younger Catholics feel no moral obligation to attend, and thus have simply voted with their feet. It is of these, the overwhelming majority of baptised Catholics in this country, that I ask the question, if Catholicism has become about giving the people what they want, why don’t they want it?

Perhaps the answer is that for religion of any type to have any place within a modern, pluralist society it can no longer rely on outdated cultural or tribal bonds which assume people will attend even if accommodated. The Catholic Church is no longer the primary, secondary or even tertiary means by which most younger people learn about the world or form their identities and cultural views. Consequently, for the Church to try to compete with the secular world in promoting modern music, climate change awareness, fair trade or gender equality is merely playing someone else’s tune badly. If today’s young Catholics want to know about climate change they inform themselves by going directly to the sources, not by listening to what Father says about it in his homily. By branching out into areas that are not its province religion soon loses its footing and ends up appearing ill-informed, struggling to catch up with the very secular society it is meant to be guiding – particularly if it falls in with the latest fad only for that fad to disappear or be exposed as misconceived.

In the modern, free market global village the Catholic religion needs to ask itself what it is for. If it still takes seriously the God whom it claims to serve then it is still under that solemn mandate it received to present to the world that great secret it was initiated into all those years ago. This is that God exists, He has created and sustains all things, and in revealing Himself he calls all people to a relationship of faith and love; humanity is broken and God is the remedy; and the most profound human need is the need for God.

Catholicism needs to start preaching supernatural faith and repentance again and not merely reflecting the material world back at itself. If God is presented as no more than merely our own creation or self-image, and we are not understood as humans who in our very nature lack something vital to ourselves without Him, we will never succeed in attracting new people because they will simply fail to see the point of it – because there is no point to it.

We live in a society obsessed with physical beauty, perfection and material happiness and modern people are constantly showing themselves to be prepared to apply themselves even to harsh disciplines like dieting and working out in gyms to strive for these ideals. Yet at the same time we have unprecedented suicide rates and mental illness, particularly among the young. People have enough self-affirmation from the media – they are even told to buy shampoo because they’re “worth it” – and yet they clearly often don’t feel that way in their transitory relationships or in the loneliness of their individualism. Coming to a Catholic church, where they are told to rejoice because they are the “Easter people”, is not going to challenge the pub, nightclub or health spa as an experience of joy as they understand the word. If the Church can only succeed in showing them that the gulf in their life is not a car or house or cosmetic surgery and that joy is not mere sentimentality then it has a chance.

The Church already has a tried and tested remedy for this, which is, paradoxically, what many of the current churchgoers and their clergy have wanted to excise: that by encouraging people to acknowledge and confront their own sinfulness and striving to overcome it through prayer and the sacraments they will slowly and immeasurably fill this gulf with grace. For this, the Church must turn back to prayer and place God, and not itself, at the centre of this prayer. At the same time it should re-emphasise that suffering and pain are not best papered over with folksy communal singing and hand-shaking any more than they are by narcotics or recreational sex. This suffering and pain should be placed at the feet of Him whose very presence hides in the tabernacle and the image of whose physically broken humanity hangs in every church, pleading and bleeding to heal our spiritually broken humanity with an unrequited love that, if only more people could discover, they might return and share with others.

Dominic Scarborough is a lay Catholic from the south of England. A qualified barrister and former Civil Service Principal, he has a degree in Modern History from Magdalen College, Oxford. He is a regular commentator in the press and on the internet on Catholic affairs

UPDATE: This one caught Damian Thompson’s eye as well:-

Telegraph – Advice to priests: shut up about climate change, talk about sin

I simply found this one from the BBC intriguing. Imagine this scheme in the UK and the shock and dismay when prison inmates discovered that time actually moves slower in some churches than in prison

BBC

Georgian monasteries offer to take in prisoners

Officials in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia have announced a scheme to let prisoners shorten their jail terms by spending time in a monastery instead.

The scheme for petty criminals has been proposed by the country’s Orthodox Church and government officials.

It comes as prisoner numbers in Georgia continue to rise and so too does the popularity of the Church.

It is unclear how many prisoners will be allowed to become monks or if they have any choice in the matter.

Overcrowding

To say that the Orthodox Church plays an important and influential role in Georgia is an understatement.

Some 80% of its population are said to be Orthodox Christians and its leaders have at times played a part in politics.

Now the Church has gone a step further by directly offering to help reform certain criminals by handing them a cassock and allowing them to serve out their sentence as monks.

In a joint statement, officials from the prisons ministry and the Church said they would work together to select the convicts they thought would benefit most from spending time in a monastery.

They said the purpose was to liberalise the criminal justice system, but the reality is that prisoner numbers are rising fast in Georgia.

A report last year by a penal reform organisation said the incarceration rate had risen by 300% since 2004 and that jails were badly overcrowded.

A senior cleric told the BBC he believed the Church played a positive role in society and that the scheme could work.

CAMERA

The Presbyterian Church (USA), which has lost approximately 1 million members over the past 25 years, is preparing to debate a number of resolutions regarding Israeli policies at the church’s upcoming General Assembly. One resolution calls for the church to convict Israel of the crime of “apartheid” while others call on the church to rebuke Caterpillar for continuing to sell products to Israel.

The information delegates will use to inform their decision comes from a number of sources which ominously enough, have exhibited a troubling hostility toward Israel. For example, the Israel/Palestine Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has hosted a blog which linked to an obviously anti-Semitic video titled “I AM ISRAEL” that accused Israel of controlling American foreign policy.

While IPMN’s website attracted some negative attention to the PC(USA), it will soon become a sideshow to another controversy after the publication of a lengthy report by the denomination’s Middle East Study Committee, created by a vote of the General Assembly in 2008.

This report, which includes a historical analysis that demonizes Zionism, omits important information about Arab violence against Jews in the first half of the 20^th century also includes a letter to American Jews that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of mainstream Jewish leaders in the U.S.

Jewish leaders in the U.S. have responded with anger, as have some members of the denomination. Below is a roundup of useful links relating to the PC(USA)’s deliberations.

Breaking Down the Walls: Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). March 5, 2010. This is the full report. Smaller sections of the report can be found here.

“Presbyterian report affirms Israel’s right to exist, criticizes occupation of Palestinian lands,” Courier-Journal.com (Louisville), March 5, 2010.

“Jewish Group: PC(USA)’s Israel Proposals Will Damage Relations,” Christian Post, Feb. 23, 2010.

“An unholy campaign: Presbyterian Church elders are poised to defame Israel,” New York Daily News, March 7, 2010.

“Gearing Up for Another Season of Anti-Zionism in the PC(USA),” Snapshots, (CAMERA’s blog), Feb. 20 2010.

“Middle East study team nears release of its final report,” Presbyterian News Service, Feb. 2, 2009. This article, published before the report was released, provides interesting detail about the committee’s deliberations regarding Israel’s right to exist.

Readers should also visit Viola Larson’s blog, “Naming His Grace.” Larson has numerous posts related to the PC(USA)’s stance on Israel. She has addressed the issue here, here and here. (There are numerous posts on this issue at this blog.)

For historical background about the PC(USA)’s animus toward Israel, read “Pride and Prejudice: The Presbyterian Divestment Story,” by Will Spotts, a former member of the PC(USA). Spotts left the denomination in part because of the church’s animus toward Israel.

Numerous CAMERA articles about the PC(USA) can be found here.

From the Institute on Religion & Democracy:

Church groups centered on Middle East peace are marking the time of Lent with criticism of Israel. A season of penance and fasting traditionally associated with preparing for Easter, Lent is being promoted as a time to single out Israel as aggressor.

Lenten reflections issued by Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) direct attention to Israel’s alleged sins and portray Israel as solely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict. CMEP-provided materials do not encourage the same level of attention or understanding to the role Israel’s Arab and Muslim adversaries have played in contributing to the continued existence Arab-Israeli conflict.

Agencies of mainline Protestant churches including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ are all members of CMEP, as are some Eastern Orthodox and Catholic groups.

One CMEP reflection written by an executive of the United Church of Christ reads “In Israel and Palestine, Israeli settlements, the separation barrier, conditions of refugees, and myriad aspects of occupation–as well as destabilizing and debilitating violence–diminish hope and dehumanize people.”

Direct references to Israel such as settlements and the separation barrier are contrasted with diffuse and vague references to “destabilizing and debilitating violence” – not direct naming of those groups responsible.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

“It is ironic that a sober season centered on personal disciplines and penance would be appropriated by some church groups as a time to attack others.

“As is sadly typical, Middle East church groups heap criticism upon Israel while largely ignoring the transgressions of neighboring Arab governments and the Palestinians.

“Few have an interest in the ongoing miseries of Egypt’s persecuted Coptic Christian population, while the economic embargo of Hamas-dominated Gaza is viewed as an intolerable evil.

“Groups like Churches for Middle East Peace seem determined to put Israel as well as fish into the frying pan this Lent.”

The “religion and society think-tank” Ekklesia is heavily promoting a campaign called Power2010, which is an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.

Just for clarification purposes, this “reforming” would effectively banish Bishops from the House of Lords. Ekklesia are pushing for an ‘all elected’ second chamber, and are opposed to the “special positions” reserved for Bishops.

These are the 5 principles for reform that they advocate:

people of faith participate alongside others in public life through civic action, free debate and good example – not through special reserved places and exemptions

members of the second chamber are elected, publicly accountable and recallable – not based on the appointed status and privilege for a few

legislation is scrutinised for its impact on the most vulnerable in society – not primarily the rich and powerful

membership is open to independent and minority elected voices – not dominated by the big party machines

Parliamentary business is discussed and voted upon in ways that encourage common action, co-operation and understanding of differences – rather than division and confrontation.

The reality well known by most commentators, is that if the House of Lords becomes an elected chamber, then we would see an end to Bishops in the house of Lords, as in reality they would not be able to garnish enough support.

