A British citizen has just been sentenced to life imprisonment in the UAE after a 4 minute trial in a language he doesn't speak. He was drugged and kept in solitary confinement during his 6 months imprisonment before the 'trial'. Pakistan kills people for 'blasphemy' (65 since 1990) and there are riots whenever mercy is shown, the Saudis chop people up and pretend to be innocent, the UAE tortures people and denies them a fair trial. Then there's Syria, Iran, and the majority of this lot.
Are Muslim majority states just having a bad run of publicity or is there something more fundamental going on? Or is this just absolute power corrupting absolutely (cf China, Putin's hit squads, N Korea)?
Showing posts with label world church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world church. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Desperate news from Iraq
Amidst all the terrible events in Iraq, Andrew White, the vicar of Baghdad, posts this heartbreaking account:
Dear Friends,
Things are so bad now in Iraq, the worst they have ever been. The Islamic terrorists have taken control of the whole of Mosul which is Nineveh the main Christian stronghold. The army have even fled. We urgently need help and support.
Please, please help us in this crisis.
Iraq is now in its worst crisis since the 2003 war. ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Group), a group that does not even see Al Qaida as extreme enough, has moved into Mosul, which is Nineveh. It has totally taken control, destroyed all government departments. Allowed all prisoners out of the prisons. Killed countless numbers of people. There are bodies over the streets. The army and police have fled, so many of the military resources have been captured. Tankers, armed vehicles and even helicopters are now in the hands of ISIS.
Mosul residents fleeing the ISIS takeover.
The area is the heartland of the Christian community. Most of our people come from Nineveh and still see that as their home. It is there that they return to regularly. Many Christian’s fled from back to Nineveh from Baghdad, as things got so bad there. Now the Christian centre of Iraq has been totally ransacked. The tanks are moving into the Christian villages destroying them and causing total carnage. The ISIS militants are now moving towards Kirkuk, major areas to the Oil fields that provide the lifeblood of Iraq. We are faced with total war that all the Iraqi military have now retreated from.
People have fled in their hundreds of thousands to Kurdistan still in Iraq for safety. The Kurds have even closed the border, preventing entry of the masses. The crisis is so huge it is almost impossible to consider what is really happening.....
read it all, and donate to help Christians in Iraq here.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Violence against Christians: 2 sides
Following on from the piece the other day, about Christians being the most persecuted religious body on the planet:
Egypt: The Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed a new Amnesty International report calling on Egypt to prevent ‘deeply disturbing’ attacks on Christians in the country.
Egypt: The Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed a new Amnesty International report calling on Egypt to prevent ‘deeply disturbing’ attacks on Christians in the country.
The report describes an ‘unprecedented level' of attacks
against Coptic Christians following the dispersal of two pro-Morsi sit-ins in
Cairo on 14 August.
More than 200 Christian-owned properties were attacked and
43 churches seriously damaged in 'deeply sectarian attacks' against Coptic and
other Christian denominations, the report says.
Pakistan: The Muslim and Christian communities came together during Sunday mass in a show of solidarity in Lahore.
Hand in hand as many as 200-300 people formed a human chain outside the St Anthony’s Church adjacent to the District Police Lines at the Empress Road, in a show of solidarity with the victims of the Peshawar church attack two weeks back, which resulted in over a 100 deaths. The twin suicide attack on All Saints church occurred after Sunday mass ended and is believed to be the country’s deadliest attack on Christians.
Standing in the small courtyard of St Anthony’s Church, as Mufti Mohammad Farooq delivered a sermon quoting a few verses of the Holy Quran that preached tolerance and respect for other beliefs, Father Nasir Gulfam stepped right next to him after having conducted a two hour long Sunday service inside the church. The two men stood should to shoulder, hand in hand as part of the human chain that was formed outside the church not just as a show of solidarity but also to send out a message, ‘One Nation, One Blood’.
more here
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Euro Court judgement - reading the small print
Interesting commentary on the European court judgement in the inbox today from the Christian Legal Centre:
Steps Forward
The Court held that Nadia Eweida's 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' had been infringed by British Airways' decision to prevent her from wearing her cross visibly.
In the other cases, the European Court decided that decisions of the UK Courts were within the 'margin of appreciation' (discretion) that it allows to national Courts - but in so doing it challenged many of the principles adopted by UK Courts and asserted by the British government.
Further to Go
However, it was very disappointing that in Shirley, Lillian and Gary's case, the Court ruled that, although their religious freedom had been infringed, the circumstances had justified that interference.
In Shirley's case, 'Health and Safety' was given as the justification. The European Court said that it was not in a position to examine the application of the Health and Safety policy. It had to assume that it was justified, as the UK Courts had suggested. However, no credible Health and Safety risk was ever demonstrated by the hospital.
In the case of Lillian and Gary, the European Court said that it was necessary to restrict their freedom in order to protect the freedom of others.
However, in both cases, it would have been possible to accommodate Gary and Lillian's conscience, without there being any danger of anyone being denied a service. This important point will continue to be made.
In what's now effectively a secular democracy, it's not surprising that 'religious' rights move a bit further down the pecking order. There seems to be such a diversity of views about marriage around at the moment that I'm not sure how long the traditional view will be seen as a 'core component' of Christian belief.
We have to continue to try to strike the tricky balance between not being doormats ('turning the other cheek' meant refusing to be treated as a slave or an inferior, if someone struck you on the right cheek it would be a backhanded slap, an insult. Turning the left cheek meant 'at least hit me as an equal', it was an act of non-violent defiance) and not being bolshie. Mind you, I'd still rather live under this regime than in just about any Muslim country you care to name. Egypt? Indonesia? Iran? Quite a lot of other places? I'm hoping there are some good examples to the contrary but can't think of many, and it's bad news for converts from Islam pretty much everywhere. If we want to stick up for the persecuted, there are still far too many global candidates that put the cases above into stark perspective. And it seems to be getting worse, not better.
