quote:

---

Special status? what kind of special status do the bishops – or any of the Churches – enjoy under this Coalition of the Godless?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation. And also the "special status" of many of its employees - sorry, post holders - that allows it to treat them like crap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Disestablishment? Yes, definitely. However, even though I am an atheist and a member of the BHA, I am a bit cautious about drastically changing the status quo, since that would leave too much space for a less moderate, middle-of-the-road organisation to step in and gain power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation. And also the "special status" of many of its employees - sorry, post holders - that allows it to treat them like crap.

---

Good point, Adeodatus. What is the basis (legal or philosophical) for these opt-outs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe it's something along the lines of "we're religious so we're special." Profound stuff, I think you'll agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe it's something along the lines of "we're religious so we're special." Profound stuff, I think you'll agree.

---

It is because removing the opt-outs would be unenforcable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never really understood why people get het up about disestablishment. While it's true that the bishops in the House of Lords wield some power, it's not a great deal is it? No legislation has - so far as I know - succeeded or failed on the basis of the bishops' votes.

---

quote:

---

The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
South Coast Kevin writes:

quote:

---

The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.

---

Nor has anyone else in the Lords

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not too bothered by the bishops in the House of Lords - no more than I am by the House of Lords in general, that is. After all, the poor old duffers need somewhere to go for their afternoon nap, don't they?

What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
South Coast Kevin writes:

quote:

---

The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.

---

Nor has anyone else in the Lords

---

Good reason for getting rid of the lot of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The legislation is a classic case of the CofE special status. The CofE is banned from taking same-sex marriages. All other churches have to make national decisions about whether to or not. Fine for Roman Catholics and Methodists but a nonsense in English historic dissent. It does not work with our ecclesiology. We do not decide such issues nationally usually and are very bad at it when we try.

You get therefore the stupidity of the URC having to pass a vote to let individual congregations decide and the Baptist voting against and then when a prominent minister comes out in favour unable to enforce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
As for me, it seems that the Church can barely function when it's part of The Establishment, let alone when it's legally established.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Really? What's stopping any disestablishment legislation being drafted well so that the church could be sued by employees or victims of discrimination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Because besides falling foul of the European Human Rights Convention

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
...
The main issue as I see it would be the maintenance of redundant heritage churches (which the CofE doesn't need and cannot be maintained by a congregation numbering in single figures). Local Councils can't afford to look after closed church yards and would have trouble finding the £x000's to look after the many and various church buildings.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What part of this "human rights" convention prevents institutions from being held accountable for their actions in a court of law? Does it apply to all the non-established churches and other religious groups too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What part of this "human rights" convention prevents institutions from being held accountable for their actions in a court of law? Does it apply to all the non-established churches and other religious groups too?

---

I don't have the precise section, but I believe there is a religious opt-out, which applies to all religious organizations. But do you not have something similar in Australia?

---

There is the 'Genuine Occupational Qualification' legislation which allows employers to put forward a case that certain roles must be fulfilled by someone of a certain religious view, gender etc. So a women's refuge could claim that their staff must all be women, and they'd get permission to discriminate on that basis in their recruitment processes.

Some jobs are open only to people of a certain religious view on this basis, but I gather there is also this quirk of the law that means C of E priests get classed as 'post-holders' and not regular employees (as Adeodatus said way upthread).

As several people have noted, there are two separate issues; should religious groups get special treatment (e.g. an opt-out on some equality legislation) and should the Church of England specifically get any special treatment that doesn't apply to other religious groups. I was particularly irked by what the article in my thread starter said about the latter question, but both questions are worth asking, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, if you will read the "Torygraph" ...
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The question of the "special status" is an important one. There are some aspects that come about from it being a church with historic status, but I believe that the following would all change if it were to be properly disestablished:

1. The employment status of clergy, including their special tax position.
2. The role of bishops in the top levels of our society.
3. The exemption from planning laws in favour of the faculty system.

That doesn't seem like a lot, but it is quite significant. It would change the nature of the church in the society. I am not saying that this would be a bad thing or a good thing, but it would make a substantial difference.

Losing the faculty system would make substantial differences to the chances of making changes in churches. In some cases, it would make then unusable, and they would be abandoned.

Losing the role of bishops in the society would mean that more and more state occasions would have no spiritual input, not visible recognition of the churches place or role in them.

Losing the clergy employment status would mean substantial changes in the way they interact with the community they are in. It might mean they earn more or work less, and it should mean they have their duties defined, but they will also lose their position in the community.
 

---

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.

---

That does need to be weighed up against Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland having their own provincial-level assemblies while England does not. If they could be trusted to vote in the interests of the English people, having a handful of 'extra' Lords would provide the English with just a little bit of redress for that democratic deficit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.

---

No, it's not a business but that doesn't define status. Priests are called by God but affirmed in that calling by people. If the stipend were a gift, then no tax NI would be payable - since it is, then a stipend can't be classed as such. it is remuneration for service rendered.

A stipend plus other benefits (housing, pension, expenses) is far greater than that required for basic costs of living. It's net value is aroung £27000 - comfortably higher than avergae earnings.

The position of clergy as office holders is being tested in a number of cases across the denominations. Who knows how long it will hold as special pleading?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I've always been against establishment. But it would be pretty shameful if disestablishment was forced upon the church just because it couldn't be trusted to organise its own affairs justly. Shameful for the church, that is.

There could be conceivable scenarios when a government expected the church to jump through hoops of unfaithfulness to the Gospel. But the two current Dead Horses are not those IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Codepoet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
...
The main issue as I see it would be the maintenance of redundant heritage churches (which the CofE doesn't need and cannot be maintained by a congregation numbering in single figures). Local Councils can't afford to look after closed church yards and would have trouble finding the £x000's to look after the many and various church buildings.

...

---

I am pretty certain that the maintaince of church plant is pretty irrelevant to the question of disestablishment. As I understand it there are not funds that the CofE has access to only on account of its established status. It is a common myth that the CofE is somehow government funded, but this is no ore true than it is for any other church of charitable body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not too bothered by the bishops in the House of Lords - no more than I am by the House of Lords in general, that is. After all, the poor old duffers need somewhere to go for their afternoon nap, don't they?

What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation.

---

Exact other way round for me. I see no reason why anyone should get a free pass to rule over anyone else. Lawful government should require the voluntary consent of the governed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The position of clergy as office holders is being tested in a number of cases across the denominations. Who knows how long it will hold as special pleading?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Except the House of Lords does not 'rule' over the country. They cannot prevent laws from being passed, write laws themselves, or execute any judgements. They exist mainly as a constitutional court, a safeguard on any parlimentary excess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
Special buildings containing treasures, wall paintings or magnificent examples of stained glass etc. shouldn't be turned into night clubs or apartments on cultural grounds alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).

---

The Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopal Church of Scotland and Church In Wales all manage to divide countries into parishes without being established.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All the more this should come from the faithful, and not everybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Except the House of Lords does not 'rule' over the country. They cannot prevent laws from being passed, write laws themselves, or execute any judgements. They exist mainly as a constitutional court, a safeguard on any parlimentary excess.

