Posted on 11/23/2012 6:07:24 PM PST by marshmallow
The transcript for a debate which took place in the British parliament yesterday makes for sobering reading. The debate took place in the wake of the vote by the General Synod of the Church of England not to pass the measure which would have brought in women bishops.
One of the remarks made by Sir Tony Baldry, the Second Church Estates Commissioner is particularly noteworthy. He said:
As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod, the Church of England no longer looks like a national Church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect. If it wishes to be a national Church that reflects the nation, it has to reflect the values of the nation.
Erastianism, anyone? John Keeble's sermon on National Apostasy? How about the Gorham decision multiplied by however many parishes the CofE has?
Leaving aside the question of what he means when he uses the word 'sect,' that statement is something that should give all sides in this debate pause for thought. Parliament feels the Church of England has to reflect the values of the nation. Not the values of the Gospel, the values of Christ, nor traditional Christian values. Whatever society at large thinks is good is to be accepted and affirmed as good by the CofE. And of course there was in the debate a lot of talk about what Parliament might do to make the CofE do its bidding.
Now, I think things are cooling down a bit & folk are backing down from some of the extreme things that were said earlier (if the links on Let Nothing You Dismay today are anything to go by). But what about next time the CofE votes and 'gets it wrong,' whether on this issue or some other? Worrying to think that the 'Mother Church' of the Anglican Communion can be called to heel by the British Parliament - that noted body of Theologians ... where one has to be neither an Anglican nor even a person of faith in order to have a say on what the doctrine of the CofE should be.
Big Brother is watching indeed.
To paraphrase Michael Crichton, Consensus is politics, not science. With that in mind I would add... religion is closer to politics than science
A Christian Church is supposed to represent the values of Christ.
They have it exactly opposite. The world should reflect the values of the church.
It does not need to reflect the values of society. If it finds that it does not reflect the values of society, then it need to evangelize society, not cave in.
Take it one step further,
Islam will soon rule the day for the Christian church.
Fools.
And the church the values of Christ, there is no other option or it is nothing but another social club. We left one liberal church (ELCA) for the Biblical Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and if it goes off the left end, I have no idea where we’d go. There is such a thing as Biblical truth and it does not change.
Can any Anglicans here help me understand to what extent the Church of England is accountable to Parliament and/or the monarchy? I have a difficult time understanding this because Christianity is countercultural by nature, isn't it? Are there penalties government can apply toward the church if government decides the church no longer reflects societal norms? If so, to whom in the church would such penalty be directed?
Please understand that I'm genuinely curious and not interested in starting a discussion critical of or disrespectful toward Anglicans. I simply don't understand to what extent church has to answer to government. This must be a heart wrenching time for some Anglicans!
You would be welcome with us stogy Southern Baptists.
>> With that in mind I would add... religion is closer to politics than science
Because we all know the science of “Climate Change” is empirically apolitical.
What ever happend to “Reflectin g the Values of God?”
Isn’t that what churches are supposed to do?
There is no “science of “Climate Change””, only the politics of climate change.
Well, if you’re going to qualify the term ‘science’, then why not ‘religion’?
Many former members of Episcopal churches have found a home in the Orthodox Church because in more than 2000 years it has never changed and it will not change ever because of the highly structured nature of its Liturgy.
I don’t know the answer to your question but I do know that Queen Elizabeth is the Head of the Church.
The theory is that science can’t be qualified, it aspires to the truth...even if only one person suspects it (The ancient Arab that deduced the diameter of the earth, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, etc.) Religion is by its very nature unprovable, and therefore political, whether you acknowledge many deities, one deity or none.
I have a good friend who’s LCMS. If things goes liberal there, you’re welcome to come to my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America(PCA). There’s also the WELS(Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) and many independent Baptist and Bible churches that are Biblically orthodox and solid.
“As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod, the Church of England no longer looks like a national Church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect. If it wishes to be a national Church that reflects the nation, it has to reflect the values of the nation.”
There’s something to be said about separation of church and state which means no state church not “protecting” the government from Christianity as the psycholib secularists keep trying to enforce on the rest of us.
I’m talking about the terms not what the terms truly represent — elaborating on your post #13.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.