As you can imagine the Bristish Humanist Association are fully behind this campaign also.

Some time ago I received a request to post something about an upcoming debate relating to the issue of the existence of Bishops within the House of Lords, which I did:

Should the bishops be evicted from the House of Lords? A parliamentary debate on the future of the Lords Spiritual

In this debate, arguing that Bishops should be evicted from the House of Lords was Polly Toynbee, President of the British Humanist Association; and Jonathan Bartley, Co-director, Ekklesia.

I wasn’t particularly flattering towards Jonathan Bartley in my post and he kindly took the time to comment, here is a snippet:-

I said:

….it saddens me terribly to watch such an influential figure as you, join forces with groups that are actively opposed to Christianity, such as the humanists.

Jonathan responded:

I am not aware that I have “joined forces” with anyone. I am however prepared to work with people where I believe they are working with, and toward truth.

I do not drive a wedge between sacred and secular and believe that all people who are made in God’s image, have a sense of what is right and wrong. I do not agree with humanists on many things, but where I see them working for justice and equality, which are to me eternal Christian values which resonate with the character of God, and they know what they are because of God (whether they recognise it or not) I will encourage them in that, and debate and discuss with them.

On reflection, as I observe Ekklesia’s preoccupation in ridding the House of Lords of Bishops, I would say that Ekklesia are in fact very much about driving a wedge between sacred and secular.

This Power2010 campaign encourages participants to email the Bishops and they provide a convenient form on their website, with a fully customisable message and every Bishops email address already inserted for you.

Ekklesia have just posted that they are thrilled with the uptake of 20,000 emails sent to the bishops in one day.

In terms of the validity of a campaign strategy of this nature, I am in agreement with a commentator on Twitter who noted the following:-

Not keen on these mass-auto email all the MPs / MEPs / Bishops at once scripts. Smacks of spam techniques.

and

….I’m sure the bishops can handle it! – Missing the point. a) Does it work? b) Do we want click-box politics?

Indeed.

Overall I confess that I am somewhat uncomfortable with Ekklesia’s determination to eradicate Bishops from the house of Lords, and I am certainly uncomfortable with their choice of bedfellows, and I am uncomfortable with their current campaign technique, namely, overwhelming Bishops email inboxes.

I know many will disagree with me, but there you go.

Today we are seeing headlines like this one:-

Daily Mail – Celibacy to blame for sex abuse cases, says cardinal tipped for papacy

National Post – Cardinal claims celibacy linked to sex abuse

I’ve been informed that these headlines are misleading and that Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said no such thing:

Catholic Culture:

Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has said that the broadening sex-abuse scandal indicates a need to re-think the training that priests receive. The Austrian prelate called for a thorough and “unflinching” discussion of the possible causes for sexual abuse by Catholic priests. No topics should be taboo during that discussion, the cardinal said; he called for a frank evaluation of how priests have handled the consequences of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s, and analysis of how priests are trained for a life of celibacy.

Several English newspapers reported that Cardinal Schönborn had said that priestly celibacy is the root cause of the sex-abuse problem. He did not. Nor did he call for an end to clerical celibacy. As spokesman for the Vienna archdiocese, responding to these interpretations of the cardinal’s statement, issued a clarification that Cardinal Schönbron “did not call into question celibacy in any way.” His focus was on how young men are prepared to live with that discipline.

In Rome the prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, confirmed that Church leaders are not planning any change in the rule of priestly celibacy, which he described as “a gift from the Holy Spirit.”

Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiga, asked whether he saw a connection between celibacy and abuse, replied: ‘I don’t understand how there can be a link.” Archbishop Gerhard Mueller of Regensberg, Germany, was even more dismissive, saying that any claim to see a connection was “nonsense.”

Link to Catholic News Agency:-

After media outlets misinterpreted an article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn to say that he is questioning the Church’s rule of priestly celibacy, several high ranking churchmen have spoken out in praise of celibacy as a gift. They also dismissed the idea that celibacy is connected to pedophilia.

The Times has a good piece on this:-

Cardinal Schönborn says celibacy partly to blame for clerical sex abuse

Perhaps Rowan should read this.

Cross-post from Anglican Samizdat:

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that despite believing Israel has a right to defend itself, he is “baffled and angry” at some of its methods.

Dr Rowan Williams spoke in conversation with Times editor James Harding in front of more than 200 people at a JC-sponsored event organised by the Board of Deputies on Wednesday.

Less than 15 minutes into the 90- minute discussion, Mr Harding asked Dr Williams to face the “elephant in the room” and reveal his views on Israel.

“The state of Israel is a legitimate state,” the archbishop said. “It has a right to exist and right to defend itself. The very fact that Israel makes so much of its status as a democratic state leaves me baffled and sometimes angry at what seems like collusion with unauthorised parties. I want to hear a legal defence of settlements and I am yet to hear it.

“Unless there is a way of representing the settlements as legitimate self-defence I remain very disturbed about that, along with many.”

