Prayer and Healing

pawsonFor some reason David Pawson has been a controversial figure in Christian circles.
That controversy is clearly demonstrated by the popularity of an article I posted on one of my other blogs, asking Is David Pawson a False Teacher?

I wrote the article because that question has been the most common ‘search term’ drawing people to my blog. (It has had almost 29,000 views to date).

I see that Pawson is interested in what the Bible actually teaches and tries to address that rather than just pass on traditional teaching and theology.
It’s an approach with the capacity to offend those who are addicted to their church traditions.

For the most part this book takes a biblical look at prayer, through adapting content of some Pawson sermons into written form.

Overall it is a very readable, and interesting look at what scripture reveals about prayer. What it is, how it’s done and with whom and to whom we need to pray.

Pawson gives a lot of food for thought, maybe challenging some naïve ideas.

My one quibble with the book, and it seems out of character for Pawson, is that he takes the traditional, non-biblical, line regarding the apostle Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”. (see 2 Corinthians 12: 1-10) By doing that I think he compromises an otherwise well presented, clearly taught book on prayer.

(I have written about what the bible says regarding Paul’s “thorn”  as well as posting other material on my Onesimus Files blog).

murrayAndrew Murray’s Divine Healing is the first of two books I’ve read recently regarding “divine healing”. I read both of the books after doing my own study on the topic, and it was satisfying to note that both authors confirmed a lot of the findings of my own studies, as well as giving more insight to ponder.

Murray’s book suffers at times from outdated language and turns of phrase. (Murray died in 1917). Like so many from his era, he occasional resorts to an Olde English style using thees and thous, when addressing God; as if God speaks Elizabethan English and requires His followers to do likewise.

The surprising thing about this book is how much it reveals the extent that God’s desire to heal has been buried by the church. So much of what Murray teaches in this book would be dismissed today as extreme, and yet he comes from a very conservative theological background, and not some group promoting a modern “health and wealth gospel”.

The second book on healing was Christ the Healer, by F.F. Bosworth, a healing evangelist from the early 20th century.

bosworthIt’s a book I recall owning many years ago, but had long since lost.
I bought a new copy a few weeks ago, in an updated edition in which the language of a century ago has been given a more present day appeal.

Not long after it was delivered, Gloria claimed it and has been reading it ever since, making notes and highlighting significant sections. Instead of waiting for her to finish with it, I chose to get another copy for myself, one I could easily pass on to someone else later.

Bosworth starts with a very astute observation.

Before people can have a steadfast faith for the healing of their body, they must be rid of all uncertainty concerning God’s will in the matter.

It was that same realisation (that faith is impossible without knowledge of God’s will) that led me to my own Bible study of His will regarding healing.

After expressing that foundational reality, Bosworth proceeds to address the matter of God’s will and desire to heal, mostly from scripture but also from personal experience.
He himself had been healed of a terminal case of tuberculosis as a young man before going on to preach and heal around the world for many decades afterwards.

Three excellent books addressing vital issues of Christian living that sadly seem to have been pushed aside in modern Christian experience, expectation and practice.

Something Rotten in the State of Tasmania

Southern Justice, by Colin McLaren

Some time late on Australia Day (26th January) 2009, Bob Chappell disappeared from his yacht moored in Sandy Bay, Hobart, Tasmania.
The next day the yacht, Four Winds, seemed to be sinking. Police boarding the boat found it was taking on water. They traced one of the owners, Sue Neill-Fraser, and discovered that her partner Bob had been on the yacht but was now missing.

The presence of blood suggested there had been violence below deck.

Before long Sue Neill-Fraser became the prime (and only) suspect in the murder of her de-facto husband and was later found guilty of clubbing him to death with a large wrench, winching his body from below deck, then dumping him somewhere at sea.

The evidence that made her the suspect, was that she lied to police about some of her actions on the date of the murder. These “lies” were told during an interview she gave straight after hearing of her partner’s apparent death. No consideration was given of the possibility her memory was affected by the shock she inevitably experienced after being told the news.

Lies or confusion?
Police chose to believe it was lies.

And yet, none of those lies actually had any substantive relevance to anything associated with the case.

souther justiceSouthern Justice examines the case and its many short comings. Former detective Colin McLaren was asked by film maker Eve Ash to look at the evidence she had collated about the case over the past several years.
Ash had previously documented the story in a film, Shadow of Doubt.
McLaren was invited to review the collection of evidence for a newer documentary series Undercurrent that has recently screened on TV in Australia.

McLaren’s initial reluctance to get involved gave way to a commitment to find the truth after he’d seen the details of the intriguing case.

“I didn’t care a hoot who killed Bob Chappell, as long as the facts and circumstances supported the theory of who was responsible. If I could prove Sue was guilty, by way of my own reckoning, I would be just as satisfied as if I proved her innocence. I had no loyalty to anyone involved in the case. All I was seeking was the truth.” (Colin McLaren)

The “fact” that she used a wrench to brutally bash her husband to death became a key part of the narrative told in court. Even though no wrench of sufficient size had ever been known on the boat. No wrench was ever found. And Bob’s body remained missing, not allowing any examination to determine how he’d actually died.

There was also no evidence that the winch and the ropes that she’d allegedly utilised to remove the body from below deck had been used on the night of the murder.
McLaren found quite a lot of evidence that another egress point (a skylight) was the likely way that Bob’s body had been taken from below deck. However that exit would require more than a slightly built middle-aged woman to lift a full grown man onto the boats exterior. And that didn’t fit the preferred narrative the police had created.

