POLITICALLY CORRECT COERCION COULD HELP SINK WOMEN BISHOPS

The news that a cross party group of MPs, including Frank Field and Simon Hughes, is pushing for Parliament to force the Church of England to consecrate women bishops could well turn out to be a boost for traditionalists on the General Synod.

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.

IS THERE ROOM ON THE SWSH BUS FOR REFORMED ANGLICANS?

Could the Anglo-Catholic Society of St Wilfred & St Hilda field a Reformed Anglican team?

Or to put the question more ecclesiastically, would it be willing and able to arrange for the consecration of Reformed Anglican bishops to provide pastoral oversight for conservative evangelicals?

That is the question raised by the refreshingly positive pastoral letter from 12 Anglo-Catholic bishops responding to the ordinariate defections. SWSH kindly sent Cranmer's Curate the press release.

In cricketing terms Provision to Remain is good front-foot stuff.

The bishops, including Blackburn, Gibraltar, Chichester, Beverley, Burnley, Plymouth and Pontefract, wish the defectors Godspeed as they follow their consciences across the Tiber but declare that

even at this late hour we are seeking a way forward that would enable us with integrity to retain membership of the Church of England.

They affirm the new Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda as one of the ways of achieving 'a settlement through which we would be free to play our part (in the mission of the Church of England) to the fullest measure':

We believe this could be done by the formation of a society within the Church of England, overseen by bishops committed to our viewpoint. Such bishops would need, of course, the necessary ordinary jurisdiction that would enable them to be the true pastors of their people and to be guarantors of the sacramental assurance on which we all depend for our authentic sharing within the Body of Christ. Given that our parishes are also constituent parts of local dioceses we also understand that some way would have to be identified for sharing jurisdiction with the diocesan bishop.

They added:

We understand it to be something of this nature that our archbishops were trying to achieve in their ill-fated amendment at the July meeting of the General Synod. That amendment, though narrowly defeated in the House of Clergy, was widely supported elsewhere in the Synod and, indeed, a majority of members supported it. It might well be that a revisiting of the archbishops’ proposals, with some further development of them, could still help our Church to find a way forward that enabled us all to remain faithful members of it.

The bishops say they are

continuing to meet regularly and to listen to the views of many different people as they add substance to a draft constitution for The Society.

So, to change the metaphor, would there be room on this bus for conservative evangelicals?

And would conservative evangelicals wanting to continue to serve Christ in the Church of England be willing to hop on and on what terms?

HOW WOULD CHRISTIAN PIRATE BLOGGING WORK OUT?

Orthodox Christian bloggers such as the Revd John Richardson and the Revd Peter Ould were in the forefront of getting to the heart of the matter over the Cornish B&B prosecution.

That is the fact that the Judge ruled that there was 'no material difference' between marriage and civil partnerships. John explained how the Bishop of Chester had prophesied during the House of Lords debate on civil partnerships that such an equivalence would emerge in English law.

The coming to pass of Dr Forster's prediction is indeed the death knell of Christian Britain.

The superb coverage by orthodox Christian bloggers raised this question in your curate's mind at least: if the UK segues into a politically correct dictatorship and it becomes illegal for Christian bloggers to denounce false religion, false teaching, idolatry and immorality in the robust way in which the New Testament does, what then?

Cranmer's Curate is an ordinary blogspot boy and is very far from being an expert on internet technology.

He does know that the internet is notoriously difficult to censor, as the Wikileaks affair has demonstrated. But what are the ways and means oppressive governments could deploy to suppress Christian blogging?

How would Christian pirate blogging work out in practice? Presumably it would not be necessary to resort to blogging from ships a la pirate radio in the 1960s or would it?

Furthermore, is it worth risking jail for the sake of blogging? Should Christians engage in illegal internet activity whether as writers or readers?

Any wisdom from the youth group on the ethics and practicalities of Christian pirate blogging under a PC dictatorship?

