Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Jon Snow and C4 News "provide cover" for Christian holocaust

When the dreadful news of MH17 began to spread, and conjecture of which monsters were to blame for the murder of 298 people began to take the lead in social-media gossip, there was just one thing on Jon Snow's mind: that the tragedy would somehow "provide cover for an intensification of Israel's ground war in Gaza".

It was a curious phrase, not least because, like all those who select and prepare media news stories, the editors of Channel 4 News routinely determine which daily dramas will feature above the alternatives, and which information thereby might "provide cover" for other events. Lest one be in any doubt about Jon Snow's primary and essential concern, his C4 Twitter feed since the downing of MH17 is enlightening (click to enlarge):



You will note that all the pictures coming out of Gaza are of distressed and wounded children, which are, of course, deeply disturbing. But Jon Snow doesn't appear to have tweeted or RT'd even one picture of an armed Palestinian terrorist launching rockets at Israel. Nor is there a single picture of dead or injured Israelis. Are there no petrified Jewish children in Ashkelon?

It is quite shocking, though perhaps not at all surprising, that the aging abbot is abusing his position as lead presenter of Channel 4 News to focus on Israel's Gaza offensive, thereby "providing cover" for the murder, torture, rape and systematic eradication of Christians from Iraq and the whole Middle East. They have lived there for 2000 years. Their trauma is nothing short of a holocaust, but the Western media, when they mention it at all, relegate this "religious cleansing" to the level of an anecdote, and move swiftly on to the latest homophobic outrage or the manifest evils of Israel's Nazi Zionists.

Ten years ago, there were at least 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. Now there are around 400,000, most of whom are fleeing to the Kurdistan region for safety and refuge. Under Saddam, 60,000 Christians lived in Mosul. Now there is none. Nuns are being kidnapped and raped, priests tortured and beheaded, and ordinary Christians imprisoned in ghettos and forced to convert or die. Ancient churches are torched and monasteries desecrated. It's the same story in Syria, Egypt and Libya.

What is this hell if it be not a holocaust?

The Islamic State is marking Christian homes with an Arabic 'N' for 'Nasarah' (denoting Christian), just like Hitler used the Star of David to categorise Jews destined for the concentration camps. "Never again", we cried. And yet we stand idly by, spluttering about Putin, transfixed by Tulisa or mesmerised by the Downing Street catwalk.

The mainstream media aren't much interested in Christians - other than the homophobic bigoted ones who won't bake a cake. And our political leaders are so obsessed by the minority vote, and the FCO so consumed with religious equanimity and moral relativity, that they'll all bend over backwards to help the Iraqi Kurds, save the Bosnian Muslims or intervene to "prevent a bloodbath" in Libya.

Funny how much political capital and military effort is expended to aid tens of thousands of Muslims, but nothing at all to save millions of Christians. As historian Tom Holland tweeted yesterday: "Nobody in Europe should be watching the persecution of an entire religious community with equanimity. We've been there...". But out of his impressive 22,000 followers, this received just 45 'Retweets' and 21 'Favourites'. The media are warped in their apprehension, and most of us are indifferent. Jon Snow is simply another left-leaning secularist preaching his gospel of enlightened relativity to fill the airwaves with anti-Israel and anti-Christian propaganda.

And using his C4 Twitter feed and TV studio to "provide cover" for The Islamic State while it effects a truly harrowing holocaust.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Direct News from Christians in Mosul


From Canon Andrew White, Vicar of Baghdad:
Direct News from the Christians in Mosul Nineveh Tonight.

For Iraqi Christian Fadi and his young family it is a lonely wait to see whether they will be executed soon.

Their Christian neighbours and friends have already fled the city of Mosul in Iraq's north, which last month fell into the hands of Sunni jihadists led by the Islamic State group, which espouses an extreme form of Islam. Along with the rest of the city's estimated 25,000 Christians who had not already fled years of kidnappings, bombings and shootings, Sunni militants gave 36-year-old Fadi, his wife and son until Saturday to comply with a brutal ultimatum: convert to Islam, pay an unspecified tax, leave the city or die.

"I'm staying. I already feel dead," Fadi, a teacher, told AFP by telephone moments before the deadline ran out.

"Only my soul remains, and if they want to take that I don't have a problem," he added, giving only his first name.

On Friday, Mosul's mosques called through loudspeakers for Christians to leave, after centuries of being part of the once cosmopolitan city's social fabric.

Fadi said he could not afford to flee and argued that the prospects for those who did were hardly better.

Islamic State (IS) militants robbed departing Christians of their belongings, he said, leaving them to face destitution in grim camps for the displaced.

"They were stopped by members of Islamic State, who took everything they had. Mobile phones, money, jewellery," he said, speaking of the fate of some 25 Christian families who had recently fled.

"When my cousin and friends, from three families, tried to plead with them, they took their cars."

IS fighters took control of Mosul and swathes of north and west Iraq in a sweeping offensive that began last month. Their leader has since then declared a "caliphate" straddling Iraq and Syria.

The group claims its goal is to return the lands they conquer to a state approximating that of early Islam, in which Jews and Christians who did not convert had to pay a "jizya" tribute to their Muslim rulers.

"From one old woman they took $15,000 (11,100 euros). She asked for just $100 of it so she could reach Dohuk. They told her that these are the funds of the Islamic State, and we cannot give it to you," Fadi said.

Robbed of their cars and cash, many Christians were forced to walk to safety.

- Exodus -

Some of Mosul's Christians might be able to afford to pay the jizya, but they appear unwilling to take their chances living under the thumb of rulers notorious for executing and crucifying their opponents.

