Is The Church of England To Blame?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2024
- The Church of England and other denominations are being blamed for false refugee claims, but whose responsibility is it to access these? And how does the church respond to refugees seeking Jesus?
Engage with me online - linktr.ee/monoingles
Buy Me A Coffee - bit.ly/coffee_please
Paypal: bit.ly/paypalrevdan
Email: revdan@btrministries.org
ESV Bible Study Bible - I have used this for years, it is excellent.
UK - amzn.to/3Q7Sqly
US - amzn.to/3i5Qeym
Article link:
www.christiantoday.com/articl...
Clerics should not be asked to, nor should they expect to, write letters of recommendation or confirmation to the process of claims. The Church should remove itself from the process, and focus on nurturing a genuine spiritual conversion. Time will tell.
well said sir
so you think you are the authority on geniune conversion?? and your qualification is.. cos i dont sense any presensce of the holy spirit in your entitled words .. more africans , and other races have faith than white people.. this is a fact.. it is us that have strayed from anything geniunely spritual. You live in fear and the bible magically says 365 times do not be afraid.. but you live in fear
Dan our local vicar, a very nice man, was doing bogus weddings and got caught and arrested.
The church does not even vet it's own ministry to ensure that they are believers.
Human rights lawyers tell them what to say
all the bot with the classic handle "user".. putin says you can swallow.. here stiring shit to divide so the west gets weak.. toxic
The Church should focus on the state of the individuals soul and their well being and not get involved in asylum claims. As for Justin Welby, he should resign and allow the CoE to prosper again.
It is in the Church of England literature how to assist.
@@kristinesharp6286 all christian docterine ! Its what Jesus God and the holy spirit tell us..
Everything thinks the Holy Spirit is saying something else. @@michaelstapelberg7751
If they came here not for that reason then that should be looked at by the home office.
Simple answer. Don't judge them but don't vouch for them either. Only God knows what's in their hearts. If they're genuine they will understand and accept whatever God has planned for them. And if they are not, well it's just too bad.
Too bad for whom? Them? Or us?
The Church of England literature tells clergy how to assist.
I guess we, as Christians, must begin to preach and believe that God will not be mocked… WE may be fooled but God is not.
In traditional Islamic jurisprudence lying about your intentions or faith is permissible as long as it is for personal protection from harm. As deportation can be interpreted as harmful to the individual, professing to be a Christian convert as a ploy whilst remaining a firmly believing, practising Muslim would be logical and furthermore, impeccable from an Islamic perspective.
No Catholic clergy vouched for him.
In Islam taqiyya or deception is allowed.
In Islam, Taqiyya (Arabic: تقیة, romanized: taqiyyah, lit. 'prudence')is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice. Generally, taqiyya is the action of committing a sinful act (such as pretending not to be a Moslem or changing to another religion or group identity) for a pious goal.
Hiding one's beliefs has been a feature of Islam since its earliest days, and is acknowledged by Muslims of virtually all persuasions.
"Believers should not take disbelievers (non Moslems) as guardians instead of the believers (Moslems)-and whoever does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah-unless it is a precaution against their tyranny. And Allah warns you about Himself. And to Allah is the final return. (illā an tattaqū minhum tuqāt)."
- Surah Al Imran 3:28
Regarding 3:28, ibn Kathir writes, "meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly." He quotes the Companion of the Prophet Abu al-Darda, who said "we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them," and Hasan ibn Ali, who said, "the tuqyah is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection."[
Unfortunately, only God can look into someone's heart, we cannot do that, we can only look for indications of faith, but we may be mistaken.
Maybe it should be those who became believers before they arrived who should be considered converts, not those converted in the UK?
People of the True Faith should be welcomed to spread the word and encourage worship in God's churches
Welby in the House of Lords doesn’t help in my opinion
I’ve had volunteer experience with Iranian Christians seeking asylum. I have seen a misuse of this in a very small scale but would not condemn them. but I have seem bogus claims. Despite trying to accept them and draw them in!
In Islam deception taqiyya is allowed and as you know they claim Jesus is a Moslem and a prophet but Mohamed is the greatest and last.
They claim all humans are born Moslem but deceived into other religions and must be brought back to Islam by any means.
Part of taqiyya is Moslems must not seek protection from non Moslems but if required may do so pretending to deny Islam or lie such as claiming to be homosexual to get into a non Moslem country.
