Post by clansmanchris on Jan 3, 2009 8:06:50 GMT -5
The growing demand from British Labour MPs for the disestablishment of the Church of England following the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams)’s recent denunciation of Labour’s tax-and-spend, buy now pay later, culture – welcome though Rowan Williams’ words were to those who fear for the future economic and political well-being of the United Kingdom – follows close on the growing division within the Anglican Communion in general, and the Church of England in particular, over the ordination of homosexual clergy and women bishops/priests. Both are deeply disturbing, not least because falling membership of, and division within, the Church of England could ultimately lead to its disestablishment with all the profound consequences that would bring.
At first, disestablishment of the Church of England may appear to be not such a bad thing. The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869; the Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whilst the 1707 Act of Union provides formal protection for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland but the Church of Scotland Act 1921 effectively makes the Church totally self-governing. The Church of Scotland (“the Kirk”) is not represented in the House of Lords or the Scottish Parliament, the Crown is not the head of the Church though a new Sovereign has to swear to uphold the Protestant and Presbyterian faith in Scotland. The Church of Scotland is not state-controlled, and neither the Scottish nor the Westminster Parliament is involved in Kirk appointments. Parliament leaves the Kirk completely alone in its day-to-day conduct and Acts of the General Assembly do not require Parliamentary approval in the way that Measures of the General Synod do for the Church of England. This has led some to argue that the Church of Scotland has ceased to be established in any meaningful sense. Since disestablishment of the Church of Wales in 1920, membership of the Church of England has fallen considerably and the number of adherents/members of other denominations and faiths has increased.
Were the Church of England to be disestablished, not only would the UK monarch’s own position as Supreme-Governor (of the Church of England) and Defender of The (Protestant Reformed) Faith be threatened, but so too would the position of the Lords Spiritual (the twenty-six Church of England Bishops who are currently entitled to sit in the House of Lords), whilst one suspects Measures of the General Synod would no longer require Parliamentary approval before coming into effect, and neither Parliament nor monarch would involve itself in church appointments. Although, at first, this may appear reasonable, any further diminution of Protestantism would surely call into question whether the United Kingdom is indeed a Christian country and the Protestant cornerstone of the UK's laws and institutions.
Against this backdrop, and leaving aside the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sound words of warning against compelling future generations to pay through the nose for the short-term profligacy of the Brown Administration, it is important to consider the vexed issue of whether or not one should ordain homosexual clergy and women priests/bishops. Insofar as homosexual clergy are concerned, I have always taken the view that being homosexual is no lesser – or no greater – sin than being heterosexual.
Opponents of homosexual clergy often cite Leviticus 18 verse 22 (i.e,.“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination”) as evidence of God’s own detestation of homosexuality yet conveniently ignore the fact that I Corinthians 6 verses 9 and 10 (i.e., “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God") equate homosexuality with other sins – e.g., heterosexual lust – whilst Christ’s own words in Matthew 5 verse 28 (i.e., Whosover looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart") demonstrate His own detestation of adultery and all sexual acts outside of marriage, not just anal or oral sex between two men. By singling-out gay men and lesbians for rebuke, Christians in general (and the various denominations in particular) lay themselves open to the charge of inciting or institutionalising homophobia.
Romans 3 verse 23 teaches us "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. It is therefore hypocritical in the extreme for heterosexual Christians to condemn the gay and lesbian community for lusting after the same sex, and possibly even have same-sex relationships, without also condemning themselves (i.e., the heterosexual community and individual heterosexuals) for heterosexual lust or heterosexual sex outside of marriage. The silence from Christian homophobes on Christ's interpretation of adultery is, for the most part, deafening! I speak from experience having being rebuked by many fellow Christians for having a homosexual relationship with another man at the same time as my critics turned a blind eye to a heterosexual friend who was knowingly having an extra-marital affair with another woman and being unfaithful to his wife. Institutionalised homophobia in the church has probably deterred more gays and lesbians from becoming Christians or joining organised churches than others have from encouraging their fellow man (and woman) to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Recognising the fallen nature of man and that, within our ranks, there are lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals – as well as heterosexuals – it is imperative that the Loyal Orders no more tar themselves with the same brush as those within the church who are institutionally homophobic and/or neglect their wider responsibility to boldly proclaim the Evangelical Protestant (Reformed) Faith to all and not just a few.
On the question of ordination of women priests – and subsequently women bishops and archbishops – one equally believes that, to quote I Timothy 2 verse 12 (“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”), there is much to be said against the ordination of female clergy and that the whole campaign to establish equality between the genders in the ministry has more to do with revering the forces of political correctness than it has revering the Word of God. Having foolishly voted in 1992 to permit the ordination of women priests, it was inevitable that a future meeting of the General Synod (of the Church of England) would vote to allow the ordination of women as bishops, lest some career-minded female priest regard the bar on her being promoted to the position of bishop/archbishop as discriminatory on grounds of her gender and seek to sue the church for sex discrimination! Our oft-repeated claim to support “civil and religious liberty for all and special privileges for none” does not mean we regard liberty as a license to disobey and dishonour the Infallible Word of God contained within the Bible and the Bible alone.
In the short-term the issue of ordaining homosexual clergy and women bishops – more so than one suspects Rowan Williams’ justified attack on the British Government – will continue to cause a feud within the Anglican Communion whilst in the long-term it could be the powder-keg which causes the Church to implode to the detriment of us all.
At first, disestablishment of the Church of England may appear to be not such a bad thing. The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869; the Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whilst the 1707 Act of Union provides formal protection for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland but the Church of Scotland Act 1921 effectively makes the Church totally self-governing. The Church of Scotland (“the Kirk”) is not represented in the House of Lords or the Scottish Parliament, the Crown is not the head of the Church though a new Sovereign has to swear to uphold the Protestant and Presbyterian faith in Scotland. The Church of Scotland is not state-controlled, and neither the Scottish nor the Westminster Parliament is involved in Kirk appointments. Parliament leaves the Kirk completely alone in its day-to-day conduct and Acts of the General Assembly do not require Parliamentary approval in the way that Measures of the General Synod do for the Church of England. This has led some to argue that the Church of Scotland has ceased to be established in any meaningful sense. Since disestablishment of the Church of Wales in 1920, membership of the Church of England has fallen considerably and the number of adherents/members of other denominations and faiths has increased.
Were the Church of England to be disestablished, not only would the UK monarch’s own position as Supreme-Governor (of the Church of England) and Defender of The (Protestant Reformed) Faith be threatened, but so too would the position of the Lords Spiritual (the twenty-six Church of England Bishops who are currently entitled to sit in the House of Lords), whilst one suspects Measures of the General Synod would no longer require Parliamentary approval before coming into effect, and neither Parliament nor monarch would involve itself in church appointments. Although, at first, this may appear reasonable, any further diminution of Protestantism would surely call into question whether the United Kingdom is indeed a Christian country and the Protestant cornerstone of the UK's laws and institutions.
Against this backdrop, and leaving aside the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sound words of warning against compelling future generations to pay through the nose for the short-term profligacy of the Brown Administration, it is important to consider the vexed issue of whether or not one should ordain homosexual clergy and women priests/bishops. Insofar as homosexual clergy are concerned, I have always taken the view that being homosexual is no lesser – or no greater – sin than being heterosexual.
Opponents of homosexual clergy often cite Leviticus 18 verse 22 (i.e,.“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination”) as evidence of God’s own detestation of homosexuality yet conveniently ignore the fact that I Corinthians 6 verses 9 and 10 (i.e., “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God") equate homosexuality with other sins – e.g., heterosexual lust – whilst Christ’s own words in Matthew 5 verse 28 (i.e., Whosover looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart") demonstrate His own detestation of adultery and all sexual acts outside of marriage, not just anal or oral sex between two men. By singling-out gay men and lesbians for rebuke, Christians in general (and the various denominations in particular) lay themselves open to the charge of inciting or institutionalising homophobia.
Romans 3 verse 23 teaches us "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. It is therefore hypocritical in the extreme for heterosexual Christians to condemn the gay and lesbian community for lusting after the same sex, and possibly even have same-sex relationships, without also condemning themselves (i.e., the heterosexual community and individual heterosexuals) for heterosexual lust or heterosexual sex outside of marriage. The silence from Christian homophobes on Christ's interpretation of adultery is, for the most part, deafening! I speak from experience having being rebuked by many fellow Christians for having a homosexual relationship with another man at the same time as my critics turned a blind eye to a heterosexual friend who was knowingly having an extra-marital affair with another woman and being unfaithful to his wife. Institutionalised homophobia in the church has probably deterred more gays and lesbians from becoming Christians or joining organised churches than others have from encouraging their fellow man (and woman) to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Recognising the fallen nature of man and that, within our ranks, there are lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals – as well as heterosexuals – it is imperative that the Loyal Orders no more tar themselves with the same brush as those within the church who are institutionally homophobic and/or neglect their wider responsibility to boldly proclaim the Evangelical Protestant (Reformed) Faith to all and not just a few.
On the question of ordination of women priests – and subsequently women bishops and archbishops – one equally believes that, to quote I Timothy 2 verse 12 (“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”), there is much to be said against the ordination of female clergy and that the whole campaign to establish equality between the genders in the ministry has more to do with revering the forces of political correctness than it has revering the Word of God. Having foolishly voted in 1992 to permit the ordination of women priests, it was inevitable that a future meeting of the General Synod (of the Church of England) would vote to allow the ordination of women as bishops, lest some career-minded female priest regard the bar on her being promoted to the position of bishop/archbishop as discriminatory on grounds of her gender and seek to sue the church for sex discrimination! Our oft-repeated claim to support “civil and religious liberty for all and special privileges for none” does not mean we regard liberty as a license to disobey and dishonour the Infallible Word of God contained within the Bible and the Bible alone.
In the short-term the issue of ordaining homosexual clergy and women bishops – more so than one suspects Rowan Williams’ justified attack on the British Government – will continue to cause a feud within the Anglican Communion whilst in the long-term it could be the powder-keg which causes the Church to implode to the detriment of us all.