TIMES HIGHLIGHTS SHEFFIELD ECUMENICAL PROJECT TO COMBAT 'ISLAMOPHOBIA'

Rebecca Paveley's article in Saturday’s Times (Faith Register, p106, February 27th) in the light of orthodox Anglican concerns about the Sheffield ecumenical project targeting ‘Islamophobia’ was generally fair and well-executed.

Rebecca is clearly not responsible for the headline above her piece – Church campaign to target racism angers conservatives. The strapline was good - Ecumenical project to combat 'Islamophobia' is accused of ignoring 'Christianophobia'.

The chairman of the Sheffield Methodist District, the Revd Vernon Marsh, was quoted. He declined to use the term 'Islamophobia', even though the job advert for the project manager explicitly mentioned it, as Rebecca pointed out. Revd Marsh said the project was about fighting racism.

Your curate’s original article on Cranmer was absolutely explicit that racism is contrary to the gospel of the Lord Jesus, which is to be proclaimed to all nations. Racism should therefore be challenged by frontline clergy.

Rebecca herself made that perfectly clear in her piece:

The project’s critics do not deny the need to try to challenge extremist political parties such as the BNP that try to claim the Christian voice. But they object to prioritising this over promoting the Christian gospel, asking; “What would John Wesley have made of it?”

Cranmer's Curate was then quoted:

The biblical doctrine of the Church of England, as expressed in Canon A5, is crystal-clear as to the responsibility of frontline clergy. We are called to proclaim faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his death for sins as the only way men and women can be saved, whatever their religious, ethnic or social background. If we are misrepresented as extremist for doing what it says on the tin, then that is part of the cost of authentic Christian discipleship.

We must not allow ourselves to be bounced off the ball by political correctness.

THANK GOD FOR THE REALITY OF HARD CASH

This by Cranmer's Curate first appeared on the US-based news service for Anglican Communion orthodoxy, VirtueOnline:

Thank the good Lord the Holy Spirit did not inspire 'money is the root of all evils' to be written but rather 'the love of money is the root of all evils' (1 Timothy 6v10 - RSV).

As postmodernism strengthens its grip on the Western mind, money is one of the few inescapable realities left in the institutional Church. At gatherings of Anglican clergy at the local level, Laodicean self-delusion is now pandemic. If there is a worldview unifying the diversity of 'traditions' around the room, it would be the religion of the new Volkswagen advertisement - Dudeism.

The dude has a worldview suited for the times, he's in touch with the modern world, he doesn't get hung up on old doctrines - in fact he's inclined to satirise them with a dry one-liner. But the satire towards others is balanced by the self-mockery on the T-shirt, which shows that the dude is basically a nice guy.

Dudeism is comfortable driving through ambiguous ideological terrain - in fact the vehicle has been designed to do that - and it is chilled about picking up the passengers of the permissive society.

Amongst the dudes in dog-collars, the most extraordinary theological opinions are affirmed as insightful, even by professing Evangelicals. If the dudes are exercised about anything, it is about the 'quality of relationships'. But don't expect to hear the dudes mention biblical holiness as a quality that should be characterising these touchy-feely 'relationships'. And of course to state categorically which ones should be genuinely touch-feely and which ones not and with whom would be to commit the one cardinal sin for the dude - 'judgementalism'.

It is such a relief that in this clerical Avatar world of in-your-face 3D theological diversity there is the God-given and inescapable reality of hard cash. This cosy, postmodern, all-affirming, dudeistic love-in cannot escape from the reality of the diocesan budget deficit. It cannot escape from the reality that sustainable churches are those with enough regenerate Christians whom the Holy Spirit has moved to give real money generously and sacrificially to the work of Christ's Kingdom in and through their local church.

In their behaviour within the institutional Church, Christlikeness demands that these viable churches should not become arrogant or bullying or reactionary. Their financial generosity is a work of God's unmerited grace in them as the Holy Spirit has applied the Word of God to their minds, hearts and actions.

