Skip to comments.Queen Gives Warning to Church of England Synod
Posted on 11/23/2010 2:00:38 PM PST by marshmallow
The Queen has spoken of the "difficult" and "painful" choices facing the Church of England as she formally opened the Church's general synod.
She also spoke of the "need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society".
The Queen addressed the 476 members of the Church's governing body as they marked the start of a five-year term.
The synod will also debate measures to keep the Church together over issues such as same-sex blessings.
And its members are preparing to discuss Prime Minister David Cameron's "big society" idea.
Before her address, the Queen, who is supreme governor of the Church of England, attended a service of Holy Communion at Westminster Abbey, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh.
Speaking at the synod meeting, she said: "The new synod will have many issues to resolve to ensure that the Church of England remains equipped for the effective pursuit of its mission and ministry.
"Some will, no doubt, involve difficult, even painful, choices.
"But Christian history suggests that times of growth and spiritual vigour have often coincided with periods of challenge and testing.
"What matters is holding firmly to the need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society."
The Queen also said a "preoccupation with our welfare and comfort" were not "at the heart of our faith" but rather "the concepts of service and of sacrifice as shown in the life and teachings of the one who made himself nothing, taking the very form of a servant".
During her address, the Queen said the place of religion had come to be a matter of "lively discussion" in a more "diverse and secular" society.
"It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the well-being and prosperity of the nation depend..........
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
When I saw the headline I thought she'd read the riot act to them but I think the platitudes above are the "warning".
Pathetic response to a “church” replete with sodomites, not only occupying, but welcome in leadership positions.
Real question for you:
How do Roman Catholics and the Vatican view the Church of England?
It appears they considered themselves both Catholic and Reformed.
Just curious. Other Catholics feel free to chime in.
Actually the Church of England has always been more political than based on religion. To Catholics it’s heretical and to Protestants, too Papist in their church ceremonies. It was formed by Henry VIII to enable him to marry Anne Boleyn and it is more of a compromise made by Elizabeth I to balance between the two religions. Her older brother was more radical in his Protestantism than Elizabeth. the porblem that the religious had is that it wasn’t spiritually nurturing enough to feed the need that so many hungered for.
Appreciate the response!
Essentially a watered down church either way you look at it...
So what is Queenie Baby actually saying? That gays should or should not be in church office? I just can’t tell as I read it.
I think the C of E has more in common with the Catholic Church than it has with many of the other reformed churches although the present doctrinal confusion within the C of E makes that statement more tenuous with every passing day. However, I think it's true to say that the Pope has always been the big issue for the C of E, due to the way it all went pear-shaped in the 16th century, whereas other Protestant bones of contention such as the importance of the Blessed Virgin, the sacrificial nature of the Mass and so forth, are less so, although again, I'm generalizing.
The bulk of English Anglicans and Anglicans in the Americas seem to be liberal Protestants completely disconnected from orthodox Christianity. The High Church faction in those countries seems to be closely connected to orthodox Christianity. The Anglican diocese of Sydney seems to be much closer to Calvinism than Catholicism, while Anglicans in Africa and Asia seem to be very close to Catholicism - especially Catholicism as it is lived in those regions.
The Vatican view is that the Anglican Communion possesses the outward form and structure of an orthodox Christian Church, but that it lacks the apostolicity that the Eastern Orthodox churches can claim.
“So what is Queenie Baby actually saying? That gays should or should not be in church office? I just cant tell as I read it.”
Each side can read it in support of their own positions and therefore it is an unmitigated moral failure on the part of the Queen.
England is dead.
How do we regard COE? A historical Tudorian aberration that persists to modern day.
Actually Edward VI was younger than Elizabeth (he was the son of Jane Seymour, Henry VIII’s third wife), but took precedence over his two older half-sisters because he was male. If Edward VI had lived five years longer, Mary would have never been queen, and the Bloody Mary drink would presumably be called something else.
Though we may vehemently disagree on various topics, this is still a great forum for all of us to become more educated and I’m appreciated of your thoughtful responses.
Oh, I know he was younger, I was just mentioning his policies. As for the drink, I think it would have been something along the lines of:
Time of the Month
Things of that sort.
A lot of terrific music has come out of the CofE though.
Definately. With each founding of a church, comes great new music.
I think that would depend on the church. Some don´t take to music at all, either for worship or recreation.
The CofE was formed during the realm´s most artistically prolific period, which undoubtedly gave as much impetus to creativity as the sense of ecclesiastical newness and innovation which lasted well into the mid twentieth century. There is a certain monotonal beauty to the current works say, of John Taverner (the latter). But the absence of true genius therein now is very much a function the stagnancy that Anglican worship has fallen to.
“...while Anglicans in Africa and Asia seem to be very close to Catholicism - especially Catholicism as it is lived in those regions.”
I was under the impression (but I could be wrong) that most Anglicans in Africa were closer to evangelicalism than to Catholicism.
I've pinged folks who know more than me.
I share this perception, sitetest.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Thanks for the PING
I thought the Queen was just the honorary head and not the official advisor...
Her Majesty picks its Bishops!!!! - hardly a figure head position. As Sovereign Monarch of Great Britain Queen Elizabeth has sovereignty over all within her borders - that includes the Church of England. That is the State Church.
On a separate note: the fracas over Apostolic Succession between the RCs and the Anglicans is a battle that will never be won by either side. Apostolic Succession is properly defined as the tracing of one’s ordination lineage in unbroken succession to the very first ordination at the hands of Jesus Christ. As such, the Anglicans have it.
The Pope (the Bishop of Rome), as a foreign prince (The Vatican is a city state of which the Pope is its head of state. The Vatican sends ambassadors to countries, therefore it is a foreign political power) tried to dictate to the King of England whether he could have an heir to his throne. That is not what I would consider a matter of church business, but rather interference with a Sovereign in the internal administration of his Realm. Don’t forget that the Pope also gave King Henry the title of “Defender of the Faith.” The disagreement over his requested annulment (you call it divorce) is not really the issue over which the Reformation of Roman Catholicism was commenced. But that is for another discussion.
??? He already had an heir to his throne, just not a male one.
And the issue was not whether he could have an heir, but whether he could put away his lawfully married wife and marry another, in clear contradiction of the words of Scripture.
FYI Anglicans worldwide are the 3rd largest Christian denomination, with only Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox being larger, and are growing tremendously--in the evangelical parts(the Developing world, particularly Africa).
While made politically possible by Henry's divorce (much as Lutheranism was made possible by Charles V's wars...), a distinct version of Protestantism developed in England with conscientious Reformers behind it--who also, unlike in other Protestant movements--nearly all were burned to death for their faith.
England too, up until WWII was about as religious as the USA...and benefited greatly from that faith, fed by the Anglican version of Christianity. The slave trade, for example, was ended in the UK by (strong, evangelical) Anglican Christians.
The Church of England today it is true in the UK (and the USA--in the form of the Episcopal Church)is in terrible shape, much like ALL mainline Churches in the West (since they've abandoned their biblical roots), but worldwide, orthodox, conservative, evangelical Anglicanism is booming.
Sweeping judgments that Anglican Christianity is not "spiritually nurturing" are just plain wrong. You may as well say that orthodox Lutheranism or Baptists or independent Churches are not "spiritually nurturing" because of their tiny presence in Europe.... or due to the historical situations which made their development possible.
Arguably, Henry himself never became a Protestant...(in spite of his break with Rome), and he actually persecuted Protestant Reformers. For him it was all politics (and probably lust). The ending of Roman Catholic legal hegemony over English religion though made the Reformation possible there, and conscientious Church men were behind it.
Henry’s divorce only made an independent Church of England possible, it was “established” by others (and actually forbade divorce...up until a couple generations ago.)
In essence Henry’s divorce provided the political climate which allowed Anglican Protestantism to survive....much like Holy Roman Emperor Charles V’s fighting wars, in spite of his utter hatred for Protestants, provided the political climate which allowed Luther and Lutheranism to survive.
I disagree that some people have no Faith. The no religion crowd has been telling us what to think, what to feel, what to believe, and what to do for a very long time, all rooted in a very obvious Ontological and ideological perspective that informs them of how the world works, what the world does, and what moral standards should we all hold. They try to impose all of this on everyone. If a Religious person did as they did with their beliefs theyd be called tyrannical, yet somehow being secular, having no Religion, and having no Faith means you can. It seems to me the people of no Religion and no Faith are just using that as a smokescreen: They do have a Religious Faith, they just pretend its not one to get by with it and make everyone else comply.
That said, I think the Queen is simply trying to be polite and diplomatic. She has always been reserved, so we shouldnt think she would lower the boom on anyone, its simply not her style.
However, possibly William
I agree fully with you....no one really has “no faith” it’s the object of faith that’s the difference. (I never posted some have “no faith” so I’m not sure what you’re referring too....anyway). Atheists typically have faith only in themselves, or some (usually political) ideology—tyrannical to others, as you eloquently expressed.
I also honestly don’t believe there really are atheists...if you go deep enough. Most who call themselves that have deep anger issues with God, and just won’t face themselves honestly and so too God, and so try to make out that God doesn’t exist or is irrelevant.... It’s a form of hiding, really.