Features

Breaking Faith With Britain

June 2008

The rapid fragmentation of society, the emergence of isolated communities with only tenuous links to their wider context, and the impact of home-grown terrorism have all led even hard-bitten, pragmatist politicians to ask questions about “Britishness”: what is at the core of British identity; how can it be reclaimed, passed on and owned by more and more people?

The answers to these questions cannot be only in terms of the “thin” values, such as respect, tolerance and good behaviour, which are usually served up by those scratching around for something to say. In fact, the answer can only be given after rigorous investigation into the history of nationhood and of the institutions, laws, customs and values which have arisen to sustain and to enhance it. In this connection, as with the rest of Europe, it cannot be gainsaid that the very idea of a unified people under God living in a “golden chain” of social harmony has everything to do with the arrival and flourishing of Christianity in these parts. It is impossible to imagine how else a rabble of mutually hostile tribes, fiefdoms and kingdoms could have become a nation conscious of its identity and able to make an impact on the world. In England, particularly, this consciousness goes back a long way and is reflected, for example, in a national network of care for the poor that was locally based in the parishes and was already in place in the 16th century.

In some ways, I am the least qualified to write about such matters. There have been, and are today, many eminent people in public and academic life who have a far greater claim to reflect on these issues than I have. Perhaps my only justification for even venturing into this field is to be found in Kipling when he wrote, “What should they know of England who only England know?” It may be, then, that to understand the precise relationship of the Christian faith to the public life of this nation, a perspective is helpful which is both rooted in the life of this country and able to look at it from the outside.

View Full Article
COMMENTS: 44

COMMENTS

Michael Flowers MBE FRCS
May 30th, 2008
10:05 AM
May I add my voice to those many who will be congratulating the Bishop, and thanking God, for his excellent article. There is however an essential ingredient which may have been taken for granted, but which surely needs special mention. That is the fact that a society can only be transformed by citizens who have themselves been transformed. Jesus spells out that without Him and His promised Holy Spirit we simply do not have the power to make it work. With Him, however, all things become possible. Dear Bishop, thank you, and keep speaking out!

Murr
May 30th, 2008
11:05 AM
Christianity's collapse? What planet are you living on? Britain is now more Christian than at any time in the previous 50 years! We just had a Vatican stooge in power for ten years! Wake up and smell the coffee! If only it really would collapse, and all the other ridiculous sky god religions along with it.

Viktor Kaspruk
May 30th, 2008
11:05 AM
I think that this problem existed long ago. But why so late in the UK have begun to analyze it? ..

In Salad
May 30th, 2008
1:05 PM
Islam was once reputed for its learned scholars. What a pity that no such intellectuals exist within the ranks of political Islamists. The best response they can muster is on the Guardian's Comment Is Free- and who does Bunglawala really represent anyway?

Brian
May 30th, 2008
5:05 PM
This is just plain absurd. It isn't the loss of Christianity that is to blame but the overindulgence of religious superstition in the name of multiculturalism and cultural relativism. I hardly think the answer to one brand of evidenceless obscurantism is another, but rather a heary deense of secular values and Enlightenment thinking ala Ayaan Hirsi Ali. We should tolerate both Islam and Christianity until the point that they claim special rights for beliefs for which they can produce no evidence and make moral claims based on the flimsy formulation "God said so."

Bill Hensley
May 30th, 2008
7:05 PM
To Brian: And on what alternate base would you establish the values of dignity, equality, liberty, safety and hospitality, which are essential to the formation of a civil society? These hard-won principles arose from the Christian tradition which you now seek to discard. They will not stand on their own.

the deity formerly known as nigel6888
May 30th, 2008
9:05 PM
Congratulations on this piece. I and many like me are devastated and disappointed that the Christian faith, and its apparent leaders lack the moral fortitude to defend their corner. My Christianity is unashamedly of the muscular variety, I am intensely proud of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and am very much conscious that western civilisation would not exist without it. That is, without this tradition, there would be no "human rights" "womens rights", electricity, industrial revolution, etc etc.