---

But their illegitimacy prevents them from standing up to the elected chamber. And so has allowed the House of Commons to progressively remove their powers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The question I'm still waiting for Anglicans to answer is where in the New Testament does it say that they or any other church should be established or otherwise specially privileged in the state to begin with? There's lots in said NT which seems to propose a very different way for God's people to relate to the world they live in and the various governments they have to live under, and quite a lot of that teaching seems to positively reject the idea of establishment. Quoting supposed advantages of establishment doesn't mean much - if the NT rejects establishment then the list of 'advantages' would basically be a list of how the Anglicans and similar were tempted to disobey the NT!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
The CofE is the Queen's Church and she is our supreme govenor therefore we render to the Queen what is the Queen's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The question I'm still waiting for Anglicans to answer is where in the New Testament does it say that they or any other church should be established or otherwise specially privileged in the state to begin with? There's lots in said NT which seems to propose a very different way for God's people to relate to the world they live in and the various governments they have to live under, and quite a lot of that teaching seems to positively reject the idea of establishment. Quoting supposed advantages of establishment doesn't mean much - if the NT rejects establishment then the list of 'advantages' would basically be a list of how the Anglicans and similar were tempted to disobey the NT!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
The CofE is the Queen's Church and she is our supreme govenor therefore we render to the Queen what is the Queen's.

---

Right there, that makes the concept of establishment problematic for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
The Church In Wales manages this, and so do many other churches in England,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The question I'm still waiting for Anglicans to answer is where in the New Testament does it say that they or any other church should be established or otherwise specially privileged in the state to begin with? There's lots in said NT which seems to propose a very different way for God's people to relate to the world they live in and the various governments they have to live under, and quite a lot of that teaching seems to positively reject the idea of establishment. Quoting supposed advantages of establishment doesn't mean much - if the NT rejects establishment then the list of 'advantages' would basically be a list of how the Anglicans and similar were tempted to disobey the NT!

---

And the answer you will likely get is that Anglicans do not believe that Scripture binds a church to a specific and fixed shape. Whether establishment or disestablishment, the Scriptures are silent, in which case, the Church exercising its careful discernment can decide under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Thanks for the salutary warning Exclamation Mark. I cringe when some of my fellow-Anglicans adopt that tone. But rightly understood, 'the cure of souls' should encourage humility rather than arrogance. And it's not as if we were alone in this: a priest shares that cure with every Christian and especially with every Christian minister who is working in his/her parish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... How many cross their fingers during the oath of allegiance to the Queen and Bishop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never really understood why people get het up about disestablishment. While it's true that the bishops in the House of Lords wield some power, it's not a great deal is it? No legislation has - so far as I know - succeeded or failed on the basis of the bishops' votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
History is so untidy. The church isn't very neat either.

---

You are so right there! God moves in mysterious ways. For example, I get annoyed with people who say the Church of England was "founded" by Henry VIII.* Many of the changes in many churches (and certainly not just Anglican!) come from some sort of unedifying political brouhaha -- that's what happens in our sinful human societies, and yet from broken eggs God can still make an omelette.

*Although I am told that in Nashotah House seminary there hangs a picture of Henry VIII with the caption "Our beloved founder".
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I am not an Anglican but I would be extremely disappointed and not a little dismayed, if the Church of England was disestablished.

From my not-very-detailed knowledge of these matters, I would say that if there has been any disestablishment, it has been that of of the government from the Church. Politics has moved, has distanced itself from its original and correct position.

Why do we think that it is the Church that crowns the Monarch, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is senior to the Prime Minister, the Bishops sit by right in the House of Lords and can vote in respect of legislation? It's not because the Government at some point 'established' the church and gave it some special privileges. It's surely because the Church, when it was the Church in England, rather than the Church of England, was the state, under the Pope and Monarch. Our laws in England are Canon laws as opposed to European law which is Roman/Napoleonic laws.

The Governments of the modern era are increasingly like the prodigal son, demanding their independence from the parent and the home of their upbringing (the Church). To take the analogy further, if the government ever decides to disestablish the Church of England, it will be the prodigal son not only leaving home with his inheritance, but also coming back unrepentant and evicting the father from the family home.

The Church can not be disestablished without the Government becoming entirely secular and that has much broader and far reaching consequences than just asking the Bishops not to bother coming to the Lords.
 

---

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Governments of the modern era are increasingly like the prodigal son, demanding their independence from the parent and the home of their upbringing (the Church). To take the analogy further, if the government ever decides to disestablish the Church of England, it will be the prodigal son not only leaving home with his inheritance, but also coming back unrepentant and evicting the father from the family home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Governments of the modern era are increasingly like the prodigal son, demanding their independence from the parent and the home of their upbringing (the Church). To take the analogy further, if the government ever decides to disestablish the Church of England, it will be the prodigal son not only leaving home with his inheritance, but also coming back unrepentant and evicting the father from the family home.

---

The wise response of the prodigal father is to let the offspring go and be ready with open arms when they come back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... How many cross their fingers during the oath of allegiance to the Queen and Bishop?

---

Do you really mean what you seem to be implying - that it's legitimate to pretend one owes a duty to ones sovereign and one's bishop, but only provided one doesn't actually mean it or recognise that it might constrain you in any way?

Would you feel it was legitimate to take the same line with one's commitment to the Baptist Union or to the elders who appointed you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Governments of the modern era are increasingly like the prodigal son, demanding their independence from the parent and the home of their upbringing (the Church). To take the analogy further, if the government ever decides to disestablish the Church of England, it will be the prodigal son not only leaving home with his inheritance, but also coming back unrepentant and evicting the father from the family home.

---

The wise response of the prodigal father is to let the offspring go and be ready with open arms when they come back.

---

You mean, for the Church to stay where it is and govern while the government goes off somewhere else? What we are looking at is the prodigal son evicting the father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).

---

If we only did this because we were the 'established church' it would be a shame. It's quite possible not to want to be a sect, and to have a ministry to the whole community, without being established. The Church In Wales manages this, and so do many other churches in England, for example the Methodists and in many places the RCs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How many cross their fingers during the oath of allegiance to the Queen and Bishop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
The Church (in most of the West) needs to accept that we now live in a post-Christian culture and not hang on as if nothing has changed. The Church has no claim to govern the godless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTE]As for the 39, we don't have to affirm them, we just have to acknowledge them as among the "historic formularies" of the CofE and we "affirm [our] loyalty to this inheritance of faith as [our] inspiration and guidance under God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
The Church (in most of the West) needs to accept that we now live in a post-Christian culture and not hang on as if nothing has changed. The Church has no claim to govern the godless.

---

Really?
I don't see that in the funeral services and the civic ceremonies.

If there was a disaster this afternoon, you can be certain that the local cathedral would be the venue for the memorial gathering - and the country would expect it to be so.

Had Wills and kate turned up at a registrar's office for the wedding there would have been an outcry.

I think people still want the church.
in fact, if all the (admittedly declining numbers) of people who wrote 'Christian' attended their local church this coming Sunday there would be no room for 90% of them.

To say that any body should only govern its members suggests that the government of this country should only make laws for the members of the Conservative party and the rest of us can do what they like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I could be really wicked and suggest that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is one of the foundational ills besetting this so-called christian country.

It's precisely because those who practice paedo-baptism tell their people that you're all Christians now that people just assume that's what they are even if they never go to church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Governments of the modern era are increasingly like the prodigal son, demanding their independence from the parent and the home of their upbringing (the Church). To take the analogy further, if the government ever decides to disestablish the Church of England, it will be the prodigal son not only leaving home with his inheritance, but also coming back unrepentant and evicting the father from the family home.

---

The wise response of the prodigal father is to let the offspring go and be ready with open arms when they come back.

---

You mean, for the Church to stay where it is and govern while the government goes off somewhere else? What we are looking at is the prodigal son evicting the father.

---

The Church (in most of the West) needs to accept that we now live in a post-Christian culture and not hang on as if nothing has changed. The Church has no claim to govern the godless.

---

quote:

---

We live in a hierarchy of liberty under authority that ascends to God's limitless love. As we see in the life of Jesus, with God justice and mercy are perfectly joined, wisdom is unlimited, generosity is unstinting, and love pours out to the whole world in an overwhelming embrace that is offered universally and abundantly.