But the problem now facing these orthodox churches is that they are becoming the victims of their own success. Unlike churches that have dwindled into non-viability because of a liberal-induced famine of the Word of God down the years, they can afford a vicar and therefore they are liable to get one. But God spare them a new vicar in the form of one of the dudes posing as an Evangelical.

This mainly affects medium-sized Anglican Evangelical churches, Conservative and Charismatic. The megachurches are able to call the shots with dioceses over appointments. But Evangelical churches that are viable but not mega are much more susceptible to pressure from liberal-led dioceses to take a soft Evangelical incumbent or one who will turn out to be less than a fighter for biblical truth, one who is not going to threaten the dudeist status quo.

Unfortunately, this practical downside to the inside strategy of Evangelicals trying to operate within the structures of the institutional Church is happening on the ground. Generous, godly, viable churches with an evangelistic track record are being sold postmodern dudes for pastors.

The Apostle Paul's prayer in Philippians 1v9-11 is so very urgent for local churches facing appointments in these increasingly dangerous times: 'And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God' (RSV).

Orthodox Anglican churches facing vacancies really do the need the spiritual discernment to spot the dude at the interview and issue the Archdeacon with a firm no thank you.

Otherwise, institutional neo-liberalism, which is dudeistic in theory but not in political practice, could win by stealth.

NO POPULAR PRESS WITHOUT TYNDALE

The 2011 Trust is gearing up for the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version next year with a YouTube video on its website of Richard Dawkins no less reading chapter two of the Song of Songs. In an interview with 2011 chairman Frank Field MP, also available on the web-site, Professor Dawkins declared that

we are a Christian culture, we come from a Christian culture and not to know the King James Bible is to be, in some small way, barbarian.

As the youth group knows, the AV is largely the work of the Evangelical linguistic genius William Tyndale, who was martyred for Christ in 1536. Heresy Corner published this piece by Cranmer's Curate about the link between the English Bible and the emergence of a popular free press in Britain.

BIBLE ANNIVERSARY ASKS SEARCHING QUESTION OF MODERN CHURCH

The General Synod's enthusiasm to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version of the English Bible raises a searching question: what is the real commitment of the modern Church to the Word of God?

Friday’s Church Times flagged up on its front-page the General Synod's resolution that the '400th anniversary in 2011 of the King James Version of the Bible is an obvious opportunity to celebrate the exceptional contribution which that translation has made to shaping the life, language and culture of this and other nations'. Synod requested that 'dioceses, deaneries and parishes undertake local initiatives to celebrate and teach the Bible both within the Church and throughout wider society' (p30, Church Times, 19 February 2010).

This from a body that agreed to give houseroom in its clergy pensions policy to the abominable institution of the civil partnership but will not offer legal safeguards for opponents of women bishops. Where is the respect for the Bible in that?

Of course, it is easy to point the finger at the General Synod. The tragic reality is that the Bible in English and the circumstances of its translation point the finger firmly at the spiritual culture of the 21st century English-speaking Church. How many of us who are regular attenders of churches in the English-speaking world actually open our Bibles from one week to the next? How many church-goers if asked whether the book of Jude was in the Old or the New Testament would be able to give a confident answer? And that is the leaving aside the embarrassing question of our practical obedience to the Bible's teaching in our daily lives.

There are some glowing exceptions, including the rector and curate of St Nicholas Sevenoaks who have been pilloried in the press recently for courageously upholding the Bible's teaching on male headship. But as a typical product of the picket line culture of the 1970s, Cranmer's Curate needs to remind himself that it is relatively easy to take a stand on the headline issues of theological controversy. What is much more challenging is to honour the Bible's teaching in the mundanities of everyday life.

As will hopefully become more widely known in 2011, the AV is largely the work of the 16th century Evangelical genius of a Bible translator, William Tyndale, martyred in 1536. The efforts he made to provide a readable Bible for the English nation were quite extraordinary, as were the efforts ordinary people made to get hold of copies. Without wanting to go on a self-indulgent guilt trip, it is surely true to say that their commitment to the Holy Scriptures and their thankfulness for the privilege of having them in their own tongue puts us to shame as 21st century English-speaking Christians.

