We sent the following letter to them, explaining again our position
“Thank you for your letter asking us again to comply with the proforma. Our response, however is the same as before for the following reasons:
The ASA may have felt we discouraged people from seeking medical advice but the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that the implication you infer is both correct and unambiguous. As we have said in every response we have made, we neither implied it (directly or indirectly), nor believe the implication is present in the text or present nor in our following actions or policies. We disagree with this view, we do not and have not implied that and as we have made clear members of our congregation do receive medical treatment, however we also believe that God heals people through prayer. It would seem a very strange decision to present a newsletter introduced by a retired medical doctor if our intention was to discourage people from visiting the surgery where he was formerly a partner for 20 years.
You understood correctly the implications of the invitation: that ‘the conditions were treated as a direct result of prayer’ which in this case is precisely what we meant to say, and in all cases mentioned this is what the individuals believe happened. This belief that God can heal today through prayer is what many orthodox Christians believe happens.
As regards the present status of Dr Matthias, the issue is one of semantics, we think the statement we made is both accurate and truthful regarding his qualifications, experience and place of practice. Dr Matthias was a partner in the practice that covers the area in which the invitations were delivered and the majority of the 2000 homes that received would have been a patient in his practice. However, we are more than willing to describe Dr Matthias as ‘a retired medical doctor with over 35 years experience, more than 20 locally’ in the future.
As I understand it from the proforma, the ASA is saying that as a church we can no longer refer to the personal healing that has happened in people’s lives, nor publicly state the belief that people could be healed through prayer and faith in God. That as a matter of conscience we cannot do.
We believe there should be truthfulness in the public sphere and in advertising, we do not think we have been untruthful or irresponsible in anything we have said.
Yours sincerely
Phil Whittall”
We then received the following and probably final (from the ASA anyway) reply (extract):
“Dear Mr Whittall,
Thank you for your email of 5 September 2008. I appreciate you feel that your circular did not discourage people from visiting their doctors. However, we consider that because it makes direct references to the physical healing of serious medical conditions, members of the public who read it may believe that it is not necessary for them to seek qualified medical advice if they attend the church.
CAP considers that advertisers in this particular sector should only make reference to ‘spiritual healing’. It has never accepted even implied references to the physical healing of serious medical conditions. We do understand that this is a delicate area, but I am sure you can appreciate that we must approach all ‘advertisers’ in the same way in order for the regulation of the entire industry to be consistent and fair.
I am disappointed that you are not willing to sign and return the proforma. We have no option left but to refer this issue to Shrewsbury Trading Standards, who may wish to take their own action.”
So there you go, I assume from this that the next we hear of it will be from Trading Standards which will be interesting. But there are a few other interesting points, one as someone pointed out to me, “according to their world view they don’t mind us abusing people’s spiritual health but we aren’t allowed to speak about physical health.”
One also assumes that if someone were to come to church ill and leave ill then they would still consult their doctor. But only if someone came ill and left healthy then they may not go to a doctor, although we would encourage them to go to verify the change. Anyway the saga continues and I can agree with the believers prayer when they said, ‘Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus’ (Acts 4:29-30)
Well things have gone a little bit further since then. The ASA sent us a proforma which goes a bit further than the action they requested here. The proforma of compliance is as follows:
“ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ASA ADJUDICATION
This is an assurance that the advertising that was the subject of ASA investigation reference No. A08-59227 will no longer appear in its original form. The claims investigated and found to breach the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing, and similar claims that are likely to breach the Code, will not appear in our future marketing communications. We will ensure future circulars do not contain references to the treatment or cure of medical conditions.”
The part we have a particular issue with is in the last two sentences. No future claims about healing, no reference to the cure of medical conditions. Unsurprisingly, this was something we couldn’t agree with.
The ASA only allow appeals if there is a flawed procedure or new evidence comes to light, yet they have never asked us to verify the claims of healing which we made and which we are happy to do. The issue has never been whether the healings are true but whether we can tell anyone and invite people to see for themselves. They don’t allow appeals on the grounds that we disagree with their decision and that they might be wrong. So we didn’t appeal. Didn’t seem to be a point.
