Comments: women bishops - an MP intervenes

I don't understand why anyone would object to this measure striking the prohibition unless they were hoping that this provision would eventually prove to be an insurmountable impediment to consecrating a woman. The measure seems to get the government out of regulating the church. What am I missing?

Posted by ruidh at Friday, 3 March 2006 at 9:39pm GMT

The government does not regulate the Church of England. That is what General Synod is for. Parliament ceased to legislate for the Church in 1919. Parliament retains a right of veto over Church legislation but by convention it can neither amend church legislation (called Measures)nor propose it.

If Parliament decided to end the convention it would mean formal disestablishment, but since General Synod will approve women bishops eventually by itself, it is unlikely that a rogue MP like Bryant will gather sufficient support for a bill which would have such a destabilising effect on the English constitution.

Posted by Alan Marsh at Friday, 3 March 2006 at 11:25pm GMT

But wouldn't the proposal actually shorten the time scale through concurrent legislative activity? If Parliament had already amended the measure, the when eventually General Synod makes up its mind, the process could be that much quicker. Or have I misunderstood?

Posted by Peter Lear at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 10:09am GMT

Dear Alan

I would not be so sure that the House of Commons won't interfere in church issues. I think that the Labour party, in particular, sees no areas as sacred and shows no respect for people whose views that they consider "wrong" - hardly even pays lip-service to the idea anymore.

I was shocked that Christina Rees said this was fantastic news (Times blog) - is she still sore that the GS was more inclusive towards people who disagree than she or Giles Fraser (leader of "Inclusive Church"!) want to be ?

Posted by Dave at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 10:28am GMT

Peter, the whole point of the current legislation by General Synod is to amend the existing Measure. It is primary legislation and requires primary legislation to amend it.

If Parliament suddenly decided to step in and alter church law at any time some MP decided to interfere, then there would be no point having a synod or a church.

The only reason why disestablishment has not taken place in England is because the Church has had the right to govern itself since 1919. If that is taken away then the Church would have to declare complete independence from the state.

It is of course what Mr Bryant would like to see, but there is no desire on the part of the Church for this to happen - tested in recent votes in synod - since the Church of England has a special role of service to the whole community, not just its members.

As a Welsh MP Bryant should remember that the Church in Wales fought long and hard against disestablishment, and was greatly impoverished when large parts of its endowments were simultaneously taken away by Parliament. I wonder how he and Ms Rees would explain disendowment as "fantastic news"?

Posted by Alan Marsh at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 12:19pm GMT

Alan, please help me understand. You say the government does not regulate the Church of England. But it seems there is a law on the books making it unlawful to consecrate a woman. Is that not a regulation on the Church of England? Perhaps we are being mislead by American vs. British usage.

I don't see why this bill is a crisis for anyone except those who oppose women bishops.

Posted by ruidh at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 12:41pm GMT

ruidh, The Church of England makes the law for itself. Under an Act of Parliament of 1919, the Church was given power to make its own law (called Measures).

Measures have to be scrutinised by Parliament, which retains a veto. But Parliament does not frame new Measures (only the Synod can do that) and Parliament can not amend Measures (only the Synod can do that).

The 1992 Measure which permitted women to become priests was framed and passed by General Synod, and it can only be amended by General Synod.

It is generally acknowledged that a secular Parliament should not interfere in the internal life of a spiritual body, and one can not comprehend how Parliament could be considered an appropriate forum for deciding what the doctrine of the Church of England ought to be. This still happens in Sweden and Norway: but thankfully not since 1919 in England.

Posted by Alan Marsh at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 1:22pm GMT

The value of this bill would not lie in any eventual passing of it into law (I doubt that parliament would wish to go that far), but in testing the view sometimes put forward that the C of E needs to be cautious in the nature of the Measure GS puts forward if such Measure is not to be rejected by parliament.

It's an argument usually usually cited by traditionalists claiming that if GS does not protect their minority rights then parliament will be likely to do so.

An early test of parliamentary opinion might be useful as it would be preferable (IMO) for Synod to legislate with an awareness of the mood of parliament rather than being asked to second guess it.

Whatever provisions are made for the minority view, are best made from an informed position rather than fear of parliamentary interference later on.

Posted by David Walker at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 2:40pm GMT

Dear David, I don't think that General Synod (except for a few of the more extreme "Inclusive" people like Christina Rees and Giles Fraser) voted overwhelmingly in favour of a secure arrangement for traditionalists because they were concerned about how parliament would react to a single clause measure !

Politicians should accept with humility the limits of their competence.

Posted by Dave at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 3:10pm GMT

I think it a jolly idea.

It does little, but says a great deal. I wish Chris a fair wind.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 3:58pm GMT

I think it is pretty well known that members of the House of Commons will vote by a large majority for women bishops - in 1993 the Labour Party even imposed an informal whip on its members who duly voted 100% for women priests. There is no need to "test" their opinion in this way.

But one can hardly expect secular politicians to be able to tell the difference between secular law and the way in which the life of the Church of Jesus Christ is ordered. They voted down the revised Book of Common Prayer in 1928 (mostly with the help of Scottish and Irish protestant MPs) and disestablishment was only averted by a declaration of the House of Bishops that they would take no notice of what the House of Commons thought.

That is the basis on which church-state relations have proceeded ever since. It is for the Synod to decide what is best for the Church as a whole, not for MPs to substitute their own judgement for that of the bishops, clergy and laity who represent the Church itself in Synod.

It is only on the basis of freedom of self-government that establishment continues in England. The Church of England is not, as some outside England seem to imagine, a department of either the State, of government or of New Labour.

Posted by Alan Marsh at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 4:16pm GMT

Just a little background on Chris Bryant for those who don't know him.

Although he is now an MP, he studied theology at Ripon College as a postgraduate and was ordained by the Church of England in 1986. He served as curate at All Saints, High Wycombe, and as youth chaplain in Peterborough. He is now Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

So he perhaps has more knowledge both of the Church of England and of constitutional matters than some other MPs.

Posted by badman at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 5:56pm GMT

Ripon College, Cuddesdon... good grief! The bishop factory strikes again...

Posted by Dave at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 6:53pm GMT

Pros and cons of this approach:

Pro - it will give us a flavour of where Parliament stands on the issue (though as a previous poster suggests, opinion in the House is probably overwhelmingly in favour)

Con - it muddies the relationship between Parliament and General Synod, because it proposes to amend a Measure through the Parliamentary procedure (which is not how the Enabling Act is designed to operate)

Pro - it fires a salvo across the bows of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which still has its fair share of Anglican and lapsed Anglican reactionaries on it, to deter the Ecclesiastical Committee from being obstructive when the Measure does in the end come to Parliament

Con - It takes us back, if we aren't careful, to the 1928 crisis, and stirs up a strange Erastianism. Indeed, it's likely to strengthen support for FiF and the like within the Church from those of us who believe that it is intolerable for Parliament to legislate for the Church.

Pro or Con - It may well lead to a constitutional crisis for the Church of England, and push us towards disestablishment...

I think Chris Bryant is unwise to do this. The Measure we shall need to draft will delete Clause 1 (2) of the P (O of W) Measure anyway. But it's much better to devise a whole package on which Synod can vote, including a measured debate on the TEA provisions, than to make one amendment which would upset the balance of how we currently operate.

Posted by Pete Broadbent at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 7:47pm GMT

Badman says: "he [Bryant] perhaps has more knowledge both of the Church of England and of constitutional matters than some other MPs".
This would be a first for members of the Department of Constitutional affairs!
Anyway, the problem isn't his knowledge, it's his right, or lack of it, as a member of a church in a constituency serving a minority ethnic group (the Welsh) to try to overturn a constitutional convention and settlement which affects none of his constituents, but only the majority ethnic group of the nation which he does not represent in parliament.

Posted by Doug Chaplin at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 8:39pm GMT

I am interested to see Mr Bryant's reference to an "ultra-conservative tail". I'm an Anglican layman opposed to the innovation of the "ordination" of women to the sacred priesthood. I'm also a bit of a leftie - union activist (MSF, then AUT), resigned from the Labour Party in '92 in protest at the expulsion of Dave Nellist, currently on the dole.

Chris Bryant is a rightward-moving Blairite apparatchik, happy to renounce his orders in order to get a well-paid parliamentary sinecure.