Peter Brawley
May 31st, 2008
3:05 AM
In the UK and Northern Europe, dignity, equality, liberty, democracy, human rights, freedom of conscience, respect for the common good and hospitality became social & political realities not least via rebellion against established religion. These values "stand more strongly" in mainly irreligious societies than in more religious ones---because over the last hundred years or so, worthies in those countries had the wit to toss out idiotic religious superstitions in favour of secularism & humanism. Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers. That's no accident. Religion debilitates. To argue that we should bring back religion---christian or muslim---is incredibly stupid.

FR Colin Griffiths.S.S.M.
May 31st, 2008
9:05 AM
As an Australian Citizen I am pleased to see Standpoint give such prominace to an article by a Bishop.I feel it is a very good piece , but I am uncomforable with it's general message. Would we be truly in a better place with leaders who were truly confessinfg christians. George Bush certainly gave the impression that he was a christian leader, it has been reported thathis administration made over 900 lies in the lead up to the Iraq war. His former press sectary alleges that his main purpose in going to war was a determination for re election. Jesus called us to laven in the lump , not to be agents of contol and donination.

Oliver Cromwell
May 31st, 2008
11:05 AM
Right on , Rochester! A man after my own heart.

Bill Hensley
May 31st, 2008
4:05 PM
To Peter Brawley: You can as well argue the opposite. The greatest atrocities of the past century have been committed by nations which overtly discarded religion and sought to eliminate its influence. I would also argue that it is a mistake to lump all religions together when you make such sweeping broadsides as "Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers." With Bishop Nazir-Ali, I argue for the distinctiveness of Christianity as a civilizing influence in human culture. I would agree with you that the Islamic doctrine of jihad, the Hindu caste system, and the fatalism of Buddhist thought are negative influences to be resisted. I would put these in stark contrast to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
1:06 AM
To Bill Hensley: Religious and irreligious peoples alike have committed great atrocities. That argument doesn’t favour religion. Nor does the argument that christianity had some civilising influence in some earlier, more barbarous times. Amongst western democracies, the more religious a society is, the more criminal and disordered it is. Within such democracies, the more religious the area, the more criminal it is. Not accidental. Religion intentionally and explicitly teaches irrationality, stupidity and intolerance. True, it gives lip service to kinder doctrines. So do Islam and the rest. But the kernel of its instruction is to believe the dogma or be damned.

Bill Hensley
June 1st, 2008
11:06 AM
Now we have gotten quite specific, Peter. I wonder if you could sketch for me the causal link between Christianity and criminality in the Western democracies.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
4:06 PM
To Bill Hensley: A reasonable, testable explanation for the empirical finding is that religion trains people into irrationality & intolerance, & away from critical, mature thought. Of course a good empirical test would have to distinguish other effects & variables, eg effects of some religious activities on social cohesion.

Norman Hanscombe
June 2nd, 2008
2:06 AM
What a shame fundamentalists of all stipes, be they theists or non-theists, Marxists or Enlightenment Faithful, or anything else, all want to place the blame for the planet's problems at the door of the blind unquestioning beliefs of the adherents of other "answers". None is really interested in examining the role of human nature too carefully, because one thing all faiths have in common is that what they find doesn't always support the kind of "solution" that's too dear to their hearts to risk tight analysis which will endanger their (often noble) plans. Even universities began shying away from analysing popular accepted secular articles of faith in the sixties, so why should religions be held to a higher standard? If we're not careful, next thing you know we'll be questioning astrology, ouija boards, and other growth industries of the sixties. p.s. Your spam test is so difficult to interpret that I began to wonder if I really am human.

Bill Hensley
June 2nd, 2008
3:06 AM
Peter, it appears you have a hypothesis with no data. I don't think there is a causal link between Christianity and criminality. I don't even think there is a correlation between them. Why do you think there is, Peter?

