God has a wry sense of humour. I am reminded of it by two letters on our coins, FD. They stand for the Latin,Fidei Defensor, Defender of the Faith. The title was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo in 1521 as a result of the book, "Defence of the Seven Sacraments." The king had taken part in the composition of this reply to Luther"s "Babylonian Captivity of the Church." He took all credit for authorship and his reward was a papal title to rival those of continental monarchs. It was not intended as an hereditary title but the heirs of Henry still hold the title as witnessed by our coins. They have sworn the Coronation Oath to uphold the Reformed Protestant Religion but are pleased to keep their papal title. Recently Prince Charles said that he would prefer to be defender of all faiths. Subsequent clarification from the Prince stated that he did not wish to challenge the constitutional position of the Church of England of which he will one day, God willing, become Supreme Governor. The Archbishop of Canterbury assured the public that there was only one constitutional requirement for the Prince to be crowned king, he has to be the legitimate child of the sovereign. Questions of personal faith or morality are not constitutional impediments.
The televised documentary about the Prince reopened the debate about the establishment of the Church of England. Curiously, little is said about the otheestablished church north of the border but there is public debate on whether Christianityshould have a privileged constitutional position.Evangelicals Now has had articles, notably from Herbert Carson, on the unbiblical status of an established church. In AD 313 the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, professing to be a Christian , issued the Edict of Milan giving full legal tolerance to Christianity. Ever since believers have been divided as to the benefits of Christianity being recognised as special by the state. Originally the Romans had given special tolerance to the Jewish religion and Christians were a Jewish sect. The followers of Jesus lost their privileges when they were expelled by the synagogues . Their subsequent refusal to offer incense to the Emperor as a god was costly. It won for many the martyrs crown. From AD 313, Christianity recognised by the Emperor, meant an end to official persecution. Confiscated property was returned, clerics received special exemptions from civic office and bishops were granted civil jurisdiction. Soon however shepherds of Christ's flock became princes of the church. Bedecked in purple, the imperial colour, they were to sit on thrones. A cathedral is the place of a throne, not a sheep fold. The down side of the establishment of Christianity is well documented as it affected the church.
Most of the current debate in the Church of England is about how wrong it is for the Crown through Parliament to have influence over the appointment of bishops, and for ungodly parliamentarians to legislate for the church. Presbyterian Scotland does not seem to have such problems having dispensed with the servicesof an episcopate. While an establishment for England like the Scottish model has been suggested I have yet to hear the Anglican case for a presbyterian church of England. That was offered by the Westminster Assembly 350 years ago but did not find favour even then when there was neither king nor bishops to remove.
Many but not all Evangelicals favour disestablishment. Some Anglicans want it. Secularists certainly favour it. A strong opinion opposed to any change appeared in The Times on July 12th. Rabbi Dr. Julian Jacobs, the Chief Rabbi's representative on interfaith relationships, wrote that disestablishment would be a major step towards the secularisation of Britain and would reduce religious tolerance. He believes that modern Britain has a unique record of religious tolerance. Establishment embraces diversity and embodies the central role of faith in the life of the nation. If that is removed all faiths will suffer and be equally marginalised in a new secular state. After the role of religion is reduced what follows is a reduction in the value of human life.
Chesterton said that when man ceases to believe in God he does not
believe in nothing but in anything. Proponents of disestablishment forget that to disestablish Christianity is not to establish nothing. Humanistic secularism would be enthroned as supreme arbiter. I believe that the state needs establishment far more than the church. I have never been a member of an established church but as a christian active in politics I value the fact that we are constitutionally a Christian country. Parliament opens each day with prayer, an acknowledgement that legislators are not autonomous. They should not make up the laws as they go along but discover the will of God for civil government. In the borough where I am a councillor the Mayor's chaplain prays for the councillors when the council meets. This year I protested to the mayor when he decided not to have a chaplain. I miss the reminder that councillors are responsible to a higher authority than the mayor or the electorate.
Most of all Christians should argue for the continuing special place of Christianity simply because it is true and other religions are false. The gospel does not need state approval or toleration. The King of Kings reigns over all earthly rulers. They should confess Christ as his ministers in public office. The outworking of the truth of our faith has given true religious liberty in Britain. It was a struggle in which many lives were lost for the crown rights of the redeemer. Men like Samuel Rutherford contended for the sovereignty of Christ over not only the church but rulers too. His book "Lex Rex", would have cost him his life at the Restoration had not God taken Rutherford home to Emmanuel's land.
Christian liberty is worth defending. It is an inheritance not to be despised for a bowl of secularist tolerance. Liberty is more than toleration. Christians should not be content with mere toleration in a secularist state. They should continue to contend for that truth affirmed in the coronation service when the monarch receives the orb. The archbishop reminds the new ruler that Christ by his cross rules the sphere of the world.
Showing posts with label Established church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Established church. Show all posts
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Establishment
A letter I wrote 17 years ago.
Dr. J Benton
Evangelicals Now
14 Silverleigh Road
Thornton Heath
CR7 6DU
20 November 1993
Dear John,
I have been disappointed by the articles and responses on disestablishment. The treatment of the issue was anglo-centric. There is more than one such church even in this United Kingdom and others that would like to be established at least north of the Border!
Secondly and of primary importance is the practical effect of disestablishment of any church. The result would not be the "biblical" position advocated by Herbert Carson et al. The clear result would be the establishment of secularism and futher privatisation of all religions. We have at present a de facto establishment of secularism due to the impotence of the churches of all persuasions not merely the two established ones. A de jure disestablishment would therefore put us on a par with the U.S.A. if not worse.
I should like to ask those who would so privatise the the faith, how they would be propose that rulers are called to practically profess and acknowledge the Lordship of Christ in their God-given calling. All people are to bow before Christ in their callings and politics must be seen do be done under His authority. Pietism must not rule as it is the friend of secularism. In my view rulers have a duty to establish Christianity, not a particular church. That I would say was the aim of some of the American Founding Fathers but they sadly missed the mark
The church does not need establishment but rulers do. They should acknowledge the truth, not merely as private individuals but as public persons. This is done when Parliament meets and in many Councils. For some of us this is not empty civic religion but a true bowing before God and a seeking of His will in a political calling.
Yours for the rule of Christ,
Councillor Graham Weeks
London Borough of Ealing
Dr. J Benton
Evangelicals Now
14 Silverleigh Road
Thornton Heath
CR7 6DU
20 November 1993
Dear John,
I have been disappointed by the articles and responses on disestablishment. The treatment of the issue was anglo-centric. There is more than one such church even in this United Kingdom and others that would like to be established at least north of the Border!