McLaren has a very readable style and sets out his information clearly and convincingly. The book is as much about his personal investigation, not only of the evidence of the original case, but where that evidence leads him – seeking out things that the police missed (avoided?). He also looks further into things that were found by the police but were considered irrelevant and therefore ignored. McLaren discusses why so much rejected evidence potentially had significant relevance and could have changed the direction of the investigation and widened the pool of suspects to characters more likely to be involved than Sue Neill Fraser.

Despite McLaren’s style and  the engaging nature of the book, I didn’t find it an easy read. The implication of what McLaren shows grows increasingly disturbing, challenging any faith held in the justice system. Each section took time to process, to come to terms with the realisation that those we ought to trust most are not necessarily deserving of that trust.  Reading the book stirred a variety of emotions, frustration, anger, despair – how can such an obvious miscarriage of justice be allowed to happen and be allowed to continue for so many years afterwards.

This case is only one of many possible miscarriages of justice that I’ve learned about recently, and while one or two of the others have a degree of ambiguity or uncertainty, this case leaves me in no doubt at all that either incompetence, corruption, or a blend of the two has played a part in seeing an innocent woman jailed for a lengthy time; with all attempts to right the wrong hitting a wall of bureaucracy and perhaps the self-interest of face-saving.

That bureaucratic involvement goes to the top levels of Tasmania’s government. After McLaren and Ash gave the fruit of their investigation to the state’s Premier, Attorney General and Solicitor General, the request for consideration of the evidence was rebuffed. Then, almost straight away, the police applied pressure on the investigators, raiding the premises of the film production company and a lawyer who had been helping with the case. Charges were laid accusing them and witnesses who had been helping them, of “perverting the course of justice”. McLaren estimates that it has cost the police and courts millions of dollars to pursue those highly questionable charges against those trying to find the truth about Bob Chappell’s murder and Sue Neill-Fraser’s innocence..

This particular case has been the subject of at least three books, a film, a six part TV series and several stories on shows like 60 minutes. Sue Neill-Fraser’s situation has also caught the attention and support of politicians, and senior legal figures, and yet for so long there has been a refusal to face up to the investigative failures that led to an innocent woman being imprisoned for almost a decade, with more than another decade still to serve.

At the end of 2017 an application to have the case appealed was presented to the court. The presiding judge yesterday (21 March 2019) ruled that the appeal could go ahead.

Meanwhile many are calling for a Royal Commission to investigate miscarriages of justice like this one, and the problematical justice system that allows (causes?) them.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-28/neill-fraser-call-for-royal-commission-into-tasmanian-justice/10754988

See also: https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/category/sue-neill-fraser/

Another Miscarriage of Justice?

Last night I saw the final episode of Undercurrent, a documentary series investigating the conviction and imprisonment of  Susan Neill-Fraser for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell.

Chappell had been working on his new yacht and stayed on board on the night of Australia Day 2009.  Bystanders saw the yacht seemed to be sinking and alerted authorities. After saving the boat, suspicions were aroused that a violent crime had been committed on board. Bob Chappell was missing and there has been no sign of him or his body since.

Police quickly looked at his partner as being the prime suspect.  Susan Neill-Fraser, a slightly built grandmother was alleged to have struck Chappell on the head with a wrench, winched his body from the lower deck via the main hatch, and disposed of it overboard, weighted down with a missing fire extinguisher. A detailed claim based on no body (therefore no wounds to suggest means of death) no explanation of why a wrench should be suggested as the weapon used, and on the likelihood that a middle-aged grandmother would have the strength to winch the body of a well-built man out of the boat by herself.

Undercurrent introduces former detective Colin McLaren to the investigation, and one of the first things he noticed in a photo of the crime scene was drips of blood on a bench seat immediately beneath a skylight – suggesting that Chappell’s body had been removed from the inside of the boat via that skylight, and not as according to the police report winched via the main hatch.

McLaren conducted a re-enactment in which two people successfully lifted a “body” of the same size as Chappell through that skylight.

Another disturbing aspect of the case was that a DNA sample found at the scene had been discounted as being a secondary transfer from a policeman’s boot. The sample was reportedly the size of a dinner plate, indicating the policeman had exceptionally large boots, or the  secondary transfer claim was false. The DNA was later found to belong to a homeless teenage girl, Meaghan Vass, who denied ever being on the yacht.

McClaren later tracked Vass (now in her twenties) down and attempts to obtain testimony from her made up a large part of the final two episodes. It was a difficult task that seemed to bear some fruit – until all of those involved in this new investigation were individually raided by the police, and either charged, or threatened with charges, of perverting the course of justice.

At the end of the series, Susan Neill-Fraser was still in jail, waiting for the result of her final appeal. That was over a year ago and the result of the appeal hasn’t yet been disclosed.

Accusations were made in court during that appeal, that the investigators and documentary makers had threated and bribed Vass to make a false statement about her being on the yacht the night Chappell went missing. Footage of the interaction between Vass and the investigators show that wasn’t the case. Further confirmation of her involvement (as per her original statement) will seemingly be provided in a 60 Minutes story to be screened on Sunday night.

In addition to the Undercurrent documentary, a previous film Shadow of Doubt was released about this case and 60 Minutes have done a number of earlier reports.

What makes this story relevant to my “book blog” is that I’ve become aware of three different books about the case and its inconsistencies.

Murder by the Prosecution by Andrew L. Urban

Death on the Derwent, by Robin Bowles

Southern Justice, by Colin McLaren

I haven’t had the chance to read any of them yet, but they are all now on my list of books to buy when I can afford it.

Two short, relevant videos.