Andrew
June 2nd, 2008
4:06 AM
To Peter Brawley: I like to know why you see religion more as a threat than a chance. Because unconsciously you very well know that the promises of the Entlightement - such as the reign of Universal Reason/Humanism sometime in the future - will or can never be achieved? The Enlightement has produced many great things, but also evils such as communism, nationalism, environmental destruction, etc etc. These evils are proof of the fallen nature of man. Are you rejecting religious truths because you cannot accept than man is by his nature not as reasonable as you need him to be? The rule of Universal Reason, of Humanism only makes sense if man is inherently reasonable - but one can empirically observe in reality that he is not and will never be. I feel this is somewhat at the heart of those who get nervous in the face of religious certainties. The ideals (or dogmas) of the Enlightement are exactly this: mere fantastic ideals, not realities reflecting the nature of man. The not so honorable history of the 20th century shows us to be wary of such a dogmatic understanding of Reason. But religion has never made a case against reason itself. Reason (not as a dogma like in the Enlightement) is deeply imbedded in Christianity. It is time for a truce between reason and faith! It is time to rediscover the roots of reason in our religious tradition without neglecting the good fruits of the Enlightement.

ian tattum
June 2nd, 2008
2:06 PM
It is always interesting to witness the great gulf between the reported words of a commentator and the actuality. I don't agree with all of the bishop's arguments- he slightly understates the role of islamic scholars in bringing Aristotle to the West and overstates the impact of the synthesis between evangelicalism and the enlightenment- the role of Sydney Smith should never be underestimated- on social progress.Over all a thoughtful and informed piece. It is always a pity that the comment section of any journal is so quickly colonised by grumpy atheists who have an alarmingly deficient interest in historical truth or reasoned debate.For people so averse to fairy tales they swallow some secular myths mightily easily!

Iftikhar Ahmad
June 2nd, 2008
3:06 PM
We live in a shrunken world and millions of people are on the move; one of our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference – different skin colours, different beliefs and different way of life. According to a study by COMPAS, Muslims born and educated were given the impression of outsiders. The perception among Muslims is that they are unwelcome in Britain is undermining efforts to help them integrate into wider society. Most of them say that they have experienced race discrimination and religious prejudice. Muslims and Islam is promoted a fundamentalist and separatist by the western elite, which have negative impact on community and social cohesion. The number of racist incidents occurring in London Borough of Redbridge’s schools have reached their highest levels since record begin. A City or a locality, where Muslims are in majority is a ghetto. There is a tendency for people of similar backgrounds to live together in neighourhoods. The term”ghettoisation” is inappropriate. The original ghettos in Europe during the middle ages were set up by law to confine the Jewish population to one area of a city. According to a research by an Australian academic that Muslim communities in Britain are being increasingly ghettoized in a trend that set back hopes of assimilation by years. Britain has now eight cities in the top 100 most ghettoized cities. The people from the Pakistani community in Bradford and Oldham and Leicester had trebled during the decade. A report by an academic Dr Alan Carling, that Bradford risks becoming a front line in the global clash between the West and Islam. But Islam and Muslims do not clash with the concepts of pluralism, secularism and globalisation. The native flight from Bradford’s inner-city wards showed clear evidence of an increase in segregation in the city since 1991. Native parents are avoiding sending their children in state schools where Muslims and other minorities are in majority. The dominance of Pakistani Muslims in the city has meant that Bradford has become bi-cultural. Immigrants are the creators of Britain new wealth, otherwise, inner cities deprived areas could not get new lease of life. The native Brits regard such areas as ghettoes. Integration is not religious and cultural, it is economic and Muslims are well integrated into British society and at the same time they are proud of their Islamic, linguistic and cultural identities, inspite of discrimination they have been facing in all walks of life. According to UN, 80% of British Muslims feel discriminated. They are less burden on social services. Immigrants made up 8.7% of the population, but accounted for10.2% of all collected income tax It is often quoted by the Western media that Muslim schools ghettoizse the children, and even lead to their radicalisation if they are not integrated. There is no evidence that faith schools lead to a “ghettoized education system. In British schools, pupils are encouraged to focus too much on their similarities rather than their differences. The integrationist approach merely results in Muslims feeling that their faith, language and culture is not respected. Iftikhar Ahmad www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Peter Brawley
June 2nd, 2008
5:06 PM
To Bill Hensley: Some of the empirical findings are in a well known paper in J Relig Sci. You asked for an explanation of them. Science proceeds by replicating facts, conjecturing explanations, and testing them---thereby finding more facts. If you want to take a scientific approach to relationships between religion & crime, that's what you do.

Peter Brawley
June 2nd, 2008
5:06 PM
Andrew, you’ve no info about what I “unconsciously” know, or what I might “need” humankind to be. As far as I know, I don't need humankind to be anything. By definition “religious certainty” (like some other certainties) is delusional. Religion opposes reason ever time it trains a person to believe religious fairy tales over rational analysis of evidence.

Bill Hensley
June 3rd, 2008
2:06 AM
Peter, thank you for the explanation of the scientific method. However, what I was asking for is the evidence which supports your assertions. You have proposed a hypothesis which I consider contrary to reason and experience: that there is a causal link between Christianity and criminality in the Western democracies. I asked why you believe that. You mentioned an article in a journal unfamiliar to me. Can you provide a link to the article? If not, could you summarize it for me here? Of course, I am interested in the data and not just the conclusions.

Brian
June 3rd, 2008
4:06 PM
To Bill Hensley: You have got to be kidding. The Bible teaches none of those values - one need not be a Christian to believe in any of these values you specify. Like all moderate enlightened Christians,, you have smuggled enlightenment values into the text, choosing to ignore things that don't support them. All those uncomfortable parts about child marriage, god-sanctioned genocide, etc. are chlaked up to "historical contingency" while the pleasant teachings of Jesus (of which Paul and others seemed either ignorant or more or less unconcerned with) are held up as fine moral teachings despite that fact that not a single sentmiment therein can't also be found in an earlier pagan work. And it wasn't their atheism that led to the depradations of communism and other totalatarisms, it was their commitment to worldviews, ideologies, and truth claims that were eerily similar in form to those of religion.

S Lawyer
June 3rd, 2008
7:06 PM
Methinks the bishop wants to turn Britain into a Christian republic the way some Pakistani generals turned Pakistan into an Islamic republic. Please spare us the theocratic nonsense, Dr Nazir-Ali. And stop trying to be the unthinking man's Francis Shaffer.

John D
June 3rd, 2008
10:06 PM
The objectivist moral claims of Judeo-Christian values have been replaced by Relativist 'values'. Relativism cannot stand up to a self-confident objectivist Islamism especially when the latter is backed by the treat of violence (eg Muhammad cartoons). Many Relativists undermine Judeo-Christian objective values, and give Islamism a free pass.

Anonymous
June 4th, 2008
3:06 AM
The truth is that if you really do your homework in truly honest and rigorous manner you will find that that there is no basis in Truth and Reality for any of the usual Christian beliefs or propositions. Which is not to say that the Indivisible Conscious Light that IS Real God does not exist.

Bill Hensley
June 4th, 2008
5:06 AM
Brian, of course you will find some elements of truth in most religions. Almost no one gets everything wrong! But each of the values mentioned by Bishop Nazir-Ali does in fact find full expression in the Christian scriptures. Human dignity: "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king." (I Peter 2:17) Equality: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) Liberty: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." (Galations 5:13) Safety: "The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10) Hospitality: "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2) Just to illustrate the unity of thought in the New Testament I pulled all of the above from the Epistles rather than the Gospels. Certainly each of these values was also taught by Jesus himself. Critics of Christianity like to treat the Bible piecemeal. They try to set Paul against Jesus, and the New Testament against the Old. But if you want to understand the core teachings of Christianity, I encourage you to focus on the whole New Testament, taken together, as being the final and fullest revelation of God's message to us. The Old Testament does not contradict the New, but must be understood in light of it. A complete picture of God must include both his judgement of sin and his sacrificial love. If you focus on one to the exclusion of the other you get a distorted picture. These values did not suddenly appear in Europe during the Enlightenment. It is better to say that the Enlightenment thinkers tried to liberate these ideas from their Christian substrate. In so doing, they unintentionally made them easier to discard in later centuries when such concepts became inconvenient to those who desired to wield absolute power with no moral constraints on their actions. When one understands that these values are rooted in the commandments of Almighty God it is evident that the cannot be ignored without disastrous consequences.