Steps Forward
The Court held that Nadia Eweida's 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' had been infringed by British Airways' decision to prevent her from wearing her cross visibly.
In the other cases, the European Court decided that decisions of the UK Courts were within the 'margin of appreciation' (discretion) that it allows to national Courts - but in so doing it challenged many of the principles adopted by UK Courts and asserted by the British government.
- So for example, the UK Government had made the remarkable assertion that the cross was not a generally recognised Christian symbol. It also suggested that since wearing the cross is not compulsory for Christians, it is not a protected freedom. The European Court ruled that, in principle, wearing the cross is an expression of Christian faith and so is a freedom to be protected!
- Again, the UK Courts had held that beliefs about marriage as between a man and a woman was not a core component of Christian belief and so not protected. The European Court said that these beliefs were part of Gary and Lillian's Christian identity and so were in principle protected!
- The British Government suggested that because the individuals were free to resign and find other jobs, there had been no infringement of their freedom of religion - in other words, 'your freedom to resign secures your freedom of religion'. The European Court ruled that 'freedom to resign and find another job' is not sufficient to guarantee religious freedom.
Further to Go
However, it was very disappointing that in Shirley, Lillian and Gary's case, the Court ruled that, although their religious freedom had been infringed, the circumstances had justified that interference.
In Shirley's case, 'Health and Safety' was given as the justification. The European Court said that it was not in a position to examine the application of the Health and Safety policy. It had to assume that it was justified, as the UK Courts had suggested. However, no credible Health and Safety risk was ever demonstrated by the hospital.
In the case of Lillian and Gary, the European Court said that it was necessary to restrict their freedom in order to protect the freedom of others.
However, in both cases, it would have been possible to accommodate Gary and Lillian's conscience, without there being any danger of anyone being denied a service. This important point will continue to be made.
In what's now effectively a secular democracy, it's not surprising that 'religious' rights move a bit further down the pecking order. There seems to be such a diversity of views about marriage around at the moment that I'm not sure how long the traditional view will be seen as a 'core component' of Christian belief.
We have to continue to try to strike the tricky balance between not being doormats ('turning the other cheek' meant refusing to be treated as a slave or an inferior, if someone struck you on the right cheek it would be a backhanded slap, an insult. Turning the left cheek meant 'at least hit me as an equal', it was an act of non-violent defiance) and not being bolshie. Mind you, I'd still rather live under this regime than in just about any Muslim country you care to name. Egypt? Indonesia? Iran? Quite a lot of other places? I'm hoping there are some good examples to the contrary but can't think of many, and it's bad news for converts from Islam pretty much everywhere. If we want to stick up for the persecuted, there are still far too many global candidates that put the cases above into stark perspective. And it seems to be getting worse, not better.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
NEAC 2008
I normally avoid Anglican politics on this blog, which is probably why nobody reads it. But as an evangelical Anglican who finds his church more hospitable to mission and evangelism than at any time in living memory, I can't for the life of me see why some of my evangelical colleagues are intent on throwing it all away.
The weekend saw the National Evangelical Anglican Congress (or Consultation, or something beginning with C). I once went to one of these (or something like it - you can tell I'm a real insider to all this) in London, and most of it is a line-up of speakers delivering stuff from the front, with the conference organisers hoping that enough of the streams of evangelicalism are represented to keep everyone happy.
Well, it all seems to have kicked off: various links for more details
Rachel at Revise Reform (lots of good reflections)
Radical Evangelical which in turn links to a discussion thread over at Forum.
Tim Goodbody has a good summary of the day.
Thinking Anglicans has the text of some of the presentations
Peter Ould has an excellent reflection on the day, and analysis of the issues.
What's all the fuss? It sounds like the delegates (who could be anyone, it didn't sound like you needed to sign a doctrinal basis to attend) were presented with a motion for discussion in the afteroon. Except there wasn't much discussion, people were just asked to give their support. Here's the motion
“That this National Evangelical Anglican Consultation,
acknowledging that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and bears witness to this truth in her historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal) and as set out in Canon A5, Article 6 and the Declaration of Assent
and mindful, as members of the Anglican Communion, of our obligations to faithful Anglicans across the globe,
(a) express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration
and
(b) recognising that Evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies, support our brothers and sisters in their strategic decisions including those set out in the GAFCON Statement made in Jerusalem on 29th June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference gathering attended by 1148 people, including 291 Bishops of the Anglican Communion”
Most of the Jerusalem Declaration is fine, but the motion effectively
- asked the conference to give its implicit support for GAFCON, indeed sees it as an 'obligation to faithful Anglicans across the globe'. Not all of us supported it.
- give a blank cheque to whatever tactics pro-GAFCON leaders might use. Like, for example, setting up a new province in North America, which also happened over the weekend. Again, no.
It sounds like the way the debate was handled probably didn't help, and I'd love to know whether the motion came from the Council who ran the event, or just from the chairman, Richard Turnbull. Wisely, the conference declined to take a vote.
I can understand why Anglicans in other parts of the world are having major struggles. What continues to bother me is that a small clique of evangelicals in England seem intent on stirring the pot, and trying to create clear blue water between themselves and the Church of England structures. This is a church, for those who have forgotten, which threw out John Wesleys preaching. In the 1960's the best-selling book by our bishops was one which denied the objective existence of God. We had Don Cupitt. More recently our bishops have denied the resurrection of Jesus. It's not as though we have a spotless history. Henry VIII?
