Identity crisis in the Church of England

Church confesses its contribution to Jewish suffering

Church leaders adopt anti-Semitic stance against those to whom they owe everything

Christians have a choice: apostasy and judgment, or faithfulness and preparation?

A house theologically divided against itself cannot stand.

In 8 January, the Anglican Centre in Rome issued a joint statement¹ with the Archbishop of Canterbury announcing the appointment of Dr John Shepherd as its Interim Director. Within days it came to light that he had preached a sermon in 2008 questioning the traditional view of Jesus' resurrection.

Immediately there were calls that Shepherd should resign,² and Justin Welby's judgment was openly questioned.³ Following the outcry Shepherd issued a statement seeking to clarify his beliefs⁴ but, as one commentator has observed, it far from confirms his orthodoxy.⁵

Shortly before this debate I was reminded of events 35 years ago surrounding the consecration of another resurrection-denier as a bishop. I believe that those events were a missed opportunity to steer the CofE away from the confused place it has now reached.

The Fire of 1984

A few weeks earlier a non-Christian friend had asked me if I could explain why CofE vicars were unable to understand the violent nature of Islam. My thoughts went immediately to the fire at York Minster which started 36 hours after the Archbishop of York, John Habgood, ordained David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham. Jenkins was on record as not believing in either Jesus’ virgin birth or the resurrection. In the early hours of the following Monday morning, ‘lightning’ struck the Minster, and the roof of the South Transept was consumed in flames. Many saw this as significant because that was the section of the Minster in which hands were laid on Jenkins by Habgood and others.

Faced with such a compelling set of circumstances, the Archbishops of the day did not heed the biblical injunction to ‘consider their ways’ (Hag 5:1). The Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, told The Times that “the Lord was on our side as we battled with those flames.” In a letter to the same paper, Habgood questioned the opinions of some who suggested that God was behind the incident, asking, “What kind of a god do your correspondents believe in?” He concluded that this was “the kind of world from which the Christian Gospel rescued us.”

Faced with such a compelling set of circumstances, the Archbishops of the day did not heed the biblical injunction to ‘consider their ways’ (Hag 5:1).

At the time many suspected that this denial of divine intervention was because the Church’s insurance policies did not cover ‘acts of God’, but were there more fundamental reasons behind their protests?

The South Transept of York Minster ablaze, 1984. PA/PA Archive/PA Images.Habgood’s god was shaped by the theology of deism, in which God takes no action in the world. This argument is consistent with Jenkins’ denial of the virgin birth and resurrection, for a prerequisite of both is faith that God is actively involved in our lives. The Archbishops therefore colluded in twin denials: the first being that Jenkins’ disbelief was of any consequence; secondly that the Creator remains involved with people.

Was God Serious?

It is easy for some Christians to react to major traumatic events when they occur with claims that they are expressions of divine anger. It is much harder to then watch through several subsequent decades of no apparent further consequences and still believe that God was serious when he broke out “like fire” (Amos 5:6) in 1984.

Elijah, however, did not meet the Lord in the storm, earthquake or fire, but through his still, small voice (1 Kings 19). God does not always work within our human time-frames; in order to understand his purposes, we must draw near him and listen intently.

Enoch was a prophet who warned of coming judgment 1,000 years before the Flood. Similarly, Israel rejected the Lord as their king over 1,000 years before Jesus’ incarnation, but they only spoke out their rebellion a few hours before his crucifixion (1 Sam 8:7; John 19:15). At this point there was no sudden thunder from Heaven, no immediate sword of the Lord - it was almost 40 more years before they reaped what they had sown.

When answering my non-Christian friend, I realised that many clergy are now incapable of discerning good from bad, unwilling to take God at his word and unable to understand his ways and purposes, as the recent debate around Rev Shepherd illustrates. But there are consequences of disbelief: throughout the Scriptures we discover that the Lord uses both nature and people to discipline those who are known by his name (Heb 12:4-8) and that he judges them more stringently than unbelievers.

The Lord uses both nature and people to discipline those who are known by his name (Heb 12:4-8) and judges them more stringently than unbelievers.

People Who Lack Knowledge

Israel was warned of the dangers of disbelief by various prophets. One was Hosea, who highlighted the consequences of not seeking truth, mercy and a knowledge of the Lord. Hosea specifically warned that God’s people would be destroyed for their lack of knowledge, adding, “Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (4:6).