Steve Meikle
June 7th, 2008
7:06 PM
Europe was never christian for all its self proclamation thereof. when Europe called itself christian they burned heretics and disembowelled traitors: such curelty is at total variance to the commandment of christ to love one another and to show mercy. Thus it was never christianity that was abandoned, rather the pretense. And thank God, I say. After all would you really want to be legally compelld to go to churh every sunday on pain of a fine that constituted a day or more of your pay (as in Elizabethan England) Human nature is such that no public religion that calls itself christianity will ever be such. And this is because Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world.

Steve Meikle
June 7th, 2008
8:06 PM
Too any people think that civility, honesty, loyalty to parents etc are christian values. This would only be the case if they, or their invocation, were unique to the gospel of christ. But they aren't. Confucius advocated these self same things. Aztecs brought up their children to be this also, even when they slaughtered prisoners of war for their gods. Christianity is something else, a love i have never seen in any church. Thus the church and public religion of Europe for the last 1700 years was never christianity. As for democracy stemming from christianity, the limitation of royal power was a germanic idea in which the king was the first of equals among his war band. There is in fact no trace of democracy in the Bible I am a convinced christian, but let us not obscure the issue by bad history or sentimental adherance to a cultural tradition

Mo
June 9th, 2008
7:06 AM
Iftikhar Ahmad: It's a chicken-and-egg problem. Muslims behave badly and think they're treated badly. Which came first? Does it matter? The larger issue is whether Britain should change to accommodate Muslims. I don't think it should. And if Muslims disagree and insist on living in a manner that is not only alien to Britain but in many respects opposed to it then they have no choice but to live in ghettoes or leave the country. We non-Muslims ought to make it easy for Muslims to prosper if they live in harmony with our culture, deferring to our ways, and extremely difficult to do so otherwise. If Islam had deep roots in the country I might argue otherwise, but it doesn't. There were 20,000 Muslims in the country in 1950. Most of the two million who are here now came looking for a better life. If they or their children haven't found it, it should be just as easy to go away.

Robert Callow
June 9th, 2008
11:06 AM
Yes bishop, a justified concern does exist over the absence of moral development in a growing proportion of children in western society. There is a justified concern also being expressed in many western countries over the inadequate deterrents reflected in the sentences or punishments now being given to the worst kind of criminals, i.e. those who are guilty of having complete contempt for their victims. Yes, these concerns are nothing new, since the 1960s many including myself have watched this situation grow steadily worse as decreasing deterrents and a forsaking of established values have worked as an incentive for all kinds of evil. But probably the greatest concern for me right now is that we live in a democracy where the majority of voters have freely and repeatedly elected politicians who, in these last few decades, have continued passing legislation that allows and encourages evil to increase. Despite all of the promises from politicians, nothing effective comes from them, nothing is being achieved by them that would curb and overcome this worsening evil in our society. Under this growing and yet deceptive evil many of the electorate have grown ignorant, having now only contempt for the truth; and for as long as enough of these blind and gullible voters continue to hold sway at elections, so also will evil naturally continue to increase in strength, but not just in the West: Working through unseen enemies of the West, a most dangerous evil with all it's twisted reasoning and paranoia is growing and reaching out for the knowledge and power to destroy cities. Leaders of the revival of radical Islam who are now affecting millions with their extreme hatred for the growing depravity working through offensive western culture, which threatens to dominate or destroy their faith, have already begun their quest for weapons of mass destruction. A growing number of Muslims then, as they become radicalized, are able to believe more easily they are the ones fighting the just war and that it is good for them to offer their lives to kill or maim whoever seriously threatens their religion and authority... and let no one underestimate how Islam controls those who take the word and the way of this religion seriously...

Anonymous
June 9th, 2008
4:06 PM
Generalisations abounding: 'doctrine of jihad', 'caste system', Buddhist 'fatalism. How glib, & easy to dismiss what one doesn't begin to know or understand. What could be closer in so many regards than the 3 monothestic, Abrahamic religions? Those whose followers at times go at each other vigorously, furiously, & unfortunately, even viciously. The more I travel and live in various continents, the more I find people have in common, and the differences appear in a relative perspective. On the other hand, I find it sheer horror to deal with the kind of divisiveness that professedly religious people manage to spew, and tangle up in cultural, ethnic, etc frays.

Mik
June 10th, 2008
5:06 AM
There is a lot of insecurity and confussion in Britain otday. This has had a terrible effect on its youth. Studies have confirmed this. A young person having the same faith as the Queen is punished because she does not bless gay marriage. Thwo others were threatened with arrest by a British police officer - a Muslim, I believe - because they were talking about their faith to some muslims. Apparently, they have no right to be in that part of London! It's a Muslim area!!!

Christopher Brown
June 10th, 2008
4:06 PM
Fear, Fear and another time Fear. Given the fact that the Church as a whole gave up the prohibition of usury, is it any wonder that the church has been marginalised as a force for social justice? The prohibition of usury is divine and when you throw it out then all other aspects of faith become relative along with it. The next battle is not with Islam or the Muslims, it is with the injustice and inequality brought upon us by the banking, corporate, and stock exchange systems.

Mik
June 11th, 2008
5:06 AM
Atheistic leaders in the USSR and China slaughtered millions of their own citizens. Millions more were tortured and those that are alive will not agree with some of the outlandish statements made by religion-knockers here.

John Scott
June 11th, 2008
1:06 PM
The intellectual history outlined here is, frankly, so oversimplified as to be incredibly misleading (an obvious example, one cannot simply lead from the neo-Scholastics concerned with the Americas to John Locke: a hundred years and Northern European permutations are something of a gaping chasm). We are fortunate indeed that the current Archbishop of Canterbury is not given to making such intellectually dubious pronouncements.

Richard Calhoun
June 12th, 2008
11:06 AM
The Churches only have themselves to blame, they have conspired with socialism since 1945 and abdicated their responsibility to the people to the 'Welfare State'

Miles Sinclair
June 25th, 2008
7:06 AM
If christians want to believe in their god, then go ahead. BUT - if you are planning on "sharing" the good news that we all deserve death and eternal punishment - and that is what we will get if we don't believe what you believe, then expect a challenge. And it will be loud, and reasoned and equally passionate.

Amy Jayne
June 26th, 2008
10:06 PM
This should not be about whose religion is "right" or "wrong". This should be about the ability of out nation's religions - and athiests - to co-exist without conflict or without the need to overshadow one-another. I am only 19 and yet I am greatly saddened by what I see has become of this once great country. Britain is weak and lacking in identity. This is nothing to do with how many Muslims we have, how many Christians we have or how many Hindus we have. It is to do with how many horrible, nasty excuses for human beings we have roaming our streets and running our country, and the rifts that they driving open between our many wonderful communities. The religious and non-religous alike should be uniting against these hatemongers, not each other.

Robert Callow
June 27th, 2008
5:06 AM
Miles, The bad news is that because of man's increasingly deceitful and proud state of mind, we are willfully killing ourselves at an increasingly alarming rate: The knowledge and power to completely destroy deluded mankind becomes increasingly more available to an increasing number of people who are growing increasingly more evil. The good news however, is that God has made known to us how to overcome this death culture and to look forward to His promised paradise where the infinite imagination of the Spirit of truth is the infinite realm of everything, where pure love's endless glory is perfect love's free and endless creation. Freedom is the freedom to choose.