And now? The church has a fund set aside for mission. The Bishop of Durham is a prominent evangelical bible scholar. Church of England rules are being changed to enable church planting and new forms of church. A national body has been set up to encourage church planting and mission, and it's first leader has just been made Bishop of Sheffield. Several Dioceses organise themselves around Mission Action Plans which work at both Diocesan and Parish level. Rewind to 1990 - all this would have been unheard of. Check out the cluster of thriving evangelical churches and Anglican mission agencies in Sheffield, soon to be joined by Steve Croft as Bishop. Or the Oxford church-planting pilot set up with Church Commissioners money. Or the new partnership in theological training between Holy Trinity Brompton (home of Alpha) and London Diocese. Would Alpha have caught on in the RC church at all if it hadn't come from a 'reformed Catholic' church like the CofE?
For evangelicals, mission is a non-negotiable. Our church is more hospitable to mission than at any time in living memory. Funds, energy, research, leadership are all being geared towards outreach and growth, and this is increasing. I want to say to my fellow evangelicals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! This is the scenario we have been working and praying for for years, so stop thinking about homosexuality every 7 seconds and get stuck in. No matter that influential people in other places want you to sign up to their movement, God is moving here, now. Sign up to that. And if you don't like your bishop's doctrinal stance, hold tight and another one will be along soon. One word: Durham (though some clergy in Durham might tell you that there's more to being a bishop than good theology!!)
To be honest I have enough on in terms of local mission activity that things like NEAC are way down my list of priorities, which is why I didn't go. But I shall be there at the next one (if there is a next one) and I'll be going to the New Wine conference next year as well, and feel like I want to start arguing for those of us who aren't into the politics of all this, but see time and energy wasted when we could be getting on with the important stuff.
Now, back to business.
The weekend saw the National Evangelical Anglican Congress (or Consultation, or something beginning with C). I once went to one of these (or something like it - you can tell I'm a real insider to all this) in London, and most of it is a line-up of speakers delivering stuff from the front, with the conference organisers hoping that enough of the streams of evangelicalism are represented to keep everyone happy.
Well, it all seems to have kicked off: various links for more details
Rachel at Revise Reform (lots of good reflections)
Radical Evangelical which in turn links to a discussion thread over at Forum.
Tim Goodbody has a good summary of the day.
Thinking Anglicans has the text of some of the presentations
Peter Ould has an excellent reflection on the day, and analysis of the issues.
What's all the fuss? It sounds like the delegates (who could be anyone, it didn't sound like you needed to sign a doctrinal basis to attend) were presented with a motion for discussion in the afteroon. Except there wasn't much discussion, people were just asked to give their support. Here's the motion
“That this National Evangelical Anglican Consultation,
acknowledging that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and bears witness to this truth in her historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal) and as set out in Canon A5, Article 6 and the Declaration of Assent
and mindful, as members of the Anglican Communion, of our obligations to faithful Anglicans across the globe,
(a) express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration
and
(b) recognising that Evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies, support our brothers and sisters in their strategic decisions including those set out in the GAFCON Statement made in Jerusalem on 29th June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference gathering attended by 1148 people, including 291 Bishops of the Anglican Communion”
Most of the Jerusalem Declaration is fine, but the motion effectively
- asked the conference to give its implicit support for GAFCON, indeed sees it as an 'obligation to faithful Anglicans across the globe'. Not all of us supported it.
- give a blank cheque to whatever tactics pro-GAFCON leaders might use. Like, for example, setting up a new province in North America, which also happened over the weekend. Again, no.
It sounds like the way the debate was handled probably didn't help, and I'd love to know whether the motion came from the Council who ran the event, or just from the chairman, Richard Turnbull. Wisely, the conference declined to take a vote.
I can understand why Anglicans in other parts of the world are having major struggles. What continues to bother me is that a small clique of evangelicals in England seem intent on stirring the pot, and trying to create clear blue water between themselves and the Church of England structures. This is a church, for those who have forgotten, which threw out John Wesleys preaching. In the 1960's the best-selling book by our bishops was one which denied the objective existence of God. We had Don Cupitt. More recently our bishops have denied the resurrection of Jesus. It's not as though we have a spotless history. Henry VIII?
And now? The church has a fund set aside for mission. The Bishop of Durham is a prominent evangelical bible scholar. Church of England rules are being changed to enable church planting and new forms of church. A national body has been set up to encourage church planting and mission, and it's first leader has just been made Bishop of Sheffield. Several Dioceses organise themselves around Mission Action Plans which work at both Diocesan and Parish level. Rewind to 1990 - all this would have been unheard of. Check out the cluster of thriving evangelical churches and Anglican mission agencies in Sheffield, soon to be joined by Steve Croft as Bishop. Or the Oxford church-planting pilot set up with Church Commissioners money. Or the new partnership in theological training between Holy Trinity Brompton (home of Alpha) and London Diocese. Would Alpha have caught on in the RC church at all if it hadn't come from a 'reformed Catholic' church like the CofE?
For evangelicals, mission is a non-negotiable. Our church is more hospitable to mission than at any time in living memory. Funds, energy, research, leadership are all being geared towards outreach and growth, and this is increasing. I want to say to my fellow evangelicals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! This is the scenario we have been working and praying for for years, so stop thinking about homosexuality every 7 seconds and get stuck in. No matter that influential people in other places want you to sign up to their movement, God is moving here, now. Sign up to that. And if you don't like your bishop's doctrinal stance, hold tight and another one will be along soon. One word: Durham (though some clergy in Durham might tell you that there's more to being a bishop than good theology!!)
To be honest I have enough on in terms of local mission activity that things like NEAC are way down my list of priorities, which is why I didn't go. But I shall be there at the next one (if there is a next one) and I'll be going to the New Wine conference next year as well, and feel like I want to start arguing for those of us who aren't into the politics of all this, but see time and energy wasted when we could be getting on with the important stuff.
Now, back to business.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Rowan Williams Gets it Right. Again.