The AV says this in its translation of Isaiah 66v1-2:

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

No amount of gushing nostalgia about the beauty of the AV’s language and its contribution to English-speaking civilisation can dodge the question: how many of us today are trembling at the Word of Christ?

THANK GOD JESUS WITHSTOOD WHERE WE FAIL

This is based on a sermon by Cranmer's Curate on Luke 4v1-13 in the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge on Sunday February 21st:

Imagine what would have happened if Jesus had given into the devil’s temptation. Imagine if Jesus had failed the test. What difference do you think it would have made to you and me?

If Jesus had given in to the devil and accepted his rule and authority, what would have been the implications for mankind?

It’s highly significant that Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness in chapter 4 of his Gospel comes immediately after his account of the ancestry of Jesus in chapter 3. Luke lists Jesus’ ancestors going right back to Adam, whom he calls the son of God.

But Luke has also called Jesus the Son of God in his Gospel so far. Immediately before the list of ancestors, Luke records Jesus’ baptism when a voice came from heaven and said: 'Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased' (3v22) - RSV. By recording Jesus’ temptation immediately after calling Adam the son of God, Luke invites a comparison between Jesus and Adam. Will Jesus behave like Adam did? How will the two men called sons of God perform when put to the test?

Jesus, like Adam, gets a good start. Jesus, Luke tells us in 4v1, returns from the Jordan where he was baptised, 'full of the Holy Spirit'. The Holy Spirit then leads Jesus out into the desert for 40 days to be tempted by the devil - the spiritual enemy of God and of his creatures.

Each of the three temptations Jesus resists using the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. Jesus quotes the Bible – three verses from the book of Deuteronomy - in response to each of the devil’s three temptations - 'man shall not live by bread alone'; 'you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve'; 'you shall not tempt the Lord your God'.

Each verse Jesus quotes brings out the significance of what the devil was tempting Jesus to do. In tempting Jesus to perform a conjuring trick – stones into bread – the devil wanted to get Jesus to live as if this world, the world of touch, taste, see, and smell is all there is. The devil wanted to get Jesus to live as a materialist, living in God’s world without listening to God’s Word, the Word by which the invisible God rules the visible world.

Do you remember the story of the Fall of mankind in Genesis 3 when Adam faced his first test of obedience? The devil in the form of the Serpent had persuaded the woman to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The woman saw that the fruit was good to eat and that it would make her wise and she therefore decided to disobey God’s Word. She then gave some to her husband Adam. What did he do? He too disobeyed God’s command. In eating the fruit God had commanded him not to eat, Adam made a decision to reject the Word of God. He made a decision to live in the visible world without reference to God’s Word of command.

Then, in tempting Jesus to accept his offer of the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worshiping him, the devil was again wanting Jesus to agree with Adam. For it was Adam’s decision to reject God’s authority that put humanity under the sway of the devil and thus delivered the kingdoms of the world into his hand. When mankind sins, when we rebel against the rightful and loving rule of the God who made us, we put ourselves under the spiritual sway of the devil.

So in agreeing to worship the devil in exchange for the kingdoms of the world, Jesus would be endorsing the Fall of mankind, endorsing what Adam did in rebelling against God. Thank God he didn’t.

In the final temptation, throw yourself off the pinnacle of the Temple and let God catch you - that is the temptation to treat God like the emergency services. Live your life without much thought of God but only call upon him when you’re desperate. We will face crises in the cursed world Adam bequeathed us, but only calling upon in those is no way to treat the living God who deserves the worship of the whole of our lives. The devil wanted Jesus to manufacture such a crisis and use God to bail him out.

Now, to see the implications of Jesus’ victory here for us, let’s imagine ourselves experiencing the same temptations. In fact we don’t need to imagine because the truth is each one of us has been there. Put Julian Mann in the story instead of Jesus. The devil comes and says: 'Live as if this world, the world that you can see and experience, is all there is and don’t take any notice of the God who rules you by his Word.' Fine, no trouble. I’m very happy to do that, very happy to accumulate material things for myself without listening to God’s command to use what he has given me to his glory and the good of others.

The devil then comes and says: 'I’ll give you your own little empire as long as you let me rule you.' Fine. I’m very happy to be boss of my little patch or as much as anybody else’s patch I can get my hands on without reference to God.

The devil then comes and says: 'When you’re in trouble, that’s the time to call upon God. Otherwise don’t bother.' Fine, no trouble, I’m very happy to treat God in that kind of way.

You see, when we put ourselves in the story, we can see the significance of what Jesus did for us in not giving into the devil. He made it possible for you and me to be rescued from empty materialism. He made it possible for you and me to be rescued from selfish empire-building. He made it possible for you and me to be rescued from treating God like our little poodle.

It is disastrous for us to live that like. It is a sure road to hell. We put ourselves under the devil’s sway by treating God like that. But in obeying God where Adam and we following Adam disobey, Jesus showed himself to be perfectly qualified to be our Saviour. His death on the Cross, his resurrection and his ascension into heaven will, as Luke’s Gospel unfolds, achieve the salvation from the devil’s sway you and I so desperately need.

Because Jesus did not do what you and I would have done in his shoes, he is able to be the victorious Saviour from sin and death and hell.

So in an important sense these temptations are our story. We follow Adam in giving into them. Jesus, the second Adam to the fight, prevailed where we fail.

If the events described in Luke chapter 4 had gone the other way, as it were, Luke’s Gospel would never have been written. None of the Gospels would have been written. The New Testament would never have been written. Nothing would have changed. Humanity would still be under the devil’s sway.

But Jesus stood firm thank God. If he hadn’t, there would no gospel, no good news, no salvation for you and me.

WHAT WILL THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH DO ABOUT THE ENGLISH BIBLE?

If agreement with women bishops becomes de rigueur in the national church, what will the ecclesiastical establishment do about the English Bible? There are passages in it that are frankly embarrassing for a church that defines itself by feminist criteria.

One possibility is that the established church would produce its own version of the Bible for public use in churches that would bracket the offending passages in the manner of the Alternative Service Book. Or it would authorise a version that simply excised the offensive passages about male headship such as 1 Corinthians 11v2-16; Ephesians 5v22-33; Colossians 3v18-25; and 1 Timothy 2.

This would not be the first time in English history that the Bible has flown in the face of church dogma. In the 1520s the ecclesiastical establishment was desperate to ensure that an English Bible did not get into the hands of the laity. They knew from bitter experience that once people started to read the Holy Scriptures for themselves in their own tongue they would able to perceive that church dogma on the worships of saints, purgatory, and the cult of the papacy had no biblical basis and was indeed contradicted by the Word of God.

Clearly, ‘homophobia’ would also be a cardinal sin in the new established church so the passages relating specifically to homosexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments would have to go. It is likely that Jesus’ insistence that ‘in the beginning God created them male and female’ (Matthew 19v4; Mark 10v6) would also prove to be problematic.

Moreover, the balance of probabilities is that the national church would get significant financial assistance from the government for its politically-correct version of the Scriptures for public use. Government ministers whether they be Conservative, Labour or Liberal-Democrat would also surely not be adverse to a request from bishops that unexcised versions of the Bible were not sold freely in retail outlets. A nod to the EU could facilitate a helpful directive to that effect on equality and diversity grounds.

When the church starts dancing to the tune of the world, God’s Word is the party pooper. So the natural human recourse is to call for the nearest bouncer.

THE UNWISDOM OF 'CHRISTIAN' POLITICAL PARTIES

A married Christian male with a successful business background and a track record of working hard for his local party who has just been turned down as a parliamentary candidate in favour of a glamorous lesbian may be tempted to join a specifically Christian party.

Whilst thoroughly sympathising with this brother's exasperation, Cranmer's Curate suggests this is ill-advised.

Christian Britain did not have political parties with a Christian label. Whig, Tory, Radical, Conservative, Liberal, Irish Nationalist, Unionist, and eventually Labour were the awnings under which political argument took place in the ideological marketplace of a broadly Christian society.

By eschewing the Christian label, these parties refused to claim a monopoly of Christian truth or virtue. With the exception of the more utopian socialists and romantic nationalists, they made the much more modest claim that their party combined principle and pragmatism in a way that worked best for the nation at a particular juncture. Imbued with the biblical idea that God in his Providence allowed Caesar a delimited sphere within the temporal ordering of His world, Christian Britons had a realistic view of political programmes.

William Gladstone, who led administrations that radically transformed the United Kingdom in the 19th century, wrote this to his wife on April 6th 1874:

I am convinced that the welfare of mankind does not now depend on the state of the world of politics: the real battle is being fought in the world of thought, where a deadly attack is being made with great tenacity of purpose and over a wide field upon the greatest treasure of mankind, the belief in God and the Gospel of Christ (Philip Magnus, Gladstone, 1954).

Now in post-Christian Britain, where Gladstone's prophecy is coming to dark fruition, Christian political parties are appearing on the ballot paper. Are they doing any good?

They are certainly not getting many votes, and arguably they are a symptom of post-modern ideological fragmentation. Furthermore, by adopting the Christian label they arguably fail to made the distinction between Church and State so effectively upheld by the political leaders who helped to shape our Christian-influenced democracy.

Orthodox Christians finding it increasingly difficult to get adopted as candidates by the mainstream political parties may be advised to join forces with moral co-belligents in forming a new secular party or hooking up with UKIP if they are persuaded by its line on the EU. Or else keep plugging away in the mainstream parties.

In any event, a new generation of able and faithful Bible-believing Christians is sorely needed in the secular political process to call our democracy back to the Christian principles that formed it. At the same time, Christians have an invaluable role in upholding the thoroughly biblical idea that humanly-constructed political philosophies must of necessity see through a glass darkly.

That arguably involves steering well clear of 'Christian' political parties.

WHY I SIGNED THE REFORM LETTER ON WOMEN BISHOPS

An earlier version of this appeared on VirtueOnline:

The eve of General Synod letter by Reform chairman Rod Thomas highlighting the practical difficulties of women bishops for Conservative Evangelicals has arguably proved most controversial within his own constituency.

There are some glaring absentees from the list of 50 incumbents who signed it. Three Reform council members who lead churches are missing and two large-church incumbents who would be associated with Reform, one in the north and the other in the south of England, are also no-shows. There may be perfectly innocent reasons for these – the gentlemen in question may be on holiday/sabbatical or were otherwise non-contactable.

But credible reports have been circulating that some large-church incumbents refused to sign because the letter was perceived as ‘threatening’.

This is likely to have been the offending passage, so it pays careful reading:

At the moment we are encouraging young men into the ordained ministry in the knowledge that they cannot be discriminated against if they hold convictions about male headship. While this remains the case, we have encouraged them to believe that there is a worthwhile future for their ministries in the Church of England. However, we will be unable to do this if inadequately protective legislation is passed. The issue that will then arise is how to encourage these men to develop their ministries if they cannot do so within the formal structures of the Church of England. The answer must be to encourage them to undertake training for ministries outside those formal structures, although hopefully still within an Anglican tradition. We will, of course, have to help them with the financing of their training.

Our congregations will inevitably start asking questions about their own place within the Church of England if they see us encouraging people into training for alternative ministries. This will come into sharp focus when the issue of succession to an incumbency arises. Since we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop, we are unlikely to be appointed to future incumbencies. We see nothing but difficulty facing us. In these circumstances we will have to discuss with our congregations how to foster and protect the ministry they wish to receive. This is likely to generate a need for the creation of new independent charitable trusts whose purpose will be to finance our future ministries, when the need arises.

These twin developments will need to be financed from current congregational giving. This will inevitably put a severe strain on our ability to continue to contribute financially to Diocesan funds. Where we are unable to contribute as before some will see this as a form of retaliation. However, that could not be further from the truth. We long to contribute to the well being of the Church of England. Over the last ten years we have encouraged more than 180 young men into the ordained ministry, over 50% of whom were under the age of 30. We have together contributed a gross figure of more than £22million to Diocesan funds.

The Diocese of Sheffield, where I minister in a net-receiving parish church (one that does not pay for the cost of the ministry it receives), is led by an excellent bishop in Steven Croft, who was consecrated last year. Clergy morale is on the up and he is proving to be an outstanding leader in mission. It is also true to say that under his very liberal predecessor I found the diocesan staff more practically supportive of me as an Evangelical incumbent in a non-Evangelical church than the Conservative Evangelical constituency locally.

So why did I sign the letter? Three reasons:

1). Just because my situation is sunny at the moment does not mean the same is true of other orthodox brothers and sisters elsewhere in the Church of England. Also, Sheffield may get an awful bishop after Steven. That’s the reality of Buggin’s turn in the national Church. So there is the need to take a firm biblical stand in the driving rain or in the sunshine.

2). Loyalty to the leader. Of course, that needs qualifying and can never be absolute. But if a man undertakes leadership of our network and has the courage to stick his head above the parapet on a matter relating to the Reform Covenant (in this case male headship), he is innocent until proven guilty. As a member of the network, I must have really good reasons not to sign it and I could not see any in the letter Rod asked me to sign.

3). Whilst Rod affirms Reform’s sincere commitment to the Church of England, his letter rightly puts the requirements of Christ’s mission and ministry above institutional considerations. Rod’s description of the likely financial consequences resulting from the unbiblical innovation of women bishops presupposes that Reform churches are stewards of the resources God has blessed them with. They must be used in the best way for Christ's Kingdom. If members of the General Synod are threatened by that, then surely the fault does not lie with the Reform letter?

UKIP: CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 'MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN'

Your curate put this question to the UK Independence Party's regional organiser for the North East of England, Gordon Parkin: under a UKIP administration, would the right of Christian faith schools to teach biblical morality be upheld?

Mr Parkin answered as follows:

Yes. Christian faith schools must be allowed to teach Christian faith and morals. They must be allowed to do what it says on the tin. The agenda of political correctness should not be shoved down their throats.

In his interview with the gay magazine Attitude, Conservative leader David Cameron was asked: 'Do you think that the right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin?'

He answered:

Basically yes - that's the short answer to that, without getting into a long religious exegesis. I mean, I think, yes. I think..... [long pause] ..... I don't want to get into an enormous row with the Archbishop here. But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through - sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.

Cranmer's Curate has not yet decided how best to do his Christian duty as a voter in the 2010 General Election. The new Stocksbridge and Penistone constituency in which cc lives is by no means a foregone conclusion for Labour. The Labour candidate, Angela Smith, is currently MP for Sheffield Hillsborough. Her Conservative rival for the new seat is Spencer Pitfield. The UKIP candidate is Grant French.

Last Sunday's Book of Common Prayer Collect is particularly pertinent:

O Lord God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do; Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

HUGE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WITH WOMEN BISHOPS

Cranmer's Curate was one of the 49 Church of England incumbents who signed this letter from Reform chairman Revd Rod Thomas about the huge practical problems with women bishops:

Dear Bishops and Synod members,

As 50 incumbents of Church of England churches we are writing to say why, in our view, the consecration of women bishops would be a mistake and would raise for us great difficulties of conscience and practice, as well as being wrong for our Church as a whole.

Our concern is derived from Scripture. It seems to us that the Apostolic teaching on male headship in church and family (as in 1 Corinthians 11-14, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3) is clear enough in its principles: overall leadership in the church is to be exercised by men. The fierce debates that have surrounded the gender issue over the last twenty years or so have stimulated much careful analysis of these texts, and have only served to show that mainstream translations such as NRSV, NIV, REB and ESV are correct in their translation and may (and should) be taken as they stand.

It is, of course, right to say that these passages in Paul and Peter have a particular cultural setting; but to make them prisoners of that culture and thus unable to challenge our culture, seems to us implicitly to deny the authority of Scripture. It is surely the genius of the New Testament that what was spoken in a particular context is at one and the same time also God’s word to us. Far from being a prisoner of his culture, Paul is not afraid to challenge it, warning his readers “not to live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking” (Eph 4:17). Why, then, is it assumed he will uncritically reflect their values on this issue of gender?