And HE's calling ME an ultra-conservative????

Posted by Alan Harrison at Saturday, 4 March 2006 at 11:30pm GMT

I understand that clerics of the Church of England are forbidden to serve as members of the House of Commons (as opposed to the Lords) and that in order to be elected such clerics must first renounce their orders (the idea being that the Church of England orders its own life). Of course, no such restriction applies in the USA or elsewhere (think of Senator John Danforth), but of course in the USA Congress cannot make laws regarding religion. I'm afraid the fact that Mr Bryant resigned from the priesthood and his solemn vows to God in order to take up a political career does not reflect well on his inner motivation. If he has turned his back on his calling, then he should certainly not seek to meddle in the affairs of the Church of England - especially as he now lives in another country.

Posted by Peter Bergman at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 8:38am GMT

Alan Marsh wrote: "This still happens in Sweden and Norway: but thankfully not since 1919 in England."

It does not happen in Sweden. It could, in theory, between 1719 and 2000.

Why all this neverending disinformation?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 9:56am GMT

In reply to Peter Bergman's comment, Church of England clergy (other than the Lords Spiritual) are now eligible for election to the House of Commons. Their disqualification was removed by the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010013.htm ) which came into effect in time for the 2001 general election.

Posted by Peter Owen at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 11:39am GMT

"especially as he now lives in another country"

Last time I checked, Wales was still part of the United Kingdom.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 12:16pm GMT

Wales may be a part of the UK but as our Church has been disestablished for some time now Anglican clerics have not had to renounce their orders to seek election to Parliament from our seats. We have had several make such attempts.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 2:35pm GMT

You don't follow rugby, do you, Simon?
The Church in Wales is a different church from the Church of England (for which I imagine quite a few people over in England are grateful).

I am interested to hear that the law regarding representation has been changed in England. it doesn't change the fact that Bryant turned his back on his vows to God and the Church.

Posted by Peter Bergman at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 2:38pm GMT

Peter B wrote: I am interested to hear that the law regarding representation has been changed in England. it doesn't change the fact that Bryant turned his back on his vows to God and the Church.

This is a hugely unfair comment. It feels like an attempt to maintain an argument that has been shot out of the water.

Mr Bryant was a highly respected Anglican priest who was forced (by virtue of an unfair law) to renounce his orders if he wished to stand for parliament. It is no small measure due to both the example of his sacrifice and his personal efforts once elected that this anachronistic law is no longer in force.

There is no reason whatsoever why a non-stipendiary priest cannot be a parliamentarian in the same way that he or she can be a doctor, schoolteacher, barrister etc.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Mr Bryant's Bill they need to be discussed in their own right, not by attempts to blacken his name or character.

Posted by David Walker at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 4:27pm GMT

David W, nobody required Mr Bryant to stand for the British parliament. I could understand someone resigning from the priesthood if he'd had a crisis of faith or had fallen into some seriously compromising sin, but to do so for a switch of 'career' doesn't impress.
Anyway, it ill-becomes a Welsh ex-priest MP who has acted imprudently before, bringing embarassment to his party, to try to use his position to influence the law of the Church of England. He should stick to looking after the concerns of his constituencies.


Posted by Peter Bergman at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 5:13pm GMT

Peter, your comments seem to suggest that God's call is heard once in a priest's lifetime and only in one way. I know nothing of Mr. Bryant's particular case, but it seems quite possible that God might call an ordained minister to public service in a different way, and that human laws might require two calls to come into conflict.

Posted by Anna at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 9:01pm GMT

Alan H, to cite your union activism everytime someone calls you a conservative (or ultra-conservative) is getting old.

You *don't* believe God is calling women to the priesthood (despite the evidence) = you ARE an ultra-conservative. Period.

And as far as your "leftie" views?

Toni Morrison has a line in her novel "Beloved", about white abolitionists who are (nevertheless) *racists*: [para from memory] "They hated slavery even more than they hated slaves."

Humans being human, these sort of internal contradictions are all too common... :-/

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 10:37pm GMT

J.C. Fisher writes:

"Alan H, to cite your union activism everytime someone calls you a conservative (or ultra-conservative) is getting old."