Rowan would undoubtedly be much happier if Israel would engage Hamas – who don’t seem to make Rowan angry at all – in Indaba sessions, holy listening and telling stories; then, at least everyone would be baffled.

Previous posts on the The Presbyterian Church’s anti-Israel stance; here and here.

CAMERA

The Presbyterian Church (USA) will debate numerous proposals regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict at its upcoming General Assembly scheduled to take place in Minneapolis in early July 2010. One overture submitted to the General Assembly by the San Francisco Presbytery declares Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid. Other resolutions call on the denomination to rebuke Caterpillar for continuing to sell its products to Israel.

Setting the stage for the debate is a lengthy report issued by a Middle East Study Committee created by the PC(USA)’s General Assembly in 2008. The report of this committee includes a number of letters to various stakeholders, a theological treatise on how the denomination should address the conflict, a list of recommendations from the committee itself and a distorted history of the Arab-Israeli conflict written by two members of the committee.

In the committee’s letter to its “American Jewish Friends,” the committee includes states the following:

We want to be sure to say to you in no uncertain terms: we support the existence of Israel as a sovereign nation within secure and recognized borders. No “but,” no “let’s get this out of the way so we can say what we really want to say. We support Israel’s existence as granted by the U.N. General Assembly. We support Israel’s existence as a home for the Jewish people. We have said this before, and we say this again. We say this because we believe it; we say it because we want it to be true.

This is troublesome, but what is more troublesome is the historical analysis submitted by the committee. This document, written by committee members Nahida H. Gordon and Frederic W. Bush, is explicitly anti-Zionist.

The document’s authors reveal their anti-Zionist agenda when they compare the influx of Armenians into pre-1948 Palestinians with the influx of Jews into the region during the first half of the 20^th century. The overall assessment is that the Armenians were well behaved guests while the Jews were violent marauders.

Here is how the document describes Armenian immigration into pre-1948 Palestine:

The Armenians came to Palestine to seek refuge with a wish to live, raise their families, and contribute to the culture of their new home. They embraced the culture, learned the language, shared its cuisine, and most importantly contributed to the rich diversity of Palestinian society. Deep friendships and lasting family connections were common among the newly arrived Armenians and the indigenous Palestinians. Tragically, the Armenian-Palestinians were uprooted once more in 1948–1949 during the Nakba, the expulsion of Palestinian Christians and Muslims by the newly arrived Jewish settlers from Europe.

The authors report that when the Armenians came into Palestine, they joined a pre-existing community of Jews who “spoke Arabic, lived peacefully on the land with Christian and Muslim Palestinians, shared its cuisine, and enjoyed Palestine as did their Christian and Muslim neighbors. They were part of a multicultural Palestine, without whom Palestine would have lost some of its rich diversity and heritage. Friendships between these Jewish Palestinians and their Christian and Muslim neighbors were common.” The narrative continues as follows:

So why did things change? They changed with the mass immigration of Jewish refugees from Europe to Palestine during the first half of the 20th century. These refugees came to Palestine to escape centuries of segregation, expulsion, murder, and the horrors of their holocaust during World War II. They were a traumatized people who, rather than integrating into the existing Palestinian society as the Armenians had done earlier, eventually came to displace the Palestinians. They took the land of Palestine from a majority of its inhabitants at gunpoint. The land dispossession by the state created by these European immigrants continues to the present time to further add to the widely dispersed 1948 Palestinian refugee population. Tragically, the government of these immigrants continues to nurture the belief that security comes only from military might. Not surprisingly, Palestinians responded with violence to their displacement. Violent elements in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities have repeatedly frustrated efforts at reconciliation. (Emphasis added.)

The message of this document is that Israel’s creation was a fundamentally illegitimate act that colors everything it has done in the years since 1948. In other words, everything Israel does is tainted by the original sin of its creation. Readers who examine this historical analysis closely will find that it applies a utopian standard to Israel’s creation, and makes the adherence to this standard a condition for its continued existence.

The anti-Zionist message inherent in this document should not come as a surprise. In an article published before the study committee report was made public, the Presbyterian News Service reported that there was some controversy in the study committee over the language acknowledging Israel’s right to exist. The report states:

Israel was built on the ruins of Palestinian land and culture,” said Nahida Gordon, a committee member and Palestinian American who teaches at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland. “I take this personally — my personhood as a Palestinian has been obliterated. Palestinians are being erased as human beings. To say this [‘the right of Israel to exist'] is to give Israel a pass on the way Israel was created and denies the legitimacy of the Palestinian people.”

At the suggestion of the Rev. Susan Andrews of Hudson River Presbytery, the committee added the following footnote: “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of our study committee who are in solidarity with Palestinians, who feel that the creation of the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”

I’m popping this one on the blog, because it covers one my pet subjects, namely, the Internet and Christianity and also because this report relates to the demise of the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia, which my favourite Anglican blog – Anglican Samizdat – who happens to be Canada based, has blogged about recently; here and here.