Therefore we think the historic, reasoned reflection of Christians down the ages (including the historic position of the Church of England) has been correct; we fear that the current pressure to overturn it comes not for biblical reasons but because we are losing our nerve in the face of pressure from society.

In saying all this, we emphasise again that we are NOT for a moment saying women are less valuable than men, and nor does the Scripture. This, in our experience, is the point which we find hardest to communicate, since the world about us equates value with power. Just by making this point we are thought to be “anti-women”. On the contrary, it is both possible and right to affirm that we are “all one in Christ Jesus”, while at the same time affirming different roles. For the Bible separates roles and worth: our Lord Jesus himself submitted to the Father, but is, of course, no less God than he is.

There are, of course, questions about how precisely to honour this teaching in some details of the life of our churches today, but few would doubt, surely, that the office of bishop is indeed very much a leadership function!

In our own churches we are glad to teach these passages of Scripture as they stand, and include a ‘complementary’ view of gender roles in our teaching on marriage, family life and church. Gently ordering our shared life this way is, in our view, vital to our witness to a Christian understanding of family life. Our churches contain many members - and very many women as well as men - who are glad of this teaching, which is all the more important in a world which is so confused about gender roles and sexuality in general. In such a context, the oversight of a woman bishop would be enormously hard to explain, however great her merits in other regards. Again and again, in our youth groups, at marriage preparation and whenever covering the relevant passages in homegroups and from the pulpit, we would find ourselves having to answer people’s question, “Why does the Church of England go against this?” This would fester on for as long as people have Bibles in their hands.

In the end, this is an issue about our view of Holy Scripture, and this is why it matters to us so much, as ministers of the Word.

As matters stand, it seems likely that General Synod will be invited to vote on legislative proposals that threaten our ministries. An illustration of the practical problems we will face should a Measure fail to provide adequate safeguards, can be seen with future ordinands. At the moment we are encouraging young men into the ordained ministry in the knowledge that they cannot be discriminated against if they hold convictions about male headship. While this remains the case, we have encouraged them to believe that there is a worthwhile future for their ministries in the Church of England. However, we will be unable to do this if inadequately protective legislation is passed. The issue that will then arise is how to encourage these men to develop their ministries if they cannot do so within the formal structures of the Church of England. The answer must be to encourage them to undertake training for ministries outside those formal structures, although hopefully still within an Anglican tradition. We will, of course, have to help them with the financing of their training.

Our congregations will inevitably start asking questions about their own place within the Church of England if they see us encouraging people into training for alternative ministries. This will come into sharp focus when the issue of succession to an incumbency arises. Since we cannot take an oath of canonical obedience to a female bishop, we are unlikely to be appointed to future incumbencies. We see nothing but difficulty facing us. In these circumstances we will have to discuss with our congregations how to foster and protect the ministry they wish to receive. This is likely to generate a need for the creation of new independent charitable trusts whose purpose will be to finance our future ministries, when the need arises.

These twin developments will need to be financed from current congregational giving. This will inevitably put a severe strain on our ability to continue to contribute financially to Diocesan funds. Where we are unable to contribute as before some will see this as a form of retaliation. However, that could not be further from the truth. We long to contribute to the well being of the Church of England. Over the last ten years we have encouraged more than 180 young men into the ordained ministry, over 50% of whom were under the age of 30. We have together contributed a gross figure of more than £22million to Diocesan funds.

Finally, for those of us ordained since 1992, our understanding, in good faith, was that proper legal provision would be made for those who did not agree that women should have the overall leadership of a church (Resolution B, etc). It seems to us a matter of simple integrity that Synod should now keep its word to us in this and not force us down a road none of us wish to tread.

Yours in Christ,

Rev’d Rod Thomas St Matthew’s Elburton, Exeter
(Chairman of Reform)

WITHOUT CHRISTIAN STEWARDSHIP MINISTERS ARE SUGAR-DADDIES

A straight economic question to start with: what would be the saving to the UK tax payer if everybody decided only to have children with the person they were married to? Presumably, many billions of pounds.