ON REFORMING THE REFORM COUNCIL

This by Cranmer's Curate appeared in The Church of England Newspaper:

Dear ladies and gentlemen on the Reform Council,

The planned new Society for reformed evangelicals within the Church of England - St Augustine's is the name mooted - is very exciting. As you undertake the significant task, under our chairman Rod Thomas’s able and godly leadership, of constituting it, would you please consider this question: would an elected governing body give it a broader social, regional and educational base?

To try to answer the immediate objections:

1). The important thing is to get the best council not to get bogged down in bureaucracy. Certainly, paper shuffling needs to be kept down to a minimum. And it is also important to stress that the suggestion does not cast aspersions on the ability and godliness of the present council as individual ministers. Their high spiritual quality is not in question. This is about the collective dynamic of the council. It is respectfully to suggest that an evangelical Society called to support local churches in Christ’s mission needs as broad a range of experience as possible. Could an electoral process better deliver a more socially and educationally diverse council?

2). You sound like Tony Blair - this push for 'modernisation' is just motivated by inverted snobbery and middle class guilt. Maybe, but it is also possible that the question is motivated by evangelistic considerations. British people have become significantly less institutional in outlook and behaviour since the 1960s with the decline of trade unions, the abolition of National Service and the move towards comprehensiveness in state education. Is it possible that competitive elections could attract people from less institutional backgrounds to serve on the council and thus enable Reform to become more entrepeneurial?

3). Talk of diversity panders to politically correctness. But PC-style gerrymandering with, for example, a fixed 50 per cent female quota on the council is not being suggested here (though 50 per cent laity would be sensible). The question is whether competitive elections could enable our Reform movement better to tap its talent pool. The likely reality is that it would enable some of the very capable women in our membership to serve on the council.

4). Elections will encourage power play. That is possible, sadly, given fallen human nature. But is it not also possible that a self-appointed governing body can be marked by a 'jobs for the boys' mentality - a self-serving human tendency to want to congregate with people of a similar social and educational background?

Finally, it may come as some relief to hear that I would not be standing for election to the Reform Council, if that is the route you choose. My own Oxbridge educational and Iwerne Minster spiritual background is precisely what Reform needs to be broadening out from.

MANCHESTER MODEL OF GOSPEL COMMUNICATION

Six Steps to Talking about Jesus, produced by Australian evangelical publisher Matthias Media, is designed to be a training course on personal evangelism.

It is that magnificently. But showing the first of the DVD sessions to a couple in their home today, Cranmer’s Curate realised it is also a superb Christian nurture course. After all, upon conversion what did many of the characters in the Gospels do? – go round telling people what the Messiah had done for them.

The main presenter, the Revd Simon Manchester, the rector of St Thomas' north Sydney, is an unusually gifted communicator. But there are principles that those of us who are not so good can seek to imitate:

· Understand the Bible as deeply as we can.

· Communicate it as clearly as we can, using short sentences with short words.

· Come across as classlessly as we can.

· Communicate a controlled passion for Christ and for the gospel.

Mr Manchester models all of the above par excellence. His talent for punchy aphorisms is almost inimitable. Cranmer’s Curate would certainly not like to be his curate – the gulf between our respective levels of ability would be embarrassing.

But someone of Mr Manchester’s ability does need to realise that 20 per cent of it is better than none. And if he can mentor a man up to 25 per cent, then that is a real service for the gospel. That of course involves putting up with the 20 per cent initially with good grace.

One blemish cc spotted was an unexplained reference to Dr John Stott, the celebrated evangelical preacher and author, formerly rector of All Souls' Langham Place in the West End of London. South Yorkshire people do not know who John Stott is from Adam.

Also the course does need to feature more testimonies and input from people who are not from university and professional backgrounds. That is obviously a function of the area Mr Manchester ministers it. But courses like these do need to make an effort at greater transferability.

But what a stonkingly good evangelism training and Christian nurture course Six Steps to Talking about Jesus is.

COULD IT BE GOOD FOR THE GOSPEL IF CHINA OWNED THE WEST?

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

Would orthodox Christians proclaiming the biblical gospel get a boost if the Chinese bought up a substantial slice of the Western economy? Inevitably, this is a ‘what if’ question or, some might say, indulgence in sheer fantasy. But it may be a ‘what if’ game more worth playing than might appear at first glance.

The Revd John Richardson, who blogs brilliantly as the Ugley Vicar, draws attention to an article in the Wall Street Journal by Amy Chua - 'Why Chinese mothers are superior'. This piece prompted John to ask the pertinent question – will parenting decide the ascent of China and the decline of the West?

In other words, the Chinese cultural practice of rigorous parental leadership provides an environment in which children can achieve. It is that sort of culture that is driving China to achieve 10 per cent economic growth, putting both the US and the UK in the shade.

Put the clock forward 20 years to 2031 and Chinese banks own a big slice of Wall Street and the City of London. Chinese companies are substantial employers in both US and UK manufacturing and high tech industries. That gives them substantial political leverage.

How do these Chinese commercial mandarins feel about the permissive society in the markets in which they are so substantially investing? They see the link between marital and sexual chaos and high crime rates even if the Western politically correct establishment does not. They see the impact that single parenthood and high divorce rates are having on the educational performance of children. Certainly their concerns would be not philanthropic. They are worried about the quality of the workforce.

But, albeit with a radically different motivation, it is surely here that the concerns of Chinese investors and those of orthodox Christians regarding the destructive impact of the permissive society could overlap. An alliance could be formed to push for the restoration of heterosexual marriage and the traditional family to its rightful place, which would give us leverage to lobby for better treatment for the Christian community in China and for greater religious freedom for Christ’s servants there to preach the gospel.

And while you’re about it, Mr Mandarin – would you mind putting in a word with the President/Prime Minister to get that piece of anti-Christian, politically correct legislation off our backs so that we can preach Christ's gospel over here as well?

Now that would be an irony.

RECLAIMING GENESIS FROM STERILE DEBATES

Reclaiming Genesis
Melvin Tinker
Monarch Books, 2010, pp219, £8.99
ISBN 978 1 85424 997 5

Melvin Tinker has come up with a corker here. He is secure about free scientific inquiry as a God-ordained calling, which liberates him to teach the purposeful theological truths of Genesis 1-12 in such an engaging way.

The preface provides the ripe fruit of his sustained and rigorous thinking on what is perceived to be the Genesis v evolutionary science incompatibility. He is persuaded by the argument that the early chapters of Genesis are not concerned with questions of material origins but rather focus on matters of function:

With this framework in mind, a more natural reading of the early chapters of Genesis is one in which we see God bringing about functionality in his cosmos in terms of purpose rather than bringing about the material universe per se. If this is so, then questions of material origin are properly seen as belonging to the domain of science as it deals with the "how" questions, whereas Genesis addresses the more fundamental "why" questions (p30).

From that secure basis, the vicar of St John's Newland, Hull, gives some beautifully applied and memorably phrased expositions of the early chapters of Genesis. His explanation of Satan's strategy in beguiling Eve is particularly striking:

Satan does not show up as a power-crazed monster, stomping around the garden and creating mischief and mayhem, but as a serious student of theology, no less. Here is an important lesson to learn: the devil loves biblical discussions; he is never far away from the Bible study group or the pulpit, and he can wax lyrical at great length about "religion" (p81).

This 'Tinker title' also sports some real gems of illustrative material. Elucidating the truth that the Lord of Noah is the God who rescues, Mr Tinker recounts the story of the conversion of the Scottish doctor William Mackay who as a medical student had pawned the Bible his mother gave him in order to buy whisky. Years later he found that Bible under the pillow of a patient of his who had just died:

He opened it, and there on the flyleaf he was startled to read his own name and the name of his mother, together with the verse of Scripture she had given him all those years ago. This was the very Bible he had pawned for whisky as a student. With both shock and shame he hid the Bible under his coat and ran to his office, fell on his knees, and there and then asked God to forgive him his sins and let his peace come upon him. The very thing he had despised - the Bible - was used by God to bring him salvation. What are the chances of that happening? But it did. Then again, what were the chances that this Middle Eastern family would escape an apocalyptic flood. But they did (p164-5).