A nation that crowns its head of state with such a model of liberty under authority expresses commitment to the same glorious values for itself.

In those moments of prayer are symbolised the basis for the greatness of this country. In their silence lies God’s call. In their humility lies God’s authority. In their resulting service lies God’s perfect freedom. What follows is the joy of security that comes from obeying God alone. Such consecration to God is followed by a crown. When we obey God’s call, whoever we are, leading Government or quietly serving our local community, we establish a country that is open-handed and open-hearted, serving others with joy.

In such service we become Britain at its best. We know how to celebrate - as again last year in the Olympics. We know how to comfort and grieve – as on the streets of Woolwich, in the courage of passersby and police.

Yet we are not always and everywhere at our best. We celebrate today not liberty by itself, which in human weakness turns to selfishness, but liberty under the authority of God. We are never more free, nor better than when we are under the authority of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTE]As for the 39, we don't have to affirm them, we just have to acknowledge them as among the "historic formularies" of the CofE and we "affirm [our] loyalty to this inheritance of faith as [our] inspiration and guidance under God".

---

Well, at last night's induction, they came in the section of swearing on oath .... but since I affirm anyway (as opposed to swearing) I don't see the difference: any variation on affirm or swear is non existent in my view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...but don't ask me to believe in your rules...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So I'll join your club but don't ask me to believe in your rules and founding principles. No wonder people want nothing to do with a church where people don't even believe what the books say!

---

quote:

---

Why do we think that it is the Church that crowns the Monarch, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is senior to the Prime Minister, the Bishops sit by right in the House of Lords and can vote in respect of legislation? It's not because the Government at some point 'established' the church and gave it some special privileges.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This analogy of Government and Church being like the prodigal son and his father is begging a rather important question - it's assuming that the existence of an intimate relationship between Government and Church is a good, God-approved thing. I really don't think it is.

Where in the New Testament writings or in the practices of the early Christians is there any indication that influence over the state authorities is to be sought?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mudfrog mentions 'the authority of God'. Maybe this should be a separate topic*, but what authority has God over Government, or over me?
Obviously, I do not believe in God/god/s so the idea of its/their authority has no relevance to me.

*What is host's advice, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The legislation is a classic case of the CofE special status. The CofE is banned from taking same-sex marriages. All other churches have to make national decisions about whether to or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mudfrog mentions 'the authority of God'. Maybe this should be a separate topic*, but what authority has God over Government, or over me?
Obviously, I do not believe in God/god/s so the idea of its/their authority has no relevance to me.

*What is host's advice, please?

---

God has authority because God is God; creater and LORD of the universe. Any issues arising about who is in charge needs to be sorted out by God; not a church- let him send plagues of locusts or financial crashes upon us or something.

The real question is can a church act as God nationalised agent in a multicultural culture over people who are free to hold views such as your own? We have to ackowledge there is at least the possibility that we are wrong about God/gods/no gods if we are to function in such a society. I don't think that a established religion or non-religion can sit comfortably in that context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How could the government intend to serve God when it is not a requirement to be a religious believer of any kind to be an MP (and I would hate to see that change!)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How could the government intend to serve God when it is not a requirement to be a religious believer of any kind to be an MP (and I would hate to see that change!)?

---

I agree that it should not be a requirement for MP's to believe in God or to be Christians who recognise Christ as King, but think it a good thing for incoming MP's to recognise that a significant number of their fellow MP's do see it that way and value the ethos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mudfrog mentions 'the authority of God'. Maybe this should be a separate topic*, but what authority has God over Government, or over me?
Obviously, I do not believe in God/god/s so the idea of its/their authority has no relevance to me.

*What is host's advice, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mudfrog mentions 'the authority of God'. Maybe this should be a separate topic*, but what authority has God over Government, or over me?
Obviously, I do not believe in God/god/s so the idea of its/their authority has no relevance to me.

*What is host's advice, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why do we think that it is the Church that crowns the Monarch, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is senior to the Prime Minister, the Bishops sit by right in the House of Lords and can vote in respect of legislation? It's not because the Government at some point 'established' the church and gave it some special privileges. It's surely because the Church, when it was the Church in England, rather than the Church of England, was the state, under the Pope and Monarch. Our laws in England are Canon laws as opposed to European law which is Roman/Napoleonic laws.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I could be really wicked and suggest that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is one of the foundational ills besetting this so-called christian country.

It's precisely because those who practice paedo-baptism tell their people that you're all Christians now that people just assume that's what they are even if they never go to church.

---

If you're wicked MF, then I am too! I'll join your club.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Extremely interesting sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered at today's service to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Coronation - I saw it as a rebuke to the Government, to be honest. He contrasted the Christian service of the Queen to the government that has rejected the authority of god. He spoke that phrases over and over again - liberty under the authority of God. I hope Cameron was listening:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Respecting the Authority of God" is just code for "Should enforce my particular scruples and mores defined by my religious beliefs."

As far as I can gather, anyway.

---

Sounds just a mite cynical, but has truth, especially throughout history, and would apply whatever the god believed in is thought to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
God has authority because God is God; creater and LORD of the universe. Any issues arising about who is in charge needs to be sorted out by God;...

---

quote:

---

The real question is can a church act as God nationalised agent in a multicultural culture over people who are free to hold views such as your own?

---

quote:

---

We have to ackowledge there is at least the possibility that we are wrong about God/gods/no gods if we are to function in such a society. I don't think that a established religion or non-religion can sit comfortably in that context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Incidentally, outside of religious circles, natural law theory isn't that popular. Even "natural rights" have fallen out of favor with liberal human rights types, who understand that the idea of rights prior to civilization is erroneus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Although we are all sinful human beings, it does no harm and nothing but good to hold to and aim for the ideals set by God and given to us by Christ.

Government ministers are called ministers as they were expected to demonstrate the integrity, honesty and humility of God-loving people. Isn't that something we would like to see today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Although we are all sinful human beings, it does no harm and nothing but good to hold to and aim for the ideals set by God and given to us by Christ.

---

quote:

---

Government ministers are called ministers as they were expected to demonstrate the integrity, honesty and humility of God-loving people. Isn't that something we would like to see today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
God has authority because God is God; creator and LORD of the universe. Any issues arising about who is in charge needs to be sorted out by God;...

---

Not for me though, of course. But life and the univers behave in exactly the same way whether it is believed there is a god behind it or not.

---

I agree and it works both ways. And I would say that you should not have to be bored by the antics of an established state religion. I'm for disestablishment.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
The Midge
It seems we agree and agree to disagree!
I'm not bored by the 'antics' of the Church.What was it that I said to give you that impression, I wonder? I was a CofE attender for a large part of my life and appreciate the place it holds in this country's past and present.
 

---

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Response to The Midge – what is at issue is whether the Queen can in fact claim the church (or part of it) as hers; is the church part of what we owe to the Queen? The Queen can claim all she likes – but rendering to God what is His comes first and I’m suggesting that the NT says the Queen’s claim, along with similar claims made in other countries, is not legitimate. You don’t really answer that….

To The Midge’s point that ‘the NT doesn’t say there mustn’t be an established church either’ and also to Anglican Brat – the point I’m raising is precisely that the scriptures are not silent; or to be precise, they are silent about establishment, but say plenty suggesting an alternative way for God’s people to relate to the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you for post. The thing is, though that you would behave in a good and right way, whether you were a believer or not, wouldn't you?.

---

That's what I love about you atheists. You'e so optimistic!
 

---

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The Midge
It seems we agree and agree to disagree!
I'm not bored by the 'antics' of the Church.What was it that I said to give you that impression, I wonder? I was a CofE attender for a large part of my life and appreciate the place it holds in this country's past and present.

---

I get bored by it sometimes, especially when proceedings take a civic form. I shouldn't have implied were, but I don't think a non or other believer should be compelled to sit through them.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Adeodatus and The Midge
Thanks for the !
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Mudfrog

First you said this:

quote:

---

If there was a disaster this afternoon, you can be certain that the local cathedral would be the venue for the memorial gathering - and the country would expect it to be so.

Had Wills and kate turned up at a registrar's office for the wedding there would have been an outcry.

I think people still want the church.
in fact, if all the (admittedly declining numbers) of people who wrote 'Christian' attended their local church this coming Sunday there would be no room for 90% of them.

To say that any body should only govern its members suggests that the government of this country should only make laws for the members of the Conservative party and the rest of us can do what they like.

---

quote:

---

I could be really wicked and suggest that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is one of the foundational ills besetting this so-called christian country.

It's precisely because those who practice paedo-baptism tell their people that you're all Christians now that people just assume that's what they are even if they never go to church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I would say that a culture founded on Judaeo-Christian values is a good thing, whether individuals invest their personal faith in the source of those values or not.

---

quote:

---

I think we give to little credit actually to people's spirituality. I might not believe in baptismal regeneration but I do think people actually want to believe and do have a basic faith in the Christian expression of God.

That's why they readily respond to him in 'cultural' religious activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I would say that a culture founded on Judaeo-Christian values is a good thing, whether individuals invest their personal faith in the source of those values or not.

---

But the question is, where are those values going to come from if there are fewer and fewer committed Christians to actively promote them?Or are you implying that 'Judaeo-Christian values' exist in vacuo , and don't really need to be embodied by any kind of viable faith community?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Extremely interesting sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered at today's service to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Coronation...

quote:

---

We live in a hierarchy of liberty under authority that ascends to God's limitless love. As we see in the life of Jesus, with God justice and mercy are perfectly joined, wisdom is unlimited, generosity is unstinting, and love pours out to the whole world in an overwhelming embrace that is offered universally and abundantly.

A nation that crowns its head of state with such a model of liberty under authority expresses commitment to the same glorious values for itself.

In those moments of prayer are symbolised the basis for the greatness of this country. In their silence lies God’s call. In their humility lies God’s authority. In their resulting service lies God’s perfect freedom. What follows is the joy of security that comes from obeying God alone. Such consecration to God is followed by a crown. When we obey God’s call, whoever we are, leading Government or quietly serving our local community, we establish a country that is open-handed and open-hearted, serving others with joy.

In such service we become Britain at its best. We know how to celebrate - as again last year in the Olympics. We know how to comfort and grieve – as on the streets of Woolwich, in the courage of passersby and police.

Yet we are not always and everywhere at our best. We celebrate today not liberty by itself, which in human weakness turns to selfishness, but liberty under the authority of God. We are never more free, nor better than when we are under the authority of God.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
[QUOTE] I must say that I find this extract from the ABC's sermon rather depressing. It is, to put it bluntly, vacuous sound-biting. Empty phrases with no substance behind them. If this is the best he can offer, it's going to be a long, hard haul under him in the C of E.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Extremely interesting sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered at today's service to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Coronation...

quote:

---

.
.
.
Yet we are not always and everywhere at our best. We celebrate today not liberty by itself, which in human weakness turns to selfishness, but liberty under the authority of God. We are never more free, nor better than when we are under the authority of God.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Extremely interesting sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered at today's service to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Coronation...

quote:

---

.
.
.
Yet we are not always and everywhere at our best. We celebrate today not liberty by itself, which in human weakness turns to selfishness, but liberty under the authority of God. We are never more free, nor better than when we are under the authority of God.

---

---

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the usual "true liberty is the liberty to do what you're told" platitudes we often hear from authority figures always makes me think "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY".

---

Perhaps he wrote the sermon himself.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
What you are thinkimng about is not liberty, but licence.

The words of the hymn come to mind:

Make me a captive, Lord,
And then I shall be free;
Force me to render up my sword,
And I shall conqueror be.
I sink in life's alarms
When by myself I stand;
Imprison me within thine arms
And strong shall be my hand.

My will is not my own
till thou hast made it thine;
If it would reach a monarch's throne
It must its crown resign;
It only stands unbent
amid the clashing strife,
When on thy bosom it has leant
And found in thee its life.


Then there are the words of the old Gospel song:

I surrender all, I surrender all,
All to thee my blessed Saviour,
I surrender all.


freedom can only be found when Christ is gven Lordship of life.

Anything else is just selfishness and will not find liberty.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Mudfrog: The words of the hymn come to mind:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: The words of the hymn come to mind:

---

Remind me to never sing this hymn. What terrible lyrics.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Terrible in meaning or in poetic style?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:
The CofE is the Queen's Church and she is our supreme govenor therefore we render to the Queen what is the Queen's.

---

quote:

---

Then again the NT doesn't say there must not be an established church either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Except the House of Lords does not 'rule' over the country. They cannot prevent laws from being passed, write laws themselves, or execute any judgements. They exist mainly as a constitutional court, a safeguard on any parlimentary excess.

---

But their illegitimacy prevents them from standing up to the elected chamber. And so has allowed the House of Commons to progressively remove their powers.

---

Are you equating "legitimacy" per se with "popularly elected", and thus saying that the House of Lords, not being popularly elected, is illegitimate per se?

---

quote:

---

For really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he has not had a voice to put himself under. And I am confident that when I have heard the reasons against it, something will be said to answer those reasons — insomuch that I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no that should doubt of these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Terrible in meaning or in poetic style?

---

The former.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: Does yielding to Christ as Lord, giving oneself as a living sacrifice, not figure in your discipleship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What you are thinkimng about is not liberty, but licence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What you are thinkimng about is not liberty, but licence.

---

It's been my experience that this distinction is primarily used to deny other people liberty.

For instance, worshiping the right god (the Christian deity, in your case) is considered and exercise of religious liberty.

In contrast worshiping the wrong god (an Islamic or Hindu deity, for example) is religious licentiousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What you are thinkimng about is not liberty, but licence.

---

It's been my experience that this distinction is primarily used to deny other people liberty.

For instance, worshiping the right god (the Christian deity, in your case) is considered and exercise of religious liberty.

In contrast worshiping the wrong god (an Islamic or Hindu deity, for example) is religious licentiousness.

---

No, it's idolatry.

Licence is demanding to have unrestrained moral and ethical behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, I would say that a culture founded on Judaeo-Christian values is a good thing, whether individuals invest their personal faith in the source of those values or not.

---

But the question is, where are those values going to come from if there are fewer and fewer committed Christians to actively promote them?Or are you implying that 'Judaeo-Christian values' exist in vacuo , and don't really need to be embodied by any kind of viable faith community?

---

Maybe you could just boost the number of Jews and have and established synagogue. Would that achieve the same effect?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
freedom can only be found when Christ is gven Lordship of life.

Anything else is just selfishness and will not find liberty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its hard to imagine Paul (never mind Jesus!) going along with the idea that the internal affairs of any church shoudl be decided by the government!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I never said idolatry was immoral or unethical

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What you are thinkimng about is not liberty, but licence.

<snip>

freedom can only be found when Christ is gven Lordship of life.

Anything else is just selfishness and will not find liberty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What you are thinkimng about is not liberty, but licence.

---

It's been my experience that this distinction is primarily used to deny other people liberty.

For instance, worshiping the right god (the Christian deity, in your case) is considered and exercise of religious liberty.

In contrast worshiping the wrong god (an Islamic or Hindu deity, for example) is religious licentiousness.

---

No, it's idolatry.

Licence is demanding to have unrestrained moral and ethical behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Yes it does. If you want proof-texts, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" ought to be enough to show that the government should not control any church.. We could go with "Be not conformed to this world". We've already had "My kingdom is not of this world". Seems pretty clear to me.

---

quote:

---

In 1 Continthians 6 the apostle Paul is very clear (and rather scathing) about Christians going to secular courts for judgment between them. His teaching there very strongly rules out any notion of submitting church laws to the government. Matthew 18.15–17 would seem to allow for disputes between Christians to be taken to normal courts only after relations between them have completely broken down. Its hard to imagine Paul (never mind Jesus!) going along with the idea that the internal affairs of any church shoudl be decided by the government!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
In contrast worshiping the wrong god (an Islamic or Hindu deity, for example) is religious licentiousness.

---

Muslims do not worship a pagan god. What an insulting thing to say!

Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, albeit with varying theological perspectives on certain aspects. (Indeed that variation of theological perspectives applies within Christianity's various branches.) Allah and Elohim come from analogous Semitic roots.

And yes, there are going to be those that disagree as concerns Muslims, and nothing I could say will change their minds but they are just wrong wrong wrong. I have Muslim family members and know better.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, albeit with varying theological perspectives on certain aspects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's an article in today's Telegraph (here) in which a 'senior Anglican clergyman' is quoted anonymously as saying this Government is using 'bully-boy tactics' to force the equal / same-sex marriage bill through Parliament. He reckons any opposition from C of E Bishops 'could spell the end of [their] special status'.

Then, and this is the bit I want to discuss, the author says:

quote:

---

Special status? what kind of special status do the bishops – or any of the Churches – enjoy under this Coalition of the Godless?

---

Um, what about the fact that several C of E bishops have an automatic seat in the House of Lords, giving them access to the levers of power that no other religious grouping in the UK has? That special status?

Mind you, I think the author does hit the nail on the head at the end of her article by wondering 'whether an Established Church that comes at the price of freedom of conscience is worth it.'

Disestablishment now please!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Government ministers are called ministers as they were expected to demonstrate the integrity, honesty and humility of God-loving people. Isn't that something we would like to see today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Doctrines do not matter; anyone in God's earth can have any thought or belief or expectation imaginable so long as their BEHAVIOR IS APPROPRIATE--

as Jesus taught over and over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Doctrines do not matter; anyone in God's earth can have any thought or belief or expectation imaginable so long as their BEHAVIOR IS APPROPRIATE--

as Jesus taught over and over and over again.

---

Aren't doctrines the same as teachings? It sounds like what you're saying is that the doctrines that do matter are the ones that teach us to behave appropriately, which I would agree with. But another doctrine I would suggest is as important is that the reason to behave appropriately is because that's what God wants us to do (or, for atheists, because it's the right thing to do). Behaving well just to avoid getting in trouble or to get people to like us doesn't do much for our spiritual life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Yes, but the English government claimed the right to make canon laws for the established church, to appoint and depose bishops, to control liturgy, even at times to decide on doctrines.

Now, in practice, after the Restoration made it clear to everyone that the Church of England was going to have all that imposed on it for the forseeable future, (by, among other things, expelling ministers with Presbyterian leanings frm their livings) about a third of English churchgoers simply walked out. And ever since the early 19th century - maybe earlier - government control over those things has been becoming weaker and weaker.

Stealing lawnmowers is one thing. Appointing bishops another. Definitely Caesar trespassing on God's patch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But of course, that Christian governmental system itself became a brake on the development of national life. A simple example - the divine right of kings began to act as a kind of strangulation on commerce, law, morality, and so on. The rising bourgeoisie found it intolerable, and hence, cut off the king's head, and then brought back the monarchy with vastly reduced powers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's strange how it's always the church that is rejected and the 'divine' authority claimed by the secular ruler... [for example] a modern prime minster riding roughshod over divine (and natural) law in the vain chase for votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm jumping in here because I haven't had time to read all the posts, but I would prefer that the C of E retains its "special status", however minimal that might be.

I ask the question, what would the alternative be like? We already have a culture that is largely dominated by secular humanism, and recent law changes show this. Having C of E bishops in the House of Lords at least gives the appearance that there is another way of looking at things, although we know the reality is that they are mostly full of hot air and their outbursts are more left wing than theological. Still, better the devil you know...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What would a society look like if its leaders were of a certain religion, if all its people adhered to the same religion?

Don't you think that its 'politics' would have the same flavour as the religion they followed?
In fact, would there be much divide between religion and politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me, from my understanding, that England, which is probably the oldest Christian nation in the world, was a Christian state - the king was Christian, the ministers were Christian, the church was included in the State because the King believed, etc, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QB] What would a society look like if its leaders were of a certain religion, if all its people adhered to the same religion?

---

quote:

---

Don't you think that its 'politics' would have the same flavour as the religion they followed?
In fact, would there be much divide between religion and politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The "Christian" emperors of Rome, happily persecuted non-Christians and Christians who did not subscribe to orthodoxy, all in the name of the Prince of Peace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The "Christian" emperors of Rome, happily persecuted non-Christians and Christians who did not subscribe to orthodoxy, all in the name of the Prince of Peace.

---

Given that standard Christian teaching seems to be that "non-Christians and Christians who [do] not subscribe to orthodoxy" will be punished in Hell for all eternity for their wrongthink, Christian Emperors throwing some Pagans and heretics to the lions seems perfectly congruent with Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, albeit with varying theological perspectives on certain aspects.

---

I'm not sure about that. The Christians' three-in-one incarnate God seems different enough from the unified and non-incarnate God of Judaism and Islam to be considered a different entity. I can see the case being made that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, but the Christian deity seems to be the odd man out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The "Christian" emperors of Rome, happily persecuted non-Christians and Christians who did not subscribe to orthodoxy, all in the name of the Prince of Peace.

---

Given that standard Christian teaching seems to be that "non-Christians and Christians who [do] not subscribe to orthodoxy" will be punished in Hell for all eternity for their wrongthink, Christian Emperors throwing some Pagans and heretics to the lions seems perfectly congruent with Christianity.

---

Aye, this is a problem I have with a lot of Christian teaching. We can say that we don't think the government should enforce religious belief or sexual morality, but the teaching is there that ultimately God will do something much, much worse to the queers and the sluts and the piss-heads and the muzzies and the atheists than we could ever dream of.

---

Could it be that a lot of Christian teaching is bull ---- (pun intended ).

I read read scripture and took study seriously and found that it seemed to contain radically inverted expectations on the fate of the 'worst' kind of sinners: Prodigal sons, idle workers in vinyards, tax collectors, women caught in adultury, Samaritan whores and other prostitures, collaborating tax collectors, inpure bleeding women, comanders in the pagan occupying forces, destitute widows. Yet time after time the widows and wealthy elite receive the pointed end to a tounge lashing. Which is the gerat hopes for us screw-up.

It isn't the sin that one has done per se, that counts. ISTM that the worse sin is to try and bar the gates to a kingdom to another. And a futile gesture for the kingdom has rather more porus borders than we often realise!
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Also, since Jesus was a Jew, he did not worship a different God from his fellow Jews, nor did he intend for his disciples to start worshiping a new god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Also, since Jesus was a Jew, he did not worship a different God from his fellow Jews, nor did he intend for his disciples to start worshiping a new god.