They are told they may be outwardly friendly to non Moslems but inwardly they must be enemies.
You need to grasp the mental belief system and inner world of Moslems to see they don't think as you do.
I agree with almost everyhing is stated. The church should be welcoming, and Baptising people and discipling people. However, the church should not be vouching people to stay in the country. What the church should do is continually pray for God's will to be done in a particular persons life. If the Lord wants them to stay in this country he will arrange for this to happen. If it is his will for them to be returned to their own country to be effective whitness in that country so be it.
Offer them a full English, bacon and pork sausages mmmm.
Your views on baptism is spot on. Thank you for your honesty.
I was Christened as a baby to please my believing grandmother. My mother was a nonbeliever and my father an atheist. I became a Christian aged 20. I used to think that my Christening was irrelevant to my Faith and I came to realise that it was the start of my spiritual journey. I was confirmed when I was 22. So I had 20 years from Christening to belief. I don’t think that Christening without believing parents is valueless. God sees things differently.
Absolutely agree about the points raised re discipling.
Absolutely Dan, if ever there was cause to separate church and state this is it... Also I think this gives us great cause to rethink our approach to baptism - not a small challenge where there are so many different understandings in so many different denominations, but it should give us all solemn prayerful pause for thought...
There should be a six month probationary period were applicants are required to study Christen values and attend Christian services once they have proved their commitment to the Christian faith, they must attend Church for a further six months and only then are they baptised into the Christen faith.
Example: SM Churches have weak safeguarding. Poor discerning volunteers promoting asylum seeker stay. What happened to the elders, deacons?
I'm a vicar, and I think this is a massive problem in the church, way bigger than even Suella Braverman thinks!
People gaming the system... happens way more than we think. But it's not just asylum seekers. Do we dare talk about all the folks who come for baptism... in order to get their kids into good church schools? They're also using baptism for their own ends...
And the related problem, is clergy failing to take enough care before giving the sacrament of baptism. If someone comes for baptism with ulterior motives, trying to work the system for their own ends, then the loving and kind and responsible thing to do is, to help the person see that they aren't seeking baptism for Jesus Christ and what he offers and promises, but for some other selfish agenda... which is a dangerous way to treat God... and we should not aid and abet their agenda by giving them baptism 'on demand.'
I once baptised an Afghan asylum seeker, but I was wary of the fact that this man had a lot to gain in his asylum case by getting baptised, so was ultra cautious before putting him forward for baptism. I wanted credible signs of his sincerity... just as I would from a couple who appear at church asking for baptism for their child.
I find it really disappointing that senior leaders in the church immediately say it's not the church's responsibility. Of course we bear some responsibility - the Christian gospel is about taking responsibility and acknowledging that we probably have failed at times, not just defending ourselves, deflecting blame and saying it's for the government to sort out. Our responsibility is to ensure baptism is being done properly where there's good reason to believe people are sincere, and our government needs to be able to count on churches to show due diligence and only baptise those who display real signs of sincerity. If the government can't count on the church to act responsibly in their supposed area of competence, and we let the authorities down in how and who we baptise, assisting those seeking to exploit the state, then people will inevitably lose confidence in the Church as a result, and ultimately in Jesus Christ too.
To your knowledge, how many vicars actually do any evangelism?
Thank you for the update and discussion.
Its such a hard one, but I think the home office might be trying to hide some of their own mistakes by picking on the Church.
As a student, I can tell you that so many come to study just for the purpose of naturalisation. I'm not sure that is wrong in and of itself, but the attitude I believe I've seen is that they don't necessarily like British Judeo-Christian values or culture. They'll gladly usurp it or disrupt it when the opportunity comes around. The air around some of them seems to be disdain for it, like there's been an intentional or spiritual plan to raid the country and break down its foundations.
I have met a few that honestly love British values and are grateful. I think love for British culture ought to be the litmus test - not stopping or limiting legal routes, nor blaming the Church. In my humble opinion, people who do not hold British values and aren't ready to respect and protect every aspect and form of it should not be allowed to have government office of any kind! If they don't share Christian values, they really shouldn't be there, and if they are then why weren't they repelled (except that they have alterior motives!)
We really are in the end-times!
No they do what the Bible says. Our Government is to blame sadly this will give them a scapegoat.
I also think Welby was wrong to speak against the Rwanda plan without having any alternative to put forward… virtue seeking!
