Michelle Malkin » Onward, Christian Soldiers? Signs of life in the Church of England

Onward, Christian Soldiers? Signs of life in the Church of England

By see-dubya • May 26, 2008 08:00 PM

An odd topic for a day focused on American sacrifices, I know, but this is a neglected issue. The Church of England is a rich and wonderful institution grown feeble and decrepit, sunk in relativism and multicultural senescence.

As someone who attended services there, it seemed to me that in general, they don’t have faith so much as some nice sentiments and memories. Once a Church of England vicar told me that most educated British Anglicans don’t actually believe in the Virgin Birth anymore.

It’s sad if you’re a Christian just to see a branch of the Church wither. But even from a secular and political perspective this is a tragedy. The spiritual vacuum in Britain is being filled by Islam, some of which is militant, intolerant and dangerous, and much of which doesn’t seem particularly concerned with the militant, intolerant, and dangerous part.*

What’s more, Anglicanism at its best is a practical and reasonable faith, focused on history and apostolic roots, one that has given us the likes of Churchill and C.S. Lewis. Again, stepping back from particular doctrinal criticisms, what a great civilization a confident and strong CoE has birthed. Whether you agree with the 39 Articles or not, most societies could benefit from a few more old-school Anglicans. They’re usually good gardeners, know what wine goes with which meat, despise slavery, work well in teams, and can administrate households, colonies, or businesses with ease.

Surprisingly, there is one Church of England clergyman who seems to agree with that sentiment. Rather than resigning his flock to a shabby twilight of faith, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali actually seems to think that there is a case to be made for attempting to convert people of other faiths to his:

Pakistan-born Dr Nazir-Ali told the Mail on Sunday that, while Church leaders had rightly shown sensitivity to British Muslims, “I think it may have gone too far.”

He added: “Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith and that is the basis of welcoming people of other faiths. You cannot have an honest conversation on the basis of fudge.”

Telegraph blogger Damian Thompson notes that the CoE response to Bishop Nazir-Ali’s proposals seems to be drawn from a very different playbook:

And did you notice the official Church of England response to the controversy? A spokesman said: “We have a mission-focused Christian presence [sic] in every community, including those where there are a large number of Muslims. That engagement is based on the provisions of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Ah yes, Article 9. A much more agreeable document on which to base one’s “engagement” than the inconvenient demands of the New Testament.

These battles fought over Christian thought will affect the course of the world. If you think, by the way, that just because you don’t believe in a particular religion, you will not be affected by its conflicts and currents, I have a big hole in Manhattan to show you. The doctrines preached in our pulpits do and will affect our politics in ways both subtle and awesome, and for this reason we should keep a close eye on the strange paths taken by Christian clerics.

It seems strange to say so, but I believe our liberty depends on their decisions.

*To be fair, Catholicism has benefited greatly from the decline of the CoE as well.
_______________________

{Post by See-Dubya. More from me about Christianity in Europe at this Hot Air post.}

Posted in: Apostasy, Political Correctness

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (104)

trackbacks (3)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101

On May 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am, zeroangel said:

Another thing before I forget:

Ref the charge that I don’t read Christian apologists, non sequitur, for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

Furthermore, in this thread alone I sought out, read from, and quoted Peter Kreeft.
#102

On May 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pm, Trollman said:

zeroangel said:

You really should do more research.
Carl Sagan’s “pale blue dot” reference is very famous.

Dawkins was borrowing from him in God Delusion.

The more you post the more you make yourself appear foolish.

If you had gone to Amazon.com and looked at the excerpt they had - which is how I knew Dawkins used the “pale blue dot” phrase, you would have seen what I saw:

Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:

So obviously I knew it was, in Dawkins’ book, a reference to Carl Sagan.

In fact, when I was typing up my previous post, I was going to include that little tidbit, but I then altered it. Perhaps zeroangel’s arrogance will take the bait and try to play the ignorance card on me. Kind of like earlier when I talked about Biblical faith with abstractmind. I fully expected him to go to Hebrews 11:1 (and/or John 20:29). In both cases, you both proved my point about being arrogant - with a vengeance!

zeroangel said:

Furthermore, in this thread alone I sought out, read from, and quoted Peter Kreeft.

Did you even know who Kreeft was, or had read any of his stuff before this thread? How many (entire) books have you read by Christian apologists?

Going to read a few brief excerpts or quotes does not display an openness of mind. You see, when I began studying about Islam, it was because I had heard some quotes from the Koran. I thought to myself, that can’t be right. That is obviously false; perhaps it was quoted out of context, or something else.

Rather than assuming those of another view were “beyond the reach of honest debate”, I gave Islam & Muslims the benefit of the doubt. Thus I took it upon myself to read the entire Koran. I then consulted what Islamic literature I had access to - books and articles - to try to find out if there were any solutions that could answer the problems I had detected. When I couldn’t find those answers, I then went to actual Muslims. But I have still not been able to come across an answer to the criticism towards Islam that I gave above.

By your rapid-fire succession of posts, it demonstrates that what I have said has gotten under your skin. Not just because of what I have said, but because what I have said is true. We tend to project our faults on to others, and when someone points out our hypocrisy, we hate it. You can either continue to lash out, or you can come clean and draw closer to the truth.
#103

On June 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am, zeroangel said:

Trollman:

My rapid fire succession of posts demostrates that I put very little thought into my answers at this point. Feel free to think you are getting under my skin, you are not.

Your long winded replies are rationalizations. Have a nice day.
#104

On June 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 am, abstractmind said:

I read the posts above…and i gave some thought to my response.

I had planned a long, detailed discussion about the points in trollman’s argument that are false or baseless. I was going to slam the Daniel argument with the “if i pray for rain and it does, it doesnt make me a prophet” angle. I was going to comment that while troll and zero make intelligent discussions, that really…the 3 questions that i had above was never answered. And likely, since they’ve been around as long as we have and there’s still no conclusion…

I’ve sat here for 20 minutes AFTER deleting about 2 pages worth of text…

After all that…I’ve decided its just not worth it. It’s not worth investing the time or energy into someone who believes they are correct, that we automatically agree with him and if we don’t we MUST be wrong, and who artfully dodges even the most basic of questions.

Troll, you seem educated and know your topic. But you’re not dealing with some knuckle-dragging moron who accepts what you say at face value. Having an open mind, and simply accepting what you are saying at face value with no statistical or scientific fact behind it, is (in my eyes) without merit.

It doesnt matter how many fairy tales you throw out, how many “prophecies” you can name…none of it really answers the questions i posed or gives anything more than…well, things that can in fact be dismissed with a wave of my hand. I’m dismissing a lack of REAL evidence. I’m dismissing an argument that we could go on forever having, and never really come to a conclusion.

troll, your faith is your own. and you can worship as you choose, as is your right. but just basically making the argument we all have to agree there is a god, and debate his virtues…doesnt work for me.

I’m not going to waste anymore energy on a discussion where someone cant address my concerns directly. I’ll be in emails with EQ. she at least is giving me some benefit of the doubt and answering questions methodically and without twisting the meaning of the verses she’s quoting.
I’ll not be checking this again. I thank you all for a somewhat good discussion, but i have no real desire to sit and debate something that I can easily dismiss as false (such as god), with someone who wont even give quarter enough to believe the other person is correct.

BTW…your interpretation of the Gospel pretty much goes against what most people are taught in churches these days, much less what i was taught when i was still in the pews. It would benefit you to know that (even intelligently) twisting scripture to suit your own purpose is something that the devil (again, provided he exists too) is capable of (The devil can quote scripture to suit his own purpose as my grandmother told me) and does on a regular basis.

When you can demonstrate god registers on one of the five senses, we’ll talk again. until then, you’ve simply failed to present anything of value.

Closed.