---

The standard Christian line on this seems to be that Jesus wasn't just a Jewish peasant but also God incarnate. You may argue that he didn't intend for his disciples to start worshiping a new god, but given that there was no Jewish worship of Jesus the Incarnate Deity prior to his lifetime, that's essentially what happened. I don't think the divinity of Jesus is something that can be handwaved away as some minor doctrinal point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Also, since Jesus was a Jew, he did not worship a different God from his fellow Jews, nor did he intend for his disciples to start worshiping a new god.

---

The standard Christian line on this seems to be that Jesus wasn't just a Jewish peasant but also God incarnate. You may argue that he didn't intend for his disciples to start worshiping a new god, but given that there was no Jewish worship of Jesus the Incarnate Deity prior to his lifetime, that's essentially what happened. I don't think the divinity of Jesus is something that can be handwaved away as some minor doctrinal point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The standard Christian line on this seems to be that Jesus wasn't just a Jewish peasant but also God incarnate. You may argue that he didn't intend for his disciples to start worshiping a new god, but given that there was no Jewish worship of Jesus the Incarnate Deity prior to his lifetime, that's essentially what happened. I don't think the divinity of Jesus is something that can be handwaved away as some minor doctrinal point.

---

I certainly agree that it can't be handwaved away, and I apologize if I gave that impression -- I 100% didn't intend to do so. Yes, Christianity believes that Jesus is God incarnate. But not a different God -- still THE One God. "I and the Father are One." Orthodox Christian belief emphatically professes that Jesus and the Father are different Persons -- not different Gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I know Christians believe that Jesus is the same God as described in the Old Testament, but that's not a belief that's shared by Judaism or Islam. If you were to tell an adherent of either of those faiths that their God walked the Earth as Jesus Christ they'd likely regard you as either ignorant or insane (or a particularly inept Christian missionary).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I know Christians believe that Jesus is the same God as described in the Old Testament, but that's not a belief that's shared by Judaism or Islam. If you were to tell an adherent of either of those faiths that their God walked the Earth as Jesus Christ they'd likely regard you as either ignorant or insane (or a particularly inept Christian missionary).

---

But this is believing different things about God, not believing in different Gods. Muslims believe that Allah is the God who revealed himself to Abraham. They just think that the Bible has been corrupted, so isn't an accurate record, whereas the Koran is a new and final revelation of God to Mohammed, and is inerrant. Muslims believe that the Gospels provide an account of the acts and teachings of the prophet Isa (Jesus), but again are corrupted.

All three faiths believe that there is one creator God, and worship him.

Some people argue that because we believe different things about God, we believe in different Gods. This statement seems to rely on viewing God as a human construct.

A dear elderly relative of mine is convinced that the Prime Minister is called Donald Cameron. We would all agree that she's wrong (no, middle names don't count!) but I don't think anybody would think that she thinks that the PM is a different person. She "believes" in the same PM, she's just wrong about his name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I know Christians believe that Jesus is the same God as described in the Old Testament, but that's not a belief that's shared by Judaism or Islam. If you were to tell an adherent of either of those faiths that their God walked the Earth as Jesus Christ they'd likely regard you as either ignorant or insane (or a particularly inept Christian missionary).

---

But this is believing different things about God, not believing in different Gods. Muslims believe that Allah is the God who revealed himself to Abraham. They just think that the Bible has been corrupted, so isn't an accurate record, whereas the Koran is a new and final revelation of God to Mohammed, and is inerrant. Muslims believe that the Gospels provide an account of the acts and teachings of the prophet Isa (Jesus), but again are corrupted.

All three faiths believe that there is one creator God, and worship him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Some people argue that because we believe different things about God, we believe in different Gods. This statement seems to rely on viewing God as a human construct.

A dear elderly relative of mine is convinced that the Prime Minister is called Donald Cameron. We would all agree that she's wrong (no, middle names don't count!) but I don't think anybody would think that she thinks that the PM is a different person. She "believes" in the same PM, she's just wrong about his name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a special arrogance to the "Jews and Muslims are really worshiping Jesus and just don't know it" position. [Change description as necessary if you prefer a no less arrogant non-Christian formulation]

---

quote:

---

At some point the stories are divergent enough they can't be the same person. If Jesus is a god, he's not one that's recognized as such by Judaism and Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

But Jews don't believe that either. You are projecting the Christian definition of God back onto the Jewish belief about God, which is the same as the Islamic belief -- the only difference is concerning a particular relationship that the Jewish people have with God.

(PS - is there a significance to saying "who became incarnate ON Jesus Christ" rather than IN Jesus Christ? I have never heard that particular phraseology before.)

Incidentally, FYI, for those who think this thread has strayed from the original emphasis on the C of E (not that I care myself) there is also now
this thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

Why not?

---

Because I read an Islamic website that I can't find now that said that the NAME of God is Allah NOT Yahweh.

Now, seeing that the name YHWH is repeated 6000 times in the Old testament and is the name that God identified himself to Moses by, and the name he used when he made the Coevenat with Israel, that is a pretty big deal.

YHWH is not just the name of Elohim, it is his nature, his character, his 'essence'. If Islam denies that YHWH is Elohim, then we have a problem.

I think Elijah asked a very important question that we can adapt here:

If YHWH is Elohim, serve him;
If (Baal (or Allah) is Elohim, serve him.

Not every singular named god can be the One True Elohim - especially if beside YHWH (who is NOT Allah, according to Islam) there is no other god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What would a society look like if its leaders were of a certain religion, if all its people adhered to the same religion?

Don't you think that its 'politics' would have the same flavour as the religion they followed?
In fact, would there be much divide between religion and politics?

It seems to me, from my understanding, that England, which is probably the oldest Christian nation in the world, was a Christian state - the king was Christian, the ministers were Christian, the church was included in the State because the King believed, etc, etc.

It has been the slow secularisation of the state that has led to the situation we are in now. I still maintain that in essence, our Monarchy, Aristocracy, House of Lords, House of Commons, Judiciary and the system whereby the church was at one time the only place to get married, shows a Christian governmental system that had the church at the heart of government.


Can I also slightly correct the oft-repeated mistake about Henry VIII? He didn't get rid of the Catholic church from England, replacing it with a Protestant Church of England - he merely placed himself above it instead of the Pope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
This is a metaphysical question and issue.

Look at China, how monolithic it is.

Look at India, how infinitely fragmented as to languages and thought groups.

Doing a top-down hierarchy based on one ideology only is never an invitation to get people to think for themselves.

What we the English-speaking peoples had in common was that COMMERCE was subject Common Law.

But COMMERCE favors being subject to ROMAN LAW because Roman Law coddles Elites.

So, gradually, Roman Law, in the form of corporate statutes, privatized utilities, and governments that incorporate under Laws of the Sea and Admiralty. Eventually, THE PREDATORS ALWAYS TAKE OVER from the people.

It has NOTHING TO DO with religion; that's just a cover. Ideology is always the cover for predator and parasitic ELITES.

Or don't you think so?

Em

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Allah is the term for God used by Palestinian Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

But Islam denies that the Allah (God) of the Bible is called YHWH; they say that 'Allah' doesn't just mean God in the generic sense, they maintain that it is his Name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, as far as Church & State are concerned, it is an inescapable truth that our culture, our laws, our traditions, our calendar, even the ceremonies that take place in the Houses of Parliament, are immersed, informed by and inextricably linked to the Bible, the Christian faith and to Church Tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, as far as Church & State are concerned, it is an inescapable truth that our culture, our laws, our traditions, our calendar, even the ceremonies that take place in the Houses of Parliament, are immersed, informed by and inextricably linked to the Bible, the Christian faith and to Church Tradition.