Would any mainstream politician in the UK dare to do the sums? You know the answer.

One of the major social disasters resulting from the marginalisation of biblical Christianity in our country is the loss of the idea of ‘stewardship’. According to this biblical conception, the world is God’s and He gives us resources to use to His glory and our wellbeing. Within the providential ordering of God’s creation, we must respect the resources God has given to other people, hence the command not to steal.

How did this idea of stewardship impact on the governance of Christian Britain? It meant that ministers, a title for servants of the Crown that itself derives from the English Bible, saw themselves as stewards of the money raised from the working population through taxes. Yes, the Monarch’s subjects had a responsibility to pay tax to the State as Christ and his Apostles taught (see Matthew 22v15-22; Romans 13v1-7), but ministers saw themselves as secondary stewards of the resources raised through tax.

Under God, the primary stewards of the money raised in tax were the people who had earned it. Ministers had a responsibility to be good secondary stewards of that money – to spend it in the best interests of those who were the primary stewards. That meant spending it in line with sound moral principles. As Britain moralised in the wake of the Evangelical revival, helping the weak, educating children and supporting the unemployed in times of economic hardship began increasingly to be seen as a good use of public money. But bankrolling iniquity was utterly abhorrent to the ministers of Christian Britain – a sin against God and also a sin against those who in God’s Providence had earned the revenue raised through tax.

Imbued with a strong sense of accountability before the judgement-throne of Almighty God, Christian ministers did not behave as sugar-daddies with His resources.

The fact that no politician will dare to put a price on the permissive society shows how utterly godless the governance of Britain has become. In practical terms, that means government is no longer acting in the best interests of those God has instituted it to serve.

That is a profoundly disturbing thought in an election year.

PC RELIGION IS BAD FOR BUSINESS

Evangelical Christianity was instrumental in Britain’s commercial success in the 19th century. That statement does not endorse the prosperity gospel - the unbiblical idea taught in some churches that God promises material prosperity to faithful Christian believers in this world as well as the next. It is simply a statement of historical fact.

British merchants influenced by the Evangelical revival of the 18th century were men of their word. Since commerce relies on trust, their enterprises flourished enriching their nation.

When bad religion corrupts societies, commerce suffers. Whilst in a fallen world the wicked prosper (see Psalm 73), in the normal course of events when societies go bad, they also go broke. One does not have to believe that the recent earthquake in Haiti was direct divine retribution for the popularity of Voodoo in that nation to see that its society has been significantly impoverished by bad religion.

There is a grave danger that the religion of political correctness will do the same here. It is already putting unsupportable burdens on commercial enterprise. Employment law is becoming increasingly anti-meritocratic and the post-modern culture of style over substance, presentational spin over telling the truth, penalises the hard-working and the honest.

Whilst this may appear to be in the realm of clerical fantasy, if your curate were part of a consortium of Chinese billionaires wanting to buy a bank, the City of London would be very far from the top of his list of possible locations. Back in the 1980s, it would have been very the near the top. But PC Britons are just too much hassle to employ.

Moreover, if Britain ends up with a hung Parliament with all the damage which that does to our attractiveness for overseas investment, then the current spiritual and moral confusion in our country will have played a significant part in our commercial destabilisation.

The other worrying thing for cc if he were a Chinese billionaire with investments in the UK is the lack of political representation for the people called upon to pay the nation's mortgage. The Conservatives are no longer the party of commercial enterprise. Its current leadership appears to have little experience of running businesses (apart from the public relations department) or indeed empathy with those who take on that responsibility. Furthermore, New Conservative ideology is now deeply infected by PC liberalism whereas commerce tends to flourish in countries with a strong commitment to heterosexual marriage as the fundamental building block of a stable society.

The arrogant dismissal by the politically-correct establishment of Christ’s biblical teaching on truthfulness, the family and the work ethic is proving very bad for Britain’s business.