"Maybe a few are still hiding in Mosul but I don't think any would have decided to pay jizya or convert. There is no Christian who can trust these gangsters," Yonadam Kanna, Iraq's most prominent Christian leader, told AFP. "They even took wedding rings from women fleeing the city at checkpoints... I am astonished they can claim to be Muslims." In a purported statement issued by IS last week which detailed the ultimatum for Mosul's Christians, there will be nothing left for those who do not comply "but the sword".

Ahlam, a 34-year-old mother of two boys, and her husband carried their children on their shoulders on their long march out of Mosul.

She described an exodus of hundreds of Christians walking on foot in Iraq's searing summer heat, the elderly and the disabled among them.

"We first reached Tilkkef in a state of exhaustion. We hadn't had anything to eat or drink for a whole day," she said, referring to a town some 20 km (12.4 miles) north of Mosul where volunteers are picking Christians up in their cars.

"My husband and I were carrying our children on our shoulders the whole way."

Many Christians are making their way to the relative safety of the city of Dohuk in Kurdish autonomous territory further north.

According to the IS statement, seen by AFP, any homes they leave behind become property of the insurgent group.

"I left my home in Mosul, that my family built decades ago. And it was taken away in an instant," Ahlam said with tears in her eyes.

"Everything's gone, all our memories. Our home has become property of the Islamic State."
We can read, weep and pray, or read, weep, pray and do something., for these are our brothers and sisters in Christ  

And ISIS/ISIL/The Islamic State is marking their homes. And it's not for a passover.


Nor is it a smiley face. It is the circled Arabic letter 'n', signifying 'Nasarah' (Christian). Once the dhimmi occupants are so identified and labelled, they can more easily be taxed (jizya), forced to convert to Islam, harassed to leave or be summarily executed by the Islamic State which now owns their property.

The Qur'an might say: "You have your religion and I have my religion", and in another place: "There is no compulsion in religion". But in the Islamic State, these verses are abrogated. Their creed is: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

Under Saddam, there were 60,000 Christians in Mosul, where they had lived in fraternal coexistence with Muslims for 1700 years. In the Islamic State they have become less than pigs, outcasts, refugees in their homeland. And Canon Andrew White is guiding, providing, praying and leading them to safety in the Kurdistan region. They needs tents, mattresses, food, water..

Please help the Iraqi Christians: DONATE HERE.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Stop the War Coalition urges war against Israel


The Stop the War Coalition was established in aftermath of 9/11, calling for an end to what George W Bush termed the "War on Terror". According to the organisation's Aims and Constitution, their principal objective is "very simple":
..to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'. We condemn the attacks on New York and we feel the greatest compassion for those who lost their life on 11th September 2001. But any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties. The aims of the campaign would be best expressed in the name Stop the War Coalition.
You would think, given their righteous moral objective and benevolent humanitarian quest for peace, that this coalition might be broad, inclusive and non-partisan. It might even include a few Conservatives, perhaps those who opposed Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq. Not at all:
We call on all peace activists and organisations, trade unionists, campaigners and labour movement organisations to join with us in building a mass movement that can stop the drive to war.
Despite being dead, their President is still named as Tony Benn. When you look at the list of Vice-Presidents - including George Galloway, Tariq Ali, Kamal Majid, Caroline Lucas - it ought to come as no surprise that the Stop the War Coalition's strategy for world peace includes war against Israel.

The headline is profoundly shocking. You have to delve into the article to discover precisely what they're calling for - a "legitimacy war" involving "the mobilization of a movement from below, combining popular resistance with global solidarity" (ie boycott, divestment, and sanctions [BDS]). But few fanatics read beyond a headline. According to Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, this strategy represents "the best prospect for realizing Palestinian self-determination". His notion of a "legitimacy war", he says, was "exemplified by Gandhi’s nonviolent victory over the British Empire and more recently by the success of the global anti-apartheid movement against racist South Africa".

It doesn't seem to occur to him that Gandhi's non-violent "movement from below" was deeply rooted in the Hindu ethic of Ahimsa, which requires that socio-political objectives are attained without causing injury or harm to any living being. Nor does it seemingly merit even a sentence of theological consideration that "popular resistance" means something very different to Hamas and Fatah from what it meant to the Indian independence movement: the Qur'an isn't entirely consistent with the philosophy of Satyagraha.

So here you have the Stop the War Coalition urging the "mobilization" of a "popular resistance" which, to the many millions of Salafi-Wahhabi-Islamists who are currently rampaging over the Middle East, is an exhortation to carry on 'cleansing' the land of idols and summarily beheading the kuffar.

It is legitimate to criticise Israel for its failings, but to single out Israel as a legitimate target for a just war is a malicious attempt to delegitimise the Jewish State and stir up anti-Semitic sentiment on a scale and ferocity not seen since the Nazi era. Here's the Stop the War Coalition marching yesterday in London:

"..what a picture. These are the people who stayed at home throughout the Syrian civil war, stayed at home when ISIS rampaged across Iraq, stayed at home when Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab carried out their atrocities across central Africa and showed no concern whatsoever when the Muslim Brotherhood was running Egypt into the ground. Yet they pretend to care about Muslims.

"And here they all are, coming out to scream because Israel is carrying out the most specific and targeted campaign in the history of warfare in order to stop Hamas – a group dedicated to the annihilation of all Jews – from firing thousands of rockets into the Jewish homeland"
(Douglas Murray in The Spectator).

