Comments: Church and State II – a further guide

“A more controversial corollary of which is:

• Should the Church be more active in encouraging supportive MPs to engage in these debates?

Does the author of this article mean - to encourage supportive MPs for a particular issue or to encourage all MPs to take more interest in matters ecclesial?

I favour the latter and would assume that TA readers are of a similar antidisestablishmentarianistic persuasion.

Much of the pleasure in observing the House of Commons debate on the General Synod vote from the Strangers gallery lay in the counterpoint between the arguments of substance by the women bishops supporters and the wheedling oratorical flourishes of seemingly the lone MP, Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) for the opponents. Both aspects had their part to play in creating a successful debate.

Posted by Paul Edelin at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 3:40pm GMT

Thanks For this. It's a great companion piece to "Church and State--an Idiot's Guide".

Posted by Rod Gillis at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 6:07pm GMT

The State is anarchic. Why should the Church of England reflect such values? In the postmodern England; the Church cannot afford to associate with such an entity--on the premise that governing is important.

Posted by S. Wesley Mcgranor at Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 3:07am 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.