Old or not, get used to it! I am, by any standard, firmly committed to a left stance in politics.

JCF continues:

"You *don't* believe God is calling women to the priesthood (despite the evidence) = you ARE an ultra-conservative. Period."

I've no idea whether God is calling women to the priesthood, nor do I have a clue what "evidence" might indicate that He is doing so. Since I'm a layman with no theological expertise, I would be quite unable to evaluate such evidence. Nor would I magically acquire such expertise were I to persuade equally incompetent laics to elect me to the General Synod of a couple of minor provinces in an anomalous position (no communion with any apostolic see). I do not believe this decision to lie within the competence of Anglican provincial synods. Far from being "ultra-conservative", my lack of enthusiasm for this innovation is well in the mainstream of Catholic Christianity.

Posted by Alan Harrison at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 11:24pm GMT

Anna & David W: it's well known in the UK that even if Mr Bryant hadn't had to resign his orders to become an MP, since then he hasn't quite acted as you might expect a non-stipendiary priest to do so. All the more reason to stay out of Erastian meddling.

JCF: rather like Alan Harrison, I too am very far from certain that the Holy Spirit is calling women to the priesthood. If that makes me an 'ultra-conservative', then I'll just have to bear the opprobrium of standing with the vast majority of the church throughout 2000 years (it's called 'catholicism').

Posted by Peter Bergman at Sunday, 5 March 2006 at 11:29pm GMT

Peter and Alan,

Out of curiosity, have you sat down and listened to women when they speak about their call. I've heard about the call of a number of women and have experienced it myself.

I am curious as to why you would doubt the call of women and not of men. It appears that Jesus called women. Indeed, as more and more comes to light, stripping slowly away at tradition and writings written by men influenced by the cultures around them, we are beginning to understand that gender does not preclude anyone from following Jesus to the fulness of the call given them. The only thing preventing people answering their calls is humankind itself which cannot bring itself to see through the eyes of the Spirit in as full a manner as possible.

So, unless I'm delusional, (and the psychologist I went to as part of the discernment process said that I was not) and unless all those people who affirmed my call were wrong, the Spirit does indeed call women. Likewise for a number of friends in the ordained ministry.

I'm sorry, I can understand the basis for the arguements based on tradition and on scripture. I may disagree with them but I understand them. But to say that there is doubt that the Spirit calls women to ordained ministry - this I do not understand. I would say that it has been proven time again that the Spirit does indeed call them. The call of the Spirit is a very personal thing. Yes, it becomes corporate when the person answers. And the corporate body is involved in the determining the call as well once the person enters the discernment process. There, too, the Spirit is at work.

Ann Marie

Posted by Ann Marie at Monday, 6 March 2006 at 4:00pm GMT

I know and work with a number of ordained women and have had the opportunity both to listen and to observe over a number of years, but I have come to the conclusion that God is not calling women to be presbyters in His Church. There have been extensive searches for evidence of ordained women in the early years of the church, but apart from some imaginative reinterpretations of doubtful archaeological material, there is none. Nor do the scriptures suggest anything other than a calling to sacred ministry restricted to men alone. There are no layers to strip away, but some campaigners keep trying to impose meanings upon certain texts which they do not bear. We are not at liberty to re-write the new testament in according to our own preferences.

What does seem to be the case is that the church needs to embrace a much wider understanding of "ministry" in which all alike participate - as do the excellent ordained women whom I know and value enormously - a ministry of pastoral service, rather than the specific priestly ministry of those who are called serve as ikons of Christ in the celebration of the sacraments.

There is an excellent study of the subject, by a Roman Catholic theologian, but still strongly biblical, "Women in the Priesthood", by M Hauke. I would strongly recommend it to Evangelicals.

Posted by Alan Marsh at Monday, 6 March 2006 at 6:10pm GMT

Göran, Women priests were imposed on the Church of Sweden by the State in (I think) 1958, but even after disestablishment the Swedish church remains dominated by the terms of the settlement made in 2000. Is it not the case that elections to church bodies are open to voters who are not church members, and that there is very active secular interest in these elections? That seems to me very much like state involvement in the inner life of the church.

Do trade unions or political parties allow the general public who are not members to vote for their leaders? Of course not, and the same principle should apply to the Church.

Posted by Alan Marsh at Monday, 6 March 2006 at 6:20pm GMT

Ann Marie: I studied alongside many women at seminary and have taught theology to many others from many different denominations. I love and respect them as my sisters in the Lord, and co-workers in the Gospel. I have never doubted that the Lord calls women to His service - of course He does! Does He call women to the particular work of spiritual leadership of the church? I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'leadership'. I am much less certain about this, primarily on biblical grounds (Christ's choice of the Apostles; the appointment of presbuteroi/episkopoi in the apostolic church). Perhaps you know the major AMiA document which runs for about 70 pages? This is the best contemporary statement I know and have occasion to refer to. Perhaps unusually for this evangelical Anglican, I have come to think of leadership as being primarily a spiritual father to the church and I believe God has given this task to (certain) men. I apply this analogy to the (natural) human family. Many women have to be both mother and father to their children, because of the absence of a worthy father. I grew up in such a home, and while I bless my mother's memory for all she did for us, how much better it would have been if we had had a loving father to provide for us, and especially to provide an example to us wayward boys.

Posted by Peter Bergman at Monday, 6 March 2006 at 6:29pm GMT

It isn't me (or Peter) you have to convince, Ann Marie. The late Pope John Paul II questioned whether the innovation of the ordination of women to the sacred priesthood was within the competence of the Roman Pontiff. It certainly isn't within the competence of an Anglican layman.

Posted by Alan Harrison at Monday, 6 March 2006 at 7:33pm GMT

Alan and Peter,

I would continue the discussion but then we would be off topic. Besides which, I'm sure that all of us have heard the arguments countless times before and none of us is liable to change our minds because of a few words posted here. There's so much I want to say but for now I will hold my tongue (or fingers in this case).

Ann Marie

Posted by Ann Marie at Monday, 6 March 2006 at 11:24pm GMT

Ann Marie, thank you for your gracious words.
God bless you.

Posted by Peter Bergman at Tuesday, 7 March 2006 at 6:53am GMT

As, I hope a loyal Anglican, I cannot see any reason why a woman should not be ordained. Are women 2nd class Christians? Is there some flaw in their make up as opposed to men? It has been said to me that women are temperamentally unsuited to be priests; is this a widely held view? I believe that Chris Bryant is right to bring forward a bill that will expose the discriminatory attitude of some parts of the Church as thoroughly un-Christian.

Posted by Peter Elliott at Tuesday, 7 March 2006 at 4:03pm GMT

Alas, Peter Elliott's remark could only come from someone cocooned in an insular denomination. Does he really believe that the great majority of the world church (including Anglicans provinces) is "discriminatory" and "thoroughly un-Christian" and that the only people who have somehow got it right are the tiny majority of Anglican churches which do have women bishops?

Posted by Alan Marsh at Tuesday, 7 March 2006 at 5:17pm GMT

Hear, Hear! I agree with Peter Elliot. I believe it is tradition only, not scripture that has held up women's ordination. I know many women in the Church of England who have held non-ordained leadership positions and whose work has clearly had God's blessing on it. I don't understand the objections to WO.

Posted by Dumb Ox at Tuesday, 7 March 2006 at 7:59pm GMT

Alan Marsh wrote: "Is it not the case that elections to church bodies are open to voters who are not church members..."
No, it is not the case.
All the 20th century there has been a loud propaganda that the Church is being taken over by the State (= the Social Democrats). In reality, this is about political opposition to the disappearance of pre-modern social and legal customs; the abolition of the right of the husband to beat his wife (1909), servants under 18 years of age (1929), school children (1954), "own" children (1966). As the introduction of general suffrage for men (1920), women (1921), and so on.
The gradual erosion of 17th cnetury Absolutism, if you like, infinitely more absolute than anywhere else in Europe.
For 313 years the organisation of the Church of Sweden was dissolved into that of the State. Part of the outer church law was invested in the 4 Estates, most of it and a l l of the inner church law including sacraments and preaching, being subject to the good offices of an Absolute King and his allmighty Secretaries of State.
Calvinists had more religious rights than did the members and clergy of the Church of Sweden! Roman Catholics and Jews were outlawed until 1782.
The fact is that the Church has never been so independent as she is today. But, of course, she has not got the constitutional, legal and political power as Second Estate whith here own jurisdiction (not the Canon law of Rome), that she enjoyed before 1687 ;=)
Alan March wrote: "There have been extensive searches for evidence of ordained women in the early years of the church"
Show me the evidences of ordained men in the early years of the church!
Alan Marsh wrrote: "a ministry of pastoral service, rather than the specific priestly ministry of those who are called serve as ikons of Christ in the celebration of the sacraments."
Now, there wasn't any "specific priestly ministry of those who are called (to) serve as ikons of Christ" in the early days of the Church, only "a ministry of pastoral service", apostolic or otherwise...
Priest in the OT and in 1st century NT scriptures are invariably sacrificial priests in Temples .
Also, during all that time when only men were ordained in the Church no one ever dreamt of interpreting (distorting) your idea of the priest as eikon (particular to some traditions - unknown to mine) to mean "man", as opposed to human.
Consequently it was only in 1888, when lady priests had begun to appear in the USA, that the Swedish State School translation changed the gender of the Apostle Junia in the Letter of Recommendation for the Deacon Febé, alias Romans 1.7-12 and 16.1-16 + 20b, into Junias; a man.
Just as no one in my childhood (which passed before people were being defined as homosexual) ever thought of marriage as heterosexual - or even sexual ;=)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 8 March 2006 at 8:31pm GMT

Not the easiest one to follow, our Lutheran friend pastor Goran!
I have over the years made some close studies of the Church of Sweden and would like to make the following remarks about the state of that church:
1. Erastian? Yes, very much so, with most of the major political parties dominating the "General Synod" and thus enforcing a very secularised agenda upon it.
2. Episcopal? Hardly, since the CofS bishops doesn't have a vote on the "GS" and their rights of visitation and licensing are very weak because of the parochial independence (most PCC's are also dominated by the political parties).
3. Non-Christian influences? Well, what do one say regarding a couple of hundred thousand (appr. 5%) un-baptised members!?
4. Heretical? In my view, yes, and sadly more and more so, with a most insular and self-righteous ecclesiology.

This is the state of the CofS today (whose active flock of worshippers are getting close to 1% of the members, and falling).

Let's pray that Church of England never will come close to this situation.

A most challenging forum, thank you Mr Sarmiento!

Posted by Antony at Thursday, 9 March 2006 at 2:46pm GMT

Antony, you have summed up succinctly what I've been saying and observing for a while about the Church of Sweden. It is indeed deeply Erastian, politically ruled, and very largely ignored by the great mass of Swedish people. If Christianity has a future in that country, it will lie with the Pentecostalists and Roman Catholics.

Posted by Peter Bergman at Friday, 10 March 2006 at 6:35am GMT

Peter, thank you for your compliment! Church of Sweden is very much ignored by its members (that they still remain members is a sociological phenomenon that, I believe, only can be explained by the "loyalty" phenomenon that you find in the Nordic Countries and in Germany). Even worse is that CofS is being more and more ignored by the rest of Christianity, having become ostracised to the Russian Church, with frosty relationship to the Roman Church and severely criticised by CofE regarding homosexual blessings. Ad to that a steady decline in membership and in worship attendance and you realise that CofS is a sinking vessel. If you also include [to your conclusion regarding the Pentecostalists and Roman Catholics] the steady growth of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches in Sweden, you will have a good picture on how that country's Christianity will look in one or two generations.

Posted by Antony at Friday, 10 March 2006 at 2:20pm GMT

Thankfully, though, the bulk of the population will continue to reject that type of Christianity - better secularism than conservative christianity.

Posted by Merseymike at Saturday, 11 March 2006 at 12:11pm GMT

Merseymike, well, I agree it would be 'better' if this life is all there is and all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist, have the same destiny (which I imagine you would say is extinction - please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption). As St Paul says, 'If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men' (1 Cor 16.19). But we affirm with the Apostle that 'Christ is in us, the hope of glory'. Hallelujah!

Posted by Peter Bergman at Sunday, 12 March 2006 at 6:54am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.