iindaba Homepage
| Diocese
of PE Homepage
|
|
iindaba Homepage
| Diocese
of PE Homepage
|
|
|
Quick Links: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Top | Homepage PAGE 2 • Mike McCoy puts the record straight
"Adopt sharia law in Britain, says the Archbishop of
Canterbury". So announced the London-based Telegraph in early February,
following a talk by Archbishop Rowan Williams to the legal fraternity
at the Royal Courts of Justice. The resultant hysteria was predictable. All sorts of people,
from the Prime Minister's office down, jumped to distance themselves
from Dr Williams' alleged remarks, and some even called for him to
resign. But did the Archbishop actually call for Islamic sharia law to be introduced in Britain? No, he didn't - neither in the scholarly paper he gave at the
Royal Courts of Justice on 7 February, entitled "Civil and religious
law in England: A religious perspective", nor in a BBC Radio 4
interview that same day. I have read both of them, carefully. Nowhere does Dr Williams advocate the introduction of sharia law in Britain. What he does is call for a serious discussion about the way in which religious communities In so doing, he points out that some aspects of Islamic and
Jewish law are already recognised in English law. All that he is doing
is asking for the debate to be continued with greater care and
openness, and offering some theological perspectives on a complex
matter. As Dr Williams says in the Radio 4 interview, people need to think
"about the general question of how the law and religious community...
are best and fruitfully accommodated". This point is argued in a careful, detailed, informed and scholarly way in his paper. True, it's not easy reading - which is probably why some observers seized on a few of his words, reduced them to sound bites, and mischievously distorted his message. If Rowan Williams has a fault, it is that his speeches and writings are often highly academic, and demand careful and patient attention if they are to be followed and understood. Clearly, some journalists and critics are unwilling to
exercise such care. Our indignation should be directed at them, rather
than at the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he is misquoted. Yes, he could speak and write more plainly. But of one thing
he is certainly not guilty: he is not a mindless champion of sharia law
- least of all those grosser forms of it that he himself denounces in
his paper. So what's the moral? Don't believe everything you hear about
someone else - especially if it's someone you're inclined to dislike or
disagree with anyway. Seek the truth. Be open to new insights, even
from unexpected quarters. But don't trust what I say, just because I have an impressive
title. Confirm it for yourself. The text of Dr Williams' paper can be
found at www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575. A (rather badly done) transcript of his interview on BBC Radio 4 is at www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573 A helpful discussion of the reaction to Dr Williams' talk, and a summary of what he actually said, can be found at www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581 For an example of how some of the media got it wrong, see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/08/nrowan108.xml
We, the staff and people of St John the Baptist, pay tribute and express our gratitude to Barry Sendall and Sandra for their very brief ministry amongst us at St John's last year. Barry was officially boarded in October 2007 due to ill-health and is now in a process of reestablishing his life as a result of this. After a series of personal tragedies and very stressful issues within the ministry, Barry was diagnosed with a severe case of post-traumatic stress syndrome which was continually being aggravated by the normal work of a clergyman. Each new hospital visit or death in the parish was like a painful trigger to him. Barry served this Diocese in almost every position that he could have been called upon to fill - from lay minister and churchwarden to rector, and from student to warden of students in Fellowship of Vocation. He served as a superb archdeacon and ultimately filled the position of Provost of the Cathedral. In the midst of these taxing responsibilities, he headed up the Centre for Spirituality and served on the now defunct Chapter of the Diocese for many, many years. That kind of faithful service needs to honoured! His ministry and wisdom will be sorely missed by the parish
and we pray that his enforced retirement will give him and Sandra time
to enjoy their family and also time to "smell the roses". In time to
come we hope that he will recover sufficiently to assist us again on a
self-supporting basis. David Beetge, liaison Bishop of the Anglican Aids & Health Care Trust, has announced that Sabelo Mashwama has been appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Trust. The generation free appointment was confirmed by the Trustees at their meeting on Wednesday 9 April. "In his capacity as CEO of the AAHT, Sabelo will be responsible for both the programmes of the Trust as well as day to day running of the office. This appointment is in line with the aims of the AAHT to create a greater synergy between the different programmes of the Trust," wrote Bishop David. Use iindaba for
Good News This is the season, so it seems, for personal attacks. In the past few issues of iindaba there have been personal attacks printed. These attacks were based on half truths or distorted impressions of the truth. There will always be differences, even in the Church of God. Even on a fundamental matter such as the interpretation of scriptures, iindaba is not the most effective vehicle to deal with such differences. There are better channels and forums where these disagreements can be dealt with - and resolved - without the abuse of one another. Even a pastoral letter is now used to attack fellow clergy. Shame on us! Where is the GOOD NEWS? I can only begin to imagine the difficulties these personal attacks must cause the editor in dealing with the Church newspaper. It will help us if we read and pray through Ezekiel 34:1-24. For us in the ordained ministry it might be the season to
consider prayerfully the prophet Jeremiah 23:9-32. In this chapter the
prophet reminds us: Lord have mercy on us. Science and the Bible Oh dear, another reference to science versus faith!
(Book Review - The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for
Belief) When are we going to get it right? Science is not in conflict with faith. Science was born out of
faith. The early scientists based their work on the bible. The sad fact
is that any evolutionary standpoint is contrary to Christianity. The basis for virtually every doctrine of theology has its
foundation in the first book of the bible, whether directly or
indirectly. A literal meaning has to come before a figurative one. How do
we understand that Jesus is the door if we have no concept of what a
door is? Evolution is not science. It is a religion of belief; just as
believing God created the universe the way he says in the bible is a
religion of belief. The bible declares, "In the beginning God
created..." Evolution is a product of human reasoning, which declares no one owns us and we humans can write our own rules. Jesus believed Genesis. In Matthew 19: 4&5, talking about
divorce, he quotes from Genesis to give the foundation, and thus
reason, for marriage. Malachi 2:15 gives the importance of marriage - to produce
godly offspring, through the union of a man and a woman (reference to
the creation of the man and the woman in Genesis). God's Word states that the earth was made three days before the rest of the universe; evolution refers to a Big Bang. God's Word says through Adam's sin, death entered the world; evolution refers to death and suffering being in the world long before Adam emerged. If that is true, when God saw and said that it was very good, He and the first
couple were standing on a mile and a half thick foundation of death and
suffering. If Adam evolved from a single cell, from where did Eve come? If humans have been around for millions of years, where are all the bones? Evolution undermines the message of the Cross. If Genesis is not literal history, Christianity has no basis for its doctrines. When we look for evidence, we search for eyewitnesses. My belief stands on the word of the Omnipotent God, who was there, not on the fallibility of man, who was not. Sue Bennett,
Quick Links: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Top | Homepage |
For
more information about iindaba,
contact the editor at iindaba@anglicandiocesepe.org.za
Well done Barry