This is not - repeat not - to draw a comparison between the ideologies of the combatants in the World War II battle and those clashing in this 21st century culture war. But it is a figurative way of saying that a long hard winter of heavy pounding and hand-to-hand street fighting is in store for the defenders of the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage.
Tuesday's interview is not available on BBC iPlayer - there was apparently a technical problem. But it was an emotive debate in which your curate was roundly accused of being both 'reactionary' and 'fundamentalist'.
The 'reactionary' label is worth pondering. Yes, orthodox Christians are reacting against an attempt by the forces of political correctness to reshape the institution of marriage their way.
But the 'reactionary' insult means more than that - it means we are anti-progress, anti-Enlightenment, anti-humanity fulfilling its potential.
In truth, there is nothing 'reactionary' in that negative sense about defending an institution that is for the good of society, its stability and good order. There is nothing reactionary about not wanting to see people's businesses destroyed and their cars torched by the social disorder that results from undermining the institution of man-woman marriage.
Rebuilding respect for the institution of heterosexual marriage as the God-given context in which children are nurtured and learn positive values is actually essential for the spiritual and moral future of Britain.
So the defenders are the real progressives.
Furthermore, for the Church of Jesus Christ in the UK same-sex marriage is a tank on our lawn. If the institutional Church capitulates and agrees to conduct same-sex anti-marriages, public Christianity in our country will be practically finished.
Heterosexual marriage links into the nature of the God who created it, the authority of the Christ who upheld it and the faith his followers are called to profess and practice.
So, the stakes are high in this ideological Stalingrad and the defenders must be prepared to pay the cost. It is a battle we cannot shy away from. The attackers of course have massive resources at their disposal - the weapons of emotive arguments about celebrating love, the fire-power of equality and anti-discrimination, and now the heavy armour of the secular State.
But the Stalingrad comparison must not be pressed in terms of the outcome - in the World War II battle the defenders won. In this battle there is no guarantee that the State will not legalise same-sex marriage - in fact that is highly likely - or that the institutional Church will not capitulate to the blasphemy.
Yet for Jesus' people his words in John's Gospel need to be taken to heart as the flak flies:
If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8v31-32 - RSV).
This piece - Church of England's guilty silence on fatherhood - appeared on Archbishop Cranmer.
Julian,
ReplyDeleteWhile not disagreeing with you about the nature of the battle ahead (and emphatically agreeing with you about the theological principle), I can perhaps offer a crumb of comfort in the shape of the judgment in the case of the chancel repair at Aston Chantlow - see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/aston-1.htm and the following pages to which it links.
The important point is that the Church of England was found, in law, to be a religious organisation and not an arm of the State; and, as such, an organisation (a) incapable of being held to answer under Human Rights legislation, and (b) actually protected under the same legislation's guarantee of religious freedom. The same freedom also applies, of course, to the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox synagogues, mosques, etc.
(If memory serves, the last time the State tried to compel the C of E to act in a certain way was the notorious Public Worship Regulation Act.....)
I keep trying to come up with a better example than Stalingrad.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Thermopylae keeps coming to mind.
Julian.
ReplyDeleteFear not. When the enemy runs out of argument, they start calling you names. They have no idea what 'fundamentalist' or 'reactionary' actually mean, but they use such things when they haven't got anything else to say.
'Twas ever thus. When the Holy Spirit in Stephen was too clever (Acts 6:10) for the NT religious establishment, they had the same reaction. Except it wasn't words, it was stones. Anything to avoid losing the argument.
Julian, three questions.
ReplyDelete(1) Could you name for us the person who insulted you on air like that? There's no moral reason why you shouldn't - thousands heard it anyway and if iPlayer had been working there'd have been a permanent record, and they knew it and presumably accepted it before appearing.
(2) Could you not have appealed, if not to them, then to the radio host moderating the debate, to refrain from insults and ad homs and stick to proper arguments?
(3) It may seem like an ethical Stalingrad but at the end of the day, what real positive argument does the other side have that doesn't come from hedonistic addiction?
Dan
Thank you Dan for your concern here - the insults go with the territory and you have to roll with it.
ReplyDeleteI did say what you suggested in 2) - keep off ad homs and focus on the arguments.