Friday, November 23, 2012

The bullying of the churches in England

Earlier this week a General Synod of the Church of England rejected a proposal to ordain women as bishops.

The motion to ordain female bishops was supported by the bishops (44 to 3) and the clergy (148 to 45) but lacked a two thirds majority required by the laity (132 to 74).

The response to the vote has been extraordinary. The Prime Minister told the church that "the time is right for women bishops" and that the church "had to get with the programme". Even though church rules forbid another vote before 2015, the Prime Minister's office is putting the church under pressure to reverse the decision earlier.

The reaction of the outgoing Archbishop, Rowan Williams, was even stronger:
In a strongly worded speech on Wednesday, Williams warned that the failure of the vote in the house of laity on Tuesday had made the church's governing body appear "wilfully blind" to the priorities of secular society.

"We have – to put it very bluntly – a lot of explaining to do," he said. "Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday … the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society."

One "Christian" MP intends to use the law to force a different decision:
Frank Field, a leading Christian Labour MP, said he would present a private member's bill to parliament on Thursday calling for the cancellation of the church's exemptions from equality legislation. "When we gave exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act we were assured that the church didn't want to discriminate and that it would bring forward measures to eliminate such discrimination," he said.

But Tuesday's vote had made clear that that had not happened. "Parliament made a gracious act under a misapprehension," he said

There is a kind of contempt for the church in all of this. It is assumed that the Anglican Church should make such decisions not on the basis of an understanding of Christianity, but on keeping up with trends within the secular society and getting with the programme of the liberal state.

Even the head of the church apparently accepts this, being quoted as saying that the church has to keep up with the "trends and priorities" of the wider society.

Would a serious Christian really adopt such a stance? Would such a person make "the priorities of secular society" the basis for deciding important issues within the church?

The affair is also a reminder of just how committed the UK establishment is to liberalism - liberalism is clearly being treated here as the higher authority or the superior principle to which Christian institutions must be subordinated and brought into line. And this line of superiority is apparently accepted wholeheartedly by some of those identifying as Christians, such as Frank Field and Rowan Williams.

But if liberalism is the ruling principle, so that only those aspects of Christianity are permitted which fit within it, then doesn't that then make Christianity something less than what it would claim to be?

And if it really is true that liberalism ought to be the superior principle, then wouldn't a serious-minded person commit themselves to following the superior principle (liberalism) rather than the lesser one (Christianity)?


  1. I understand caring a little bit about the secular world but putting the secular world above Christianity? That's not right.

  2. This is liberalism at its finest, just look at gay marriage and canada, there are catholic(imo they're not Christian since they believe mary to be holy etc) schools that are being forced to not teach against abortion and homosexuality. Liberals claim that if gays get marriage no church will be forced to marry them, just look at the businesses that are being sued by gays, Christian businesses are being targetted by gays into forcing the business into endorsing and participating in something against their will and consience and if they don't they're sued and ruled against by activist judges.

    Liberalism's goal is for eveyone to worship the state, just like north koreans worship their "dear leader". Liberals want everyone to need the state, because ifyou're dependent on something then you'll keep returning the person giving you stuff to power. The problem with Christianity specifically is that it teaches against worshipping false gods, liberals think they're more intellectual and should be worshipped, it also talks about liberty and freedom, which liberals hate because humans are seen as a virus on the Earth.

    look at anywhere christianity has been spread, there's a trend of freedom and humans rights that grow exponentially compared to places that move towards are rather athiestic view. This is because Christians know that rights are given by God and that no mere man can ever take them away, this clashes with liberal thinking because they like to give out 'rights' that don't exist such as birth control, abortion and gay marriage.

    TL;dr: liberals are trying to change church doctrine into secular teaching, liberals will try to make churches support gay marriage by forcin them to conducting the marriage or else and they will use this to snuff out any anti-lgbt and jail them for "hate speech" if they so dare speak out against the state.

  3. There is a kind of contempt for the church in all of this

    Spoken with the true, understated, defeated, wandering-soul, of the englishman.

    Kudos, to you.

  4. The Anglican Church was founded on the basis of secular priorities and not religious ones. Henry was Catholic in sensibility, but wanted a new wife with whom to make an heir. So came the Anglican Church. The civil wars in England, and the US war of independence both stem from the "war" within this bastard non-church between the pseudo-Catholics and the Protestant destroyers of everything -- and it was the latter who formed the foundation of the American rebellion, and the values that it championed.

    It's a bastard church. It was always intended to reflect the prerogatives of the state over Christianity, from the very beginning of the Anglican church. So, yes, as the French say, "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose". The chickens are merely coming home to roost (as they did with female ordination, gay ordination, gay unions and so on).

    The Holy Spirit never was with the Anglicans -- they abandoned him when they split from Rome (and no, I am not a Roman Catholic).

  5. I hope they can rebel against the prime minister. i doubt it though.

  6. A feminized church is an irrelevent one. You need merely look at the feminized Protestant churches in the US to see what a laughingstock they are, and whatg shrieking harpies they produce. The EAPs (Evangelical American Princesses) are some of the most hideous women this side of the feminist movement.

    ...and now England wants to follow suit.

  7. Brendan said...
    " The Holy Spirit never was with the Anglicans -- they abandoned him when they split from Rome (and no, I am not a Roman Catholic). "

    What might we say then of the Roman Catholics when they split from the Orthodox?

  8. The Church of England already has women bishops in that some have been "ordained" as Vicars or Priests and, according to The Bible, a "bishop" or "elder" is a Pastor or Shepherd of the flock (see 1 Timothy ch.3 verses 1-13), there is no higher office of "Bishop" and a "bishop" or Pastor, must be the "husband of one wife" so the Church of England has already disregarded Scripture by making women "priests" or "vicars."WOMEN CANNOT BE THE "HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, and the Church of England is woefully lacking in its understanding of "God's order in the Church".If they were not, they would see that women are not permitted to lead a Church because leadership is male.

  9. The primary objective of leftists isn't the ordination of women, but to gain control of the Church. It is torturous for them to be challenged with truth, to come face to face with their flaws like a circus mirror distorts our faces and bodies. They don't want women ordained as a display of equality, they want control so they can smash the mirrors. Once they are satisfied with the dismantling of the Church, they'll discard it.

  10. What might we say then of the Roman Catholics when they split from the Orthodox?

    This is misleading, for it assumes that the RCC 'sprang' out of the Orthodox Church. There was one Church - the Holy Catholic Church - headed in Rome, and those in the Eastern part of the Empire did not want to bow to a Pope. Kind of like Henry in England. So there was a schism - the East/West Schism. But the RCC did not split from the Orthodox; rather, it was a gradual mutual schism, over several hundreds of years.

  11. @Anonymous

    How dare those socialists call themselves liberals. If they are so liberal why do they make the government so big and oppressive? Why do they censor and promote newspeak. Why do they call for redistribution?

  12. @ Mrs. White said.

    Note the church is england is a state church. Who in their self-interested mind would bite the hand that feeds them?