Secondly and of primary importance is the practical effect of disestablishment of any church. The result would not be the "biblical" position advocated by Herbert Carson et al. The clear result would be the establishment of secularism and futher privatisation of all religions. We have at present a de facto establishment of secularism due to the impotence of the churches of all persuasions not merely the two established ones. A de jure disestablishment would therefore put us on a par with the U.S.A. if not worse.
I should like to ask those who would so privatise the the faith, how they would be propose that rulers are called to practically profess and acknowledge the Lordship of Christ in their God-given calling. All people are to bow before Christ in their callings and politics must be seen do be done under His authority. Pietism must not rule as it is the friend of secularism. In my view rulers have a duty to establish Christianity, not a particular church. That I would say was the aim of some of the American Founding Fathers but they sadly missed the mark
The church does not need establishment but rulers do. They should acknowledge the truth, not merely as private individuals but as public persons. This is done when Parliament meets and in many Councils. For some of us this is not empty civic religion but a true bowing before God and a seeking of His will in a political calling.
Yours for the rule of Christ,
Councillor Graham Weeks
London Borough of Ealing
Monday, January 11, 2010
How the world changed in the Past Decade. Part 6 - The Church
I called this The Church not Christianity as I have a high view of the corporate nature of my faith. My view of what is church is that of the classic reformed tradition. She is catholic and apostolic, local and universal, invisible and visible, militant and triumphant and the gates of hell will not prevail against her. She is the bride of king Jesus and his appointed means to fulfill his great commission of preaching the gospel and baptising all the nations.
This decade has seen a further southward move of global Christianity. It is no longer a largely European based faith and the vitality of confession and witness had moved south especially to Africa. Western churches are increasingly paralysed by their abandonment of biblical faith. Liberals do not evangelise and grow. Evangelicals and charismatics do. So in the UK traditional liberal dominated churches have declined. Evangelicals and charismatics, black churches and Roman Catholics see growth. The Anglicans have been beset by the ordination of homosexual clergy, especially in the USA where they are now among the episcopate. Developing world Anglicanism will have no truck with this. The American church has been split and the intransigence of the face of ugly American episcopalian imperialism is likely to split the world wide Anglican communion. The Church of England is unlikely to see any significant exodus. Ever since 1662 the C of E has never expelled ministers and very few have repudiated its communion. Most who have left have moved to Rome, the natural destination from a church that was never fully reformed. Most have gone recently over women's ordination. More may go if women in England become bishops. Evangelical continue to stay. The cost of leaving is very considerable.
The Church of Scotland faces a similar crisis over ordination of homosexuals. Some there may leave but again, the cost especially in property is a consideration. The smaller Free Church would be a natural haven for these prospective refugees from the established church but exclusive psalmody would appear a real barrier. The Free Church which has also had a split and battles over property does show encouraging signs of questioning the exclusive psalmody stance which is encouraging for the prospect of its growth.
South of the border we have seen growth in the two small evangelical Presbyterian denominations. I have had two spells of two year terms as moderator of our presbytery. We have seen growth with two new congregations in England and six plants in progress. We have new congregations among Turks in Belgium and in Romania. There are plants in Romania, Italy and Azerbaijan too. The historic moment of being moderator came when we were able to have a presbytery meeting in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey. That also got one free admission to see all the abbey FOC.
Our local church in Ealing started the decade losing its pastor back to America then a time with no-one full time except a new graduate which I found difficult.Our pastoral search specified as high among our priorities a man with a British wife happy to settle in London. Too many Americans do not appreciate the strains involved in residence where though the language is allegedly in common, ways of living are different. A man applied who had no real tertiary education of any description so we did not invite him to preach. Dick Lucas heard and told us we had to hear him preach. We did. he has been our pastor for over six years now and we have seen unprecedented growth. He is an evangelist at heart, committed to staying until God calls him elsewhere, a godly young man with a great gift for contemporary expository preaching which attract people to the gospel. Under his ministry morning congregations have grow to more than our chapel can hold, evenings have gone from single figures to over 50, youth work has flourished and lunch time evangelistic services commenced in the Town hall. We have taken on an assistant pastor and a missionary to Farsi speakers. We have also been blessed with two Mission to the World families settling and the men being called as elders. Our denominations worked has also been blessed by other colleagues from the PCA working in England and other European countries. Our own session now numbers six men. Note we still are male. The only two things that prohibit consideration for eldership in our denomination are being female or a Baptist. The first qualification happily goes against the trends of the world which have invaded churches. We still believe in a male headship of loving servant authority in the spheres of family and church.
The second qualification led to the secession of most of our largest congregation. The elders wanted to ordain Baptists as elders in what was a Presbyterian church. Failing over several years to resolve the situation all the elders and most of the congregation left. Of course Baptists can be elders. But not in a church called Presbyterian.
As a denomination I do not think we have been beset by problems from emergent church, new perspective on Paul or Federal Vision. Theonomy, never a problem for us, seems to have gone downhill with the departure of RJR.
The demons of elf and safety and other arcane legislation ire upon us. Pot luck lunches are deemed unhealthy lest some visitor is poisoned. CRB checks are for all, even some of us who do not minister to children. Windows must be in all church doors. Queen Elizabeth would not have them in men's souls but the state must have them in our doors together with No Smoking signs in buildings where no visitor has ever been seen smoking. In a society not ruled by ten commandments our laws are legion.
The development of our church site has been blighted by the uncertainties of the property market. The old convent building next to us is derelict. The Chinese Embassy never gave us the requested opportunity of first refusal. It went through a couple of property developer, one of whom in total disregard of a preservation order, felled the pine tree which was over 100 years old and next to our chapel. The church though feels constrained not to repeat the procedure with one tree which will be in the way of any proposed redevelopment.
After it was declared that our last PM did not do God, it appears that our public sector is with him. Christians are increasingly marginalised. Registrars cannot opt out of the unchristian civil unions, counsellors cannot opt out from advising homosexuals in perverted acts, teachers and health care professionals offering to pray for or bless the needy face dismissal. Preachers who openly oppose homosexuality or Islam face arrest. Those who complain about public promotion of homosexuality are visited by Plod. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Most notable loss of the decade: Ed Clowney, friend, theologian and preacher par excellence. Anniversary of the decade, Calvin 500 in Geneva which I attened in July 2009.
This decade has seen a further southward move of global Christianity. It is no longer a largely European based faith and the vitality of confession and witness had moved south especially to Africa. Western churches are increasingly paralysed by their abandonment of biblical faith. Liberals do not evangelise and grow. Evangelicals and charismatics do. So in the UK traditional liberal dominated churches have declined. Evangelicals and charismatics, black churches and Roman Catholics see growth. The Anglicans have been beset by the ordination of homosexual clergy, especially in the USA where they are now among the episcopate. Developing world Anglicanism will have no truck with this. The American church has been split and the intransigence of the face of ugly American episcopalian imperialism is likely to split the world wide Anglican communion. The Church of England is unlikely to see any significant exodus. Ever since 1662 the C of E has never expelled ministers and very few have repudiated its communion. Most who have left have moved to Rome, the natural destination from a church that was never fully reformed. Most have gone recently over women's ordination. More may go if women in England become bishops. Evangelical continue to stay. The cost of leaving is very considerable.
The Church of Scotland faces a similar crisis over ordination of homosexuals. Some there may leave but again, the cost especially in property is a consideration. The smaller Free Church would be a natural haven for these prospective refugees from the established church but exclusive psalmody would appear a real barrier. The Free Church which has also had a split and battles over property does show encouraging signs of questioning the exclusive psalmody stance which is encouraging for the prospect of its growth.
South of the border we have seen growth in the two small evangelical Presbyterian denominations. I have had two spells of two year terms as moderator of our presbytery. We have seen growth with two new congregations in England and six plants in progress. We have new congregations among Turks in Belgium and in Romania. There are plants in Romania, Italy and Azerbaijan too. The historic moment of being moderator came when we were able to have a presbytery meeting in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey. That also got one free admission to see all the abbey FOC.
Our local church in Ealing started the decade losing its pastor back to America then a time with no-one full time except a new graduate which I found difficult.Our pastoral search specified as high among our priorities a man with a British wife happy to settle in London. Too many Americans do not appreciate the strains involved in residence where though the language is allegedly in common, ways of living are different. A man applied who had no real tertiary education of any description so we did not invite him to preach. Dick Lucas heard and told us we had to hear him preach. We did. he has been our pastor for over six years now and we have seen unprecedented growth. He is an evangelist at heart, committed to staying until God calls him elsewhere, a godly young man with a great gift for contemporary expository preaching which attract people to the gospel. Under his ministry morning congregations have grow to more than our chapel can hold, evenings have gone from single figures to over 50, youth work has flourished and lunch time evangelistic services commenced in the Town hall. We have taken on an assistant pastor and a missionary to Farsi speakers. We have also been blessed with two Mission to the World families settling and the men being called as elders. Our denominations worked has also been blessed by other colleagues from the PCA working in England and other European countries. Our own session now numbers six men. Note we still are male. The only two things that prohibit consideration for eldership in our denomination are being female or a Baptist. The first qualification happily goes against the trends of the world which have invaded churches. We still believe in a male headship of loving servant authority in the spheres of family and church.
The second qualification led to the secession of most of our largest congregation. The elders wanted to ordain Baptists as elders in what was a Presbyterian church. Failing over several years to resolve the situation all the elders and most of the congregation left. Of course Baptists can be elders. But not in a church called Presbyterian.
As a denomination I do not think we have been beset by problems from emergent church, new perspective on Paul or Federal Vision. Theonomy, never a problem for us, seems to have gone downhill with the departure of RJR.
The demons of elf and safety and other arcane legislation ire upon us. Pot luck lunches are deemed unhealthy lest some visitor is poisoned. CRB checks are for all, even some of us who do not minister to children. Windows must be in all church doors. Queen Elizabeth would not have them in men's souls but the state must have them in our doors together with No Smoking signs in buildings where no visitor has ever been seen smoking. In a society not ruled by ten commandments our laws are legion.
The development of our church site has been blighted by the uncertainties of the property market. The old convent building next to us is derelict. The Chinese Embassy never gave us the requested opportunity of first refusal. It went through a couple of property developer, one of whom in total disregard of a preservation order, felled the pine tree which was over 100 years old and next to our chapel. The church though feels constrained not to repeat the procedure with one tree which will be in the way of any proposed redevelopment.
After it was declared that our last PM did not do God, it appears that our public sector is with him. Christians are increasingly marginalised. Registrars cannot opt out of the unchristian civil unions, counsellors cannot opt out from advising homosexuals in perverted acts, teachers and health care professionals offering to pray for or bless the needy face dismissal. Preachers who openly oppose homosexuality or Islam face arrest. Those who complain about public promotion of homosexuality are visited by Plod. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Most notable loss of the decade: Ed Clowney, friend, theologian and preacher par excellence. Anniversary of the decade, Calvin 500 in Geneva which I attened in July 2009.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Cranmer for archbishop!
One of the best English blogs is Cranmer's. Here is a quote. Click on the title to link.
"And no-one will persuade Cranmer that the Archbishop would be more effective if his voice were raised after disestablishment. The logical conclusion of that would be the disastrous combination of publicly sponsored secularism, on the one hand, and the terminal privatisation of religion, on the other.
One of the Church’s primary functions is holding government and political parties to account. The document ‘Moral but no Compass’, although unofficial, illustrated the powerful role the Church of England may still exercise in highlighting the inadequacies - spiritual and political - of the political system, in order that people’s welfare may be improved. Whatever the outcome, the intervention suggests that the public realm remains an arena in which the Church’s moral and ethical mission continues to be exercised. Perhaps it is only the Establishment Church that, in contemporary society, possesses the status to permit it to fight for representation of a slighted electorate in the face of an increasingly abstract political élite."
"And no-one will persuade Cranmer that the Archbishop would be more effective if his voice were raised after disestablishment. The logical conclusion of that would be the disastrous combination of publicly sponsored secularism, on the one hand, and the terminal privatisation of religion, on the other.
One of the Church’s primary functions is holding government and political parties to account. The document ‘Moral but no Compass’, although unofficial, illustrated the powerful role the Church of England may still exercise in highlighting the inadequacies - spiritual and political - of the political system, in order that people’s welfare may be improved. Whatever the outcome, the intervention suggests that the public realm remains an arena in which the Church’s moral and ethical mission continues to be exercised. Perhaps it is only the Establishment Church that, in contemporary society, possesses the status to permit it to fight for representation of a slighted electorate in the face of an increasingly abstract political élite."
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Charlie not my darling
I wish the Prince of Wales a happy 60th birthday but note with alarm this report from The Christian Institute.
'Prince Charles will embrace ‘multiculturalism’ when he becomes King by dropping “the” from the historic title “Defender of the Faith”, press reports say.
The title has been given to each English monarch since Henry VIII in 1521. Although it was first given by the Pope, it quickly developed to reflect the monarch’s status as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Several years ago the Prince of Wales controversially floated the idea of taking the title “Defender of the Faiths [plural]” but according to reports in today’s press has now settled on “Defender of Faith”.
A senior source told the Daily Telegraph: “There have been lots of discussions. He would like to be known as the Defender of Faith which is a subtle but hugely symbolic shift.” '
I write as a strong monarchist and convinced antidisestablishmentarian. I do not see anything subtle or merely symbolic in this proposed change of title. If accepted it means the end of the establishment of the Church of England. The next monarch will not be swearing to uphold and defend reformed Protestant Christianity as the true faith. Defender of Faith is as meaningful as defender of hope or of love. It means nothing at all unless the object of the faith concerned is specified. Charles is clearly stating he does not believe that the Christian faith is true in any exclusive sense. If he is saying he is not qualified to be Defender of the Faith, I am left wondering if he is qualified to be king.
Now to those who have doubted his fitness to be king, I have always argued he fulfils the only two constitutional requirements. He is the legitimate eldest son of the monarch. He is not Roman Catholic. But being Supreme Governor of the Church of England is part of the package deal that is our monarchy. If Charles only wants part of the package, do I want him as king? Would half a loaf of monarchy be better than no bread? Our present constitutional settlement has lasted 320 years to date. I fear it may not outlast our present Queen.
God save the Queen!
'Prince Charles will embrace ‘multiculturalism’ when he becomes King by dropping “the” from the historic title “Defender of the Faith”, press reports say.
The title has been given to each English monarch since Henry VIII in 1521. Although it was first given by the Pope, it quickly developed to reflect the monarch’s status as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Several years ago the Prince of Wales controversially floated the idea of taking the title “Defender of the Faiths [plural]” but according to reports in today’s press has now settled on “Defender of Faith”.
A senior source told the Daily Telegraph: “There have been lots of discussions. He would like to be known as the Defender of Faith which is a subtle but hugely symbolic shift.” '
I write as a strong monarchist and convinced antidisestablishmentarian. I do not see anything subtle or merely symbolic in this proposed change of title. If accepted it means the end of the establishment of the Church of England. The next monarch will not be swearing to uphold and defend reformed Protestant Christianity as the true faith. Defender of Faith is as meaningful as defender of hope or of love. It means nothing at all unless the object of the faith concerned is specified. Charles is clearly stating he does not believe that the Christian faith is true in any exclusive sense. If he is saying he is not qualified to be Defender of the Faith, I am left wondering if he is qualified to be king.
Now to those who have doubted his fitness to be king, I have always argued he fulfils the only two constitutional requirements. He is the legitimate eldest son of the monarch. He is not Roman Catholic. But being Supreme Governor of the Church of England is part of the package deal that is our monarchy. If Charles only wants part of the package, do I want him as king? Would half a loaf of monarchy be better than no bread? Our present constitutional settlement has lasted 320 years to date. I fear it may not outlast our present Queen.
God save the Queen!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
From The National Director, Christian Voice
Hazel Blears MP has rubbished a Church of England report which accuses the Government of paying 'lip-service' to Christianity. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, said afterwards: “She said 'we live in a secular democracy'. That comes as news to me – we have an established Church, but the Government can’t deal with Christianity.” Good on him. And we have a Christian Constitution, a majority-Christian population and a Christian monarch anointed and crowned in a Christian ceremony after making a Christian committment. Let's pray this United Kingdom at every level would honour the Lord Jesus Christ and live out the historic faith of this land.
.
.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Theonomy
Theonomy gets a bad press.
But I am indebted to the insights of the fathers of the movement for many insights but believe you cannot take the civil law of Moses and say this all that a state can legislate. We are not civil Israel in our states. Our states are not covenant states even those of us with a Christian establshment of religion like England or Scotland.
Progressive revelation means there are some radical new things in the covenant even for those of us who baptise covenant chlidren.
We are not in agrarian societies. Civil law must progress too.
But I am indebted to the insights of the fathers of the movement for many insights but believe you cannot take the civil law of Moses and say this all that a state can legislate. We are not civil Israel in our states. Our states are not covenant states even those of us with a Christian establshment of religion like England or Scotland.
Progressive revelation means there are some radical new things in the covenant even for those of us who baptise covenant chlidren.
We are not in agrarian societies. Civil law must progress too.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour
If this drives Churchgoers onto their knees it will be good.
From The Times, Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
May 8, 2008
"Church attendance in Britain is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation, research published today suggests.
The fall - from the four million people who attend church at least once a month today - means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable. A lack of funds from the collection plate to support the Christian infrastructure, including church upkeep and ministers’ pay and pensions, will force church closures as ageing congregations die.
In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims will have increased from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035.
According to Religious Trends, a comprehensive statistical analysis of religious practice in Britain, published by Christian Research, even Hindus will come close to outnumbering churchgoers within a generation. The forecast to 2050 shows churchgoing in Britain declining to 899,000 while the active Hindu population, now at nearly 400,000, will have more than doubled to 855,000. By 2050 there will be 2,660,000 active Muslims in Britain - nearly three times the number of Sunday churchgoers.
Coming just months after the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that the introduction of aspects of sharia into British law was unavoidable, the report is likely to fuel calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England.
Martin Salter, the Labour MP for Reading West and a member of Reading inter-faith group, said: “I think all faiths could be treated equally under our constitution. These figures demonstrate the absurdity of favouring one brand of Christianity over other parts of the Christian faith and the many other religions that grace our shores.”
Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary with responsibility for community cohesion, said: “We will look at these findings very closely. Britain is a secular democracy with a strong Christian tradition but many faiths have a home in Britain.”
The report makes it clear that Christianity is becoming a minority religion. It also reflects the changing nature of religious practice worldwide and will further aid the stated aim of the Prince of Wales who, on his Coronation, hopes to become Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith."
Salter seems to think all religions are of the same validity. Blears is simply wrong. England and Scotland are constitutionally Christian countries. While England has an established church the heir to the throne will not, thank God, get his wish. He too seems to think all religions are equally (in)valid.
Many evangelical churches are growing. Ours is. God blesses the gospel. Those churches in decline need to recover the gospel. Then they too will grow.
From The Times, Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
May 8, 2008
"Church attendance in Britain is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation, research published today suggests.
The fall - from the four million people who attend church at least once a month today - means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable. A lack of funds from the collection plate to support the Christian infrastructure, including church upkeep and ministers’ pay and pensions, will force church closures as ageing congregations die.
In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims will have increased from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035.
According to Religious Trends, a comprehensive statistical analysis of religious practice in Britain, published by Christian Research, even Hindus will come close to outnumbering churchgoers within a generation. The forecast to 2050 shows churchgoing in Britain declining to 899,000 while the active Hindu population, now at nearly 400,000, will have more than doubled to 855,000. By 2050 there will be 2,660,000 active Muslims in Britain - nearly three times the number of Sunday churchgoers.
Coming just months after the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that the introduction of aspects of sharia into British law was unavoidable, the report is likely to fuel calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England.
Martin Salter, the Labour MP for Reading West and a member of Reading inter-faith group, said: “I think all faiths could be treated equally under our constitution. These figures demonstrate the absurdity of favouring one brand of Christianity over other parts of the Christian faith and the many other religions that grace our shores.”
Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary with responsibility for community cohesion, said: “We will look at these findings very closely. Britain is a secular democracy with a strong Christian tradition but many faiths have a home in Britain.”
The report makes it clear that Christianity is becoming a minority religion. It also reflects the changing nature of religious practice worldwide and will further aid the stated aim of the Prince of Wales who, on his Coronation, hopes to become Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith."
Salter seems to think all religions are of the same validity. Blears is simply wrong. England and Scotland are constitutionally Christian countries. While England has an established church the heir to the throne will not, thank God, get his wish. He too seems to think all religions are equally (in)valid.
Many evangelical churches are growing. Ours is. God blesses the gospel. Those churches in decline need to recover the gospel. Then they too will grow.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
DISESTABLISHMENT MOTION HAS MARK OF THE BEAST!
No, you couldn't make this one up. Seriously. While the blasphemy debate was on in the House of Commons last night, and just as I was thinking that once the blasphemy law is abolished they would be calling for disestablishment of the Church of England as the next step along the road to an anti-Christian Britain, well, three MP's were putting down an Early Day Motion (it has no chance of being debated, it's just flying a kite) calling for the Church of England to be disestablished.
Dozens of these motions get put down in a day. The clerks just allocated it the next number in the list. In a masterly twist, that number was 666, symbol of the AntiChrist. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34819&SESSION=891
"This number is supposed to be the mark of the Devil. It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways," said Bob Russell, a LibDem MP among those proposing the motion. "What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled last night when MPs were debating blasphemy," he added.
The motion says "That this House calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England" which would mean an end to the formal link between Church and State in England -- embodied in the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who is both head of state and head of the Church of England and the presence of bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
The number 666 is referred to in the Book of Revelation: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred, three score and six." (Rev 13:18)
"It is is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number," said Russell.
By chance? Hmm. The Lord Almighty is trying to tell those stupid, proud, arrogant, fallible Members of Parliament something. But will they listen?
As predicted, the Government will bounce the Church of England into agreeing that the blasphemy laws can be abolished by an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords. Pray against that, and write now to your diocesan bishop and local peers in defence of the blasphemy laws. This is now absolutely vital. I see Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance now says the law can be abolished as no-one is likely to be convicted under it. With friends like that ... But God is still on the throne! (Psalm 96:9-13; Hab 2:14; Matt 6:33; Phil 2:9-11)
Yours in His mighty name,
Stephen Green, National Director, Christian Voice
Dozens of these motions get put down in a day. The clerks just allocated it the next number in the list. In a masterly twist, that number was 666, symbol of the AntiChrist. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34819&SESSION=891
"This number is supposed to be the mark of the Devil. It looks as though God or the Devil have been moving in mysterious ways," said Bob Russell, a LibDem MP among those proposing the motion. "What is even stranger is that this motion was tabled last night when MPs were debating blasphemy," he added.
The motion says "That this House calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England" which would mean an end to the formal link between Church and State in England -- embodied in the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who is both head of state and head of the Church of England and the presence of bishops sitting in the House of Lords.
The number 666 is referred to in the Book of Revelation: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred, three score and six." (Rev 13:18)
"It is is incredible that a motion like this should have, by chance, acquired this significant number," said Russell.
By chance? Hmm. The Lord Almighty is trying to tell those stupid, proud, arrogant, fallible Members of Parliament something. But will they listen?
As predicted, the Government will bounce the Church of England into agreeing that the blasphemy laws can be abolished by an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords. Pray against that, and write now to your diocesan bishop and local peers in defence of the blasphemy laws. This is now absolutely vital. I see Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance now says the law can be abolished as no-one is likely to be convicted under it. With friends like that ... But God is still on the throne! (Psalm 96:9-13; Hab 2:14; Matt 6:33; Phil 2:9-11)
Yours in His mighty name,
Stephen Green, National Director, Christian Voice
Saturday, December 29, 2007
In praise of Monarchy and Establishment
From a fascinating paper by IMO the best theologian bishop around.(Admittedly a field with very few competitors :-( ) Sample quotes below.
The New Testament offers a theology of rulers and authorities as appointed by God. This places a huge weight of responsibility on the authorities which many modern democratic rulers cheerfully ignore. What is striking about the British monarchy, and some others that still remain, is that they openly acknowledge and indeed celebrate this responsibility. N. T. Wright , GOD AND CAESAR, THEN AND NOW, Festschrift for Dr Wesley Carr, 2003, ,http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_God_Caesar.pdf
All human power-systems are subject to Christian critique. All power can become idolatrous. Every knee shall bow at Jesus' name, and we must never tire of saying so. But there is another side to the story. Today's cheap-and-chattering republicanism owes nothing to the Christian critique of human power, and everything to the sneer of the cynic, noting the price of everything but ignoring its value.- ibid
Monarchy is a reminder that the justice and mercy which rulers must practice are not their possession, but come from elsewhere; they are part of the God-given created order. .- ibid
The New Testament offers a theology of rulers and authorities as appointed by God. This places a huge weight of responsibility on the authorities which many modern democratic rulers cheerfully ignore. What is striking about the British monarchy, and some others that still remain, is that they openly acknowledge and indeed celebrate this responsibility. N. T. Wright , GOD AND CAESAR, THEN AND NOW, Festschrift for Dr Wesley Carr, 2003, ,http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_God_Caesar.pdf
All human power-systems are subject to Christian critique. All power can become idolatrous. Every knee shall bow at Jesus' name, and we must never tire of saying so. But there is another side to the story. Today's cheap-and-chattering republicanism owes nothing to the Christian critique of human power, and everything to the sneer of the cynic, noting the price of everything but ignoring its value.- ibid
Monarchy is a reminder that the justice and mercy which rulers must practice are not their possession, but come from elsewhere; they are part of the God-given created order. .- ibid
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Under the influence.
