What Would the Martyrs Be Thinking?

A Full Centimetre Longer Than High Street Minis

The by-line in an article published in the Daily Telegraph informs us that the new Archbishop of Canterbury is warning that 'the Church of England . . . had to face up to a “revolution” in attitudes to homosexuality.'  So far, so good.

That a "revolution" in attitudes to homosexuality is taking place in the West, including Britain, is undeniable, although arguably the word "revolution" is misleading.  Change, or more accurately, devolution is certainly occurring.  But it is consistent change.  It is expected change.  The West has no moral absolutes, no ethical fundamentals.  It gave that away a long time ago, when it rebelled against the God of the heavens and the earth. Instead the creed, "Man is the measure of all things, and nothing human is foreign or immoral to me" has become the UK's established religion.  Homosexuality is a human activity, non?  Therefore, there can be nothing foreign nor immoral about it.  Consequently, in the West homosexuality must inevitably come to be recognised as a human right, an activity protected by law.  The duty and function of the law then becomes to  condemn and punish any who disagree because they refuse to accept and submit to the (now) established humanist religion. 

How is the Church of England to face up to such a "revolution"  is the key question?
  The Church of England could face up to the issue by declaring a season of national fasting and humiliation and penitence before our Lord.  It could call for renewed efforts to preach the Gospel, proclaiming the law of God and the sinfulness of homosexuality (and adultery, and fornication, and porneia of all kinds), since "sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God".  It could redouble its efforts to proclaim Jesus Christ as the only way to be cleansed of all sin and be delivered from the degradation and slavery of sexual sins. All these would be thoroughly Christian ways of facing up to the secular "revolution" in attitudes to homosexuality. 

But that is sadly not what Archbishop Welby is calling for.  He is asking the Church of England to move with the times.

In his most widely anticipated address since taking over the leadership of the Church, the Most Rev Justin Welby insisted that it was now “absurd and impossible” to ignore an “overwhelming” change in social attitudes. In a deliberate echo of Harold MacMillan’s 1950 speech which attacked apartheid in South Africa, the Archbishop warned church leaders that they needed to reassess their own attitudes to gay people – even if they do not “like it”.  While insisting he had no immediate plans to change policy on issues such as gay marriage, he announced a major campaign to curb anti-gay bullying in the Church of England’s more than 5,000 schools. He is understood to have approached Stonewall, which led the campaign in favour of gay marriage, to invite it into church schools to teach up to a million children about homosexuality.

Campaigns against bullying sound distinctly Christian.  We would expect widespread bullying in societies operating out of evolutionist ethical systems, since the fittest are those who are able to neuter, if not kill off, the weakest.  But bullying of any kind is a violation of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill.  So campaigns against bullying of homosexuals in Church schools sound about right.  But it remains a half-truth, and therefore deceptive. 

What about if the Archbishop were calling for a campaign in church schools against the bullying of homosexual, pederast teachers who were sexually involved with pupils?  After all, such teachers would be clearly at the forefront of extending tolerance and understanding and sympathy and compassion to pupils who believed themselves to be homosexual.  But we would immediately see through such ratiocination.  Whilst pederast teachers ought not be bullied, neither ought their homosexual lust towards pupils be condoned or tolerated. 

If the Archbishop were calling for a representation of the Bible's teaching on sexual ethics, sin, redemption, the atonement, forgiveness, cleansing, eternal life and a re-proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour in all the Church of England's schools we would have reason for rejoicing and thanksgiving.  But sadly that is not the case.    

Why this new direction?  The article in the Telegraph gives us a hint.

In a wide-ranging address he said that Britain, like other countries, is living through a “time of revolutions” affecting the economic and political sphere but also in social attitudes. He acknowledged a “radical” decline in religious affiliation, as borne out by the recent census and other polling, as well as an “overwhelming” shift in public attitudes on issues such as sexuality where “predictable attitudes” were disappearing.  But he insisted that the Church could benefit and even begin to grow again if it was willing to “respond radically and imaginatively” to a changing world.

This suggests that the Archbishop's animus is a desire for the Church of England to be relevant to society.  Society's attitudes were changing; the church has to change as well (to remain in touch, as it were).  It faces a "radical decline in religious affiliation".  If it responded "radically and imaginatively" people might come back to the church again. 

The call for the Church to be relevant has often been voiced.  Such a call consists of one of two kinds.  The first is is a call to be biblically relevant to the world--to proclaim and communicate the truth of God to a lost and despairing generation.  The second is a call that is socially relevant--a call to be more like, more accommodating to that lost world. 

Calls of the second kind lead to an even more drastic decline in church numbers and affiliation.  Such calls end up as ridiculous and ludicrous.  They amount to a campaign to have skirts a full centimetre longer than the current High Street minis.