Three decades after the York fire, we are in a situation where the ‘children’ of that generation are now in leadership. They bear all the signs of having embraced the disbelief of their forefathers and having forgotten the law of God. They are people who have not had their senses trained to discern between good and evil (Heb 5:12-14). Though the current Archbishop of Canterbury is from the evangelical stable, he seemingly approves of secular sexual ideologies which seek to eradicate all memory that the Lord created us male and female. Thankfully not all in the CofE agree – over 2,600 have now signed an open letter urging the House of Bishops to reconsider their position on transgender ‘celebration’ services.⁶

The CofE was built on disjointed foundations, and any house thus theologically divided against itself cannot stand (Matt 12:25). 35 years after the events of 1984, therefore, that we have arrived at this current state of affairs should be no surprise.⁷ But where is God?

It may seem that since 1984, the Lord’s response has involved little more than starting a fire. But if we join the dots of disbelief in that institution and elsewhere, we will appreciate that he has not forgotten, nor is he slow in fulfilling his promises: in fact, he is enduringly patient, wanting all to be given opportunity to come to know the truth (2 Pet 3:9). Only then, when it is his time, will he judge them in righteousness.

The Lord has not forgotten: in fact, he is enduringly patient, wanting all to be given opportunity to come to know the truth (2 Pet 3:9).

Many faithful clergy and congregations are ready to leave the CofE altogether, while others continue to hope that the tide will turn. There has never been a time like the present – as the hallmarks of judgment described in Romans 1 manifest across the nations - for believing Anglicans to seek the Lord’s heart and guidance.

I’m not sure if my non-Christian friend has accepted that the disbelief of their predecessors is the reason why many vicars are unable to discern the spirit behind Islam, but I pray that one day he will embrace the Son of God who was born of a virgin and whose transformed body was raised from the dead. Would that the leaders of the established Church would do the same.

References

1 Anglican Centre in Rome: Appointment of an Interim Director for the Anglican Centre in Rome.

2 Bird, S and Wyatt, T. Archbishop of Canterbury's envoy who disputes the resurrection of Christ urged to quit Vatican post. The Telegraph, 12 January 2019

3 Ashenden, G. The appointment of a heterodox priest as new Director to the Anglican Centre in Rome. ‘What would Jesus do?’ is not what Welby did.

4 Anglican Centre in Rome: A statement from the Very Rev Dr John Shepherd.

5 Believing in the body: Reflections of an Anglican Theologian.

6 See https://www.responsetohob.co.uk/.

7 The CofE is not alone. In most denominations leaders are falling over themselves to embrace the godlessness prevailing in the nation.

See also: 'Joining the Dots of Disbelief in the Church of England' by Randall Hardy.

Background links

July 9, 1984: Lightning bolt is responsible for catastrophic York Minster blaze | BT

Memories of York Minster fire in 1984 | York Press

How the York Minster fire sparked an unholy row in The Times | YorkMix

The fire at York Minster, July 9th 1984 | Prophetic Telegraph

THE UK DROUGHT 1984, Weather Vol 39(11) | DeepDyve

The institutional Church has capitulated completely to transgender ideology.

At the General Synod meeting in July 2017, the CofE formally agreed to welcome and affirm transgender individuals, as part of Justin Welby’s agenda of ‘radical inclusion’. At the time, the Synod agreed merely to ‘consider’ how to go about this (official theological debates are not expected to conclude until 2020) and the idea of a new liturgy was later rejected. Now, somewhat confusingly, a guidance document has been released for clergy, adapting existing liturgy to mark gender transition.

Some are already claiming it to be compulsory, prompting calls for clarification from the House of Bishops, which produced the document in conjunction with three transgender vicars.¹

The guidance not only asks clergy to welcome transgender individuals ‘unconditionally’ into their congregations; it instructs them to celebrate gender transition with a special service conveying the Church’s blessing on the person’s new gender and new name. So the CofE now calls for transgenderism to be celebrated as part of our God-given human diversity!

Statements of opposition have been released from such as GAFCON and Synod member Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, who remarks that the guidance “continues the Church of England’s devastating trajectory towards an outright denial of God and his word”.

Indeed, it is difficult to see the document as anything else but another step towards – or off – a cliff from which there may be no possibility of return for Britain’s established Church.