It is our dominant identity and mode of being. Just because there are people with 'other opinions' who are in the system of government and community does not mean we should dismantle the Christian heritage of all we have. To do that would change the very essence of what British culture, society and politics really is.

I would suggest that, as with a Christian who works in a Muslim society, those in this country who actively do not share the Christian faith and those who do not wish to actively take part in the Christian traditions that inform what takes place, should just be respectful and accepting of those traditions.

As, it seems to me, many of them do already. If it's that old argument, 'Oh we mustn't do this because it offends/excludes others of a different religion', we usually find they are not offended at all and it's the liberal 'christians' who are just embarrassed, have no respect for their own traditions and want to be all inclusive and PC ion behalf of those cultures they think are offended. When by and large those cultures are not.

The whole Allah is the same as the Judeao-Christian God (YHWH) is part of that - it's all about trying to artificially minimise differences by actually playing down the majority view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In other words, "You've not been very good at being the church, salt and light, to the nation. So now you'd better leave."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In other words, "You've not been very good at being the church, salt and light, to the nation. So now you'd better leave."

Or in more 'other words', "You are the weakest link. Goodbye!"

---

quote:

---

Just because the country is at the low tide of Christian influence at the moment, doesn't mean that we should end 1000+ years of church involvement in the decision-making processes of the State.

---

quote:

---

As long as the Bishops do speak up for God and God's laws then I'm happy for them to be there, if only to remind government that there is a Christian foundation to our society that is there for good and relevant contemporary reasons, and not just historical...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

But Islam denies that the Allah (God) of the Bible is called YHWH; they say that 'Allah' doesn't just mean God in the generic sense, they maintain that it is his Name.

---

Yes, as I understand it, the Muslim position is that the recording of "YHWH" as the name of God in the Hebrew scriptures is an error that crept in over the years. But why isn't that just the Muslims saying the Jews think the PM's called Donald?

Islam does explicitly claim that Allah is the God who appeared to Abraham, to Moses and so on. They are agreeing that the PM is the posh boy with the big forehead, but disagreeing over whether he's called David or Donald.

---

But that's the point! The name isn't just the word that we speak or write when we refer to a person - call me Antony or call me Tony - I'm the same person!

No! The name encapsulates the essence of the person - YHWH has a different nature, character, identity to the one that is seen in the one who has the name Allah.

The 'El' called Allah and the 'El' called YHWH are as different as the El called Ba'al and the El called Zeus.

When YHWH Elohim spoke to Moses in the buirning bush - to a man who knew a lot of gods by name, he did not say, "Oh by the way, you know that one God they kept going on about in Egypt, you know the one: Aten- well ta da! That's me , tell the Pharoah that Aten sent you but I've got an alias..."

The Name of the Elohim (or the 'allah' of the Old Testament) is YHWH not Allah.

Allah is a deity (an allah) with a very different identity to YHWH.

[ 07. June 2013, 13:01: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Mind you some priests show an un priest like sentiment in their written composition when talking about their venerable leader don't they?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/priest-brands-archbishop-of-canterbury-a-wr-in-facebook-posting-as-tempers-fla re-over-gay-marriage-8647967.html

South Coast Kevin, what would you hope to see of the Anglican church if it was dis-established? Or what would the C of E look like?

Saul the Apostle

[ 07. June 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I don't subscribe to that view of divinity and, if I'm honest, the idea of having a state church makes me feel faintly ill, largely because if you look back over this supposedly Christian history, it's one of murder and almost epic intolerance. Dis-establish the church, remove the bishops from the House of Lords and let the people choose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, as far as Church & State are concerned, it is an inescapable truth that our culture, our laws, our traditions, our calendar, even the ceremonies that take place in the Houses of Parliament, are immersed, informed by and inextricably linked to the Bible, the Christian faith and to Church Tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is our dominant identity and mode of being.
Just because there are people with 'other opinions' who are in the system of government and community does not mean we should dismantle the Christian heritage of all we have. To do that would change the very essence of what British culture, society and politics really is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The whole Allah is the same as the Judeao-Christian God (YHWH) is part of that - it's all about trying to artificially minimise differences by actually playing down the majority view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
South Coast Kevin, what would you hope to see of the Anglican church if it was dis-established? Or what would the C of E look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Allah of the Muslims is not the YHWH of the Jews, who became incarnate on Jesus Christ.

---

Why not?

---

Because I read an Islamic website that I can't find now that said that the NAME of God is Allah NOT Yahweh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
YHWH is not just the name of Elohim, it is his nature, his character, his 'essence'. If Islam denies that YHWH is Elohim, then we have a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think Elijah asked a very important question that we can adapt here:

If YHWH is Elohim, serve him;
If (Baal (or Allah) is Elohim, serve him.

Not every singular named god can be the One True Elohim - especially if beside YHWH (who is NOT Allah, according to Islam) there is no other god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In other words, "You've not been very good at being the church, salt and light, to the nation. So now you'd better leave."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
(PS - is there a significance to saying "who became incarnate ON Jesus Christ" rather than IN Jesus Christ? I have never heard that particular phraseology before.)

---

woops, TYPO! It should be IN, not on. Sorry. But could you not have assumed that for yourself??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Response to The Midge – what is at issue is whether the Queen can in fact claim the church (or part of it) as hers; is the church part of what we owe to the Queen? The Queen can claim all she likes – but rendering to God what is His comes first and I’m suggesting that the NT says the Queen’s claim, along with similar claims made in other countries, is not legitimate. You don’t really answer that….

To The Midge’s point that ‘the NT doesn’t say there mustn’t be an established church either’ and also to Anglican Brat – the point I’m raising is precisely that the scriptures are not silent; or to be precise, they are silent about establishment, but say plenty suggesting an alternative way for God’s people to relate to the world.

Key thoughts – “My kingdom is not of this world’, and the text which says that the Church itself is God’s holy nation in the present age, Peter’s reference to Christians as ‘pilgrims’ using a word which in Greek means almost literally ‘resident aliens’ – there’s a very long list of NT texts incompatible with establishment.

As regards authority, God effectively has authority just by being God – rejecting God’s authority is ultimately living against the grain of the world. But when a human state with a government of sinful human beings claims to exercise coercive authority in God’s name – different matter!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Here is a direct and legal challenge to HRMQE2's claim to having a legitimate "reign."

I just couldn't pass this up.

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_news/2011/05/uk-landmark-case-could-stymie-legal-system-queen-not-valid-monarch.html ...

QUOTE: "At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract, before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

She swore to do so in a Christian context, she wasn't swearing to uphold a Torah-based theocracy.

---

How does that change things?

The Torah is COMMON ENGLISH LAW.

http://www.holyconservancy.org/2728.htm

The Torah legislates against harm, deceit, waste and undue costs, as Common English Law does.

Christianity says--what?--Anything goes?

Em
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

The Torah is COMMON ENGLISH LAW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
[QB] Aside from revenge-killings for sexual crimes--

prove it!

Prove that the Law's intent is not to create good outcomes for people who act in a benign and positive way ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

She swore to do so in a Christian context, she wasn't swearing to uphold a Torah-based theocracy.

---

How does that change things?

The Torah is COMMON ENGLISH LAW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
http://www.holyconservancy.org/2728.htm

The Torah legislates against harm, deceit, waste and undue costs, as Common English Law does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Christianity says--what?--Anything goes?

Em

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
South Coast Kevin, what would you hope to see of the Anglican church if it was dis-established? Or what would the C of E look like?

---

I would rather the C of E has the same access to power and the levers of government as any other organisation, no more and no less.