The Globe and Mail

Faced with declining enrolment and revenue that will force it to shutter churches on Vancouver Island, the Anglican Church is turning to the social medium where millions of followers already flock: Twitter.

The Anglican Diocese of British Columbia last weekend voted to close seven churches outright and move those congregations to “hub churches.” The meeting, during which several members tweeted updates to followers, came on the heels of an ominous recent report that predicted that the once powerful church was headed for extinction unless dramatic changes occur.

In addition to recommending that churches close, the report described Canada as a post-Christian society and urged a change in attitude to attract new members, including embracing modern forms of evangelism.

Among other things, the report suggested members and lay people go “outside the walls of our parish buildings,” to talk to people about the church and even invite them to a service. Some clergy have already begun this modern missionary work, using social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to reach new followers.

Rev. Christopher Parsons said the notion of evangelism has traditionally struck a raw nerve among churchgoers, but he argued that the status quo hasn’t worked for years. “Over the years, the church has been able to rest on its laurels,” he said. “You could open the church and its door and people would pour in.” That’s not happening any more.

Canon Parsons, who has his own Twitter account, said finding new faithful through social media isn’t a gimmick. “On the one hand it’s modern. On the other hand it’s incredibly ancient,” Canon Parsons said.

“The idea of doing church differently . . . there are examples of this happening all through the history of the church,” Canon Parson added.

If anything, Canon Parsons drew comparisons to the church and Twitter groups. He attended a recent tweetup, (a social gathering organized by Twitter users), which he described as similar to church.

“The times I’ve gone, they know who I am. They know what I do, so we talk about church. And I say: ‘What is church for you? What is important about this [tweetup]?’ And they say: ‘I find meaning. I find belonging. I find like-minded people.’ I think: ‘This is exactly like church.’ ”

The call for fresh approaches was contained in a 48-page document prepared by The Anglican Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia. Released in January, it repeated earlier predictions that the Anglican church in Canada is losing 13,000 members per year and risks extinction by the 2061.

As a result, the church synod last weekend voted to close seven churches outright, and their congregations will be urged to moved to so-called “hub” churches. There are 54 Anglican churches on Vancouver Island and the adjacent Gulf Islands. More closings could occur in the future.

The changes have sparked concern, sadness and wariness about the future. “Will this work?” asked Christopher Page, the rector of St. Philip’s in Victoria and archdeacon of Juan de Fuca. “It could go either way. This is not a slam dunk.

“It’s not an easy task to be a Christian church in the present cultural climate. There are far too many other attractive options for Sunday morning.”

But Archdeacon Page hopes people will return to religious institutions – and not simply because the Anglican church restructured and consolidated. He said people crave a spiritual life and will tire of the individualism that pervades our culture.

“The hope lies in the reality, I believe, that people do have an abiding hunger in their hearts for something beyond themselves, some kind of transcendent reality. And I think the hope lies in the fact that in our culture, even as we speak, people are becoming dissatisfied and discontented simply with materialism and the focus on getting ahead in the world. And they’re realizing that that is not a fully satisfying life.”

Previous post here.

Cross-post by Polycarp:-

The King of Spain, Juan Carlos I, has signed a bill into law legalizing abortion on demand for the first fourteen weeks of pregnancy.

The law, which was recently passed by the Spanish Congress and Senate, also declares abortion as a “right,” allows minors as young as 16 to obtain abortions without their parents’ consent, and requires abortionist and homosexualist education in the nation’s schools.

The king, a professed Catholic, ignored pleas from a number of theologians and pro-life activists to withhold his signature from the bill, which would have prevented it from being promulgated and applied

via the totally unbiased LifeSiteNews.com: ‘Catholic’ King of Spain Signs Abortion Bill into Law.

Internet link from the Catholic News Agency:-

Nearly one million Spaniards marched in cities across the country on March 7 defending the right to life of the unborn and demanding that the government revoke Spain’s new law on abortion recently passed by the Senate and signed by King Juan Carlos.

I’m no fan of the trend of “interviewers” to be disrespectful, arrogant, aggressive, insulting, deaf, and ill-informed in the nuances of the topic at hand, and for me Stephen Sackur fulfills all of the above, in his interview with Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

BBC iplayer – HARDtalk – Michael Nazir-Ali, Former Bishop of Rochester

Michael Nazir-Ali is such a mellow, spiritually minded, highly intellectual individual, it’s shameful to see him interviewed in this manner for me personally.

Granted this is the style of “HARDtalk” and I think it was considerably brave of Nazir-Ali to agree to be interviewed on this particular program.

Should the Reverend Frank Wainwright have apologised, and was this a “controversial comment” as highlighted in this Telegraph report.

Is it no longer prudent for Ministers to publicly declare that they believe Holy Matrimony is designed for a man and a woman, for fear of offence?

Finally, is it not striking that a short sermon from the “Shires” can become national news, especially if the talk dares drift into the issue of gay marriage?

Telegraph:-

A Catholic priest has apologised for joking during a sermon that true marriage can only be between Adam and Eve – not ”Adam and Steve”

Reverend Frank Wainwright, 48, a Deacon at St Gregory’s Church in Cheltenham, Glos., made the controversial comment during a Sunday service.

He was preaching on the theme of marriage when he claimed that same-sex civil partnerships are not considered as marriage by the Catholic church.

But his ”flippant joke” sparked five complaints from his congregation and has been branded as homophobic by gay and lesbian rights groups.

Rev Frank Wainwright, who lives in Cheltenham, Glos., apologised for causing any offence and claimed he is not ”homophobic”.

He said: ”The sermon was about marriage and I have no idea why all this has come up but someone has obviously complained.

”The comment is obviously not homophobic and it was just intended as a joke. My duty is to preach what the church preaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.

”I have plenty of gay friends and I have no problem at all with them but as a Catholic minister I must preach that marriage is between a man and woman and nothing else.

”I’m sure there are gay members of my congregation and I imagine it’s one of them who complained but it certainly wasn’t the thrust of my sermon.

”I can see why people are upset by the comment because it was flippant. I totally accept that I have caused offence and I am apologising for that.”

Rev Frank Wainwright delivered the 15-minute sermon on marriage at St Gregory’s Church on January 17 this year.

He told his 200-strong congregation: ”Sometimes in our families we have situations that either surprise us or are not ideal.

”For example if your 15-year-old daughter comes home and says ‘I’m pregnant’ even if it’s a shock and we disagree the first thing we should do to that person is hug them and let them know they are still family.

”Sometimes within the church we have to hold our heads above the parapet and say what we believe as Catholics and sometimes in saying that we will be marginalised and put down.

”For example, in adoption a child has a right to want a mother and father.

”That marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s a life-long commitment and usually only ended by death, as it was in the beginning and ever shall be.

”Marriage is between Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve.”

Continue Reading

One day the “nationals” will pick up a positive story relating to a profound and deeply moving sermon….nah perhaps not.

This one’s causing a stir in the US:-

CNA

After local media reported that the child of a lesbian couple was refused enrollment at an elementary school in Boulder, the Archdiocese of Denver told CNA that opposition to its decision comes from those “who disagree with the Church’s position on homosexuality in general” and want an “excuse” to voice their opinion.

Local channel 9NEWS reported on Friday that the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church in Boulder, Colorado recently held a meeting to discuss the situation of a pre-school student whose parents are lesbians. School staff members were told early last week that the child would not be allowed to re-enroll. According to the station, certain anonymous staff members reacted negatively and were “disgusted” by the archdiocese’s decision.

In response to this claim, Jeanette DeMelo, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Denver, told CNA that “So far any school staff feedback hasn’t been expressed to the Catholic schools office. We have heard from some Catholic school parents from SHJ but the number is not high.”

“We are hearing mostly from people who disagree with the Church’s position on homosexuality in general and this decision is an excuse to voice that opposition to Church teaching,” she added.

In a statement on Friday, the archdiocese explained its decision by saying that the “principal reason parents place their children in Archdiocese of Denver Schools is to reinforce the Catholic beliefs and values that the family seeks to live at home.”

“Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment,” the Friday statement said.

P Z Myers has swung into action on this…..twice:-

Suffer the little children

Polling for validation of bigotry

And this from Lifesite:-

Boulder School Refuses Entry to Child in Care of Lesbian ‘Couple’

And America Magazine:-

Child of Lesbian Parents Denied Entrance to Catholic School

And so on…

This headline from Ekklesia:-

Church of Scotland says now is the time to end the nuclear threat.

Well thank goodness for that. I have dedicated my life to warning as many folk as will listen, of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of Iran the Church of Scotland.

It’s about time the Church of Scotland decommissioned their weapons and came to the negotiating table without relying  on unremitting threats of atomic “pre-emptive strikes” on other denominations, with whom they have slight theological differences.

Well I thought it funny….and I’m bored….

You know what, I’ll stick with the original face of Christianity, namely, Jesus!

Guardian:-

Forget Billy Graham and Jimmy Swaggart – the most popular and influential pastor in the US is Joel Osteen. On the surface he is modest and quietly spoken, but his belief in the “prosperity gospel” is changing the way people pray.

The praise and worship brought me here,” says Natalie, sitting beside me in the fifth row of Houston’s Lakewood Church – a vast, converted stadium that seats 16,000. “I was raised Catholic, but I don’t feel the spirit there like I do here.”

Three enormous video screens advertise church groups such as Griefshare: From Mourning to Joy and the Freedom Series. But just as I’m wondering what the Quest for Authentic Manhood involves, the house worship band kicks out the jams. It’s 11am exactly and the day’s second service has begun. The stage is dominated by an enormous revolving golden globe, in front of which is a rock orchestra flanked on either side by a multiracial gospel choir. Meanwhile, no fewer than nine lead singers are dancing about the stage, praising the Lord. And as if the stage isn’t busy enough, down on the floor a small army of serious-looking men dressed in black suits stands alert, ever watchful, communicating with each other through radio mics. Theoretically they’re church ushers, but they look more like secret service men guarding a president. Gently but firmly they guide latecomers to their seats, leaving nothing to chance, as if one wrong step could upset the delicate balance that keeps 16,000 evangelical Christians from erupting into violence and anarchy.

Men on wheeled chairs scoot past these special agents, thrusting cameras into the faces of the congregation, while overhead a camera on a crane swoops past, instantly transmitting the action on stage to the giant video screens above. Looking up, I watch as the walls and ceiling periodically change colour, from blue to purple to orange as if we were at an intergalactic disco. Make no mistake: Lakewood is no ordinary church, it’s a megachurch. No, let’s go further: it’s an ultrachurch, the largest in America, with more than 40,000 attending five services weekly and a further 7 million watching in their living rooms. And let’s not forget the tens of millions more joining us in 100 countries around the world.

The main draw is Joel Osteen, “America’s pastor”. He’s at the edge of the stage with his glamorous wife and co-pastor, Victoria. I’ve watched his televised sermons, seen him on the cover of his bestselling books, and observed interviews on TV with megastars such as Larry King, Sean Hannity and Barbara Walters. Powerful politicians from both parties crave to be seen with him, just as in the past they paid homage to Billy Graham (who has endorsed Osteen). The Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, made sure to attend the grand opening of Lakewood in July 2005; Osteen in turn led the prayer during Perry’s inauguration two years later. But Osteen doesn’t pick political favourites; when Houston elected its first openly gay mayor this year (a Democrat), he said the prayer during her inauguration. The Clintons like to be seen worshipping at Lakewood when they’re in town, and John McCain was happy to sing the praises of Osteen while campaigning in 2008. And while Obama is yet to pay a visit, last December he found the time to receive Osteen at the White House. These disparate and often opposed politicians recognise one thing: if anybody is the face of evangelical Christianity in America today, it is Joel Osteen.

Continue Reading

Just to keep you abreast of “happenings” in the Anglican Church.

The Bishop of Liverpool – James Jones – is in serious hot water after a speech he gave to the to Liverpool Diocesan Synod, in which he said some stuff about gays that has riled the conservatives. This has caused much activity in the conservative Anglican online world, as the good Bishop was once seen as one of their own.

Not any more.

Here are some links:-

Virtue Online – As Eye See It : Why Liverpool Bishop James Jones is Wrong

Stand Firm – Another “Evangelical” Shows His Hand

Anglican Spread – Bishop James Jones: Liverpool’s Muddy Waters flow towards Africa

Hacking Christianity – From ‘Just War’ to ‘Just Sexuality’

Ugley Vicar – Bishop James Jones and the challenge to unity

Ekklesia – Evangelical bishop “in sympathy” with same-sex partnerships

The Changing Attitude – James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”

Oh Dear.

Weekly Standard:-

PCUSA Tempted to Divest from Israel – The church’s leadership takes a pro-Palestinian stance.

Six years ago, the nearly 3 million member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) became the first and only U.S. religious body to adopt a divestment policy against Israel. After a large uproar from Christians and Jews, including a personal appeal from Presbyterian former CIA Director James Woolsey at the church’s General Assembly in 2006, the divestment stance was repealed.

Controversy over the church’s stance towards Israel may now reignite. A special PCUSA study committee is proposing that the denomination’s 2010 General Assembly take a strident anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian stance. The committee’s report points to the Israeli presence on the West Bank as the great evil in the Middle East. It urges the United States to “employ the strategic use of influence and the withholding of financial and military aid to enforce Israel’s compliance” with demands for withdrawal. The committee recommends no similar pressure against any other actors in the region.

The PCUSA committee calls the U.S. government “to repent of its sinful behavior throughout the Middle East, including its ongoing war in Iraq, its undermining of democratic processes in Iran and the Palestinian National Authority, its continuing support of non-democratic regimes, and its acquiescence to the ongoing Israeli Occupation.” Such rhetoric, if adopted by the General Assembly in July, would introduce another explosive cause of division into the fractured and declining denomination. And it would certainly not help the PCUSA’s inconsistent efforts at dialogue with the U.S. Jewish community.

This proposed new Middle East policy seems likely to revive the animosities from the 2004 General Assembly, which mandated “phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” After bitter public debates, the 2006 PCUSA assembly rescinded the divestment mandate. This reversal marked a turning of the tide against pro-Palestinian activists pushing churches to target Israel for economic punishment.

The 2008 Presbyterian assembly pledged that “we will not over-identify with the realities of the Israelis or Palestinians” and advised against “taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality, where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.” But that same assembly also established the special committee, which proceeded to ignore the assembly’s advice.

The special committee report has not yet been released; however, excerpts and paraphrases in an official PCUSA News Service account suggest the one-sided nature of the document. According to PCUSA News, the committee’s lead recommendation is “an immediate end to the [Israeli] Occupation [of the West Bank].” Other demands are likewise directed at Israel: “An immediate freeze on the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, the relocation of Israel’s ‘separation barrier’ to the internationally recognized 1967 border, a shared status for Jerusalem, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.”