The full text of Rowan Williams response to the Gafcon declaration has been published on his website, at Thinking Anglicans, and elsewhere. It's a good and balanced response to what's happened, and concludes thus:
I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.
What has constantly struck me is a lack of patience on all sides, people who would rather rush to get on with things, rather than wait, listen, and take some time. The media exerts a certain amount of pressure in this regard, and blogland is worst of all.
Ruth Gledhill also quotes Tom Wrights response, which is worth a look, though I think her headline is a bit strong. Rowan Williams doesn't 'slam' anyone - he just raises his eyebrows slightly higher and asks thoughtful questions. I guess that doesn't really fit across a newspaper column though.
I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.
What has constantly struck me is a lack of patience on all sides, people who would rather rush to get on with things, rather than wait, listen, and take some time. The media exerts a certain amount of pressure in this regard, and blogland is worst of all.
Ruth Gledhill also quotes Tom Wrights response, which is worth a look, though I think her headline is a bit strong. Rowan Williams doesn't 'slam' anyone - he just raises his eyebrows slightly higher and asks thoughtful questions. I guess that doesn't really fit across a newspaper column though.
Monday Links
Rather than lots of posts on lots of topics, a bit of a round-up
The new Narnia film, Prince Caspian, has opened to mostly positive reviews, despite what the summary of reviews on BBC Ceefax tells you. Fulcrum have a review which goes into the theology of CS Lewis's book, and questions whether the film-makers have really got it. Bishop Alan has also seen it, and posts a good review. WingClips has free clips from the movie which you can use in services & sermons.
GAFCon has finished, and produced a statement, which many are interpreting as the setting up of a 'church within a church'. In many ways this already exists in conservative evangelical circles: a tight circle of churches (St. Helens Bishopsgate, Emmanuel Wimbledon, St. Ebbes Oxford), organisations (Reform, Proclamation Trust, Cornhill) and training institutions (Oak Hill, Wycliffe): there's even a non-charismatic version of Alpha which is safe for them to use (Christianity Explored, which is a good course in its own right and slightly less of a marketing juggernaut). Every church subgroup has its networks - e.g. the way Robert Runcie appointed all his chums from Cuddesdon to senior CofE posts - this seems to be going a step further in formalising it, and extending it to the international field. My concern is that it will either marginalise conservative evangelicals in the UK, or create some difficult tensions with those of us who are happy to work within the existing CofE structures, are perhaps a bit more patient, and are more focused in working on the ground than the higher levels of church politics.
Lots more comment and interpretation on Gafcon on the Church Times blog, including the full text of their declaration. There are 14 statements of faith, of which I agree with 12 and would want to debate no.s 6 and 7 (the BCP, and whether bishops priests and deacons is the last word on the ordering of ministry).
In the next few days the focus moves to General Synod - Thinking Anglicans has posted the full agenda and papers, and will update regularly once Synod starts on Friday, as will the CofE website. For an insider view, follow this blog, which links to other synod bloggers. Though a motion reaffirming the need for Muslims to hear the gospel was pulled from the Synod agenda, the Bishop of Lichfield (an area including large parts of the Black Country) has been arguing the case anyway: "Conversion is about changing your mind. And it wouldn’t be real religious dialogue if you didn’t expect people to change their minds and be converted.”
Elsewhere Steve Tilley muses about the value of a life, Jonny Baker has a very nice worship trick using textorise, one of these sites that makes words/images out of a block of text, and Madpriest is back from his holidays, and seems to have spent the whole weekend posting stories. Doesn't he have a job?
Bit of a rumble going on over faith schools: Cristina Odone, authoring a Centre for Policy Studies report, has accused the government of bowing to the secularist lobby on faith schools. The full report is here, and it reads more like a political tract than a thinktank report, but it's great stuff. Odone argues that recent Labour pronouncements on faith schools - mostly by Ed Balls - say more about divisions and positioning in the labour party than government policy.
Finally speculation about how the doctor who series will end is reaching fever pitch, so here's my guess at what will happen in the final extended episode. The Judoon (big rhino people) will turn up just after the opening credits to save the various goodies (Sarah Jane, the Torchwood folks) who are about to be killed by the Daleks. David Tennant will spend most of the episode in a coma, 'regenerating' (that's what I do after a pint too many at the quiz night), Donna will do something heroic and turn out to be a Time Lord. So far, Russell Davies hasn't killed off a single Doctors assistant, so unless he's planning a final flourish, I think they'll all survive. Some special gizmo, like the key Martha has, or the doctors' spare hand, will save the universe, and the Daleks will turn on Davros, just like they did in Genesis of the Daleks - there's already a bit of needle between Davros and the top Dalek. Too many chiefs.... Finally (in my dreams), the Doctor will regnerate as Matthew McFadyen.
95% of this is wrong, the trouble is I don't know which 95%.
The new Narnia film, Prince Caspian, has opened to mostly positive reviews, despite what the summary of reviews on BBC Ceefax tells you. Fulcrum have a review which goes into the theology of CS Lewis's book, and questions whether the film-makers have really got it. Bishop Alan has also seen it, and posts a good review. WingClips has free clips from the movie which you can use in services & sermons.
GAFCon has finished, and produced a statement, which many are interpreting as the setting up of a 'church within a church'. In many ways this already exists in conservative evangelical circles: a tight circle of churches (St. Helens Bishopsgate, Emmanuel Wimbledon, St. Ebbes Oxford), organisations (Reform, Proclamation Trust, Cornhill) and training institutions (Oak Hill, Wycliffe): there's even a non-charismatic version of Alpha which is safe for them to use (Christianity Explored, which is a good course in its own right and slightly less of a marketing juggernaut). Every church subgroup has its networks - e.g. the way Robert Runcie appointed all his chums from Cuddesdon to senior CofE posts - this seems to be going a step further in formalising it, and extending it to the international field. My concern is that it will either marginalise conservative evangelicals in the UK, or create some difficult tensions with those of us who are happy to work within the existing CofE structures, are perhaps a bit more patient, and are more focused in working on the ground than the higher levels of church politics.