Saturday, July 19, 2014

The imminent extermination of Mosul's Christians


Canon Andrew White has posted an urgent request for prayer: the Christians of Mosul, where they have lived for 1,700 years, are about to succumb to the ISIS interpretation of Sharia - you know, convert to Islam or pay the jizya or prepare to die. As the savvy Digital Nun observes, Christians have been in Mosul since before Mohammed was in nappies. She writes:
This item of news didn’t make the front page of today’s BBC web-site (it is buried deep inside), yet it represents a sickening attempt to violate the consciences of thousands of people and the very real possibility of mass murder. It highlights the difficulty we in the West have in dealing with the religious dimension of conflicts in the Middle East. Part of the problem is that many of us no longer take religion seriously enough to consider how it motivates people and are woefully ignorant both of its teachings and its history. Most of us can’t get inside the mentality of Isis and its particular understanding of Islam so tend to dismiss the kind of ultimatum posed to the Christians of Mosul as mere posturing. We believe in freedom of religion, we say, by which we mean the freedom to worship according to our own beliefs. There are a few limitations on such religious freedom. Human sacrifice, for example, is not permissible, but by and large, we follow the principle of ‘live and let live’. If you want to follow some cranky religion, you do so; just don’t expect me to follow suit. That is not how a member of Isis would see things. It is not how things are in Saudi Arabia. So what do we in the West do?
What do we do, indeed.

We must, of course, pray for those who are suffering as if we were suffering with them. We might also send money, for Canon White seems to have to waste an inordinate amount of his precious time making appeals for the odd ten quid.

And we must ensure that our new Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond makes religious freedom and the persecution of Christians an absolute priority. William Hague never seemed to be overly concerned, and the sacking of Alistair Burt from his team at the last reshuffle dealt a blow to those who knew of his immense background efforts. But (and take it from His Grace) there are now those within government and very close to the Prime Minister who have every intention of bringing this issue to the fore, and we, too, must make our voices heard. Please don't just post on His Grace's obscure blog: write to your MP, badger the Foreign Secretary, pester the Prime Minister. As Martin Luther King said: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Whatever we do, silence is not an option.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Faith leaders unite: Assisted Dying Bill is a "grave error"


His (present) Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby often gets it in the neck, not least from some of His (former) Grace's more uncharitable communicants. Even when he makes a speech in robust defence of traditional marriage and orthodox Christian morality, he is mercilessly mocked and reviled for "caving in" or "betrayal" when he expounds a realistic understanding of the constitutional limitations of his office. His mind doesn't change; nor does the gospel. But, unless they are under a specific spiritual or political authority, there is no point banging people over the head if they dissent. One must simply agree to disagree.

Archbishop Justin has now joined more than 20 British faith leaders who are calling for Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill not to be enacted. It is absolutely the right thing to do. His message is, again, refreshingly unequivocal and uncompromising. In a joint statement ahead of the House of Lords debate, these principal representatives of all faiths are united in their opposition. They write:
As leaders of faith communities, we wish to state our joint response to Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill. We do so out of deep human concern that if enacted, this bill would have a serious detrimental effect on the wellbeing of individuals and on the nature and shape of our society.

Every human life is of intrinsic value and ought to be affirmed and cherished. This is central to our laws and our social relationships; to undermine this in any way would be a grave error. The Assisted Dying Bill would allow individuals to participate actively in ending others’ lives, in effect colluding in the judgment that they are of no further value. This is not the way forward for a compassionate and caring society.

Vulnerable individuals must be cared for and protected even if this calls for sacrifice on the part of others. Each year many thousands of elderly and vulnerable people suffer abuse; sadly, often at the hands of their families or carers. Being perceived as a burden or as a financial drain is a terrible affliction to bear, leading in many cases to passivity, depression and self-loathing. The desire to end one’s life may, at any stage of life, be prompted by depression or external pressure; any suggestion of a presumption that such a decision is ‘rational’ does not do justice to the facts. The Assisted Dying Bill can only add to the pressures that many vulnerable, terminally ill people will feel, placing them at increased risk of distress and coercion at a time when they most require love and support.

A key consideration is whether the Assisted Dying Bill will place more vulnerable people at risk than it seeks to help. We have seen, in recent years that even rigorous regulation and careful monitoring have not prevented the most serious lapses of trust and care in some parts of the NHS and within a number of Care Homes. It is naïve to believe that, if assisted suicide were to be legalised, proposed safeguards would not similarly be breached with the most disastrous of consequences, by their nature irrevocable.

The bill raises the issue of what sort of society we wish to become: one in which life is to be understood primarily in terms of its usefulness and individuals evaluated in terms of their utility or one in which every person is supported, protected and cherished even if, at times, they fail to cherish themselves. While we may have come to the position of opposing this bill from different religious perspectives, we are agreed that the Assisted Dying Bill invites the prospect of an erosion of carefully tuned values and practices that are essential for the future development of a society that respects and cares for all. Better access to high-quality palliative care, greater support for carers and enhanced end of life services will be among the hallmarks of a truly compassionate society and it is to those ends that our energies ought to be harnessed.

Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman, Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha

Mr Yousif Al-Khoei, Director Al-Khoei Foundation

Rev Dr Martyn Atkins, General Secretary of the Methodist Church and Secretary of the Conference

Bishop Eric Brown, Administrative Bishop, New Testament Church of God

Mr Malcolm M Deboo, President, Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe

Rev Jonathan Edwards, Deputy Moderator Free Churches Group

Pastor John Glass, General Superintendent, Elim Pentecostal Churches

Revd David Grosch-Miller and Mr John Ellis, Moderators of the United Reformed Church General Assembly

Colonel David Hinton, Chief Secretary, The Salvation Army United Kingdom

Rev Stephen Keyworth, Faith and Society Team Leader, Baptist Union of Great Britain

Ayatollah Fazel Milani, Dean of the International Colleges of Islamic Studies

Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Most Rev Dr Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales

His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster

Rev John Partington, National Leader, Assemblies of God

Mr Ramesh Pattni, Secretary General, Hindu Forum of Britain

Bishop Wilton Powell, National Overseer, Church of God of Prophecy

Maulana Shahid Raza OBE, Leicester Central Mosque, Leicester

Venerable Bogoda Seelawimala, Chief Sangha Nayake of Great Britain, London Buddhist Vihara

Dr Shuja Shafi, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain

Dr Natubhai Shah, Chairman/CEO Jain Network

Lord Indarjit Singh, Director Network of Sikh Organisations (UK)

Most Rev and Rt Hon Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury
Doubtless Canon Rosie Harper takes the view that all of these holy and learned men (for men they all are), by exhorting Their Lordships to vote against the Bill, are lacking in compassion or some basic theological understanding. Doubtless she feels that even His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols and His Grace the Most Rev Justin Welby are "personally requiring other people to suffer extreme agony on behalf of (their) own consciences", which, she avers, is "neither moral nor Christian". Doubtless she will (again) take His Grace's challenge as an "unpleasant and personal" attack, when it is nothing but an appeal for her to humble herself before God and acknowledge that opposition to this profoundly flawed Bill may be motivated by highly moral and profoundly Christian motives.

His Grace is of the view that the liberalisation of the law on 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia would be a dangerously amoral development, as the Lords Spiritual asserted when the issue was last presented to Parliament. This is not simply a theist perspective; it is consistent with the principles of Enlightenment secularism also. Natural law – that which constitutes rightness and justice – is common to all mankind. The Greeks and Romans articulated this in their philosophy, setting the foundation for St Paul and later philosophers. Thus did Cicero write of "true law, right reason, diffused in all men, constant and everlasting", and St. Paul reflected on "what the law requires is written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15). Hobbes defines the law of nature as "a precept of general rule found out by reason by which a man in forbidden to do anything which is destructive of his life".

Opposition to "do anything which is destructive of life" is one of the few general rules which unites all of the world’s religions. The Church of England's position on this matter is clear:

The Church of England cannot support Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill.. Patient safety, protection of the vulnerable and respect for the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship are central to the Church of England's concerns about any proposal to change the law. Our position on the current Bill before parliament is also consistent with the approach taken by the Archbishops' Council, House of Bishops and with successive resolutions of the General Synod.
The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states: "Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick and dying persons. It is morally unacceptable" (para.2277). Pope John Paul II reflected in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae that "we see a tragic spread of euthanasia, disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly or even legally. As well as for reasons of misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and weigh heavily on society". And more recently Pope Benedict XVI stated that "freedom to kill is not a true freedom but a tyranny that reduces the human being to slavery".

The Orthodox and Protestant churches have expressed similar views, most notably the Baptists, who concluded that "a Christian should never recommend, or help with a suicide of an unsaved person because that would hasten the unsaved person's damnation and prevent any chance of repentance. It is an affront to God to take one's own life, both for reasons of his sovereignty but also because any murder is an attempt to annihilate his image in man (Gen1:26f)".

Similar sentiments opposing euthanasia may be found in the scriptures and/or ethical traditions of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Suffering is natural to the human condition, and the end of life does not need hastening but loving; there should be no easy escape, but dignity and care. 'Assisted suicide' is as morally repugnant as abortion; indeed, His grace is hard-pressed to comprehend those who repudiate the former while supporting the latter, for both are concerned with the termination of the seemingly deficient or unwanted; both have the distaste of eugenics – ending the ‘unworthy’ life. Just as the legalisation of abortion was never intended to open the floodgates that it evidently has, so the legalisation of 'assisted suicide' would mutate over the decades, and eventually lead to the ‘humane’ termination of all those who simply cannot be bothered to continue. What will doubtless begin with volunteers will eventually include conscripts; the ‘right’ to die may easily become an expectation, and even a duty.

Killing is not healing. In a culture that worships youth, beauty and physical fitness, the elderly, ugly and disabled may be seen as deficient, but they are also made in the image of God. And just like Christ suffered at Calvary, they must be exhorted to endure whatever life throws at them. And then, with Job, might they come to know that their redeemer lives. In the meantime, unlike Job, they need friends and comforters around them who can make them see that their life has worth, and that their witness is profound.

Will Canon Harper apologise to those devout men and women of God whom she grievously offended in Parliament (and elsewhere) by slandering their faithfulness and denigrating their grasp of theology and morality? Or is this post simply further 'trolling', as newly defined by her boss the Bishop of Buckingham?

The Assisted Dying Bill is quite literally a matter of life and death for society. But some Christians prefer to play the man rather than the ball, which they do usually because they lack confidence in their own case, or in their ability to argue their case, and so seek to suppress debate by screeching "bigot" or "troll", or puffing and blowing about how "extraordinary" and "toxic" it is to have an "unreconstructed right-wing" blog which is "unaccountable" to anyone.

This blog is accountable ultimately to God.

As are all those who vote for this odious Bill.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

A triumph for Welby and the contextualisation of Christ


Having cleansed the Temple of Wonga, the Archbishop of Canterbury is on a mission. And it is a mission with passion, perseverance and purpose. You may not grasp it, but it is an urgent necessity. You may not agree with it, but it is a holy avocation.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams observed of his successor: “Justin is, frankly, immeasurably better than I ever was at prioritising. He clearly knows where he wants to put his primary energies, and I was always much too ready to say Yes to this and Yes to that.” These are questions of character and temperament. But they are also matters of business and assignment. Justin Welby is succeeding where Rowan Williams failed not because the Lord wanted greater protection for Anglo-Catholics, as was averred in a Synod debate, but because his approach to doing mission chimes with the times.