The book does not dodge some of the key worldview questions Christians have to grapple with - for example the relationship of the Fall to natural disasters. Did the Fall introduce them into creation or was the potential for them already there? Intriguingly, Mr Tinker asks whether Jesus' calming of the storm may be 'indicative of what man was originally meant to be and do under God, fulfilling the creation mandate of Genesis 1.28 in subduing the earth':

In other words, in the actions of Jesus such as stilling the storm, walking on the water, and feeding the multitude we are meant to see what Adam should have done and would have done had he not fallen' (p116).

Given that the Bible does not explicitly say that Adam could and should have done these miraculous things, such apologetic questions remain to be grappled with.

But it is great to see the early chapters of Genesis so heart-warmingly liberated from sterile debates about creationism v science and to hear the living God preaching purposefully and savingly through them.

THE WAY TO RECOVER YOUNG FEMALE HONOUR

Muslim-background gangs sexually preying on teenage white girls think their victims have 'fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls', according to Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation.

In a brilliant analysis of the vulnerability of white girls to such corruption, Melanie Phillips comments:

Who can be surprised that young white girls willingly go with these sexual predators who pick them up when so many stagger in and out of pubs and nightclubs in a drunken haze wearing clothes that leave little to the imagination and boasting of (promiscuous sexual behaviour)?

Who can be surprised when even sex education materials in schools advise on oral sex and other sexual practices; teen-targeted magazines, clothing and popular culture are saturated by sexuality; and family life has often disintegrated into a procession of mum’s casual pick-ups and gross parental indifference, leaving young girls desperate for affection from any quarter?

Melanie Phillips' concerns cannot be dismissed as a right-wing Daily Mail rant. The feminist writer Natasha Walter has also highlighted the degradation of girls in contemporary society.

The dishonouring of the young female sex is an inescapable fact in any city or town centre on a Friday or Saturday night.

To recover female honour, Western civilisation simply needs to recover biblical Christianity.

Contra atheism, biblical Christianity teaches that humankind - both men and women equally - is made in the image of God and therefore the human person - male and female - should be honoured.

Contra permissive liberalism, biblical Christianity teaches that both men and women should remain sexually chaste until they enter the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage. Therefore it provides a vital spiritual and moral safeguard for both men and women from self-destructive promiscuity.

Contra feminism, biblical Christianity teaches that it is an honourable calling for a woman to be a full-time wife and mother. It also highlights the responsibility of fathers to be spiritual and moral leaders in the family. Therefore orthodox Christianity offers the liberation of complementarity for men and women in their marital, familial, and indeed social relations.

Contra male supremacism, biblical Christianity teaches that men and women are equally dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and therefore have equal standing in the community of faith when they embace God's gift of redemption.

Thus, a return to the way of Christ is the only way for Western society to get its young ladies out of the gutter.

CONVERTS TO ISLAM IN THE WEST: YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHING YET

The news that the number of converts to Islam in the UK has hit 100,000 must be met with the following the reaction: you ain’t seen nothing yet.

All the cultural ingredients are there for an upsurge in conversion to Islam in the decadent, post-Christian West in the second decade of the 21st century.

It is not surprising that Islam is proving attractive to white women in their twenties. What woman in her right mind wants to bring children into the self-destructive values vacuum of the permissive society, particularly if she has had first-hand experience of it?

What sort of Islam are these women going to instil in the boys they bring along to the local mosque? The nice, liberal variety happy to take part in an urbane inter-faith dialogue in a Cathedral conference room?

Memo to the Very Revd Wooley-Convenor: In your dreams.