Lots more comment and interpretation on Gafcon on the Church Times blog, including the full text of their declaration. There are 14 statements of faith, of which I agree with 12 and would want to debate no.s 6 and 7 (the BCP, and whether bishops priests and deacons is the last word on the ordering of ministry).
In the next few days the focus moves to General Synod - Thinking Anglicans has posted the full agenda and papers, and will update regularly once Synod starts on Friday, as will the CofE website. For an insider view, follow this blog, which links to other synod bloggers. Though a motion reaffirming the need for Muslims to hear the gospel was pulled from the Synod agenda, the Bishop of Lichfield (an area including large parts of the Black Country) has been arguing the case anyway: "Conversion is about changing your mind. And it wouldn’t be real religious dialogue if you didn’t expect people to change their minds and be converted.”
Elsewhere Steve Tilley muses about the value of a life, Jonny Baker has a very nice worship trick using textorise, one of these sites that makes words/images out of a block of text, and Madpriest is back from his holidays, and seems to have spent the whole weekend posting stories. Doesn't he have a job?
Bit of a rumble going on over faith schools: Cristina Odone, authoring a Centre for Policy Studies report, has accused the government of bowing to the secularist lobby on faith schools. The full report is here, and it reads more like a political tract than a thinktank report, but it's great stuff. Odone argues that recent Labour pronouncements on faith schools - mostly by Ed Balls - say more about divisions and positioning in the labour party than government policy.
Finally speculation about how the doctor who series will end is reaching fever pitch, so here's my guess at what will happen in the final extended episode. The Judoon (big rhino people) will turn up just after the opening credits to save the various goodies (Sarah Jane, the Torchwood folks) who are about to be killed by the Daleks. David Tennant will spend most of the episode in a coma, 'regenerating' (that's what I do after a pint too many at the quiz night), Donna will do something heroic and turn out to be a Time Lord. So far, Russell Davies hasn't killed off a single Doctors assistant, so unless he's planning a final flourish, I think they'll all survive. Some special gizmo, like the key Martha has, or the doctors' spare hand, will save the universe, and the Daleks will turn on Davros, just like they did in Genesis of the Daleks - there's already a bit of needle between Davros and the top Dalek. Too many chiefs.... Finally (in my dreams), the Doctor will regnerate as Matthew McFadyen.
95% of this is wrong, the trouble is I don't know which 95%.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
All in the Genes
I'm putting together a leaflet for our congregation, trying to explain what's going on in the global Anglican church at the moment. (Next week I'll be trying to nail jelly to the ceiling, it's easier). A proof-reader has pointed out that I've said Gene Hunt
when I probably meant Gene Robinson
...easy mistake to make. Wonder if I should leave it in - it can't make things much more confused than they already are.
It might even clear things up if we could swap real people for characters in TV dramas, e.g. Rose Tyler for Rowan Williams - all that time moving between parallel universes in Doctor Who will make bridging the Anglican divide a breeze. Mind you, if it was Gene Hunt rather than Gene Robinson then there wouldn't be a sexuality issue, it would be more GBH than LGCM.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
It will take at least 100 years to close your church.
Religion News reports recent study in the US on the mortality rate of organisations. They've compared all sorts of different organisations by how many disband each year. Coming out bottom of the list - i.e. the group least likely to die or split - is the church.
The report notes: Among volunteer-based social service groups, peace movement organisations and other groups studied over the last two decades, at least 5 per cent shut their doors each year. Only child care centres in Toronto came close to the low 1 per cent mortality rate that religious congregations have, the study noted.
It's even more impressive that this is in the USA (they seem to have forgotten that Toronto is in Canada), which holds the world record for denominational splits.
I imagine this is even lower in the UK, where a mere 3% of Anglican churches closed in the period 1989-98, an annual rate of 0.3%. The Methodists are ahead of us here, as they seem to have a rule that once a local chapel goes below a certain size it has to look at closure.
I'm not sure whether this is half-full or half empty. On the one hand it shows the enormous resilience of the church, and the work of God, and if God is present in his church we should expect it to fare differently from other voluntary associations.
On the other hand, we're also very good at clinging to our traditions when the culture around us has long since left the station. The survival of a dying tree can hinder the growth of new plants.
Yet the new plants themselves need something to grow beside: we've just had 3 saplings planted in our back garden, each of them tied to a hefty wooden stake. One day they won't need the stake anymore, but for the moment it's going to keep them alive, healthy, safe and growing.
The report notes: Among volunteer-based social service groups, peace movement organisations and other groups studied over the last two decades, at least 5 per cent shut their doors each year. Only child care centres in Toronto came close to the low 1 per cent mortality rate that religious congregations have, the study noted.
It's even more impressive that this is in the USA (they seem to have forgotten that Toronto is in Canada), which holds the world record for denominational splits.
I imagine this is even lower in the UK, where a mere 3% of Anglican churches closed in the period 1989-98, an annual rate of 0.3%. The Methodists are ahead of us here, as they seem to have a rule that once a local chapel goes below a certain size it has to look at closure.
I'm not sure whether this is half-full or half empty. On the one hand it shows the enormous resilience of the church, and the work of God, and if God is present in his church we should expect it to fare differently from other voluntary associations.
On the other hand, we're also very good at clinging to our traditions when the culture around us has long since left the station. The survival of a dying tree can hinder the growth of new plants.
Yet the new plants themselves need something to grow beside: we've just had 3 saplings planted in our back garden, each of them tied to a hefty wooden stake. One day they won't need the stake anymore, but for the moment it's going to keep them alive, healthy, safe and growing.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Zimbabwe
This statement was issued a couple of days ago by the Anglican church in Zimbabwe. The prayer at the end is especially challenging.