The Church of England was once referred to as being "crucified between two thieves" – a reference to the respective fanaticism and superstition of "the Puritans and the Papists". There is a modern parallel with a church now suspended between the decline in institutional religion and the burgeoning of generalised spirituality; between the secularisation of society and the plurality of faith communities. The contemporary context is marked by diversity, fragmentation and all that is transitory; beliefs and practices are culturally relative, and Anglicanism has ceased to be supra-cultural or catholic.

The Church has always struggled with the tension between the affirmation and assimilation of culture, and the call of the gospel to confront and transform it. Niebuhr outlines five possible relationships between the gospel and culture, which are the typical answers given in Christian history. There is Christ against culture; of culture; above culture; with culture in paradox; and Christ the transformer of culture. Each model of mission generates different understandings of the purpose and function of the Church. But each finds its expression in the ‘broad church’ that is the Church of England – which incorporates Protestants, Evangelicals, conservatives, liberals, Anglo-Catholics, and permutations of various fusions of these held ‘in tension’.

Historically, some archbishops have viewed culture as antagonistic to the gospel, and adopted a confrontational approach. Others have seen culture as being essentially ‘on our side’, adopting the anthropological model of contextualisation, looking for ways in which God has revealed himself in culture and building on those.

Those who adopt the ‘Christ above culture’ model have a synthetic approach and adopt a mediating third way, keeping culture and faith in creative tension. And those who see Christ as the transformer of culture adopt a critical contextualisation which by no means rejects culture, but is prepared to be critical both of the context and of the way we ourselves perceive the gospel and its meaning. This is ++Justin's approach. He believes that culture itself needs to be addressed by the gospel, not simply the individuals within it, and truth is mediated through mutable cultural manifestations, which may present hurdles, but none is insurmountable.

This model mitigates cultural arrogance or easy identification of the gospel with English culture. It also permits one to see how mission relates to every aspect of a culture in its political, economic and social dimensions, which is what occasionally brings Archbishop Justin of Canterbury into conflict with the Government.

The task of the Church of England  (and so the Archbishop of Canterbury) is to challenge the reigning plausibility structure by examining it in light of the revealed purposes of God contained in the biblical narrative. Like his predecessor, Archbishop Justin advocates a scepticism which enables one to take part in the political life of society without being deluded by its own beliefs about itself: Establishment commits the Church to full involvement in civil society and to making a contribution to the public discussion of issues that have moral or spiritual implications.

But the difference is in character and temperament. On matters of gender and sexuality, both are concerned with the pastoral dimensions of wholeness and healing. Both are persuaded that the mission of the Church accords with people’s quest for meaning and an assurance of identity which cannot be found without community, without fellowship. As the State Church it is uniquely called upon to minister to all: everyone is a parishioner. And issues like gender equality were becoming a huge distraction from the primary mission of changing hearts and saving souls.

Jesus fed the 5000 before telling them about the Kingdom because hunger pains are a distraction to mental reception. ++Justin wants women bishops because the perceived inequality and injustice are a cause of confusion and bewilderment; an impediment to the gospel.        

Notwithstanding some of the excellent work going on in some of the most impoverished parishes in the country (just follow the Rev'd Giles Fraser for insights), the public perception of the Church of England remains largely one of middle-class privilege and an élitism which has little relevance to a modern, pluralist, multi-ethnic, equal, just society. While this is an undoubted misconception, it is exacerbated by the nature of establishment and the fusion of the Church with an increasingly secular government.

Whatever you may think, whether or not you agree, we have in Archbishop Justin a man who is prepared to intervene forcefully for justice and righteously for truth. But he knows the threshold of his influence, the essence of his own character and the limitations of his office.You may demand the perpetual religio-political antagonism and the bold assertion of 'Christ against culture'. We are not all called to such. Sometimes it is better to contextualise Christ; to be 'with culture in paradox', and then to live uncomfortably with the inherent and inescapable tensions caused by the inconveniences of human diversity and an awkward coalition of consciences.

Monday, July 14, 2014

It's women bishops or CofE schism


And so, once again, the General Synod of the Church of England returns to the contentious issue of women bishops. It seems extraordinary, while our brothers and sisters across the Middle East are being crucified and beheaded by zealous Muslims and systematically cleansed from their ancient homelands by a malignant strain of Islam, that the Church of England appears to the world utterly obsessed with vestments and issues of gender and sexuality.

One wonders what Canon Andrew White, 'Vicar of Baghdad', might think of it all. He is now without any means of communication, having to deliver his sermons (and administer communion) by phone. He wrote yesterday:
Dear Friends,

Things continue to get more desperate by the hour. We have plans in place as what to do with the church and ministry if Baghdad is attacked. The church is at risk because as it is known as the English Church. It is known as that as it has an English priest. I must get out of here quickly as I am putting our people at greater risk. We need money on stand by just in case we need to get people out quickly to Erbil. We are in crisis mode but all is now in hand and organised and, with your help, and that of the Almighty, we know we will cope and we thank our dear Lord for this.

Please pray for us and help us,

Blessings my Friends,

Andrew
Perhaps they are praying for him in Synod.

But the priority today is to determine whether or not women may become bishops, thereby overturning the wrong decision delivered by the House of Laity in 2012, when the motion was defeated by six votes (the Houses of Bishops and Clergy having both consented). This time the legislation is likely to pass: the composition of Synod is unchanged from 2012, but four of those six traditionalists are likely now to vote in favour of the motion after securing provision for parishes unwilling to serve under a woman bishop to request a male alternative. And an ombudsman would arbitrate in cases of dispute.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby says he is "hopeful" that, at long last, the Church of England will vote for women bishops.

And so (to the chagrin of some here) is His Grace.

Not least because the alternative is schism (if we are not already there), and that would be as bad for the Church of England as Scottish secession would be for the United Kingdom.