Affirmation and Celebration

The guidance starts with the unequivocal statement: “The Church of England welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people, equally with all people, within the body of Christ, and rejoices in the diversity of that body into which all Christians have been baptized by one Spirit.”²

It goes on to make suggestions for services to mark gender transition, recommending readings and including advice for rites, gifts and certificates. There is no mention at all of the age of participants; one is left to assume that if you are old enough to be confirmed in the Church of England, you are old enough to change your gender and receive a formal blessing from your vicar.

The CofE now calls for transgenderism to be celebrated as part of our God-given human diversity!

At least there can be no allegations of obfuscating the issue: the CofE’s position is as plain as day and makes no attempt to concede anything to those who hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching on these matters.

As previously with the issue of homosexuality, Christian welcome and care are conceived of only in terms of affirmation and celebration, as if the former were not possible without the latter.

Unsurprisingly, then, the guidance omits mention of the deep psychological, physiological, emotional, social and spiritual issues which accompany transgenderism and which – one would think – would be of central importance to address in ‘pastoral’ guidance to clergy seeking to discharge proper care for their congregants. Only last month, a tortured trans person wrote to The Telegraph in protest of the Government’s proposals to make transition easier, saying “I would not want others considering such drastic, irreversible action to end up like me, lost in a twilight world of fear and loneliness.”³

In its celebratory stance, the guidance rejects any sense that change may be necessary, as it is with everyone - not in order to come to Christ but as the only possible consequence of receiving Christ - as unfair, unequal and un-Christian. It therefore leaves by the wayside that part of the Gospel which involves repentance, turning away from ungodly lifestyles and being set free from the power of sin to live a completely new life of righteousness, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Hijacking Baptism

Except that, oddly enough, that part of the Gospel isn’t left by the wayside entirely. Instead, it is inverted and appropriated, particularly through the hijacking of the concept of baptism, which the guidance document recommends that clergy reference as part of their celebration services.

Baptism is commended to unbaptised transgender individuals as the “natural liturgical context for recognizing and celebrating their identity in Christ and God’s love for them”. Those who have already been baptised are encouraged to re-affirm their commitment under their new name, with the sprinkling of water and the use of anointing oil.

Our established Church is misappropriating one of the deepest and most profound symbolic acts God has given humankind.

The guidance states that “it is important not to give the impression of a second baptism”, since baptism is a statement of faith in Christ and should only be done once. However, its mere referencing as part of marking gender transition confuses the issue of identity and implies strongly that transition should be viewed as a profound spiritual step worthy of public celebration; even as comparable with/part of receiving ‘new life’ in Christ: “In the journey of a trans person this liturgy will probably constitute a watershed in their Christian discipleship.”

So, our established Church is misappropriating one of the deepest and most profound symbolic acts God has given humankind, not only to mark something other than Christian conversion (that alone is deeply disturbing) but to affirm practices and lifestyles which the Bible clearly teaches are part of our fallen nature and sinful world – things that should be shed upon receiving Christ.

The depth of this perfidy is difficult to verbalise. Theologian Ian Paul argues, “not only is [baptism] central to Christian understandings of initiation and discipleship, baptism actually enacts bodily death and bodily resurrection in the immersion in and coming up out of the water. We tamper with these foundational understandings at our peril…Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.⁴

Inverting the Gospel

As part of their services, clergy are encouraged to offer individuals some kind of written commemoration, like a certificate or an inscribed Bible, to mark the occasion – using their new name and preferred gender pronoun, of course.

Outrageously, the guidance actually tries to justify this biblically, saying “It should be noted that the giving or adoption of a new name has a long history in the Judeo-Christian tradition as may be evidenced from Scripture.” Later, passages such as the changing of Sarai’s name to Sarah, or Jacob’s name to Israel, are recommended for use in the service.

It would be laughable if it were not so awful. Again, we see transgenderism not only being celebrated, but being made equivalent to a life-changing spiritual milestone - even to the biblical concept of leaving behind one’s former life as part of Godly spiritual transformation.

This amounts to little more than a hijacking of Christianity to serve transgender ideology, in a barefaced inversion of the Gospel that should be untenable to any believing CofE member – congregation or clergy.