RacFos19
July 3rd, 2008
1:07 AM
When I was young I attended Church every Sunday with my family and was ridiculed for doing so by the neighbourhood children. As I grew up and learnt more about religion and the world in general: new discoveries, technologies and ideologies I too turned away from God. How in an age of reason could a person believe in and worship children's stories and fairy tales? And then I continued to grow up and discovered that although one didn't necessarily have to believe in the supernatural aspects of God one could believe in his teachings. Being a good and moral person how could one scorn the teachings of the bible? I was happy to discover that a man born some two hundred years ago thought along the same lines that I was thinking, I am of course referring to Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of America, who took a pair of scissors to the Bible and cut out the supernatural aspects and repackaged it as "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". However after looking at the long-term impacts that removing the Church and God from studies, as he perpetrated, and day to day life I realised that you can't have one without the other. Some think that I am quite childlike in my belief that man can and will be better. At one time politicians were of quite good moral stock, yes you could always find a bad apple in the barrel but generally speaking recent history has shown that those who democratically governed us did so with truth and honesty. I do not believe that it is childish or naive to think that that time will come again, and is, in fact, closer than we realise. Politicians today have a bad rap and in most cases quite deservedly, but the new generation of politicians will learn from their predecessors they will see that they cannot base their careers and campaigns on lies and deceit because it is getting harder and harder to fool the public, and so the new stock of politicians wont be the same mealy mouthed rats that we have grown so accustomed too. They will be of the most impeccable scruples, morals and decentness. To believe in God is not to believe in "sky Gods" to believe in the teachings of God is not to believe in "nonsense" it is to believe in the better nature of man and to believe that man can and will be better. God doesn't insist that you genuflect to him, or that you partake in costly rituals. He only asks that you love him and that you love your neighbour. God will forgive even the most destitute sinner if that sinner truly repents. God is merciful but only if the mercy is deserved, many people have the mistaken belief that if you say sorry for your sins that it gives you leave to sin again: because you can always say sorry again and God loves you and will forgive you. God does love you and he will always forgive you, but remember whatever God does to you he does because he loves you. If you are of the stock that sins, makes a false apology and then sins again, he will find a way of making you truly repent before opening the doors of Heaven to you.

kentun8
July 13th, 2008
11:07 PM
To go back to the article... does anyone really know what the bishop was saying? He proposed "a rigorous investigation into the origins of nationhood", to show, I think, that Christian values moulded those that are essentially British. But his grasp of historical development is not just fuzzy but absent altogether. To cite one secular example, there was no consensus between Evangelicalism and the Enlightenment, the former arose in protest against the latter's diminishment of faith and Biblical belief. In his own backyard of church governance, the founding documents of Anglicanism, - the preface to the 1662 Prayer Book and the Thirty-Nine Articles - reflect the pervasive influence of secular values such as political tolerance, individual rights (mostly founded on property), and respect for personal conscience on the life of the church, rather than the other way round. And a phrase "The Westphalian consensus is dead" suggests that he does not even know what the Treaties of Westphalia were concerned with - the right of an outside force to interfere across national frontiers to right what it perceives as a moral wrong; if the concept of nationhood that grew ut of those treaties is really dead, why are we tying ourselves in knots about conditions inside Zimbabwe's borders, as we did over Bosnia, Kosovo, etc? I know the bishop is the media's conservative darling, but he is not the real article. He has no sense of the abiding values of the Anglican church, its tolerance, its constant adjustment to secular values, and its continuous self-criticism. As one of the bishop's flock, I have listened intently and repeatedly to his sermons, and I know him personally to be a kind and charming man, but I have never known him present an intelligent, clearly argued statement of what he actually believes.Or more alarmingly still, what he actually knows.

zodiaclove
September 30th, 2008
11:09 AM
hola I can't agree with what you said really.... please ellaberate a bit more for me ;D thank you

D. Thornton
October 2nd, 2008
7:10 PM
Kentun8 - I have also heard the bishop speaking, & am extremely impressed by his grasp of what is happening in this country. As for the Anglican church's "constant adjustment to secular values" - that is its nemesis: it is becoming secularised & will eventually have no purpose for existing.

POST A COMMENT

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.