maggie and jerry

I found this an illuminating read.

Comments

[Caroline]

Oh Horrors! ;-O

I'm not sure if I'm angry, bewildered, appalled or just sad. I think that it's the illogicality of the target that bemuses me. If CV were seeking to make themselves look plain stupid they couldn't have done better.

But in the end it's the straightforward nastiness of the threat that really angers me.

[Christopher Shell]

Ive no idea of the true size of Christian Voice's mailing list, though the question that occupies me is the number of their official or unofficial sympathisers.

The question I find few are willing to face head-on is this:

If this general viewpoint is so extreme & marginal,
(1) why did it break the existing record for complaints, not by a small margin but by polling about 20x or 30x the previous record (Im not sure of the figure)? -
(2) why have I so far not found anyone from any of the big London churches who does not feel sympathy for Christian Voice?

We're all inclined to think 'most people' (or 'mainstream Christians') are like us & our friends. I dont know the true stats, but lets be honest anyway, for starters!! :o) Maybe we dont know what is 'mainstream' without further research.

The majority (or sizeable minority) aint always right. But we aint always dumb either. And we aint always very much different from the normal historic Christian stance.

[Caroline]

Christopher

Like you, I don't know what is mainstream or majority or historical Christian opinion. I'm no church historian but it seems to me that there have alwasy been many strands of Christian morality co-existing. Some of which I feel at ease with, some of which worry me.

I am not questioning the biblical correctness or justification of CV's opinions

I am not questioning the right of CV to argue for those opinions

What I am concerned about is the wisdom of presenting Christianity in this way at the start of the twenty-first century. You may well believe that you are shouting and proclaiming God's Grace, but I just don't believe that that is what the majority of the world is hearing!

I am also appalled by the bullying tactics used in this case. I'm sure you remember the old adage "Your actions speak so loud. I can't hear your words."

I am also sorry that CV and fellow travellers can't seem to appreciate that it is possible for Christians to have different opinions or different strategies. CV's website proclaims such a self-satisfied, self-celebratory tone that just does not give it the space to hear others. That is foolish and arrogant, and again raises the question of actions drowning out words.

[Tom Allen]

Christopher
You seem to working overtime at justifying the increasingly unjustifiable - but to your points.
1. It broke the complaints barrier because of the work of CV and its cohort body Media-watch in spreading a ill-informed/exagerated version of what it contained - most of the complaints (72%) preceded the broadcast.
2. A bit like the whole Bishop of Reading business the reaction was part of a general feeling of unease - but they picked the wrong target again.
3. You obviously go to a particular sort of big London church - try St James Piccadilly or Southwark Cathedral or All Saints Margaret Street or the Methodist Central Hall - or Westminster Catholic Cathedral - you'll find plenty of people lay or ordained who just wish CV will disappear and leave people to serious debate and appropriate Christian action. That's not to say that they don't agree that things are wrong and need to changing - but they abhor the tactics and thinking which are behind CV.Perhaps knowing your views its just not worth saying what they think?
4. The point of the claimed 50,000 supporters is that it was used as a bully boy tactic on a charity which had no way of knowing that it was wildly exagerated - and as a result they thought the whole of their future work was being threatened. They did not give way cos they thought CV was right - or cos they were grateful to CV for saving them from a PR disaster - or cos they were reassured that CV would arrange subsitute funding -they gave way cos they and their patients were under threat and they were frightened for their future. From Maggie's point of view it was blackmail and threat - pure and simple from an organisation with a growing media reputation for vicious tactics.

[Laurence]

Ultimately what CV have managed to do is impaire the work of a body trying to reduce the impact of cancer - rather like Jesus' rhetorical question of people & the sabbath CV have put principles before human life. It's reprehensible, and a distortion of the kingdom of God. Potential offense is not worth blocking the reduction of human suffering.

[Christopher Shell]

Re: bullying.
For bullying to take place, it has to be intentional. But Im pretty convinced no such intentions exist. For example, I have been told Im bullying when all Im doing is trying to speak logically, with the appropriate degree of passion. I believe that in todays climate, to disagree with someone is enough to make one a 'bully'. Remember that CS Lewis was often perceived to be bullying. If one examines the contexts, they were alwyas when he was aiming to be rigorously logical. In other words, he was focussed on issues not personalities.

By all means speak about issues., By all means speak about personalities. But lets not confuse the two. Have two separate discussions, if need be.

[Christopher Shell]

Lawrence -
The work of Maggie's has not been impaired, in fact the reverse. The £3000 figure has already been made up from other sources who would not have given optherwise. And they as an organisation have become better known and more likely to attract funds.

Tom -
I think it's accurate to say that there is a very large body of opinion broadly sympathetic to Christian Voice's stance:
(1) Yesterday, a new organisation CCTV (the TV stands for 'traditional values) was launched at the BBC with symbolic breaking of TV screen. I gather that it is supported by 200 London pastors.

(2) Mediamarch's petition on the topic has 120,000 signatures.

[maggi]

"The work of Maggie's has not been impaired, in fact the reverse."
Christopher, it is very tortured logic to suggest that a positive outcome for Maggie's is somehow a reason to celebrate the reprehensible actions of C.V.

[hopefulamphibian]

Christopher - a straightforward question.

To picket a cancer charity and deliberately prevent them from functioning properly - right or wrong?

One word answer appreciated.

[Christopher Shell]

Wrong! Unless there are other relevant factors. Which in this case there are. Which means I agree with Maggi in holding that not every situation is black&white with just 2 available options.

I would never celebrate someone choosing the least bad option - one can only celebrate someone choosing a good option.

[James Coleman]

Tom Allen writes: 'You obviously go to a particular sort of big London church - try [instead] St James Piccadilly or Southwark Cathedral or All Saints Margaret Street or the Methodist Central Hall - or Westminster Catholic Cathedral -'
My information about England and London is that these are not particularly big churches - except for the Catholics (who were DEEPLY offended by 'Jerry Springer The Opera' because they're ignorant hillbillies who don't understand art) - that they don't have more than 200 each in them & almost nobody under 40. St James' website shows a fascinating new age place, while Southwark cathedral is strongly pro-gay. But the big - and comparatively youthful - London churches are John Stott's All Souls, the HTB churches, St Helena's, Kensington Temple, Kingsway Christian Center (both mainly black or African). This is where the future lies.

[Christopher Shell]

Unlike James Im not sure where the future lies, tho' to his list one could add the Mountain of Fire churches, the Redeemed Churches of God, UCKG churches. And no doubt 20 more in Hackney, Harlesden, Lambeth - all incredible spawning-grounds.

I hope the future lies with 'mere Christians' i.e. both/and Christians - both reverent and charismatic and evangelical and thoughtful. Postmodernism is meant to be both/and (it has at least that to be said for it) and I look forward to the end of either/or.

I think size is not the whole point. Goodness knows I am as much in dialogue with many of these megachurch guys as I am with the liberals. :o) Though come to think of it much of the dialog is on the prosperity message etc, from which the white churches are exempt.

Like James, I wonder how far St James stands in the Christian tradition.

[maggi]

there are more choices than the madness of CV and "sloppy relativism". Just because people are not bullying fundamentalists doesn't mean they don't have morals or well thought out theology. I'm closing this one now as it is turning into a time-waster.