EDITORIAL: A lost shepherd

The Washington Times ^ | April 3, 2009 | Editorial

[Scanian]

In what is being called a victory for Islamism, the Anglican Church's only ethnically Asian bishop is stepping down. The Right Reverend Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, announced that he is retiring next September in order to work on behalf of "endangered or beleaguered Christian minorities." Regrettably, his most important work defending Christianity will need to be inside the United Kingdom.

The bishop is a controversial figure in Britain. In January 2008, he published an article in The Sunday Telegraph stating that Islamic extremists had created "no-go areas" across Britain where non-Muslims entered at their peril. In calling attention to this danger, Dr. Nazir-Ali ran afoul of church orthodoxy. Dr. Rowan Williams, the liberal Archbishop of Canterbury, seeks wider dialogue and compromise with the Muslim community in Britain, and told the BBC that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." He believes that the introduction of some aspects of shariah law "seems unavoidable" if social cohesion is to be maintained.

Such accommodations create legal sanctuaries for extremism, leading to increased segregation and lack of respect for the rights of the society as a whole. Dr. Williams' views are symptomatic of the multiculturalist relativism of the 20th century that has disarmed the defenders of western civilization. Those who think that everything is up for discussion are powerless against those who define free speech as blasphemy. To wit, a 2005 study by the British-based group Christian Research estimated that the number of Muslims at British mosques will be double the number attending church by 2040.

[Scanian]

"Defense of Christianity wanes in the Anglican Church"

[SES1066]

"Defense of Christianity wanes in the Anglican Church"

This, IMHO, points to the DANGER of a State Church. From our own colonial history and such horrors as the 30 Years War we learned of the oppressive desire of a State Church to suppress other doctrines.

In present day Europe we now see the opposite side of the coin. The Clergy of the State Church are Government Employees and as such are constrained by government policies. If the government does not wish to defend the faith, then neither can the State Church. When will Elizabeth II give up the "Fidei Defensor" portion of her title? I no longer see it as anything but an assemblage of letters.

[Scanian]

A state church creates resentment among the populace and a loss of faith. It is a terrible idea and is largely responsible for the secularization of Europe. I love traveling in Sweden and seeing all the lovely, well-kept and EMPTY Lutheran churches.

[Winniesboy]

The Anglican Church in England is the established church, but that doesn’t mean it’s a state church - and its clergy are most certainly not government employees! They are not paid by the government, are not accountable to the government, and in no way take direction from the government.

[SES1066]

The Anglican Church in England is the established church, but that doesn’t mean it’s a state church ...

I agree and stand corrected that the Anglican Church in England is only minimally government supported - mostly by forgiving VAT on maintaining Church Buildings. It still seems that the senior prelates do appear to follow the current Labour viewpoint, that may only be by coincidence. I regret the error in my original comment.

[Winniesboy]

Don’t worry about it - the inner workings of the Church of England are mysterious enough to somebody fairly close to the subject, let alone to an outsider...What keeps the CoE going, financially speaking, is not govt money but the historical accident that it happens to own a lot of valuable land: and it’s the income from this, administered by the Church Commissioners (who are the CoE’s business managers) which mostly pays the clergy stipends etc., which could never be met solely by gifts from the sadly diminished congregations. As far as public statements by prelates are concerned, I think that looking back over the last 25 years or so on balance they have tended to be critical, implicitly or explicitly, of the government in power (of whatever party), when discussing public affairs: and on the whole this is fairly healthy. I certainly see no sign that the present Church establishment are keen supporters of the Brown government.