Comments: General Synod not to discuss motion on Islam

Someone who works for General Synod was telling me a few weeks ago about the significant pressure that was developing on Synod's agenda; indeed he was thinking it was quite likely that an expensive November Synod might have to be called such were the number of motions and amount of legislative business that was emerging.

So, despite conservative conspiracy theorists, there's no attempt to stifle debate (it's now bound to come up in other debates), simply the usual procedures being followed.

I can't admit to being a little disappointed that we're not debating it this time round, however, because I was preparing a stonker of a speech against the motion!

Posted by Simon at Wednesday, 4 June 2008 at 4:46pm BST

Now, here's how this works. Synod is asked to make a statement on the uniqueness of Christ and the appropriateness of "evangelizing" other faiths. Synod, one hopes, is not willing to come out and say that everyone who isn't a Christian is going to Hell and the Church must seek the salvation of these people by any means necessary. It might prefer to make some statement about the uniqueness of the Christian message, even respectfully affirm that we believe the truth of our message for all humankind. It might even claim that Evangelization is better done by example than threat of condemnation. After all, fear of what will happen if you DON'T believe is a poor reason for being a Christian. This would not be enough, and Synod would then be accused of abandoning the Great Commission, of denying the uniqueness of Christ, and on and on. You know the drill. This will all happen now anyway, since refusal even to debate it will be seen as effectively the same thing. Maybe, to quote a Ship of Fools meme, we ought all to get our lawn chairs and imbibation of our choice, have a seat, and watch the show.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 4 June 2008 at 5:57pm BST

Don't forget the popcorn, Ford.

That's the classic conservative line, apart from "the faith once delivered," that "pluralism" denies the "uniqueness of the Christian message." Not to mention that the fall of Christianity in public life has been responsible for the rise in crime, etc. (as one former liberal who swung the other way told me early last May).

Posted by Ren Aguila at Thursday, 5 June 2008 at 1:37am BST

Exactly, Ren. We were society's moral arbitor for so long, happily forcing everyone to do what we said, that we now think that was some sort of God-given state, that we SHOULD do this. The anger, fear, and I honestly believe, pain that many conservatives feel about this makes it impossible for them to even consider that maybe we should look, as Christians OUGHT to look, for other ways to bring the Gospel into the public arena. Look at the triumphalism in the continued claims that liberalism is causing profound drops in church attendance. It is very clear to me that what is driving that is, frankly, hatred of Christianity. There is abundant public mockery of a caricature of conservative Christianity. Liberal Christianity doesn't even seem to be on the radar, which should give Liberals pause: if they are not prominent enough to be ridiculed by people who hate the Church, they aren't having much impact. But it's as if the things being mocked are not even visible to conservatives, so great is their anger at "liberals" that they can only put the blame there.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 5 June 2008 at 4:18pm BST
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.