As for what I'd want the C of E to look like, apart from the equal access to government, well it's not really my business as I'm not a member. Let the members decide, as happens (broadly speaking) with other religious bodies. My issue is with the special favour that the C of E gets in various ways; I'd prefer all that favour to be removed and the C of E treated just like other organisations.

---

quote:

---

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am currently staying with friends who live in a tiny village just outside of Canterbury. They are from a charismatic free church background but for various reasons have not attended a church of that type in a while, so this morning we went to the local parish Holy Communion service. It was very interesting to note how completely alien Anglican services were to them. Clearly the CoE isn't THAT culturally important, although I suppose for non-Anglican Christians it's different...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am currently staying with friends who live in a tiny village just outside of Canterbury. They are from a charismatic free church background but for various reasons have not attended a church of that type in a while, so this morning we went to the local parish Holy Communion service. It was very interesting to note how completely alien Anglican services were to them. Clearly the CoE isn't THAT culturally important, although I suppose for non-Anglican Christians it's different...

---

The liturgy takes some getting used to, as does the style of worship in every church. At least it's usually in 20th century English now.

The cultural importance perhaps comes through more in the familiar words of weddings and funerals, and open services as on Remembrance Day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

Finally, I will gratuitously note that Her Majesty was crowned queen of the United Kingdom: she is not the Queen of England or of Scotland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never been to an Anglican funeral, nor a wedding, come to think of it. I have worshipped in MOTR to moderately high Anglican churches in the local area. I've attended the odd service at the cathedral but found it too impersonal for me, although worshipping with them during the Christmas season was fine - Christmas is supposed to have an old-fashioned feel.

Apart from the convenient fact that the CofE has more evening services than other denominations, the appeal of CofE worship as I've mostly experienced it is that you can just drop in and out without anyone making much of a fuss. Taking rather than giving, as some would see it. However, for permanent, active participation and engagement other forms of church in other denominations can sometimes be more attractive, the popularity of evangelical Anglicanism in London and the South East notwithstanding.

CofE establishmentarians will need to develop some kind of PR strategy to ensure the support of practising Christians in other denominations, in preparation for the time when the numbers of practising Anglicans are dwarfed by the numbers of practising Christians elsewhere. It might also be equally important not to take the allegiance of non-religious Christians for granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are many who self identify as Christian who do not practice or hold orthodox belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never been to an Anglican funeral, nor a wedding, come to think of it. I have worshipped in MOTR to moderately high Anglican churches in the local area. I've attended the odd service at the cathedral but found it too impersonal for me, although worshipping with them during the Christmas season was fine - Christmas is supposed to have an old-fashioned feel.

Apart from the convenient fact that the CofE has more evening services than other denominations, the appeal of CofE worship as I've mostly experienced it is that you can just drop in and out without anyone making much of a fuss. Taking rather than giving, as some would see it. However, for permanent, active participation and engagement other forms of church in other denominations can sometimes be more attractive, the popularity of evangelical Anglicanism in London and the South East notwithstanding.

CofE establishmentarians will need to develop some kind of PR strategy to ensure the support of practising Christians in other denominations, in preparation for the time when the numbers of practising Anglicans are dwarfed by the numbers of practising Christians elsewhere. It might also be equally important not to take the allegiance of non-religious Christians for granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It would be (will be?) interesting to see how long the residual affection for the C of E lasts among people who are well-disposed towards it but not active / practising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
High profile public Anglican weddings eg of royals mean that they are in the nation's consciousness to some extent. Perhaps less so with funerals.

As the C of E is such a broad Church, it already has allies within all of the other denominations, to some extent, and there is a lot of cross-fertilisation. Consumer churchgoers pick and mix. It would make sense for all to merge and cut costs, leaving the taxpayer to pick up maintenance of any old church buildings they wanted to keep. For now, as I understand it, those remaining in the C of E are doing their best to try to pass on what they inherited.

The non-religious Christians who want to choose to drop in to an Anglican church if, as and when they feel like it might find that the 'use it or lose it' sign seen on village shops applies to churches too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It would be (will be?) interesting to see how long the residual affection for the C of E lasts among people who are well-disposed towards it but not active / practising.

---

I think most of it died out in my parent's generation. Most white English people I know who are my own age (born in the 1950s) and younger do not seem to identify with one particular Christian denomination or another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Most white English people I know who are my own age (born in the 1950s) and younger do not seem to identify with one particular Christian denomination or another.
[...]

Pure speculation but I think the same is going to apply to the large number of black and Asian churchgoers we have now. They have kept the CofE going (at least in London) for the past forty years, and their children might carry on doing it for the next twenty, but the grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be British (or maybe even English) and unless the attitude of the English people towards religion changes drastically I imagine their rate of churchgoing will fall to beloiw 10%, just like the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

The same applies to mosque-going among Muslims in Britain - in fact I think its already lower than churchgoing is among ethnic minoriuty Christians, though higher than churchgoing amoing the white English - I can't remember the dource for that I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The same applies to mosque-going among Muslims in Britain - in fact I think its already lower than churchgoing is among ethnic minoriuty Christians, though higher than churchgoing amoing the white English - I can't remember the dource for that I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Although we are all sinful human beings, it does no harm and nothing but good to hold to and aim for the ideals set by God and given to us by Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The same applies to mosque-going among Muslims in Britain - in fact I think its already lower than churchgoing is among ethnic minoriuty Christians, though higher than churchgoing amoing the white English - I can't remember the dource for that I'm afraid.

---

I can't agree or disagree with this statement but I would say that driving past a mosque on a Friday afternoon you'll find the street full of white-attired men spilling out into the street.

It's not often the streets near most churches are awash with people when Holy Communion has just finished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The same applies to mosque-going among Muslims in Britain - in fact I think its already lower than churchgoing is among ethnic minoriuty Christians, though higher than churchgoing amoing the white English - I can't remember the dource for that I'm afraid.

---

I can't agree or disagree with this statement but I would say that driving past a mosque on a Friday afternoon you'll find the street full of white-attired men spilling out into the street.

It's not often the streets near most churches are awash with people when Holy Communion has just finished.

---

it might be if there were only half a dozen or fewer church buildings in the whole city, as it is with most mosques.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Just think of the well known Mary,Queen of Scots.The monarch's title for centuries in Scotland has been King of Scots NOT King of Scotland.
There is a difference in the title linking the monarch with the people ,as when Napoleon Bonaparte declared himself Empereur des Francais NOT Empereur de France.(Emperor of the French NOT Emperor of France.Similarly in modern Belgium you have the 'Roi des Belges' NOT 'Roi de Belgique
(King of the Belgians NOT King of Belgium)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The same applies to mosque-going among Muslims in Britain - in fact I think its already lower than churchgoing is among ethnic minoriuty Christians, though higher than churchgoing amoing the white English - I can't remember the dource for that I'm afraid.

---

I can't agree or disagree with this statement but I would say that driving past a mosque on a Friday afternoon you'll find the street full of white-attired men spilling out into the street.

It's not often the streets near most churches are awash with people when Holy Communion has just finished.

---

it might be if there were only half a dozen or fewer church buildings in the whole city, as it is with most mosques.

---

What he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It's not often the streets near most churches are awash with people when Holy Communion has just finished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Although we are all sinful human beings, it does no harm and nothing but good to hold to and aim for the ideals set by God and given to us by Christ.

---

Going back a bit, but recent events have provided a useful illustration for my anxieties here.

What if "aiming for the ideals set by God" leads to shit like http://www.mail.com/news/world/2143344-russian-lawmakers-pass-anti-gay-bill-436-0-vote.html#.7518-stage-hero1-2 ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but I don't doubt the Orthodox hierarchy supporting this also think they're supporting ideals set by God - just different ones.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0