Heaping Judgment Upon Itself

Caught up in all this, of course, are well-meaning members of the CofE who are trying avidly to avoid a Christianity that forces people with gender confusion to suffer in silence or feel rejected by God. But responding with a Christianity that sanctions and encourages this confusion (and all the demonic life upheavals to which, unchecked, it can lead) as somehow a normal expression of being made in God’s image, to be embraced and celebrated as part of a faithful Christian life, is simply abusive of those who are suffering, who are in desperate need of God’s loving rescue. It is not real love and it is not true Christianity.

This ill-conceived ‘guidance’ document goes beyond a poor understanding of Scripture to an inexcusable warping of the Gospel, affirming practices which deny and deface God’s beautiful, deliberate creation of man and woman: even deigning to call these practices biblical. Truly, the CofE is calling good evil and evil good.

This guidance document goes beyond a poor understanding of Scripture to an inexcusable warping of the Gospel.

It is a frightening fulfilment of Romans 1:32, that “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (my emphasis).

The CofE is harming the vulnerable and heaping judgment upon itself – as is already evident from its plummeting membership and deep divisions. And the unbelieving world justifiably heaps contempt on its pathetic attempts to curry favour.

Thankfully, it is the Lord’s responsibility to sort out this dire situation. Nevertheless, believing Christians can at least defend those ministries who support people trying to escape and recover from LGBTQ+ lifestyles, as well as ‘dissenting’ clergy who take a stand against the prevailing direction of the Synod. God help us all.

References

1 See the official press release for more information.

2 Read the guidance document here.

3 Read the full letter on this page.

4 Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome. Blog post, 13 December 2018.

Moral decadence and cowardice…or demonically inspired madness.

Ely Cathedral proclaims solidarity with the LGBT community and flies the rainbow flag at the city’s first ever Gay Pride Parade¹: yet more evidence, if any were needed, of the Church of England’s growing celebration of apostasy.

Let us be clear, the Bible unequivocally prohibits any and all behaviours identified as sexual sin, which includes fornication, adultery, homosexuality and incest – in fact anything outside marriage between one man and one woman for life. It also clearly states that in the beginning God created Adam. Then, because there wasn’t any fit helper or companion that could be found for the man, and he was lonely, God took one of his ribs and made a ‘woman’.

So from the beginning the man and the woman were a part of each other. They were ‘bone of bone’ and ‘flesh of flesh’, and together they ‘completed’ each other. God’s command and gift to them was to live with each other in lifelong and exclusive union, so that they might support each other, and together care for any children they might have.

That’s the template for humanity and the way we are made – not as gender-neutral beings who can choose for ourselves if we want to identify as men, women, or anything in between, but as biological beings with clear identifying characteristics based on our sex at birth.

The template for humanity, the way we are made, is not as gender-neutral beings who can choose for ourselves how to identify, but as biological beings with clear identities from birth.

Of course this isn’t to say that on occasion things don’t go wrong: sadly, a very few babies are born with ambiguous genitalia, just as others are born with life-threatening conditions or disability – and when that happens, all alike need help. But the starting point is that we are created male or female – it’s in our DNA - and we are designed to live in lifelong, exclusive ‘relationship’ with someone of the opposite sex. For the Church, in its wisdom, to hold or maintain anything that deviates from this fundamental order is a denial of Christian faith, and apostasy.

Assault Now Permitted

At a similar event to that in Ely, earlier this summer in Bournemouth an elderly gentleman was physically assaulted by a gang of LGBT thugs, for daring to say homosexuality was a sin prohibited in the Bible. You’d think on the basis of age alone such bully-boy tactics would have provoked public outrage and calls for punishment of the offenders. But no! Apparently in 21^st Century Britain, ‘hate crime’ goes only one way, so that if you’re gay, lesbian or trans-gender, you can say and do whatever you want.

Is this really what democracy has become? Where free speech is permitted only for those who follow current – and, by definition, transitory - cultural norms? And is this why the Church has buckled? Is it afraid? Or has it been infiltrated and taken over by the self-serving and/or deliberately malign?

When the Church loses its voice, the rot in society spreads, and the weak and voiceless become increasingly vulnerable to abuse. Now, on the coat tails of adult licence, it is becoming mandatory that children as young as four be inculcated with this sexually damaging ideology that flies in the face of biology and refutes science. At the very least, teaching a child of four that it’s up to them to choose their gender is deeply confusing; at worst it is pure and simple exploitation, prioritising justification for adult behaviours over child welfare. But subsequently teaching children the finer details of anal and oral sex, without mention of the attendant, but well-established, physical risks and harms, is criminal.

The unhappy truth is that we are breeding a damaged generation, caught in the slime of moral degeneracy, and for whom sex in all its forms has become the be-all and end-all of life, with paedophilia and abuse flourishing for the simple reason it is very hard any longer to say ‘no’.

When the Church loses its voice, the rot in society spreads and the weak and voiceless become increasingly vulnerable to abuse.

Enough!

No matter what LGBT and transgender activists would have us believe, sin is not a variable concept subject to cultural change that can be redefined at whim. And God has not become more sophisticated in the two thousand years since his Son walked the Earth calling people to repentance. Nor has he changed his mind about what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour.

The bottom line is, either God is a figment of mankind’s collective and fevered imagination - in which case nothing said in the Bible matters a jot. Or he really is the Supreme Being and Creator of all, and the moral precepts in Scripture stand, in which case we need to get a bit of backbone and defend the faith for which Christ died.

It is not possible to compromise with sin. A little bit of pre-marital sex or adultery isn’t okay, no matter what we teach children today about their sexual rights. Anal sex isn’t ‘normal’. Destroying innocent life before birth because the mother doesn’t ‘feel ready’ is not a woman’s inalienable human right. And self-identifying as a surgically changed man or woman, with a lifetime ahead on drugs, is not fulfilment: it’s mutilation.

As the battle for the soul of our nation grows, the devil still prowls around like a wolf, seeking those he can devour. He is becoming worryingly successful. It is time for the Church and ‘ordinary’ Christians alike to stand up for and defend our faith.

First published on the Voice for Justice UK blog, 21 August 2018. Rev Lynda Rose is Director of VfJUK. 

References

1 See coverage here.

The Lord is building his true Church.

Some 2,000 Anglicans met in Jerusalem last week for the third Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). Only half of those present were clergy but all delegates were Bible-believing Christians, which created a great spirit of unity as they celebrated their theme of ‘Proclaiming Christ Faithfully to the Nations’.

They affirmed that “God’s gospel is tlife-transforming message of salvation from sin and all its consequences through the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ”. They affirmed that “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The conference sent a message to all Anglican churches around the world, warning of the attacks upon the truth of the Gospel that are coming not only externally but also internally from those who seek to re-define the Gospel to make it acceptable in a secular humanist world. They said that the most obvious example is in the area of “gender, sexuality and marriage”.

They also cited the ‘prosperity gospel’ and ‘theological revisionism’, which “recast God’s gospel to accommodate the surrounding culture, resulting in a seductive syncretism that denies the uniqueness of Christ, the seriousness of sin, the need for repentance and the final authority of the Bible.”

The statement also says that “tragically, there has been a failure of leadership in our churches to address these threats to the gospel”. They state that during the past 20 years the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Church have not only failed to uphold godly discipline but refused to recognise the concerns of Bible-believing Christians, choosing instead to denounce GAFCON as a ‘one-issue pressure group’ and to accuse it of promoting schism.

The GAFCON statement said that the Anglican churches in some of the Western nations have led the way in departing from the teaching of the Bible and the historic doctrine of the Church.

GAFCON has recognised that Anglican churches in the Western nations have led the way in departing from the teaching of the Bible.

Boycotting Lambeth?

The GAFCON conference affirmed “We are not leaving the Anglican Communion; we are the majority of the Anglican Communion seeking to remain faithful to our Anglican heritage”. They accused the Episcopal Church of the USA, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Scottish Episcopal Church of all having departed from the Christian faith and become apostate churches. They stopped short of including the Church of England although they specifically called upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, not to invite representatives of these apostate churches to the Lambeth Conference in 2020.

They further recommended that if the Archbishop does not do this, all the GAFCON leaders should boycott Lambeth next time.

This is a serious challenge to the worldwide Anglican Church because the GAFCON leaders claim to represent the vast majority of Anglicans in churches around the world. They say that it is leaders of the Western Anglican churches who have rejected the Bible, turned away from truth and embraced the values of the world. They further claim that it is these Western churches that are creating disunity and that they should repent and return to the historic faith as originally proclaimed in the Bible.

The Glory Will Depart

It looks as though the Lambeth Conference in 2020 will be a watershed for the Anglican Church. Already there has been criticism of the clergy and laypeople who went from Britain and Ireland to attend the Jerusalem conference.

