The ACB should have properly explained its position

Dear Editor,

I refer to ‘Broadcasting committee warns Sharma about Papillon and church programme claims,’ (SN, May 9). It must have shocked many when the committee issued two letters to CNS (Channel 6) for airing a movie about the 1930s, Papillon, and  a church-sponsored programme that made claims it can cure incurable diseases.

I can understand the ACB warning CNS 6 about the showing of Papillon because of partial nudity and graphically violent scenes in the movie, and especially if the movie was shown in prime time, but the warning against allowing the church programme to be aired, if not properly explained, could be deemed an infringement of religious rights and freedoms that should not be ignored.

I would hazard a guess and say that the ACB simply erred on the side of being overly cautious in wanting to shield diseased persons who refuse to take medications because some pastor or preacher said faith is the sure cure, because we do have enough case precedents to know better than to have a lot of faith but little wisdom when it comes to faith healing and medicine. Indictments, charges of religious persecution and even political controversies have erupted because some folks refused to seek medical help for one religious reason or other, and each case presented compelling reasons why faith could have worked in tandem with wisdom.

I don’t know the core beliefs of the Universal Church, nor am I aware of how the statement offering a cure was structured and presented, but I am pretty much aware that there are churches that do believe in divine healing as part of their articles of faith, and so rather than rush to tell the churches not to preach a cure for diseases on TV or radio, the ACB, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, should advise churches and the public to recognize that they have a mutual responsibility to ensure they are aware of options for healing or being cured. The onus would then be on churches and individuals to decide how to approach a cure for whatever disease exists: by faith or by medication or a combination of the two.

I am no authority on faith healing, but from the little I have gathered over the years, faith healing is one of the benefits of salvation (or being saved from sin and hell), which one obtains through faith or believing (exercising faith) that God sent Christ to die for the sinners. This act of salvation through faith is completed when one confesses sins and repents from living without Christ, and subjects himself or herself to the very demanding process of living as a Christian in a body prone to sin and sickness and in a world filled with sin and sickness. Only a growing faith in God can bring one successfully through this process.

And that’s why the decision by the ACB to admonish a TV outfit not to allow a church to air a programme urging people to consider faith healing has to be properly explained so that there is no appearance of the ACB running political interference in a segment of one of Guyana’s major religions – Christianity. For if this is not clarified, it can leave the door open for preachers and pastors to be told later not to encourage faith healing in public crusades or risk having their permits denied or yanked. Then where does it stop? Is it with a political directive telling churches not to preach Christian-based faith and salvation because not everyone believes in this provision?

Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin