This is the third in a series of blog posts looking at the decision faced by that Church of England General Synod this week: do they, or do they not, take note of the report by the House of Bishops (GS2055) on human sexuality.
Yesterday, I wrote about the debate before the Church of England's General stood as to whether to take note of the House of Bishops' report into human sexuality.
I explained that the document, and the process that led to it, was all about "good disagreement" - how can traditionalists and progressives get along together without falling out.
How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him. (1 Kings 18:21)
It is logically impossible to tolerate differences of opinion when it comes to the acceptable boundaries of tolerance.
THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
Many Anglican Churches across the country still use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for some of their services. That is a good thing. It's theology is not without fault, but it attained a high standard of theology that has not been reproduced in any liturgies written since. A high proportion of all of its services are taken straight from Scripture, with the effect that a great number of Scriptures are read during any BCP service. The BCP takes the Bible, and turns it into a prayer book.
The Adam Smith Institute have published an article (provocatively) called The Church of England is barking up the wrong tree.
It is well worth reading, inviting us to think a little more carefully what a Christian engagement in the realms of politics and economics should look like.
Many will remember the furore when Prince Charles stated, many years back, that he wanted to be not “defender of the [implied, Christian] faith”, but simply “defender of faith”.
Some of the problems of that should be obvious.