A very significant passage in former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s memoir, A Journey (Hutchinson 2010), sheds light on the likely ethos of a growing indigenous Islam in the West, especially when the testosterone kicks in.

Commenting on President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, which Mr Blair described as a ‘brilliant exposition of the case for peaceful coexistence’, he wrote this:

The speech was carefully calibrated. The hand of friendship would be offered, even to Syria and Iran. The implicit message was: We have been disrespectful and arrogant; we will now be, if not humble, deeply respectful. But join us, if you will.

The trouble is: respectful of what, exactly? Respectful of the religion of Islam, President Obama would say, and that is absolutely right; but that should not mean respectful of much of the underlying narrative which many within Islam articulate in politics today.

Here is where the root of the problem lies. The extremists are small in number, but their narrative – which sees Islam as the victim of a scornful West externally, and an insufficiently religious leadership internally – has a far bigger hold (p673).

Western converts to Islam have already grown up in a post-modern culture in which the clamour for victim status is as common as canned music in a supermarket. Of course, they are going to buy into what Mr Blair identifies - and remarkably so for a self-styled progressive whose Faith Foundation is assiduously promoting the inter-faith agenda - as the victim narrative of contemporary Islam.

And that is why they are not going to moderate.

Orthodox Christian churches in the West that faithfully proclaim the supremacy and uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the world's only Saviour and Lord should not be bracing themselves for ‘peaceful coexistence’ as indigenous conversions to Islam escalate.

And the enemies, whom as followers of the crucified Lord we are called to love, are likely to have white faces.

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS MUST BE BAD BOYS IN TONY BLAIR’S BOOK

Buying a half-price copy of Tony Blair’s memoir, A Journey (Hutchinson, 2010), in the January sales prompted the following reflection: the second decade of the 21st century is likely to present an even more difficult atmosphere in which to make exclusive Christian truth claims than the first.

Mr Blair has that Clintonesque ability to discern and then articulate the spirit of the age. He won three general elections in a row and without him the Labour Party he made electable lost badly.

His description of the ethos of the young volunteers in his Faith Foundation should therefore be taken seriously as a future spiritual weather warning:

There are hordes of volunteers who work with my Faith Foundation, incredibly well motivated, fantastic, interesting dynamic young people, whose religious commitment is totally without prejudice against those of a different faith (p691).

So, who are the bad boys with 'prejudice' against those of a different faith?

Extremists, presumably. To be fair, A Journey pulls no punches against Muslim extremists and their 'narrative' of victimhood which Mr Blair believes, perceptively, has a wider hold within Islam than many of his fellow progressives in the West are prepared to credit.

But only at the cost of our integrity can we orthodox, Bible-believing Christians avoid being summoned to the headmaster's study and carpeted for 'prejudice'.

If 'prejudiced' means ignorant, then that is a charge that must not be allowed to stick. We need to be well-informed about the distinctives of our faith in relation to other religions and world-views and we need to be able to communicate those distinctives graciously and winsomely.

But if 'prejudiced' means clear about the spiritual implications of those distinctives, then we must be found guilty. Against such groundless Faith Foundation optimism about the spiritual prospects for humanity outside of Christ, we must insist that those who seek salvation through obeying the precepts of any non-Christian religion are on the road to eternal perdition.

And that includes Muslims.

We must insist that it is neither glorifying to God nor loving to people made in his image to suppress the truth that eternal salvation is by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Certainly, regarding religiously devoted and morally upright non-Christians as people who need to convert to the Lord Jesus Christ is to be a bad boy in Mr Blair’s book. And that will mean being bad boys in the eyes of the future politically-correct leaders and opinion formers who emerge from his Faith Foundation.

But is not being bad in their eyes the path of authentic New Testament Christianity?

The urgency of the Apostle Peter’s exhortation to the Jerusalem crowd of devotedly religious people in Acts 2 must surely be our imperative:

Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v38, RSV).