On the Crisis in Zimbabwe
“I Have Heard The Cry of My People”
We the Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa, comprising Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, “called to share in Jesus’ work of sanctifying and shepherding his people and of speaking in God’s name”. As shepherds of our people we are deeply concerned and dismayed at the escalation of violence in Zimbabwe since the post election of 29th March 2008.
We are alarmed that a government can perpetrate irresponsible acts against its citizens by destroying people’s homes, torturing and killing for the simple reason that they did not vote “correctly”. We fear that the Presidential Run-Off elections on 27th June 2008 could witness a repeat of retribution of those who would have not voted “correctly”.
As bishops our mission has been and will be to preach the gospel of peace and justice for all. Therefore we are distressed at what the people of Zimbabwe are experiencing in an environment devoid of any resemblance of justice and peace.
We call upon the perpetrators of these immoral and criminal activities to respect the rule of law which safeguards and preserves human life and dignity. The reports that people are being maimed, killed, and denied decent burials, paints a contrary picture to our African understanding of Ubuntu.
All these point out to the leadership of these perpetrators that they have lost a sense of nationhood.
As bishops we are also pained to hear that members of the Anglican Diocese of Harare are being denied to pray in their church buildings. We are concerned that their right to worship enshrined in the constitution of Zimbabwe as well as the Article 18 of the UN Charter on Human Rights is being violated. This mirrors the persecution of Christians of the Early Church and in this context we remind the perpetrators that then as now God still triumphs over evil.
As bishops, we pray that the right of the people of Zimbabwe as spelled out in the constitution be upheld, that the judicial system as a reservoir of integrity, without respect of persons in its judgement and ruling, be guided by the spirit of justice and equity. That the law enforcement agents carry out their professional duties to defend shared values. The political parties respect the will of the people regardless of whether the results of the elections are in their favour or not.
We offer this prayer for sanity and resolve to bring all people in Zimbabwe to the realization that we are all God’s children, created in His image to love one another.
As bishops we commend all God’s children in Zimbabwe to His mercy that they may live in love, justice and peace.
In closing we offer this prayer to all:
Lord, you asked for my hands that you might use them for your purpose.
I gave them for a moment then withdrew them for the work was hard.
You asked for my mouth to speak out against injustice.
I gave you a whisper that I might not be accused.
You asked for my eyes to see the pain of poverty.
I closed them for I did not want to see.
You asked for my life that you might work through me.
I gave a small part that I might not get too involved.
Lord, forgive my calculated efforts to serve you
Only when it is convenient for me to do so,
Only in those places where it is safe to do so,
And only with those who make it easy to do so.
Father, forgive me, renew me
Send me out as a usable instrument
That I might take seriously the meaning of your cross.
Issued by the Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa
1.The Right Rev. Albert Chama - Bishop of Northern Zambia & Dean of the Province of Central Africa2.The Right Rev. Christopher J. Boyle - Bishop of Northern Malawi3.The Right Rev. Peter Hatendi - Bishop of Manicaland4.The Right Rev. Derek Kamukwamba - Bishop of Central Zambia5.The Right Rev. Sebastian Bakare - Bishop of Harare 6.The Right Rev. William Mchombo - Bishop of Eastern Zambia7.The Right Rev. Ishmael Mukuwanda - Bishop of Central Zimbabwe 8.The Right Rev. Robert Mumbi - Bishop of Luapula 9.The Right Rev. Trevor Mwamba - Bishop of Botswana10.The Right Rev. David Njovu - Bishop of Lusaka11.The Right Rev. Wilson Sitshebo - Bishop Matabeleland12.The Right Rev. Godfrey Tawonezvi - Bishop of Masvingo13.The Right Rev. James Tengatenga - Bishop of Southern Malawi14.The Rev. Canon Michael Mkoko - Vicar General of the Diocese of Lake Malawi15.The Very Rev. Brighton Malasa - Vican General of the Diocese of Upper Shire
On the Crisis in Zimbabwe
“I Have Heard The Cry of My People”
We the Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa, comprising Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, “called to share in Jesus’ work of sanctifying and shepherding his people and of speaking in God’s name”. As shepherds of our people we are deeply concerned and dismayed at the escalation of violence in Zimbabwe since the post election of 29th March 2008.
We are alarmed that a government can perpetrate irresponsible acts against its citizens by destroying people’s homes, torturing and killing for the simple reason that they did not vote “correctly”. We fear that the Presidential Run-Off elections on 27th June 2008 could witness a repeat of retribution of those who would have not voted “correctly”.
As bishops our mission has been and will be to preach the gospel of peace and justice for all. Therefore we are distressed at what the people of Zimbabwe are experiencing in an environment devoid of any resemblance of justice and peace.
We call upon the perpetrators of these immoral and criminal activities to respect the rule of law which safeguards and preserves human life and dignity. The reports that people are being maimed, killed, and denied decent burials, paints a contrary picture to our African understanding of Ubuntu.
All these point out to the leadership of these perpetrators that they have lost a sense of nationhood.
As bishops we are also pained to hear that members of the Anglican Diocese of Harare are being denied to pray in their church buildings. We are concerned that their right to worship enshrined in the constitution of Zimbabwe as well as the Article 18 of the UN Charter on Human Rights is being violated. This mirrors the persecution of Christians of the Early Church and in this context we remind the perpetrators that then as now God still triumphs over evil.
As bishops, we pray that the right of the people of Zimbabwe as spelled out in the constitution be upheld, that the judicial system as a reservoir of integrity, without respect of persons in its judgement and ruling, be guided by the spirit of justice and equity. That the law enforcement agents carry out their professional duties to defend shared values. The political parties respect the will of the people regardless of whether the results of the elections are in their favour or not.
