Changes in the Church of England, where do they leave us?

[noma24]

Recently a change was introduced to the baptism service which means that people no longer have to say they reject the devil, instead they just say they reject evil.

Over the years the new Archbishop of Canterbury has been an advocate of same sex marriage which has coincided with the legalisation of same sex marriage.

I've always enjoyed worshiping and fellowshipping at HTB, which is where the archbishop of Canterbury hails from. I really feel uplifted at that church. However, I'm worried about the direction the church is going and feeling somewhat disillusioned.

I just wondered what are people's thoughts on changes in the C of E?

 

[james1523]

A problem with state churches such as the C of E is that the leader will be out of a job if he doesn't seem to support the wishes of the parliament in favor of gay marriage.

 

[B-A-C]

A problem with state churches such as the C of E is that the leader will be out of a job if he doesn't seem to support the wishes of the parliament in favor of gay marriage.

Even in countries where there is supposed to be separation of church and state. The state is getting bolder and bolder about telling the church what it can and can't do.
This country is supposed to be a democracy. The government is supposed to do what the people vote for. But in this country the government over-rides what the people
vote for and tell them it's unconstitutional. (Of course that is also unconstitutional) What grounds they have for saying it's unconstitutional still remains a mystery.
The supreme court is corrupt and yet they are ones making the laws for this country (they are supposed to enforce the laws not change them).

 

[Hekuran]

The Archbishop voted against the same-sex marriage bill.

Beforehand he said the reform “weakened” the concept of the “normal” family as the basis for a strong community and replaced traditional marriage with something “less good”.

 

[james1523]

The Archbishop voted against the same-sex marriage bill.

Beforehand he said the reform “weakened” the concept of the “normal” family as the basis for a strong community and replaced traditional marriage with something “less good”.

Yes but only because he was afraid of splitting the Anglican church if he did vote for it (the African churches, who know their Bibles). He never came out with a clear definitive message that same-sex marriage is wrong, based on the Bible or any Christian values. I would be pleased if this organization from a bygone era past tumbled to the ground, to be honest, and so would Jesus I believe. The Anglican church needs serious reform particularly at the highest levels. Still, at least the current archbishop is not a druid like the former was.

 

[Hekuran]

Yes but only because he was afraid of splitting the Anglican church if he did vote for it (the African churches, who know their Bibles). He never came out with a clear definitive message that same-sex marriage is wrong, based on the Bible or any Christian values. I would be pleased if this organization from a bygone era past tumbled to the ground, to be honest, and so would Jesus I believe. The Anglican church needs serious reform particularly at the highest levels. Still, at least the current archbishop is not a druid like the former was.

Not sure how you can judge his motives. Any strong statement on gay marriage either for or against is likely to aggravate the divisions in the Anglican Church. The comment about the last Archbishop of Canterbury is ill-informed and unnecessary.

 

[james1523]

Not sure how you can judge his motives. Any strong statement on gay marriage either for or against is likely to aggravate the divisions in the Anglican Church. The comment about the last Archbishop of Canterbury is ill-informed and unnecessary.

Because I've read his quotes. His statements against gay marriage are based more so on church traditions and history, rather than any strong moral or Biblical conviction - that is apparent to me. I say let the divisions happen, it's a good thing, then the people who truly follow God can do so, and the ones that want to marry homosexuals can do that too. Sure, the druid comment was probably unnecessary and arguable, as it may not have been religious in nature, however the last Archbishop of Canterbury was very much pro-homosexual, his quotations supporting homosexuality are clear. The current archbishop is watering down the baptismal service, removing reference to sin, which I would have thought is the point of baptism in the first place - as a sign of repentance from sins. I think I understand their motivation - it's very offensive to tell homosexuals that their lifestyle is a sin, and "evil" can be however we like to define it.