So Bishop Tom says he will not resign. No surprise there. Principled actions are not the forte of the liberal left.
I have to say if I was so drunk as not to remember what I had done the night before I would consider myself unfit to hold church office. If discovered I might face the wrath of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. They hold to the notion that if you get drunk outside of a pharmacy you might get drunk in one.
Butler is the sort of liberal the C of E does not need. When he was in Willesden he supported the pro-homosexual policies of the local Ealing Council. He told a clergyman in Southall not to make a fuss when his housing project for those discharged from mental hospital failed to get Council backing. The Christian trust concerned would not employ practising homosexuals so there was no Council funding. With Butler suppressing the voice of the clergyman, he was told by a leading local Anglican vicar that he has abused his episcopal authority. Canterbury came to the same conclusion when Butler recently refused to ordain two evangelicals.
I think Butler should be on his bike .....assuming he is sober enough to ride. I am not against drinking. I am hoping for refreshment from Scotland this Christmas. But I am for self discipline and church discipline. Butler and the Church of England appear to lack both.
I have to say if I was so drunk as not to remember what I had done the night before I would consider myself unfit to hold church office. If discovered I might face the wrath of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. They hold to the notion that if you get drunk outside of a pharmacy you might get drunk in one.
Butler is the sort of liberal the C of E does not need. When he was in Willesden he supported the pro-homosexual policies of the local Ealing Council. He told a clergyman in Southall not to make a fuss when his housing project for those discharged from mental hospital failed to get Council backing. The Christian trust concerned would not employ practising homosexuals so there was no Council funding. With Butler suppressing the voice of the clergyman, he was told by a leading local Anglican vicar that he has abused his episcopal authority. Canterbury came to the same conclusion when Butler recently refused to ordain two evangelicals.
I think Butler should be on his bike .....assuming he is sober enough to ride. I am not against drinking. I am hoping for refreshment from Scotland this Christmas. But I am for self discipline and church discipline. Butler and the Church of England appear to lack both.
Friday, December 01, 2006
It's secularist who are to blame, not Muslims.
A campaign to save the traditions of Christmas from the interference of politically Council leaders were told: 'There seems to be a secularising agenda which fails to understand the concerns of religious communities.
'The approach of some is to exclude mention of any specific religious event or celebration in order to avoid offending anyone. The usual result of such a policy ends up offending most of the population.'
The letter added: 'Any repetition of public bodies and local authorities renaming Christmas, so as not to offend other faith communities, will tend, as in the past, to backfire badly on the Muslim community in particular.
'Sadly we have seen it is they who get the blame - and for something they are not saying.'
The warning from the Council came as public organisations appeared to be redoubling efforts to obliterate Christmas from the calendar or at least remove any Christian element from the celebrations.
The Royal Mail this year has removed any Christian references from its Christmas stamps. Notorious local authority attempts to stamp out Christmas include Birmingham's 1998 decision to name its seasonal celebrations 'Winterval' and Luton's 2001 attempt to change Christmas into a Harry Potter festival by renaming its festive lights 'Luminos'.
The letter from the Forum to town halls comes at a time of deepening anger over attempts by powerful organisations to ban any public reference to Christianity. ........
The letter to councils from the Forum said: 'We are conscious that all in public life wish to be similarly inclusive, but some seem to believe, for instance, that talk about Christmas is offensive to those of other faith communities.
'This is something which we have looked at together on the national Christian Muslim Forum and all of us, both Muslims and Christians, wish that people in public positions would take correct town halls was launched by an influential coalition of Christian and Muslim leaders yesterday.
Leaders of the two faiths warned that attempts to suppress Christmas bring a backlash and Muslims get the blame.
And they said that while Christmas causes no offence to minority faiths, banning it offends almost everybody. .......
The angry rebuke came from the Christian Muslim Forum, a body set up earlier this year with the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Tony Blair.
The body sent a letter to town halls in the name of Anglican Bishop of Bolton David Gillett and senior Islamic cleric and Government adviser Dr Ataullah Siddiqui. It pleaded for an end to the suppression of Christmas and the restoration of its Christian meaning.
another look at how they deal with religious festivals.'
The two leaders added: 'It is important for the 77 per cent who claim affiliation to one faith or another that these festivals should be seen and recognised, rather than banished from the public sphere.' Daily Mail 1 Dec 2006
'The approach of some is to exclude mention of any specific religious event or celebration in order to avoid offending anyone. The usual result of such a policy ends up offending most of the population.'
The letter added: 'Any repetition of public bodies and local authorities renaming Christmas, so as not to offend other faith communities, will tend, as in the past, to backfire badly on the Muslim community in particular.
'Sadly we have seen it is they who get the blame - and for something they are not saying.'
The warning from the Council came as public organisations appeared to be redoubling efforts to obliterate Christmas from the calendar or at least remove any Christian element from the celebrations.
The Royal Mail this year has removed any Christian references from its Christmas stamps. Notorious local authority attempts to stamp out Christmas include Birmingham's 1998 decision to name its seasonal celebrations 'Winterval' and Luton's 2001 attempt to change Christmas into a Harry Potter festival by renaming its festive lights 'Luminos'.
The letter from the Forum to town halls comes at a time of deepening anger over attempts by powerful organisations to ban any public reference to Christianity. ........
The letter to councils from the Forum said: 'We are conscious that all in public life wish to be similarly inclusive, but some seem to believe, for instance, that talk about Christmas is offensive to those of other faith communities.
'This is something which we have looked at together on the national Christian Muslim Forum and all of us, both Muslims and Christians, wish that people in public positions would take correct town halls was launched by an influential coalition of Christian and Muslim leaders yesterday.