We offer this prayer for sanity and resolve to bring all people in Zimbabwe to the realization that we are all God’s children, created in His image to love one another.
As bishops we commend all God’s children in Zimbabwe to His mercy that they may live in love, justice and peace.
In closing we offer this prayer to all:
Lord, you asked for my hands that you might use them for your purpose.
I gave them for a moment then withdrew them for the work was hard.
You asked for my mouth to speak out against injustice.
I gave you a whisper that I might not be accused.
You asked for my eyes to see the pain of poverty.
I closed them for I did not want to see.
You asked for my life that you might work through me.
I gave a small part that I might not get too involved.
Lord, forgive my calculated efforts to serve you
Only when it is convenient for me to do so,
Only in those places where it is safe to do so,
And only with those who make it easy to do so.
Father, forgive me, renew me
Send me out as a usable instrument
That I might take seriously the meaning of your cross.
Issued by the Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa
1.The Right Rev. Albert Chama - Bishop of Northern Zambia & Dean of the Province of Central Africa2.The Right Rev. Christopher J. Boyle - Bishop of Northern Malawi3.The Right Rev. Peter Hatendi - Bishop of Manicaland4.The Right Rev. Derek Kamukwamba - Bishop of Central Zambia5.The Right Rev. Sebastian Bakare - Bishop of Harare 6.The Right Rev. William Mchombo - Bishop of Eastern Zambia7.The Right Rev. Ishmael Mukuwanda - Bishop of Central Zimbabwe 8.The Right Rev. Robert Mumbi - Bishop of Luapula 9.The Right Rev. Trevor Mwamba - Bishop of Botswana10.The Right Rev. David Njovu - Bishop of Lusaka11.The Right Rev. Wilson Sitshebo - Bishop Matabeleland12.The Right Rev. Godfrey Tawonezvi - Bishop of Masvingo13.The Right Rev. James Tengatenga - Bishop of Southern Malawi14.The Rev. Canon Michael Mkoko - Vicar General of the Diocese of Lake Malawi15.The Very Rev. Brighton Malasa - Vican General of the Diocese of Upper Shire
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Hope of the World
Mark Meynell is blogging from the European Leadership Forum, and relays this quote from a talk given by Lindsay Brown. Inspiring.
In Zimbabwe, during the bloody civil war on racial grounds during the 70s, that troubled country seemed as divided and traumatized as it is now. And race was the heart of the problem. And the University of Harare (or Salisbury as it then was) was as riven as the rest of the country - particularly vividly illustrated by standard operating procedure in the uni canteen. Whites on one side, blacks on the other.
Except, that is, for the Christians. They were an integrated group - and deliberately sat together on tables right in the middle of the dining hall. During the first course, the white Christians got up and fetched the food and then served it to their black brothers and sisters; then for pudding, the blacks the same, serving their white brothers and sisters. And the effect on the rest of the university, without a single word of explanation or proclamation, was scandalously but marvelously electrifying. For it was clear to all that they were ONE body, united and mutually serving.
In Zimbabwe, during the bloody civil war on racial grounds during the 70s, that troubled country seemed as divided and traumatized as it is now. And race was the heart of the problem. And the University of Harare (or Salisbury as it then was) was as riven as the rest of the country - particularly vividly illustrated by standard operating procedure in the uni canteen. Whites on one side, blacks on the other.
Except, that is, for the Christians. They were an integrated group - and deliberately sat together on tables right in the middle of the dining hall. During the first course, the white Christians got up and fetched the food and then served it to their black brothers and sisters; then for pudding, the blacks the same, serving their white brothers and sisters. And the effect on the rest of the university, without a single word of explanation or proclamation, was scandalously but marvelously electrifying. For it was clear to all that they were ONE body, united and mutually serving.
Monday, March 10, 2008
7 New Deadly Sins
The Roman Catholic church has issued an updated list of the 7 deadly sins. For those of you who weren't listening to Sister Agnes in Sunday school, the original list is:
The new list is:
- Pride
- Envy
- Lust
- Gluttony
- Envy
- Sloth
- Greed
The new list is:
- genetic modification,
- carrying out experiments on humans,
- polluting the environment,
- causing social injustice,
- causing poverty,
- becoming obscenely wealthy
- taking drugs.
All this is according to a key chappy at the Vatican, who has been leading a week of training for priests on how to do a good confession. I think the idea is to put more of a focus onto corporate and social sins, alongside just individual stuff.
The Telegraph has an interesting set of comments on this, offering alternative sins such as not looking where you're going whilst texting, and Morris Dancing. Fair enough. Some of the commenters point out that the Catholic church itself is guilty of several of the items on its own list.
Why do we need to identify sin anyway? To me it comes down to whether sin is crime or diagnosis. If it's simply a crime against God, then identifying lists of sins is a way of controlling or modifying behaviour, and holding a big stick over people (provided they're afraid of going to Hell, or of the disapproval of their priest). Seeing sin as diagnosis seems to be more fruitful: a diagnosis identifies disease so that something can be done about it. God's goal is that we should be healed, whole, fully human, not just good little boys and girls. It's a lot easier to point the finger than it is to change, but Jesus came not to point the finger but to change people.
The Vatican list is good in 1 way, in that it's more explicit about what gluttony and greed look like. But it's also too shallow - by naming sin as specific actions, rather than the motivations, social currents and character traits driving them, it doesn't actually diagnose at any depth. It focuses on the symptoms rather than the disease. Surely that sells the Gospel short?