That leaves only two options compliance or non-compliance. We took the second option. As a result I received an email from their compliance team, asking us again to comply. We refused. We said:
“Thank you for your email, however we are not able to comply with your request at this time for the following reasons. We disagree with the judgement of the ASA with regard to our printed invitation, but the ASA do not allow appeals against their decision on this basis. With its present wording we’re unable to sign the proforma as we feel it restricts both our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, specifically around the possibility of God healing, and have advice that supports this view. We’d be happy to talk with the ASA to jointly work on a proforma that does neither of those things but that upholds high standards in advertising, which we fully support.”
The following day I receive another letter an extract of which says,
“
The ASA council did not accept your argument that the circular was merely an invitation to seek God in prayer for medical problems because the wording of the ad implied that the conditions were treated as a direct result of prayer.
This specific point is covered by Code clauses 2.2 and 50.3 which states:
2.2.1 All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
50.3 Marketers should not discourage essential treatment. They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional (e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or health professional body). Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered.”
They asked again for us to comply. I think that is unlikely. The point of contention has been made clearer by the sentence “because the wording of the ad implied that the conditions were treated as a direct result of prayer.” Well, at least they understood what we were saying, that is what we were implying.
So what do you think?
Other bloggers on this issue:
Meanwhile, I’ve received these messages of support:
“I just want to encourage you in your stand about prayer and healing having read the article on the BBC new report. I too am a doctor, though also retired, and gladly endorse healing through Christian prayer. I pray that you will continue to make your stand and see more & more of the Lord’s mightty work in your midst. With blessings in the name of The Great Physician.”
and
“I was just reading the ASA adjudication on your leaflet and am appalled that they would make the assessments as they did and prevent you from talking about the power of God, through prayer to heal. Are you taking this any further? We are praying for you and standing with you in this matter.”
Other listings:
Plenty of other places too, but they mostly just reference the BBC article. While I was at Newday, I missed calls from Premier Radio and the Baptist Times. So they caught news of it too.
I wonder how long this story will run for?
During May, we held a guest service where we preached the life changing message of Jesus Christ and prayed for the sick, with hope and expectation that God would heal. We’ve seen a number of people blessed by God in this way, so we decided to do an invitation/flyer to our community, which we called Beautiful News.
The service came and went, and although no healings occurred on that day, we were glad to step out in faith and pray for those who are unwell, and we thought that was that until we next held a service of that nature.
Two weeks later I receive a letter from the ASA who informed me that they had received a complaint about our flyer. You can read the details of the complaint, the issues the ASA had with our advert, our response to them, their adjudication and the action they’ve requested from their website here.
Following that the local paper picked it up here and on the BBC here. I was also interviewed on the local radio, you can listen to the interview here (it starts 41 minutes in and lasts about 5 minutes). Somewhat bizarrely the story is also reported on the website Bad Homeopathy!
The Evangelical Alliance have been very supportive, and framed this response;
The Evangelical Alliance has noted the adjudication of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in relation to the North Shrewsbury Community Church. We affirm the important role of the ASA in maintaining honesty and decency in advertising, but have some serious concerns with regard to the judgement and, in particular, regarding the requirements being laid upon the church in respect of future communications. We shall be taking up these concerns directly with the ASA. We believe that God can and does heal people today and will engage with the ASA to explore ways of expressing the Christian faith within the boundaries of the advertising codes, and without diluting its message and beliefs.
And a few days later I received this email;
I read about your case (vs ASA) on the BBC website. Christians who claim to be able to do miraclous gifts of healing today should be exposed as fakes, since that it all it is. What does it say in Matt 24? "Lord Lord did we not cast out demons in your name"? More should be done to highlight this abomination. I guess you have lady preachers? homosexual ministers? All against what a new testament Church should be. David
I think he meant Mt 7 but never mind. Well, our position is that God does heal, that this is good news to the community and that letting people know about this is not ‘irresponsible’ but in fact good practice for a church! That’s the facts and the places I’ve found it being reported on the web so far, I’ll comment on it as I go along.
I believe Jesus when he said 'life does not consist in the abundance of our possessions'. I believe he offers something better. This blog is mostly about that search.
I'm also a husband, a father, church planter, keen runner, reader, and motorcyclist. These and a few other things make guest appearances from time to time.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Picasa