There is a clear ethical issue in how best to apply millennia-old biblical teachings to modern society, and the Church of England has never shied away from adaptation and adoption of a via media, even when such adaptation has brought it to the point of schism. In The Community of Christian Character, Stanley Hauerwas articulates the traditional 'high-church' Anglo-Catholic belief that textual meaning is knowable only to those who participate in community, because only the Church "is capable of hearing the story of God we find in the scripture and living in a manner that is faithful to the story". Thus readings of Scripture outside the context of the Church will merely underwrite the ideology of a politics concerned with individualism or self-indulgence.

But the ‘low-church’ wing of the Church of England tends toward the traditional Protestant idea that Scripture may challenge tradition, and individuals may seek scriptural enlightenment through discipleship and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. On the issue of women bishops, therefore, the Church of England is torn between, on the one hand, rendering the biblical teaching irrelevant by emphasising the change in and uniqueness of contemporary society, and on the other, insisting that the Old or New Testament speaks to every circumstance, ignoring or refusing to acknowledge societal change.

The campaign group Reform says the Church must "follow biblical principles", by which they mean "having a set of bishops that serve the flock and are male". On this matter, His Grace inclines toward the view expressed by Richard Hays in The Moral Vision of the New Testament: "No matter how seriously the church may take the authority of the Bible, the slogan of sola scriptura is both conceptually and practically untenable". It is simply not possible to read and interpret Scripture apart from one's own psyche, education or the contemporary social context: we bring to each verse our own baggage of intellectual limitations, historical ignorance and emotional or spiritual deficiencies. And since we already have bishops who prefer to lord it over their flocks rather than serve, and who preach heresy and cynically foment rebellion, their gender appears to become a secondary if not utterly peripheral issue. Is it not preferable to be led by a God-fearing and faithful woman than a sneering, self-obsessed, heretically-inclined, crotchety and divisive man?

This is not so much about creating greater equality between the sexes in the Church of England, though today's motion will certainly move toward that end: it is about sensitivity to tradition in a world of constant change. By allowing space for parishes which wish to continue under the authority of a male bishop, we arrive at one of those gloriously Anglican viae mediae. The principal dissenters now are those who zealously insist that the legislation does not grant a female bishop full authority in her own diocese, and so there is no gender parity and so no equality at all. But such people tend to be more obsessed with vestments and preaching their own opinion than with the gospel of Christ and the salvation of souls.

Which is perhaps how all this appears to an uncomprehending world.

If not to our Assyrian, Armenian, Catholic, Coptic, Maronite, Chaldean and Orthodox brothers and sisters bleeding to death across the Middle East.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Nazir-Ali to Carey: Falconer Bill would not have helped Tony Nicklinson


In explaining his change of heart on the matter of 'Assisted Dying', Lord Carey wrote in the Mail that watching the appalling suffering of Tony Nicklinson was instrumental in his reflection. He said:
It was impossible not to be moved by his argument, especially when he described the horrific pain he has to endure every day. He was supported in this legal action by Jane Nicklinson, whose late husband suffered from the terrible locked-in syndrome after he suffered a stroke.

A previously active, sports-loving family man, Tony Nicklinson had been rendered absolutely powerless, vulnerable and isolated, an experience he found intolerable.
But speaking on the BBC's 'Sunday Morning Live', Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali astutely pointed out that the Falconer Bill restricts intervention except in those cases where the patient's condition is terminal, specifically with a six-month life expectation. And so Bishop Michael's good friend George, who he says is undeniably warm and compassionate, is also somewhat confused.

No one will deny that Tony Nicklinson suffered appallingly; his condition imposed an almost inhuman degradation upon him which, he felt, ought not to be endured by anyone. But his condition was not medically terminal: no doctor at any time gave the crucial 'six-month' prognosis. And so Lord Carey has been reflecting on a case which, in fact, demands more than Lord Falconer proposes.

'Sunday Morning Live' then interviewed a disabled man who argued passionately for his 'right to die', while also not himself suffering a condition which is terminal.

We see here (already) the purposeful conflation of 'Assisted Dying' with euthanasia, and a manifest confusion on behalf of some very senior and influential voices who really ought to know better. Indeed, it is the 'thin end of the wedge' and 'slippery slope' made manifest: Lord Carey is (unwittingly?) making the case for 'Assisted Dying' in all cases where the continuation of life is deemed to be somehow lacking in 'quality'. This is why Archbishop Justin Welby is absolutely right to say that the Bill is "mistaken and dangerous":
It would be very naive to think that many of the elderly people who are abused and neglected each year, as well as many severely disabled individuals, would not be put under pressure to end their lives if assisted suicide were permitted by law.

It would be equally naive to believe, as the Assisted Dying Bill suggests, that such pressure could be recognised in every instance by doctors given the task of assessing requests for assisted suicide. Abuse, coercion and intimidation can be slow instruments in the hands of the unscrupulous, creating pressure on vulnerable people who are encouraged to “do the decent thing”. Even where such pressure is not overt, the very presence of a law that permits assisted suicide on the terms proposed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton is bound to lead to sensitive individuals feeling that they ought to stop “being a burden to others”. What sort of society would we be creating if we were to allow this sword of Damocles to hang over the head of every vulnerable, terminally ill person in the country?

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Carey, Carey, quite contrary


His Grace has reflected.

He has concluded, with regret, that the Rt Rev'd Dr Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, not only bears false witness; he bullies those with whom he disagrees. This is not only His Grace's observation: it has been corroborated by two peers, a very senior MP and sundry church officials. And his chaplain, Canon Rosie Harper, unable to defend her views on 'Assisted Dying' theologically (or reasonably), is content to defame and spread untruths about those who have the audacity to challenge her opinion. Both the Bishop and his chaplain hold positions of authority within the Church of England, and yet are content to use distortions, exaggerations, dishonest straw men and personal defamation to undermine the Church's doctrine and the authority of the House of Bishops.

It is not His Grace who needs to reflect. Perhaps the Bishop might consider that tweeting lies is not an edifying Christian witness and is manifestly incompatible with his role as a leader and shepherd. And Canon Harper might meditate on whether or not she can worship a God who required "the most extreme suffering" of His Son on a cross. After all, God is sovereign and has no need to shore up that sovereignty. Anachronisms and cultural constraints aside, surely He could have arranged a swift, merciful and compassionate beheading for Jesus, as he did for St Paul, instead of "requiring (him) to suffer extreme agony on behalf of (His) own conscience"?

How 'moral' or 'Christian' was it of God to 'require' the 'extreme agony' of crucifixion?

Now, to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, who has today come out in favour of 'Assisted Dying'.

His Grace has long admired, respected and supported the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr George Carey. Since being made a peer in his own right (as opposed to ex officio), he has made some bold interventions for truth on behalf of Anglican traditionalists. But he is now retired: as cross-bench peer, he speaks on behalf of no constituency but himself, and certainly not on behalf of the Established Church. The bombshell he drops today, while the General Synod is gathered in York and (most likely) about to declare a unified position on the future of women's ministry, is unfortunate, to say the least.

While the current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby writes boldly in The Times that Lord Falconer's Bill is "mistaken and dangerous", Lord Carey unhelpfully tells us via the Daily Mail that "The old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering".

"Had I been putting doctrine before compassion, dogma before human dignity?" he asks, making the precise allegation recently deployed by Canon Harper against His Grace.

The inference is that ++Justin, who tragically lost a young daughter and has surely tasted grief, is "putting doctrine before compassion". For Canon Harper, his opposition to Lord Falconer's Bill is "neither moral nor Christian". And so, on this matter at least, Lord Carey is perceived by the world as enlightened and progressive, and ++Justin is seen as obstructive and lacking in compassion.

Now Bishop Alan of Buckingham and his chaplain Canon Rosie Harper find themselves in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with a homophobic bigot.

Still, at least he's not a troll.   

Monday, July 07, 2014

Bishop of Buckingham: His Grace 'the troll'


When one blogs, as a Christian, one is subject to all manner of competing authorities, tempted by a raft of confusing motives and buffeted by a legion of conflicting spirits. No matter how much one hopes to glorify God or speak prophetically the gospel of Christ to those who are being lost, all that is uttered is ultimately imperfect, and all that is done is a filthy rag.

His Grace's blog has plodded along now for more than eight years. Sometimes it has brought great pleasure, and occasionally it has done some considerable good. But for the most part it has been a daily drudge and an utterly thankless task.

One does not do this for the money or the approbation of man.

To be accused of 'trolling' by a bishop is a serious matter.

One expects occasionally to receive reasoned rebuke, and some of the chat-thread contributions over the years have been more than forthright in their condemnation of His Grace's homilies .

But to be accused of 'trolling' by a bishop gives pause for thought.

And profound heart-searching.

And deep spiritual reflection.

It appears that a chaplain may, with impunity, urge upon the nation a culture of death; preach against the official teaching of the Church of England; and insult her Christian brothers and sisters in the sovereign legislature of Parliament. But for His Grace to seek to expose this and reason against it is 'trolling'.

Blogging is a strange medium, and Twitter is stranger. When one has thousands of followers over multiple time-zones, the only way of reaching them is to tweet out the same message numerous times, as His Grace routinely does. And even then, on average, one reaches only about two per cent of one's followership. If one follows say 50 people, each of their tweets will remain in your timeline for an entire day or longer, and the content will be there to read each time you log in. If one follows say 5000 people, it is highly unlikely that you 'follow' them at all. Even when they tweet the same message multiple times.

His Grace sought clarification from the Bishop of Buckingham. Is it his view that His Grace is:
a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
"Yes," came the unequivocal reply.

Doubtless the writing of this blog post and tweeting it out constitutes further 'trolling'.

To be so accused by a bishop is a serious matter, especially when that bishop is one's own temporal overseer whom one has met half-a-dozen times over the years and with whom shares a number of passions, if not theo-political concerns. His Grace has also met the Bishop's Chaplain twice. Not, of course, that either would have been aware.

But, to both, His Grace is a troll, and, by definition, trolls are malevolent and sow discontent.
These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Prov 6:16-19).
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Rom 16:17f).
This blog will now fall silent for a period of voluntary reflection, if not permanent purgation.

Sunday, July 06, 2014

Canon Rosie Harper attacks Lords who oppose assisted suicide


Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill will be debated in the House of Lords on 18th July. The issue keeps on returning, and probably will until the 'right answer' is secured in a parliamentary vote. Resistance is futile; the 'right to die' is enlightenment progress.

The Church of England's position on this matter is (refreshingly) unequivocal:
The Church of England cannot support Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill.. Patient safety, protection of the vulnerable and respect for the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship are central to the Church of England's concerns about any proposal to change the law. Our position on the current Bill before parliament is also consistent with the approach taken by the Archbishops' Council, House of Bishops and with successive resolutions of the General Synod.
Suffering, the Church maintains, must be met with compassion, commitment to high-quality services and effective medication. Every human being is uniquely and equally valuable, hence human rights are built on the foundation of the 'right to life', as is much of the criminal code. An obligation on society, doctors and nurses, to take life or to assist in the taking of life would create a new and unwelcome role for society.