The special committee, according to PCUSA News, advocates “an immediate cessation of violence by both sides” and “immediate resumption of negotiations toward a two-state solution.” It briefly deplores “threats by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel.” But its only specific request of the Palestinian leadership is that the Fatah and Hamas movements should “work together toward immediate reconciliation,” so as to form a united front against Israel.

The PCUSA committee affirms “the right of Israel to exist,” but adds an apology in a footnote: “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of our study committee who are in solidarity with the Palestinians, who feel that the creation of the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.” It supports “the right of return” for all Palestinian refugees—a policy that would quickly submerge Israel under an Arab majority.

The most extreme aspect of the report is its endorsement of a pro-Palestinian manifesto called “Kairos Palestine.” Put forth last November by a group of Palestinian church officials, the manifesto rejects the identity of Israel as a Jewish state.

“The injustice against the Palestinian people which is the Israeli occupation, is an evil that must be resisted,” according to this document proposed for PCUSA approval. “Kairos Palestine” argues for non-violent measures such as an international “system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel.” At the same time, it seems to justify violence: “Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity.” The manifesto refers to Palestinian “terrorism” in sneer quotes, as if to doubt the existence of the phenomenon.

Even before its release, this PCUSA report is stirring up a storm. The Simon Wiesenthal Center sent out an e-blast predicting that both Jews and many Presbyterians would be outraged. “PCUSA has some of the staunchest supporters of Israel in its ranks,” declared Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Wiesenthal Center. “They are as frustrated as we are that their church leadership team spends so much energy on the Arab/Israeli conflict where there are relatively few Presbyterians who live in either Israel or the disputed territories, and spends too little energy on major human rights issues impacting Christians and Presbyterians who live in Muslim countries, China, and North Korea.”

Alan F.H. Wisdom is vice president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and director of Presbyterian Action.

Here is a report from the Christian Post:-

Jewish Group: PC(USA)’s Israel Proposals Will Damage Relations

An interesting post over at Hacking Christianity for Christian webmasters, looking at search engine optimisation and the church. This follows on nicely from a post yesterday about the religious blogosphere, in which I wrote:-

The truth is, whether for good or for ill, the Internet is a medium that the Church must master and utilise, as a matter of priority.

Any half decent webmaster knows that search engine optimisation is absolutely critical to the development and ongoing success of a website. It is tragic how often I see aesthetically pleasing Christian websites that are dead in the water, because they have been solely designed for the human eye, at the expense of the search engine’s eye.

All websites must be designed for two types of readers, human and bot.

Hacking Christianity

A year ago on this blog, we wrote The Tyranny of the SEO Church where we examined how search engine optimization is becoming more and more critical for church outreach, but also cedes power to persons other than the church to answer questions. Read it here.  Here’s the basic premise:

What it means to me is that any theological viewpoint that receives strong SEO (search engine optimization) can become the new “truth.” If you can get that viewpoint to the top of google searches, or better to cover the majority of the first page of results, then that becomes more and more “truth.” And this alliance between Wikipeda and Google can perpetuate this narrow viewpoint and bury (send to a lower ranking) theological viewpoints that do not agree with the SEO viewpoint.

Continue Reading

Interesting interview in the Catholic Hearld with my old Bish Naz:-

‘One has to speak the truth regardless’

Rory Fitzgerald meets the controversial former Bishop of Rochester and unofficial leader of conservative Anglicans

In the August heat of Karachi in 1949 a little boy was born in to a Shia Muslim family. Pakistan was only two years old, a fledgling and chaotic nation, trying to find its way in the world without British rule. Michael Nazir-Ali’s mother cannot then have imagined that her baby boy would one day sit in that most British of chambers, the House of Lords. Nor that he would become a prominent Anglican bishop and an eminent Christian thinker.

Nine years before Michael Nazir-Ali was born, London was under attack by the Luftwaffe and Britain was fighting for its life. In 1940, Churchill spoke these immortal words:”I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin.

Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation… Hitler knows he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all of Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

The vicar’s house on Giltspur Street in central London was one of many London buildings destroyed by a Nazi bomb during that earlier effort to eradicate Christian civilisation. Perhaps appositely, this is where I met Bishop Nazir-Ali last month.

Standing on Giltspur Street you are waist-deep in history. A vicar of this very church sang the Psalm Miserere in February 1555 as he was led around the corner to Smithfield, where he was burned alive for heresy. During the Crusades this ancient church was re-named in honour of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. How little things change in 1,000 years: in 2010 our conversation was to be dominated by the ongoing tensions with Islam, and schisms in the Christian Church.

Dr Nazir-Ali was Bishop of Rochester until March last year, when he retired. He still lives in Kent with his wife and two children and now ministers to persecuted Christian minorities abroad.

“Christians in this country are becoming aware of the persecutions of Christians abroad. I think partly because they are experiencing something of it themselves,” he says.

Continue Reading

We salute you sir