Though I'm Catholic and I have no vested interest in the situation, I tend to think so. What do you think? Read this story about something Anglican Bishop Nazir Ali said: Church of England must free itself of the ‘dead hand’ of Parliament: Bishop Nazir Ali
I think so...but I'm American and the idea of an established state church, protestant or catholic, is runs afoul of my civil libertarian tendencies
I think it's rather foolish for a bunch of Americans to meddle in the affairs of the Church of England. Let the English assemble the Church in their own land. Consequently, I do think the church and state should have some relationship.
And that's what caused the persecution of Thomas Helwys and the first English Baptists, and other dissenters. Church-state union has always been the cause and agent of persecution., in England, the USA, and everywhere else. Religious liberty and other great spiritual principles have no borders.
Don't have to do that, as church history is one of my specialties. Read up on the case of Thomas Helwys. He was lucky; he only died in jail at age 40 at the hands of the Anglican state church.
I rather fear about the danger the state does to the church, than the church does to the state. There will always be people hurting others. Right now there there is a separation of church and state... does that stop the government from raiding homes and arresting the innocent? Not that we would want the church to sully her hands in the affairs of the state, but, it is hardly the worst crime out there. Far worse is the crime of the state meddling with the church, for then there is a danger to the very souls involved. Our Episcopalian church has suffered under tremendous heresy, without any state involvement at all, while the Church of England is still on the balance of orthodoxy, even with the hobgoblin of the state, wrapped like a leech around her neck....
The last person to be burned for religious reasons in England was 1612, wasn't it? And had not England has issued laws for religious toleration in 1689, practically the first nation in the world to do so? I had not seen you mention anything like that in all posts I had seen from you... all I had seen (with due respect) were one-sided portrayals to sully and demean the english church wherever possible, by all methods fair and unfair. It sounds like in a history according to you, England was burning people up until the 20th century, until a hegemony of Quakers and Anabaptists brought peace to the world...
No borders, but a cornucopia of problems. Religious liberty allows the Westboro Baptist lunatics to protest at military funerals, it allows modern day Nazi's to assemble in State Capitol buildings, it allows marijuana use for Rastafarian's, it allows Wiccan Witches to have equal time with Christian ministers at religious gatherings such as prayer convocations. Under the heading of religious liberty, our City was forced to install foot washing stations at our international airport for the Muslim cab drivers who congregated there. Our much touted democracy was also accomplished by a heck of a lot of bloodshed, so I'll reserve comment on what happened 400 years ago in England.:think: Jeff
Hackney, I can't share your ambivalence toward churches that are not my own. We are concerned with absolute universal truth & holy practice: what is most Christian for every human soul? Our care must be placed upon this, regardless of distance or proximity of the issue to ourselves. As to the topic, I believe the C. of E. should be completely separate. If it is faithful in God & confident in the Lord, it can stand on its own two feet without nursing from the state. The reason is not radical liberalism - for I am a proud reactionary conservative Tory in most things. This issue, however, is one of common sense: it's for the health of the Christian religion in England. Church-state marriage is always meant as a way of evangelizing the world by the Church, but it always, always, always without exception leads to the Church being "Devangelized" by the world. The Gospel dies in state churches. The Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Gallican (Roman Catholic) Church in Ancien Régime France, the Evangelical Church in Prussia - none of these churches defended the truth, and indeed, their connection to the state always produced fat bishops who ceased to care about the faith. It became their pockets & wallets, church land & deeds - not about God, Christ, the Church, and the Good News. The Deists of the 18th century, including Voltaire and Rousseau, partly became what they were because of corrupt state churches making religion look contemptible & ridiculous. I agree about going-too-far with allowing Westboro protests, Nazi demonstrations, etc. Technically, the Muslim example is not religious liberty, but an unfair taking advantage of its sympathies. True religious freedom, rightly so-called, would give the Muslims freedom to build their own foot-washing fountain - it would not built the font for them.
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake." Interestingly, at my graduation from the law enforcement academy back in 1990 this verse from Roman's was read, and for the first time I understood that God was working through the government. The Chaplain explained how I was ordained as an officer, to effect change for Him.
The story of your life is a good one: law enforcement is a holy vocation. Romans 13 is a famous verse for humble submission to authority - but does it ask the Church to be subject as a body, and corporately united to the state? After all, the Lord Himself said we must separate God's things from Caesar's things. I always thought Romans 13 had something to do more with not causing rebellion or revolution, rather than falling down and accepting every last thing the state deigns worthy to do. Were we to take the chapter in such a fashion, we would have to accept abortion & myriad other detestable things.
I can only answer from my experience and perspective. When I arrested someone, let's say drug possession, the first thing that happened was the separation of that person from their supply of destruction, then they were isolated from unsavory associations and transactions, and finally they were offered physical, emotional and spiritual help if they desired. Churches of all denominations have a presence in one form or another in prison, and the isolation of a prisoner and his scriptures is sometimes a monastic type experience. I saw God in the prison system, in the Fire Department, in law Enforcement, in the EMS system, in hospitals, and the laws I swore on oath to uphold were nothing more than a re-statement of God's Ten Commandments. While government systems do have abortion access, it also allows anti-abortion counseling and alternatives to be equally promoted. Jeff
Because he dissented from an already reformed and perfectly biblical church. I'm surprised you're defending the Baptist here.
I'm not ambivalent, I stated my opinion. I don't agree to uninformed Americans commented on matters that they probably don't understand. The Gospel is equally killed in non-state churches. Actually, if you compare the C of E with either the Anglican Church of Canada or TEC, I'd say being a state church helps preserve the Gospel.
I believe he's defending freedom of conscience and human decency. I don't believe those are the monopoly of baptists, and definitely shouldn't be alien concepts to Anglicans. To botch a line from Voltaire: I may not believe what you believe, but I'll fight to the death for your right to believe it. We are Christians first, are we not?
So everything just short of burning at the stake is ok? During the rise of the Anglo-catholic movement, Tractarian priests "were suspended, dismissed, assaulted and even jailed for practices that are now the norm, including the use of lighted altar candles." (from here). Even now, can a catholic be a high level member of Her Majesty's government? Didn't Tony Blair wait until after he left his prime minister's position before converting?