The liberal/LGBTQ+ clergy in the Church of England are strongly represented back home and are no doubt encouraged by having an Archbishop who has publicly stated that he wants the Church to be “more inclusive” – in other words, more friendly to the world and more hostile to Bible-believing Christians.

I personally think it would be a mistake for Bible-believing Anglicans to stay away from the Lambeth Conference two years from now. They should be there declaring their biblical faith in unequivocal terms, and warning about the consequences of departing from the truth. If the Church of England continues on its present path it will be like the Temple in the vision given to Ezekiel of the glory of the Lord departing.

Already, I believe, the angel of the Lord is going through the land to put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in the nation (Ezek 9:4) and who grieve for the unbelief in the Church. Soon the word ICHABOD will be written across the cathedrals of the Church of England.

Already, I believe, the angel of the Lord is going through the land to put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve over the nation (Ezek 9:4) and the unbelief in the Church.

The True Church

But God still has a faithful remnant who have not bowed the knee to Baal – who have not submitted to the pressures and bullying tactics of those who have embraced the worldly values of ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ (usually the most intolerant people!).

As the corrupt institutional structures of the established Church crumble, so God is already raising his new Church in the homes of believers where small groups meet with open Bibles and love in their hearts for one another. They are looking forward to the City with foundations whose architect and builder is God; to the new Church, refined and purified, that he can use to save the nation in the days of trouble that are coming.

This new Church will be the true ekklesia of the Lord, whose trust is in God alone and who have rejected the values of the world for the promise of the Lord: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty” (Zech 4:6).

Postscript

My grandson, Mark Cooper, who is training for the Anglican ministry, was in Jerusalem for the GAFCON Conference. It was his first visit to Israel. Mark is on the pastoral team of Toxteth Parish church, Liverpool. He sent me the following note:

It was incredibly inspiring to be around Bible-believing Christians from 50 nations, facing different challenges but with a powerful sense of unity. It was mentioned a few times that gatherings of global Anglicans (which were not just bishops) were incredibly rare twenty years ago and it showed something of how God is uniting Anglicans through the present problems, and the opportunity the Anglican Communion has to be a force for good.

What was especially moving to me was the courage of many Global South bishops. Many of these churches look fondly to Britain as a father in the faith and yet now they are finding they are having to take a stand against the direction the Western churches are taking. It was inspiring to see them finding their own voice. The passion this diverse mix of Christians showed to proclaim Christ was something that will stay with me for a long time.

Reflections on the achievements of the vicar's daughter.

It is almost a year since the result of the 2017 General Election, and accordingly perhaps time to review Theresa May as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister.

The election, called three years early at her whim, changed the composition of the House of Commons considerably. Instead of a tight working majority, her miscalculation – possibly borne out of hubris - meant that she became the Prime Minister of a minority Government, kept in power by the DUP.

To many Christians, given the progressive tendency of much recent Conservative and Coalition policy, and of many Conservative MPs, this was God’s mercy. Whatever one’s thoughts on the outcome of the election, governing without a mandate and without a majority does make Government much more difficult.

Great Expectations

Theresa May has made much of the fact that she is a Christian and that her father was a vicar. Many Christians have expressed the hope that this might mean she would seek to advocate for, and adopt positions that align with, biblical values and principles – but this has (thus far) been a vain hope.

Typically, MPs (particularly those newly elected and in Opposition, who have more time) get involved with organisations which they support: it is of note that she has never really been involved with the Conservative Christian Fellowship, preferring as she does to let others know about her faith through her works, not her words.¹

This attitude is her absolute prerogative, but has its consequences.

Theresa May has made much of the fact that she is a Christian and that her father was a vicar.

Tenure as Home Secretary

As Home Secretary for six years, her tenure is one of the longest in recent political history, so she has had huge scope to make a real impact on one of the great offices of state. However, her record as Home Secretary is, at best, mixed.

She pushed through the Modern Slavery Act of 2015, which was designed to tackle slavery in the UK by consolidating and extending previous legislation. However, her role in pushing through same-sex marriage has not had the publicity that she deserves. She was effusive in saying that same sex marriage was one of David Cameron’s key achievements – but was too modest. Her own role was considerable.²

One of the key roles of the Home Secretary is to keep the country safe – which includes keeping control of the UK’s borders. During her tenure, notwithstanding the increasing risk of Islamic terrorism, there were no major terrorist outrages in the UK. In this she was perhaps fortunate, as her policies were little different to her immediate predecessors’. With a humanistic rather than biblical understanding, it is hardly surprising that she also enthusiastically adopted the Home Office’s – and to be fair, the whole of the Establishment, including the Church Establishment’s - views on Islam as being a religion of peace.³

These views may well have functioned to slow down even further responses to the issue of widespread sexual abuse of teenage girls by gangs of Muslim men. Indeed, political leaders have steadfastly refused to acknowledge the inherently Muslim nature of the problem.⁴

In a related vein, there have long been allegations in Westminster about historic child sex abuse. These allegations are serious and ostensibly include current and former MPs, including those in Government, as well as civil servants and many others (the allegations also extend across the whole country).

Her record as Home Secretary was, at best, mixed.

One way to clear the air in both these respects would be to launch broad-ranging inquiries, operating in close co-operation with those who have been abused. Another way would be for a Select Committee to be encouraged to conduct its own such investigations.

Yet little if anything has happened. The question needs to be asked, why not? Home Office culture seems not to have changed at all, seemingly preferring to keep its and others’ secrets hidden rather than truth being brought to light, after which the healing process can properly start.

Tenure as Prime Minister

As Prime Minister, Theresa May is responsible for dealing with matters of State, for the direction of her Cabinet and for setting the political agenda more broadly. She is also responsible for choosing her Cabinet and her Ministers.

She became Prime Minister in the aftermath of the EU Referendum and pledged to lead Britain out of the EU – yet notwithstanding a divided party and without a working majority, she gives no impression of what she actually wants. Is she still a closet Remainer, wanting the softest of all Brexits - or at the other extreme, is she negotiating in such a way that nothing will be achieved, in the hope that the UK will be cast out by the EU, in sheer exasperation? Maybe God alone knows, but the ineptness, irrespective of one’s view on Brexit, is truly embarrassing.

Whatever her private thoughts about Brexit, it would be reassuring to know that she was aware that many Christians believe it is God’s plan for this country – and why. One key reason is to enable Britain to stand with Israel and fulfil what we failed to do with the British Mandate. Given the strength of the Arab lobby in the Foreign Office, standing with Israel has been almost anathema in British international diplomacy over the past 70 years. The forthcoming official Royal visit – the first ever - by Prince William to Israel is a welcome first move towards healing our national relationship with God’s chosen people.

In time, the Government will need to acknowledge Britain’s past anti-Semitism and shortcomings during the Mandate, during WWII and indeed since Israel’s independence (the Church throughout Britain could usefully lead the way in this). Yet, it remains to be seen how Theresa May will respond: she has been much cooler towards Israel than her predecessor, David Cameron. 

It is Theresa May’s prerogative not to talk about her faith. But if that is to be the case, she needs to show by her actions that she is a believer.

Further Tests to Come

It is, of course, Theresa May’s prerogative not to talk about her faith. But if that is to be the case, she needs to show by her actions that she is a believer.

A further test will be how she treats the demands for Northern Ireland to relax its abortion law, in the wake of Proposition 8 in Eire. Is she pro-life, or not? It is unrealistic to expect any Christian in Government to be able to do all that he or she wants to do – ultimately the battle we are in is a spiritual battle (Eph 6:12 and 2 Cor 10:3-5). Equally, the diversity of views of many genuine Christians is considerable, so what different Christians in Government may do will vary considerably and may differ from what their fellow believers think is right.

However, it still remains an opportunity for Theresa May to speak and act in a way that sets forth a clearly biblical attitude towards the unborn. The question is whether she will act, and if so, how - or if she will take the line of least resistance.

Weighing Up the Evidence

The lack of evidence from a biblical perspective that Theresa May has made any meaningful Christian difference in Government and the minimal evidence to suggest that she is meaningfully born again, is both sad and also instructive.

It is sad because we may have hoped for more from her, and it is easy to become disappointed and discouraged. But God is not taken by surprise. He chose her (Psa 75:6-7; Dan 2:21). We are all works in progress: she is his workmanship and it may be that he needs to break her in a way that has not yet happened, for his purposes that we do not yet know.

