Bishopettes on hold

After my post a couple of days ago on the vote on women bishops within the Church of England, it’s been unsurprising to read much of the response to the no vote within the liberal British media and establishment today.  Most of it has hardly been edifying, but I’ve found some good points made in the three articles below.

The first is from a US Baptist, Trevin Wax, who comments on the intolerance on show from so called progressive, tolerant, liberals.

The second article is from The Good Book Company’s, Carl Laferton, who helpfully debunks some of the myths  liberals are circulating regarding what evangelical conservatives actually believe about female roles within the church.

And the third article is from The Telegraph columnist, Tim Stanley on the Church of England’s vain attempts to appear relevant to a God-rejecting society. He comments

The great irony is that they want to make relevant something that is actually devalued by the attempt to make it relevant. God doesn’t do “relevance.” He just is – and, for most religious consumers, that’s what makes him so appealing.

It’s God who sets the agenda and our business is to make sure our life and ministry is relevant to what He desires.  This has been up until relevantly recently what the church, built upon the foundation of the teaching of the apostles and prophets, has always believed.  Trevin ends his article with a great quote from Chesterton in this regard.

The hallmark of many of these denominational debates is narrow-minded thinking that masquerades as openness and tolerance. It is the “chronological snobbery” referred to by a famous Anglican from the last century – C.S. Lewis. It is the failure of many to give tradition and history the weight it deserves, as another Anglican (actually Catholic Trevin) (G.K. Chesterton) once wrote:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

Twilight filth

I’m sure many parents will come under pressure from their teenage children (and even younger – gulp!) to see the new Twilight film.  I’ve not seen the latest or any of the proceeding ones, but I’d wholly endorse Mark Driscoll’s comments here and his conclusion:

As a pastor and a father, I am particularly concerned for Christian parents who are naively allowing this filth into their children’s lives, buying these books and driving kids to see these movies. To such parents, “It is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” – Phil 1:9-11.

We’re not to mess around with filth, we’re to be increasingly approving of what is excellent so that we might be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.

Why you’re probably not a bigot

So Nick Clegg was almost brave enough to say what he thinks about those of us who hold opposing views to him and thus demonstrate just how tolerant he really is.

The fact is many people think Christians who oppose gay marriage are bigoted, and my guess is that with all the cries for equality and fairness hurled against us, not a few Christians may by now be beginning to doubt their stance and wonder if the Bible really is bigoted.

Isn’t the fair position for marriage to be open to all?

Not if the word marriage refers to a specific relationship.  Just after I’d heard about Clegg’s dishonest two-step shuffle, I read this on Doug Wilson’s blog.

I cannot think of a single genuine right that I have that homosexuals do not have together with me, and for the same reasons.

At this point in the proceedings, someone clears his throat and says, “Umm, marriage? You have a right to marry, and they do not.” But “marry” is not an unspecific verb with no direct object. I have the right to marry a woman, and so do they. A man and a woman together is what marriage is. The fact that they don’t want to marry a woman is their look out. I have a right to own a gun and so does your spinster Quaker aunt. The fact that she doesn’t want to own a gun is perfectly acceptable. But what she is not free to do is redefine everything, and say that gun ownership is very important to her, but that for her, gun ownership means owning a quilting rack.

I’d highly recommend reading the whole blog post here.