Notwithstanding this, Canon Rosie Harper, Chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham, gave a speech to peers a few weeks ago in which she not only set out a position which was diametrically opposed to the Church of England's stated belief, she attacked those who oppose it as immoral and un-Christian. Here is the brief speech in its entirety (apologies for the skewed scan, but that's how it was received):


His Grace tweeted about this yesterday, because he found the final paragraph astonishing in its starkness and cruelty. Here is a Canon of the Established Church telling Peers of the Realm that should they oppose Lord Falconer's Bill, they are "requiring people to suffer extreme agony", and so voting in a manner which is neither moral nor Christian.

She made no mention at all of the Church's official position. Presumably, the Archbishops' Council, the House of Bishops and the General Synod are all immoral and un-Christian for opposing the Bill.

Here is His Grace's Twitter conversation with the Canon:



The first thing to note is the Canon's response to His Grace's first tweet: he said he found her speech cruel and stark, but the Canon is of the view that to say so is "tweeting most unpleasantly", with the inference that it was a misrepresentation of her views, which she insists are compassionate. She later suggests that His Grace "extrapolated", but her meaning is plain to all who can read: those of us who oppose her views (like the House of Bishops, Archbishops' Council and Synod) are uncompassionate. Indeed, she responds directly to His Grace's question: those who oppose her are concerned with arid theology and unfeeling theory as against her manifestly compassionate praxis.

She appears to be of the view that simply because her uncle was able to make a considered decision to journey to Dignitas in Switzerland to end his life surrounded by a loving family, and because this worked for him and all of them, that all individuals and families must have access to the same 'compassion'. She appears oblivious to the intolerable pressure this might (indeed, will) place on some who are dying, just as she was oblivious to the number of peers she offended with her assertion that their motive is to "require" the dying "to suffer extreme agony" simply to assuage their own consciences.

Some of the Peers who listened to the speech are Christian church-goers, who were aggrieved by the crass reasoning. One of them was not a church-goer, and has intimated that the Canon has ensured that now she never will be.

Note the allegation of 'conscience', as though the theology of those who oppose the Bill were simply a question of the assertion of callous, subjective individuality.

Death is not simply a divine distalgesic: it is the passing of the soul to judgment and into eternity. Hitherto, God has determined the number of our days. Lord Falconer and Canon Rosie Harper are of the view that people should be assisted to kill themselves, should they so require. This is about 'rights' and 'choice' and 'compassion' and 'dignity in dying', because leaving it all to God is a manifest denial of rights and choice, totally lacking in compassion and devoid of any dignity whatsoever. Death can be painful and messy, so let's make it quick and clinical.

Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life are cruelly putting our 'conscience' above 'compassion', and we all know how that language game works.

Canon Harper insists no one will be coerced. But wedges have thin ends, and slopes can be awfully slippery. Make no mistake, this is a step toward terminating the lives of the sick and vulnerable, not to mention those who feel worthless, depressed, lonely, unloved and unvalued. They may not be forced to die, but they will certainly feel less of a burden on their families and on society if their deaths were to be hastened.

Instead of demanding the right to die, the Church ought to be concerned with optimism, hope and improving palliative care. Indeed, the Church is prioritising these things, but Canon Harper is not. Her mode of compassion prioritises the eradication of suffering, and those who oppose her in her quest are immoral and un-Christian. There is no debate to be had or doubt in her mind.

The suffering of Job was immense: his mental anguish and physical pain made him desire death, and he cried out for it. Had he been 'assisted' to that end, he would not have seen his vindication and God's glory would not have been revealed. He wasn't protected by a 'six months to live' clause, but his comforters wouldn't have been overly concerned about that. Your GP might know you have nine months or year to live, but he'll compassionately give you six so you may legally make the choice to 'die with dignity'. Once the legal right is embedded in our culture, there will be incremental nudges toward expectation and thence to the Belgian option, where they are legally euthanising their children. What is that if it is not immoral and un-Christian?

Or evil?

The anxieties and traumas of life are not pointless; nor is the morphine in our dying. It adds to our human experience, and witnesses to our divine purpose and profound meaning.

Canon Rosie Harper is wrong and gravely misguided.

But His Grace - who was once given a matter of months to live - is not so self-righteous or arrogant as to say that her attitude is neither moral nor Christian.

Saturday, July 05, 2014

Canon Andrew White deserves a knighthood - Part III



Here is Part III of the documentary following the ministry of Canon Andrew White, the 'Vicar of Baghdad'.

Part II may be seen HERE, and Part I HERE. Accompanying this, Canon White wrote:
Here is the final part of the video. I have just seen it. For those who don’t like medical things you might not like as it shows me having my stem cell treatment. The treatment is happening in our church clinic. If you are wondering why Sarah my assistant and director here is also doing medical things, well she is also one of our doctors here also being one of our dental surgeons.
His Grace has a distinct feeling that some might deflect this thread along another discursive meander..

Others may like to consider the comment on Part II by His Grace's longtime communicant, Mr Ars Hendrick:
So, I come on to this blog and sound off about things, being argumentative, sometimes even aggressive. And I know a fair bit about the subject so can usually hold my own, and I write for a living so am practiced at getting things down on the page effectively.

And then I watch this footage of a real Christian, and I am utterly ashamed of myself. And I realise how utterly distant I am from leading the life I profess to lead – what an utter fraud I am. And I feel ashamed of my glib words and my posturing and my arguments.

To see Cannon White spreading love and hope in a place that looks exactly like hell, but is somehow populated by the warmest and most loving people I have ever seen, is to look directly into the face of the true Christian life, the perfect window to my own shortcomings – to my own hypocrisy.

I really don’t feel that I want to post on this blog anymore, because I realise that I have absolutely nothing of value to say.
Mr Hendrick, you said it all.

Forget the knighthood: Canon Andrew White deserves a mitre and ought to be awarded the highest medal for gallantry.
‹Older