Update: I spent, ooh, 5 minutes trying to find the original source for this and eventually gave up. Damian Thomson has found a comment from the RC church, explaining that this wasn't really what they meant at all. Too late chaps. If Rowan Williams can be misquoted online before he's even spoken, that might have been a learning experience for other communications bods in the church.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
For what it's worth
Now the dust is settling, my own take on RW's points about sharia law:
1. It again comes down to what sort of society we are. ++ Rowan is among those in the church who has accepted the end of Christendom in the UK, and that we now have to live in a new secular pluralist reality. Other bishops, like Michael Nazir-Ali, argue for Christendom laws and customs to stay in place. Some of the debate within the church is between two different views of what point in history we have reached, and whether it's possible to do a Canute in reverse and stop the tide going out.
2. I almost completely agree with those who say that people who come to this country to live should be prepared to abide by its laws and legal system. No legal system is perfect, but there is a danger of creating ghettoes and untouchable areas if you have separate jurisdictions.
3. Muslims beware. If you really want sharia marriage law to come into the state system, talk to any Anglican who has had to deal with planning law. The Anglican church has it's own system for planning permission, called the faculty system, which allows all planning decisions around churches to be dealt with internally. It is possibly the biggest source of gripes within the CofE after those horrible green cups you still find in some churches. There are several historical interest groups, all more bothered about preserving stuff from previous centuries than in the worship and mission of the church, and a pervading sense that we have to run a tight ship in order to stop the state taking planning permission back again. This makes the faculty process long, tortuous, and frequently unsatisfactory. The faculty system in our diocese has representatives from the Victorian society, but no mission specialists, in the main advisory group. That says pretty much all you need to know about how it works!
It very much depends how it would work, whether it's an attempt to regulate internal islamic 'justice' by the state, or just an attempt to legalise it. The former might benefit those in the Muslim community who are currently victims of their own 'legal system'.
4. Rowan Williams comments would have been much better said by someone else. The trouble is that he's leader of the worldwide Anglican communion. His words therefore reflect on Anglicans in Pakistan, Nigeria and Uganda, whose churches are being firebombed by gangs of Muslims, whose leaders and their families are being attacked and murdered. Patrick Sookhedeo of the Barnabas Fund is pretty trenchant:
In many parts of the Muslim world, England is (mistakenly) seen as a 'Christian' country, so for the leader of global Anglicanism to suggest that Muslim law could possibly replace 'Christian' laws looks like a massive admission of defeat by Christians. The Ugandan church's decision today to disassociate from the Lambeth conference may, in part, be a damage limitation exercise. There is a cost to the mission and ministry of the church in Uganda of being associated with a global church which looks like it's lost confidence in the Christian faith. We haven't lost that confidence, it's just that a debate about culture, law and society within the UK looks very different when you're looking from Uganda. That's why, if this needed to be said (and the issue certainly needed to be raised, though maybe not this way), it would have been better said by a local, English bishop rather than AB of C. Symbolism is so important.
1. It again comes down to what sort of society we are. ++ Rowan is among those in the church who has accepted the end of Christendom in the UK, and that we now have to live in a new secular pluralist reality. Other bishops, like Michael Nazir-Ali, argue for Christendom laws and customs to stay in place. Some of the debate within the church is between two different views of what point in history we have reached, and whether it's possible to do a Canute in reverse and stop the tide going out.
2. I almost completely agree with those who say that people who come to this country to live should be prepared to abide by its laws and legal system. No legal system is perfect, but there is a danger of creating ghettoes and untouchable areas if you have separate jurisdictions.
3. Muslims beware. If you really want sharia marriage law to come into the state system, talk to any Anglican who has had to deal with planning law. The Anglican church has it's own system for planning permission, called the faculty system, which allows all planning decisions around churches to be dealt with internally. It is possibly the biggest source of gripes within the CofE after those horrible green cups you still find in some churches. There are several historical interest groups, all more bothered about preserving stuff from previous centuries than in the worship and mission of the church, and a pervading sense that we have to run a tight ship in order to stop the state taking planning permission back again. This makes the faculty process long, tortuous, and frequently unsatisfactory. The faculty system in our diocese has representatives from the Victorian society, but no mission specialists, in the main advisory group. That says pretty much all you need to know about how it works!
It very much depends how it would work, whether it's an attempt to regulate internal islamic 'justice' by the state, or just an attempt to legalise it. The former might benefit those in the Muslim community who are currently victims of their own 'legal system'.
4. Rowan Williams comments would have been much better said by someone else. The trouble is that he's leader of the worldwide Anglican communion. His words therefore reflect on Anglicans in Pakistan, Nigeria and Uganda, whose churches are being firebombed by gangs of Muslims, whose leaders and their families are being attacked and murdered. Patrick Sookhedeo of the Barnabas Fund is pretty trenchant:
Furthermore for the many Anglicans and other Christians living in contexts
where shari`a is being applied and causing untold misery and suffering, for
example in parts of Nigeria and parts of Sudan, the Archbishop of Canterbury`s
suggestions are not just unwise, but insensitive to the point of callousness.
In many parts of the Muslim world, England is (mistakenly) seen as a 'Christian' country, so for the leader of global Anglicanism to suggest that Muslim law could possibly replace 'Christian' laws looks like a massive admission of defeat by Christians. The Ugandan church's decision today to disassociate from the Lambeth conference may, in part, be a damage limitation exercise. There is a cost to the mission and ministry of the church in Uganda of being associated with a global church which looks like it's lost confidence in the Christian faith. We haven't lost that confidence, it's just that a debate about culture, law and society within the UK looks very different when you're looking from Uganda. That's why, if this needed to be said (and the issue certainly needed to be raised, though maybe not this way), it would have been better said by a local, English bishop rather than AB of C. Symbolism is so important.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Christianity in Iraq
Really interesting and encouraging post on Cranmer's blog about the new religious freedoms enjoyed by Christians in Kurdistan, and the way the current situation in Iraq is affecting Christians. A side of the story we don't often hear. Keep praying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)