I worked for a refugee organisation and this was a common tactic employed when all other avenues have been exhausted. The other is to "come out" as gay.
Red flags 🚩to be aware of are has the person already has had both a claim and an appeal refused?
The reason for these fake conversions, (not saying all conversions are fake,) is because the original asylum claim on the grounds given has been exhausted and therefore the only chance is to submit entirely new grounds for it being unsafe to return.
Another 🚩is a persistence about getting certificates of courses (such as Alpha,) letters from the priest or proofs of baptism etc as soon as possible and a desire to "get things done" as quickly as possible.
We would often get priests/ministers asking how they could help a client, what could they write. I told them all they can only attest to what they know, and what they do not know is the persons heart. You can say "this person attends church every Sunday for the past 5 months" or "he has expressed a desire to be baptised and is currently attending preperation classes." You cannot say whether or not they have had a supernatural heart change and are now a true believer, that you dont know for a fact.
Having said this I must say there are also true conversions.
The JWs get many as they actively target refugee housing and train members in languages spoken by the asylum seekers. I worked with a JW who learned Farsi specifically for the purposes of witnessing to the iranians as that was one of our cluster groups. It was also his motivation for applying to work for us which I found a little concerning. Many of these ppl are lonely, far from home, have had bad experiences with Islam and are easily swayed by ppl who knock on the door and are friendly, invite them for dinner, to the kingdom hall, give them a sense of community etc.
So yeah, the JWs clean up.
But also the mainstrean churches do get genuine conversions, often as a result of outreach work like food banks, english classes and that kind of thing.
Many are fake though, like i said, saying they are gay is another option I've seen when a whole new case is required on new grounds.
Totally agree with the discipleship and follow up - we tend to do 2 types of baptisms in our church - one were a bunch of non Christians who no-one has ever seen in church before stand in a line at the front dressed in almost wedding attire, and read out confessions of faith and turning away from evil etc that they have no intention of keeping and are not ever seen again afterward (which is total hypocrisy by both clergy and the participants of course), The other type is usually around 6 months to a year after an alpha course where people want to make a public stand for Christ and speak up about how they have found Jesus.
The annoying third category is those who's unfortunate history has dictated that they were sprinkled as a baby then brought up by a faithless family, and led a faithless life, but thankfully have found Christ later on - they are of course denied baptism. They have to go through the very theologically suspect and confusing process of having to repeat baptismal promises that they never personally made.
then I suppose there are folk like me who were baptised as an older child in a pretty clear understanding of things and clear personal commitment to Christ, but since it was not in a CofE church, theoretically, it didn't count, since it was not done by a priest, and I shouldn't be on my diocesan synod...
You couldn't make it up.
With regard to, for example Iranians who were asylum seekers, I have had the immense honour of having led a few to the Lord, The good news of the gospel is readily taken up by those who have been forced to flee due to persecution from the religious police back home, and to be honest desperate people of any type may well call upon the Lord for help - and of course find truth.
The church(es) should definitely be evangelising Muslims and Hindus, many of whom have been here for years. They’re not doing nearly enough here.
Regarding new immigrants, there will be players.
Hi Dan. I live in Weymouth (Dorset) where we have the Bibby Stockholm just off Portland. Apparently about 25 of their number profess to be Christian and as far as I know they are going to the Baptist Church in Weymouth. None so far in the church I go to which is C of E and very near to the Baptist Church. I know that there are groups here (Christian & non-Christian) who are helping them. I'm afraid that I am sceptical that they are all true converts so I try not to get involved. I'm sure that some of them are as Christian persecution is very real as I support Barnabas Fund. I'd rather contribute to this charity which helps genuine Christian believers where they are and in desperate need.
Sadly Archbishop Welby once again must take most of the blame. This is a difficult one because as Christians we should welcome all who want to become Christians but we have to so careful that there are those who play on this for there there own ends. It is going to be difficult but really it is not Churches responsibility to vet people .
Thankfully true Bible believers exited the Anglican Church very long ago. Those that remain are false believers under the yoke of the papacy and interfaith apostasy. Revelation 18:4 calls such to leave NOW.
You wrote " true Bible believers exited the Anglican Church very long ago."
When was that exactly?
