Mr Field has tabled an Early Day Motion to remove the Church of England's exemption from equality laws, which would force Synod to pass the women bishops' legislation. EDMs rarely get debated and there is anyway a glaring inconsistency in Mr Field's motion. If Parliament takes away the Church of England's exemption, why not that of the Roman Catholic Church?
If an unstable coalition government were prepared to blunder into that political minefield, then it really would be missing the services of Mr Andy Coulson.
The fact that Mr Field et al have intervened in this coercive manner in the affairs of God's Church does add to a growing sense that Caesar has got too big for his boots in trying to tell God what to do. That surely could well be turned to advantage by opponents of women bishops on the floor of the Synod.
If Mr Field's gesture were to translate into legislation, that could lead to a face-off between Parliament and Church. If Synod were to refuse to obey Parliament's directive to ratify women bishops, then that would leave the Archbishops of Canterbury and York facing a difficult choice: consecrating women bishops because Parliament has told them to or refusing because the Council of the Church failed to endorse the legislation.
Mr Field is in an interesting position. He is chairman of the King James Bible Trust, which is spearheading the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the Authorised Version.
It is not a very politically-correct book. Take for example its English rendering of the Apostle Paul's statement about the God-created difference between the sexes in 1 Corinthians 11:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (v3).
Its translation of Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2 is even closer to the bone of the current debate over women in pastoral leadership in God's Church:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence (v11-12).
How ironic that Mr Field's motion is colluding with church feminists seeking to 'usurp' the teaching authority that, according to the AV, does not rightly belong to them.
I think ... I actually agree with you ;-) Well, about the lovely Mr Field, that is, not your reading of the KJV...
ReplyDelete"If Parliament takes away the Church of England's exemption, why not that of the Roman Catholic Church?"
ReplyDeleteAnd surely, mischievously but in the name of equality, the EDM must include Islam?
That should be fun!
As I understand it, the Crown(-in-Parliament-under-God) has supreme ecclesiastical authority over the Church (of England) under the Act of Supremacy. The General Synod, and the former Church Assembly, have always been subordinate to Parliament.
ReplyDeleteThose making the 'give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' argument would, in the 16th Century, have been burnt as dissenters.
If one doesn't like the lack of freedom from Crown intervention that is a natural consequence of establishment then one need either leave and set up an Anglican dissenting chapel or push for disestablishment.
"If Parliament takes away the Church of England's exemption, why not that of the Roman Catholic Church?" The obvious reason is that the Roman Church is not the established church and not accountable to Parliament. The relationship of church to state has been a blessing and a curse. I will not make many friends with this comment but the only hope for survival for the CoE is to ask for disestablishment. The CoE is currently enmeshed with a PC Parliament that can and will force its will on the church. The current ABC is a product of politics and is in the process of forcing his will on the WWAC.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion as a Christian, The Christian Church including the Church of England and or the Anglican Church to survive must take Christ as it's Head and the Bible as it's guide. Failure to do this will certainly see it's demise in no distant future.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church is poised to survive the Church of England in England because it adheres to the Christian tradition more where the C of E is steadily and rapidly drifting away from same.
My comment here is in question form:
ReplyDeleteI am a Christian from an African country. Usually it is general belief that people are allowed to enjoy their rights in Europe than in Africa. However, my observation here since a few years in England is that Christians are persecuted consistently, prosecuted frequently, sacked from their jobs and so on for practicing their faith. I am facing the choice of attending church services on Sundays and lose my job and to forget my religion and keep my job. http://p.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/mobile/images/eye_grey.png
My Question is: Is England a anti religious state(particularly the Christian religion)?
Perhaps I should point out that fellow Anglican evangelical NT Wright has concluded that the passages quoted (especially 1 Tim 2:11-12) do not amount to a prohibition of women clergy, be they bishops or priests. He's concluded that the historical understanding of these texts is actually a misunderstand.
ReplyDeleteAnastasis might like to know that those who regard themselves as believing the Bible actually believe it. All of it. No picking and choosing which bits of God's Word we happen to fancy. Tom Wright would rather believe what he wants to believe, and reject the clear and unarguable teaching of the Bible. He can do that if he likes, but it means he is not (in the original meaning) an evangelical.
ReplyDeleteYou also are free to reject what the Bible teaches, but don't then try and pretend that you are a bible-believing Christian. I would suggest that many who call themselves evangelical do not in fact allow the Bible's teaching to judge them and their thought processes, instead they seek to use their own sinful thought processes (as everyone's are) to judge the Bible.
I didn't, in the past, always personally like what God teaches there, but then that's the result of sin in me. Even now there are moments when I don't like the Bible's judgment on my life - but I have to accept it and live with it, and not try and explain it away. To do that would be to explain away God's truth, and no matter how arrogant some people may think I am (the numbers of which will go up now that I have written this post, of course), I'm not going to do that.
I suspect for Mr Field and his kind, the importance of the KJV is the beauty of the language and its influence on literature rather than the actual message of it.
ReplyDelete