Leaders of the two faiths warned that attempts to suppress Christmas bring a backlash and Muslims get the blame.
And they said that while Christmas causes no offence to minority faiths, banning it offends almost everybody. .......
The angry rebuke came from the Christian Muslim Forum, a body set up earlier this year with the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Tony Blair.
The body sent a letter to town halls in the name of Anglican Bishop of Bolton David Gillett and senior Islamic cleric and Government adviser Dr Ataullah Siddiqui. It pleaded for an end to the suppression of Christmas and the restoration of its Christian meaning.
another look at how they deal with religious festivals.'
The two leaders added: 'It is important for the 77 per cent who claim affiliation to one faith or another that these festivals should be seen and recognised, rather than banished from the public sphere.' Daily Mail 1 Dec 2006
Universities without wisdom
At Exeter the Christian Union had the usual privileges suspended, including funding and free access to university rooms. The students’ guild took the view that the Christian Union’s core beliefs were “too exclusive”. At Edinburgh the Bible was banned from halls of residence after protests from the students’ union, and the Christian Union has been banned from teaching a course about sex and relationships following complaints that it promoted homophobia. At Heriot-Watt the Christian Union has been told it cannot join the university students’ union because its core beliefs discriminate against non-Christians and those of other faiths.
This terrible stupidity and hypocrisy leave one almost speechless. It is bad enough that university students are anxious to censor others and deny them access to proper debate. That is to undermine the very nature of a university, a place where people can think and discuss the unthinkable.
What is worse is that the repression of Christian groups is the height of hypocrisy. For the most unacceptable of what many Christian students believe is pretty much what many Muslims believe, only Muslims go much further. There are plenty of Muslim students, not least among the activists that so alarm the government that it is asking university authorities to spy on them, who believe not just that homosexuality is an abomination but also that women and infidels are inferior. Yet can anyone imagine that any student association would suspend a Muslim group for its homophobia, exclusivity, discrimination against women and infidels.
...........
Last week the Church of England’s secretary general stated without any of the usual emollient Anglican waffle that Prince Charles’s wish for a multi-faith coronation was unacceptable. John Sentamu, the charismatic Archbishop of York, made an impassioned protest against such things earlier this month. He accused the BBC of bias against Christianity while favouring Muslims out of fear of terrorism. And he accused this society more broadly of disliking its own culture. “This country disbelieves in itself in an amazing way,” he said, and he has lamented the destruction of Britain’s Christian heritage by the wilfulness of the chattering classes.
He is right, of course; when you throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water, you lose the cultural water along with the baby to some extent. Sentamu stands for Christian and post-Christian values in the face of competition from other cultures. So too does another Anglican bishop, the eloquent Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester. Both have the credibility of people who are not white natives and both have known hardship and repression.
White native Anglicans are often less impressive; our own Archbishop of Canterbury gives out mixed and muddled messages. If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? Fortunately there are others who are prepared to the battle — the repressed young Christian students, the Ugandan Sentamu, the Asian Nazir-Ali of Muslim antecedents. They understand conviction; they understand what we face.
They are a bizarre army to come to the defence of what’s best about faithless, post-Christian Britain; it has taken this strange collection to convince me that disestablishment of the Anglican church would be a disaster for this country; paradoxically, it would bring down the last best defence here against the evils of religion. We are lucky that there is new life in these Christian soldiers. -
The Sunday Times,November 19, 2006' Hallelujah, they're standing up for Jesus, Minette Marrin
This terrible stupidity and hypocrisy leave one almost speechless. It is bad enough that university students are anxious to censor others and deny them access to proper debate. That is to undermine the very nature of a university, a place where people can think and discuss the unthinkable.
What is worse is that the repression of Christian groups is the height of hypocrisy. For the most unacceptable of what many Christian students believe is pretty much what many Muslims believe, only Muslims go much further. There are plenty of Muslim students, not least among the activists that so alarm the government that it is asking university authorities to spy on them, who believe not just that homosexuality is an abomination but also that women and infidels are inferior. Yet can anyone imagine that any student association would suspend a Muslim group for its homophobia, exclusivity, discrimination against women and infidels.
...........
Last week the Church of England’s secretary general stated without any of the usual emollient Anglican waffle that Prince Charles’s wish for a multi-faith coronation was unacceptable. John Sentamu, the charismatic Archbishop of York, made an impassioned protest against such things earlier this month. He accused the BBC of bias against Christianity while favouring Muslims out of fear of terrorism. And he accused this society more broadly of disliking its own culture. “This country disbelieves in itself in an amazing way,” he said, and he has lamented the destruction of Britain’s Christian heritage by the wilfulness of the chattering classes.
He is right, of course; when you throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water, you lose the cultural water along with the baby to some extent. Sentamu stands for Christian and post-Christian values in the face of competition from other cultures. So too does another Anglican bishop, the eloquent Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester. Both have the credibility of people who are not white natives and both have known hardship and repression.
White native Anglicans are often less impressive; our own Archbishop of Canterbury gives out mixed and muddled messages. If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? Fortunately there are others who are prepared to the battle — the repressed young Christian students, the Ugandan Sentamu, the Asian Nazir-Ali of Muslim antecedents. They understand conviction; they understand what we face.
They are a bizarre army to come to the defence of what’s best about faithless, post-Christian Britain; it has taken this strange collection to convince me that disestablishment of the Anglican church would be a disaster for this country; paradoxically, it would bring down the last best defence here against the evils of religion. We are lucky that there is new life in these Christian soldiers. -
The Sunday Times,November 19, 2006' Hallelujah, they're standing up for Jesus, Minette Marrin
Monday, October 09, 2006
Is the Church of England waking up to reality?
I hope this might mark the start of a return to reality and away from dhimmitude. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth promised in her Coronation oaths, to defend the Reformed and Protestant Religion of the Church of England. Both England and Scotland are constiutionally, de jure, Christian countries. Wales and N Ireland do not have established churches, though in terms of church attendance and membership, N Ireland is the most Christian of our four countries. But this de jure status of the Christian faith is never mentioned by the politicians or media and the churches themselves rarely speak of it except critically. It is a Christian heritage that gave us liberty and allowed the pluralism that has developed. Christians should welcome those of other faiths, but not to a one way street of according them status and priveleges which they will never reciprocate to Christians when Christians are the minority.I write this from a place that illustrates this. Kabul has one church building and that is not on Afghan soil but in an embassy compound.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
The religion of peace?
