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 ...
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 they’d 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 shouldn’t think she would lower the boom on anyone, its simply not her style.
Nor Charles.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.