It is also instructive, because it behoves us to ask the degree to which she is representative of many Britons who profess to be Christian, but for whom there is scant evidence of such belief. God’s heart is that none should perish (John 3:16-7). Indeed, a key mission place is now the local church itself - including some church leaders whose words and works are in some cases so far from orthodoxy and orthopraxy that whether or not they are truly converted is a valid question.

The Way Ahead

Few Christians would dispute that we are in a mess - politically, socially and economically – because ultimately, we are in a spiritual mess. We need to intercede, beseech and pray hard - and keep on such intercessions and prayers.

We must ask the degree to which Theresa May is representative of many Britons who profess to be Christian, but for whom there is scant evidence of such belief.

We must pray – but not that God will simply bless the work of Theresa May’s hands and those of her Government, that we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and reverence, and that prosperity will come to the nation once again. We must pray that the current turmoil in Britain and abroad would have its desired effect upon their hearts: that in his mercy, blind eyes would be opened and deaf ears would be unstopped.

We are commanded to pray for those in authority for the sake of the believing community (1 Tim 2:1-3), yet the reality is that most of us pray at elections and not continuously. But if we don’t pray continuously, others with a different agenda will do so – indeed, are doing so.

If we don’t pray for Theresa May, for her Government and her successor, we will get even more of the Government we deserve, not the one we need.

References

1 Montgomerie, T. The Practical Faith of Theresa May. Catholic Herald, 14 July 2016.

2 Booker, C. Theresa May used Europe to push through gay marriage. The Telegraph, 16 July 2016.

3 Murray, D. Why is Theresa May pretending that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’? The Spectator, 30 September 2014; Murray, D. Will politicians finally admit that the Paris attacks had something to do with Islam? The Spectator, 14 November 2015.

4 McCrae, N and Harradine, K. Muslim rape gangs and the inconvenient truth. Rebel Priest, 3 June 2018.

Charles Gardner reviews ‘Faith, Freedom and the Future’ by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali (Wilberforce Publications, 2016).

The Church of England faces a stark choice of either conforming to current fashion with “easily swallowed soundbites” or of being vigorously counter-cultural, according to one of its most outspoken bishops.

Hitting Out at Dumbed-Down Baptism

In a new book, Faith, Freedom and the Future, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali comments on what he describes as a “dumbed-down” version of the christening service.

In a desire not to offend, the Church was in danger of “capitulating to whatever is fashionable”, he writes.

The new ‘alternative’ service for baptism “almost entirely does away with sin and the need to repent…We are not told anything about the Christ in whom we are to put our trust. There is no acknowledgement of him as Lord and Saviour. In general, there is a reluctance to declare that the Bible sees the world as having gone wrong and needing to be put right. This is done by the coming of Christ, and baptism is nothing less than taking part in this story of salvation, no part of which can be sold short.”

And he concludes: “This is a choice for the Church of England – either to become simply an attenuated version of whatever the English people happen to believe and to value, or to be full-bloodedly a manifestation of the ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic church’ it still continues to confess in the creeds. Which way will it choose?”

Nazir-Ali writes that in a desire not to offend, the Church is in danger of capitulating to whatever is fashionable.

Thorough Analysis

The book is also a thorough analysis of a number of moral issues facing us, and the Bishop’s diagnosis is a breath of fresh air which could help to revive our broken society.

In challenging the increasing marginalisation of Christians, he asks why a law originally based on Judeo-Christian principles is being used to silence them.

He also tackles radical Islam – with his Pakistani background, he is well qualified to do so – and raises the issue of blasphemy against the prophet (Muhammad), punishable by death in many of the Arab countries who have signed up to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion as well as the right to change beliefs.

“What is the difference between Asia Bibi and numerous others on death row, having been convicted on blasphemy charges, and the killings on the streets of Paris and Copenhagen?…Why does the international community tolerate one but not the other? Is it because Westerners are involved in one but not the other?”

Forceful and Passionate

The esteemed author can be laboured in the build-up of his arguments which I sometimes found difficult to follow, but when he gets to the point, he makes it with a forceful flourish and obvious passion for both the Gospel and the Anglican Church, which is no doubt why he has become a popular choice for radio and TV discussions.

This is a theological book with considerable intellectual appeal, but which does not shy away from unpacking CofE politics and driving home the stark choice currently facing the established Church.

Faith, Freedom & the Future (330pp) is available in both paperback and e-book forms. Click here to find out more.