At her coronation the Queen promised to uphold the Protestant reformed religion of the Church of England. She does this herself but her ministers do not. De jure England and Scotland are Christian countries. Wales and N Ireland having no established church are not. De facto all are part of one secular state wedded to multi-culturalism. Why else did the unlamented Dome fail to exhibit the real Christian origins of celebrating the year 2000? IMO we have not had a really Christian premier since Gladstone. Blair like Bush wants to keep the peace with his Muslim residents by pretending Islam is a religion of peace. Peaceful western Muslims are so in spite of their religion not because of it. Once they become a majority in any society you see the real face of Islam, inequitable and undemocratic. Failure to publish the cartoons shows the media are afraid of Muslims who have thereby won a great victory for their oppressive law.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Canadian contractual sodomy
Other people call it gay marriage but it is neither gay nor marriage, hence my title.
Sad indeed. England is protected from this, IMO, by the C of E being the established church. This means that its clergy have to marry those in the parish if they so request. Too many clergy would object to same sex unions ( I will not call them marriage for they are not) for such a law to be workable. So instead we have civil registration of same sex unions, a clever English compromise which gives the homosexualists almost what they want but protects the established church from direct involvement.
Sad indeed. England is protected from this, IMO, by the C of E being the established church. This means that its clergy have to marry those in the parish if they so request. Too many clergy would object to same sex unions ( I will not call them marriage for they are not) for such a law to be workable. So instead we have civil registration of same sex unions, a clever English compromise which gives the homosexualists almost what they want but protects the established church from direct involvement.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Keeping the peace
Our political leaders have intelligence advisors who
must brief on the real nature of Islam, but the
politicians talk up a religion of peace because they
want civil peace not unrest. It does not take much for
the ignorant to disturb the peace. A Sikh Temple has
been attacked in Leeds in the wake of the London bombs
Joe Public is blind to the true nature of Islam
because he is ignorant of the Koran and history, to
say nothing of the non-reporting of Christians being
persecuted today in Muslim lands. He also, usually has
contact with Muslims who keep the peace and do not
push their faith in a way he finds unacceptable.
Here, Joe Public is indifferent to religion so has no
pride in a Christian cultural heritage. Over 70% will
declare in the census that they are Christian, but
they do not protest when told we live in a
multi-cultural, multi-religious society. They ignore
the fact that this is only true in some urban areas
and that constitutionally, England is a Christian
country. No-one tales pride in the latter fact.
Non-Christians ignore it and most Christians find an
established religion an embarrassment. However, one
will find both Muslims and Jews who will prefer the
present condition to the de facto establishment of a
secular public square, (as in the US), that would
result from altering the position of the Church of
England here.
But to sum up, we have as a nation turned away from
the Living God and the terrors we face are part of the
judgement in store when his grace is removed. In a
fallen world, a peaceable society is not the norm.
Evil should not surprise us. If God;s common grace is
removed, chaos ensues.
Added comments 16 July
These men were British Asians or Caribbean. British
they be but not English born and bred. There has been
little questioning of the English way of life, since
despite the trumpeting of how multicultural we are the
English still retain their quiet modest air of
self-confident superiority (I generalise and am not
speaking about real Christians here). OTH the obvious
reason that the bombers were not more affected by our
civilised values is that they were Muslims and most
Muslims are from poor, uneducated rural-origin
families in Pakistan or Bangladesh who do not
integrate with the majority culture.
Islamic ideology produced
suicide bombers and Islamic theology has to fisd a way
of dealing with them.
I believe that we must examine this as God withdrawing
his common grace which preserves order in society and
restrains the effects of sin. Here, in judgement,
God's restraint was partially withdrawn and we see how
sinful sin is.
It may have some significance that they went for the
transport system, like in Madrid, and not for some
capitalist symbol like in New York. Personally I find
myself uncomfortable in The City (the financial
centre) as it is full of temples of mammon dwarfing St
Paul's which used to dominate the sky line.
Yes I see judgement on London and a necessity of
Christians to show grace to their Muslim neighbours.
must brief on the real nature of Islam, but the
politicians talk up a religion of peace because they
want civil peace not unrest. It does not take much for
the ignorant to disturb the peace. A Sikh Temple has
been attacked in Leeds in the wake of the London bombs
Joe Public is blind to the true nature of Islam
because he is ignorant of the Koran and history, to
say nothing of the non-reporting of Christians being
persecuted today in Muslim lands. He also, usually has
contact with Muslims who keep the peace and do not
push their faith in a way he finds unacceptable.
Here, Joe Public is indifferent to religion so has no
pride in a Christian cultural heritage. Over 70% will
declare in the census that they are Christian, but
they do not protest when told we live in a
multi-cultural, multi-religious society. They ignore
the fact that this is only true in some urban areas
and that constitutionally, England is a Christian
country. No-one tales pride in the latter fact.
Non-Christians ignore it and most Christians find an
established religion an embarrassment. However, one
will find both Muslims and Jews who will prefer the
present condition to the de facto establishment of a
secular public square, (as in the US), that would
result from altering the position of the Church of
England here.
But to sum up, we have as a nation turned away from
the Living God and the terrors we face are part of the
judgement in store when his grace is removed. In a
fallen world, a peaceable society is not the norm.
Evil should not surprise us. If God;s common grace is
removed, chaos ensues.
Added comments 16 July
These men were British Asians or Caribbean. British
they be but not English born and bred. There has been
little questioning of the English way of life, since
despite the trumpeting of how multicultural we are the
English still retain their quiet modest air of
self-confident superiority (I generalise and am not
speaking about real Christians here). OTH the obvious
reason that the bombers were not more affected by our
civilised values is that they were Muslims and most
Muslims are from poor, uneducated rural-origin
families in Pakistan or Bangladesh who do not
integrate with the majority culture.
Islamic ideology produced
suicide bombers and Islamic theology has to fisd a way
of dealing with them.
I believe that we must examine this as God withdrawing
his common grace which preserves order in society and
restrains the effects of sin. Here, in judgement,
God's restraint was partially withdrawn and we see how
sinful sin is.
It may have some significance that they went for the
transport system, like in Madrid, and not for some
capitalist symbol like in New York. Personally I find
myself uncomfortable in The City (the financial
centre) as it is full of temples of mammon dwarfing St
Paul's which used to dominate the sky line.
Yes I see judgement on London and a necessity of
Christians to show grace to their Muslim neighbours.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