The bomber at the Liverpool Women's Hospital a couple of years ago was an asylum seeker at the church where my brother was the vicar. After the attack, the media descended on the church and tried to get my brother to say that the attacker showed some sign of violent tendencies and/or mental health problems. My brother was brilliant. He said that this lad had been quiet, friendly, helpful and committed to Jesus over the 2 years he was in that church. As for the smear of having mental health problems, as my brother said, that kind of issue is very common in north Liverpool. The coverage was shameful on the part of the media.
I think that, out of the love of the Lord, we True Christians, absent the denomination, are too often duped as we want to think the best of people. We are told by Jesus to "be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves". We are the second, not so much the first. But didn't G-d the Father also tell Israel to welcome the sojourner and alien, but they have to respect and follow the standing Law of the land, as well. We expect the latter of them, but many are coming here illegally and are discarding their bona-fides overboard on their way.
All we have is their word prima-face, and the Church Politic are being take advantage of all round. BTW, baptism is *not* proof of conversion or belief.
We should not baptise anyone unless they show proof of discipleship, and that should take *years* even though there are Biblical principles demonstrating otherwise. Nor should we baptise babies, because they are both not liable for sin until they reach an age of understanding - 'coming of age' - and cannot actually repent personally. Or that parents really know what, and to whom, they are promising.
G-d the Father *will* require it of them, imo.
As for who is to blame, I will say both/and.
Saying that, imo we still need to secede as a Church from the sitting Establishment. charles has effectively renounced Christianity.
As Jesus said in Revelation: "Come out of her (Babylon)" .
I don't believe in 'Infant Baptism' since it is not in the Bible. Article XXV11 of the 39 Articles allows for my position since it mentions baptism as "a sign of Regeneration or new birth" and mentions "The baptism of young children" and does not use the word infant or infants. Also I personally do not agree with infant baptism on the basis that it chooses Christianity for infants who are presently unable to receive faith in Christ for themselves. Thus, it casts a shadow of apostacy over them when as adults they reject the faith or do not respond to it.
However, I know in Scripture that it is not the responsibility of the baptiser to judge anyone's heart who professes faith in Christ prior to baptism, and neither is it any ministers responsibility if that person chooses to walk away and apostatise.
In Acts 8: 9-24 there is a man who was baptised (verse 13) who afterward tried to buy the apostolic power with money (verse 18) and then in verse 22 he is judged according to his fruits and told to "repent" because Peter perceived he was "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity". Jesus said "you will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7: 16) so if anyone is abusing the hospitality of the church or manipulating the faith for their own personal agendas they should repent or face the judgement of God.
there are several kind of baptism in the bible and you have to know that water baptism never saved anyone it was reguired for the Jews as a sign of their faith but it was always by faith even Abraham was saved by faith alone. Paul never came to baptise 1Co 1:17 David teach here.
Seven Baptisms
ua-cam.com/video/zKM_0VtF5I8/v-deo.html
so honestly how can baptism help Muslims in your country to stay that sounds strange. How can your government make that a criteria.
I went to a church in Manchester and both our churchwardens were asylum seekers, my son went to a church in Nottingham where a group of believers went out for separate teaching during the service - in Farsi, they were Iranians doubtless many seeking asylum. Many immigrants in Manchester were coming into contact with the church through Red Cross work and some were coming to faith, this is part of our mission. Note that you could often doubt a regular UK churchgoer's spiritual conversion too!
The churches in London would be almost empty if it wasn’t for relatively newly arrived Iranians. Some were involved in underground house churches in Iran, and their commitment is very clear.
Others start attending a church on arrival in the UK, and this group is much harder to discern , especially where translation is necessary, but as other comments have said, is it our job to discern?
It is the church’s job to teach, encourage and disciple. Churches however are under-resourced in the main, increasingly unlikely to have a paid or ordained leader, and are not always able to offer the appropriate level of classes (and in Farsi as well) to support baptism candidates properly.
But then professional immigration officials don’t seem to know their job either! We are a protestant church, and one girl (who did speak English and had been involved with a house church group in Iran) was asked a series of questions at interview about her belief in the Virgin Mary, which confused her greatly.
The people are already here, and however that has happened it is the government’s Borders Agency, that is responsible. Churches need the resources to be able to minister to people. All people.
It's easy to criticise the church, but its role is not to screen asylum seekers. However, it's true that some clergy seem to believe in universal reconciliation and consider any form of evangelisation and discipleship as unnecessary and intrusive. They focus on the parable of the Good Samaritan and use that to endlessly justify the importance of being nice and baptising anyone who asks for it.
The clergy should keep out of politics.