eurealist.co.uk

I really find it difficult to disagree with main thrust of the article written by Peter Mullins Telegraph

He is bemoaning the persecution being endured by the Church worldwide and the loss of Christian values in Britain. He suggests that much of this is down to the politicians, but the church also has its own questions to answer.

I came to this article thorough the reference to the Bishop of Hereford who was fined £47,000 and made to attend a re-education course because he refused to employ a practising homosexual in his diocese’s youth services? (I understand from a local source that there could have been strong historic reasons in Hereford for the Bishop’s decision but that is not the point of this meander)

On the surface it looks as if secular political society has begun to enforce its principles on religion, this is to perhaps state the obvious, it is a muddled concept to say on one hand that there must be total freedom of religion and on the other to say only within prescribe limits set by a secular law. In fact as I think about it, the claim of total religious freedom is a bit of a misnomer in the first place, because society would find some religious practices unacceptable. So the concept must, in any case, be total freedom within limits.

So we are debating limits rather than principals and limits are defined by social acceptability rather than a predetermined code. Religious belief is however not defined by social limits it is the belief that defines social limits. It would seem that the Anglican Church has not defined its own social limits or rather those limits are movable, which might lead as many to question the direction of the church, as question the direction of the nation.

Of course in the Bishops case some are bleating about how the church has been taught a lesson etc. but the odd thing is the Church sort of won his case, because most of the claims were dismissed, the judge did however find for the claimant on the grounds that Church of England teaching from the House of Bishops did not require Anglicans (other than ministers) to commit for life to celibacy or marriage.

Which brings me back to Peter Mullins and the few sentences that stood out for me-

Urgent though it is, the threat from a murderous jihad is not the worst we have to face at Easter 2008. Any civilisation has a hope of defending itself against even the most ruthless enemy so long as it preserves the integrity of its own culture and traditions. But for 40 years our governments in Britain have done nothing but undermine the essential quality of our way of life. Those elected to defend the realm have destroyed it. The shepherds are hirelings.

The authority of Parliament is a joke in an age ruled by spin and the Prime Minister’s gang of party interest. New Labour has created its own client state out of millions on benefits and 800,000 new civil servants, bribed by the sort of job security and pension entitlements long vanished in the private sector. Public services are near collapse - try getting anywhere by road or rail this holiday weekend. The NHS is a disgrace. “State education” is an oxymoron. The Government loses our national records and lately there have been convictions for vote-rigging.

We might have expected the Church to resist the decay, but instead it has connived with the destructive sexual and social revolution begun in the 1960s.

Yes the church has connived quite a bit in the destruction of our society but it has also connived with the politicians to destroy the authority of Parliament and the Nation State

And furthermore it has done so in exactly the same way as our politicians have, by ignoring the basic principals and going for the non confrontational modern management approach.

If the teachings of the church are based on the bible and if the bible says homosexuality is a sin then why has the church condoned the practice and relaxed its laws in relationship to sex within marriage. Is basically the same point as; if our constitution says anyone who connives with outside powers to undermines the nation state is a traitor, then why has that principal been ignored by so many of our governments.

The judge fund the House of Bishops did not require Anglicans (other than ministers) to commit for life to celibacy or marriage, so the house of Bishops do not follow the principals of their own bible, as they do not then it is apparent that the beliefs of the Anglican church is a movable feast. Perhaps the church has fallen into the trap of moving its fundamental principals with the intention of becoming more attractive to a larger audience. If it has then it is odd that it should do so in the face of the evidence which show those churches, sects or religions which stick to principals and loudly proclaim those principals are the ones which are growing. I do not know, but would the tribunals argument hold good for Muslims? From the press I would have thought not, they seem to be steadfast in defending the basic principals of their religion, if that is the case perhaps, had it been a Muslim cleric, rather than an Anglican bishop the outcome of the case might have been different.

Our political parties of course are into the same self-defeating game in that their principals, their political belief system is also a movable feast. No longer can we vote for a party because we share its basic ideals, and understand that it will act as is necessary when in government, but always with the intention of maintaining those ideals, as far as possible on a sea of international liquidity. Instead we are offered a political masque based on nothing more than a determination to gain power. We have got to get this government out – is simply not a good enough call to arms, what exactly will be different if we do vote against the Labour party, what different direction will a Conservative administration take this country and do we want to go there with them, it is up to them to decide where they would like to be and then convince us that they can be trusted to deliver and that we should join them.

As we have witnessed neither the Anglican Church or the state hold a central defining belief system, whether that be Christianity, democracy or nationhood, the church will not stand by its basic principals and the government will not stand by its nation. Both will be blown along with the wind, and with no moral compass to guide them they cannot hope to offer us any guidance for the future either of our church or our nation state.

Technorati Tags:
Christian values in Britain, Bishop of Hereford, Peter Mullins, basic ideals
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |