The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Justin Welby, has joined the fray over David Cameron’s Easter message by rebuffing the atheists who tried to say Britian is not a Christian country.
Defending Church of England faith schools in the context of the Muslim takeover of schools in Birmingham, Archbishop Welby said Christian faith was reflected in the “whole way we approach our national life”.
Archbishop Welby later wrote in his blog that it was a “historical fact” that UK law, ethics and culture were based on its teachings and traditions.
Returning to the debate, Archbishop Welby said the UK’s “systems of justice and health, the way we value people, the basic way we look at the human being and the dignity of the human being, reflects the values of Jesus Christ”.
“We are a deeply Christian country in that way,” he added.
The Archbishop added that he did not agree with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s claim that the Church would be better able to serve its own interests and those of the country if it was disestablished.
Christian Voice applauds Archbishop Welby for his comments. We are committed to defend Britain’s Protestant Christian heritage and the establishment of a national church is part of our Christian identity.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
As the United States does not have a National Health Service like ours, and many people there abhor the idea, does that mean that it is not a deeply Christian country ?
I’m not entirely sure that having a national health service like ours is the defining mark of a Christian country. The sick must be cared for with skill and compassion, but exactly how that is achieved is up to man to work out.
And some would say that the introduction of targets into the NHS started a process which would strip the compassion out of it. As evidence they would point to the disgraceful way the elderly are looked after in hospital amongst other recent scandals.
But the poorest people in the USA can’t even afford to go to hospital .
And that happened here as well, and it inspired Christians to set up hospitals. The first to do so were, unsurpisingly, the Knights Hospitaler, and the monasteries also took it on, but there was a real spate in the Evangelical revivals of the 18th and 19th century. The hospitals were funded either by the church, or be rich individuals or by public subscription.
The idea of the state funding health care is relatively new and arguably secular. It is now something all of us, including Christians with a Biblical world-view take for granted in the UK. Not so in the US, but I imagine not many of us this side of the water have looked very deeply into what ‘Obamacare’ really entails.
Well yes .This may be why somebody said:
“ the UK’s “systems of justice and health, …..reflects the values of Jesus Christ”.
Not only Jesus Christ, though. There was a time when the best equivalent to our NHS was in east European countries, with which the Labour government made reciprocal agreements (some still in force). As a tourist, I was very much better off in Yugoslavia than I was in Switzerland.
If all the poor people in the USA could get excellent medical care provided by the Knights Hospitaler of the Grand Canyon (or whatever), that would be fine, but I don’t’ think they can.
I recently heard of the Noahide laws
http://truth911party.com/2011/05/07/guillotine-death-by-noahide-laws-passed-by-congress-1991/
How does this impact on Christians in the UK?
Not at all. You are referring, I think, to the death penalty as instituted in God’s covenant with Noah and his sons in Genesis 9.
Our laws have been founded on the commandments of God since King Alfred the Great had the first five books of the Bible, the Psalms and the Gospels translated and then based his ‘dooms’ on them. Almost the first thing the secularists did in the UK, in the 1960s, by means of the abolition of the death penalty and the Abortion Act, was to take the death penalty from the guilty by the state, where it belongs, and impose it on the innocent within the family, where it does not.
And of course any laws passed by the state impact on everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike. This is a point which those Christian leaders who say smugly ‘We are not under law but under grace’ miss completely. There must be a legal system in a commonwealth. Where is it to come from? Which world-view will it be based on? I say if it is not coming from the Throne of Grace it is coming from the pit of hell. Our law-making over the past fifty years shows there is no middle ground.
Brother Stephen
May the Lord continue to guide , protect and use you mightily i pray in HIS most Holy name , KING of kings and LORD of lords Yeshua Hamashiach Amen .
Did you check out Dawn’s link ?
How true the words of JESUS ” as in the days of Noah ”
Please share with us your views on this matter as we ALL need to be in accord and not ignorant of the wiles of satan
I think there is middle ground. It is illegal to smoke on a bus. I can’t believe that this came either from the Throne of God or from the pit of hell. It is a sensible man-made law.
The Bible does not mention smoking (and it seems to approve of drinking alcohol, which you can’t do on a bus either) . Presumably exposure to smoke from other people is one of the unpleasant features of hell, though .
I doubt whether the idea of a ban on smoking in public places came directly from the Throne of Grace, but to not smoke in someone’s face is a demonstration of being considerate to others. It’s a shame we have to have a law to enforce it; but whether you abide by the law or not, neither way is going to secure your place in heaven.
A lot of what we think of as laws I should say have the mere status of regulations. Keeping the UK’s laws will not secure your place in heaven, but disobeying any that reflect God’s laws could see you with some explaining to do ‘in that day’.
Equally, of course, you won’t go to hell for parking on a double yellow line, or, if you a rugby player, from entering a ruck from the side. But if spotted you may have to endure respectively a fine or a penalty.
Exactly, there is always a penalty for disobedience.
An awful lot of what we do will be burned up as stubble and straw.
I am so glad the Lord has called me into His grace, may He help me live accordingly.
We aren’t getting into the alternative-wheat-and-tares heresy where wicked ACTIONS are bound for hell fire rather than wicked people, are we?
Wicked actions need to be repented of. I do not read that God will take them from us and burn them, do you?
I think it was Jesus who said “By their fruits shall ye know them”, or something like that.
How can you recognise or define a wicked person except by his wicked actions ?
I think you are misunderstanding me. Repentance is of course a prerequisite for our salvation and a continuing practise until the Lord calls us home.
But even those who do good may suffer loss if they think that they can attain glory through their good deeds.
Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Cor 3:13-15)
Thank you for the reminder of 1Cor 3:13-15 and works tried by fire.
No one should think they can attain glory by their good deeds. But they can attain the blessing of God by observing his law:
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
That’s spot on….seems like we’re singing from the same hymn sheet after all!!
Don’t forget Welby has equated the murder of 300 Christians in Africa with the ‘sufferings’ of homosexuals in the UK.. Does anyone else know what ‘sufferings’ he is referring to? I would imagine any suffering they endure must be self-inflicted?
That’s a very good point from you, Busy Mum. I can think of nothing comparable, at least not since it became legal. I gather that people like Turing and Wilde suffered quite a bit before it was legal, probably many others we have never heard of as well .
Legalising sodomy hasn’t stopped the psychological problems that beset homosexuals.
It irritates me when people talk about Jesus being with those ‘on the margins of society’ as if today that includes homosexuals. In the UK, which is where they mean, homosexuals are over-represented in politics, the media, entertainment and academia, drive policy, have their lifestyle officially promoted by public bodies, are feted to the skies by politicians and journalists (and now by Eurovision voters) have more disposable income than others and more or less rule the cultural roost. ‘Margins of society?’ I don’t think so.
You will think this very very harsh, but maybe it is better to ‘suffer’ and ‘repent’ on earth rather than suffer for ever after in eternity.
Turing is being constantly lauded in schools now, not for his Bletchley Park work, but as a persecuted gay. If sodomites were discriminated against, how did he get to such a high pinnacle in his career?
The whole modern notion of equality is founded on the lie that people were not equal under British law before the war. Rubbish. That true equality is the whole basis of British law and why Britain led the world in justice and fairness. Sadly ,that has been totally jettisoned and to paraphrase that famous quote, “He that is born an Englishman in 2014 has drawn last prize in the lottery of life” and as a female ‘Englishman’, I am not offended by that word, in that it encompasses all the virtues we have sadly lost.
Perhaps you and your family should emigrate to a suitable United State, Busy Mum.
Or to newly Christian and solidly homophobic Russia.
Russia has been Christian for generations. Atheism was a blip, but one which sadly financed communist and anti-family groups across the globe. Ironically, anti-family groups are now being financed by such as the Ford Foundation and HMG. Plus ca change. Or there is no new thing under the sun.
I am recommending Ghana or Uganda, myself. Both God-fearing and stable. Definitely not the US, nor anywhere in Europe.
I love my country and all I wish is that all my fellow countrymen could repent and be saved.
Running away – emigrating – is leaving my country to its fate; is it right to flee, or is it better to ‘fight the good fight?
This is of course exactly how the US was founded by the Pilgrim fathers – but the Americans have been betrayed in the same way as the English have. And of course, nowhere in the world will be safe for Christians by the very end of time. Incidentally, ‘homophobic’ is just modern wordplay; being afraid of sodomy is quite rational when you think of the health costs (monetary and otherwise) and of the final Judgment which will be even worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
“All I wish” ! It’s a huge wish, and extremely unlikely to happen. So you might as well go.
The modern use of “homophobic” is indeed wordplay. Homophobic really means fearing sameness.
An excellent idea. Let her go to Uganda.
Really sad when the English appear to be the most hated minority in, well, England.
Sorry to be late in replying – been too busy rescuing a daughter from an amoral state school system……which really is forcing everyone to be the same in the name of ‘respecting difference’…and the sameness they are getting is the lowest common denominator. How are the mighty fallen. Maybe people could think about the words next time they sing Land of Hope and Glory…it truly was ‘God, who made us mighty’ but we have forfeited the opportunity for Him to ‘make us mighter yet’.
There is good sense in the Church of England, whether it sticks strictly to doctrine or not. While Cameron says that the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria is “pure evil”, the Bishop of Oxford (speaking in agreement with what the Archbishop has made known) stands up in the House of Lords and says in effect that these people have their point of view, and we must talk to them and negotiate, not just condemn them as evil. What would Jesus have done ?
We normally ask, ‘What would Jesus do?’ rather than ‘have done’, being as how he is risen from the dead and all.
Jesus would say this, because, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, he did say it:
Exod 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
The masculine includes the feminine of course. The Boko Haram people have committed a crime worthy of death. But then stealing people and selling them as slaves has been Islamic practice ever since Mohammed walked the earth. To be fair, he and his followers probably inherited the buying and selling of human traffic from their ancestors:
Genesis 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
I meant what would Jesus have done if he had been sitting in the House of Lords instead of the Bishop of Oxford. So do you think he would have stood up and suggested sending in a large armed force to capture and kill the culprits ? This is a long way from the Church of England .
It looks to me as if you have misrepresented the Bishop, who actually said:
The Bishop of Oxford (Bishop)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with the comments made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury last weekend to the effect that, however abhorrent we may feel the organisation to be, it is necessary to engage in some way with Boko Haram and to do that at different levels? If that is the case, would the Minister give some indication of what kind of support or encouragement the Government are giving to that dialogue between Boko Haram and the Government of Nigeria?
To which Baroness Warsi replied:
The most reverend Primate’s comments about negotiations or discussions with Boko Haram are quite right and, as the right reverend Prelate says, they are certainly something which the Nigerian Government have to take forward. I know that he has a considerable history of dealing with this kind of situation in Nigeria and, indeed, of being involved in mediation processes. However, the message that HMG have been strongly sending out, along with our international partners, is that this is an abhorrent crime, that the girls must be returned unconditionally and that this is not something we need to feel that Boko Haram has negotiating power over. There is a longer-term challenge in relation to tackling Boko Haram but I am not sure that that needs to be done over the lives of these young girls.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2014-05-14a.1866.4&m=100959
I think Stephen has misunderstood me.
I paraphrased the Bishop as saying :
*in effect that these people have their point of view, and we must talk to them and negotiate, not just condemn them as evil.”
That seems a reasonable paraphrase to me. He says “dialogue”, Baroness Warsi says discussion, negotiation, mediation.
But Stephen says “he shall surely be put to death.”, attributing this to Jesus.
So, coming back to the present situation and my question, I was paraphrasing Jesus (according to Stephen), not the Bishop of Oxford, with my “ large armed force to capture and kill the culprits” . That is what it would mean, and if this is the true Christian view, the Church of England certainly do misrepresent it with their more peaceful suggestion.
I would have thought it quite obvious, to any with eyes to see (as opposed to the Archbishop, who surely sees through the not-unusual rose-tinted spectacles found in the “church” these days (“revival is just around the corner”: I wish I had a quid for every time I’ve heard that one: just said to gee-up the punters, keep them “encouraged”, in my view) that this country is no longer a Christian country in any meaningful sense.
In my view, it is quite tragic that Muslims, etc look at our society, with its binge-drinking, casual sex, abortion, etc etc and think this is Christianity.
On a tangential point regarding the “revival is just around the corner” canard, nowhere do I find in the Bible that the world is going to get “better”: if we ARE in the End Times, it seems clear to me that the Bible says that society, and people, are going to “wax” worse and worse (2 Tim 3, etc). We, as Christians, it seems to me, are called to “endure to the end”.
I am some what Homophobic as the liberals put it. However while i think the majority of Homosexuals have chosen to be so i am not sure that there are no people born biologically with a predisposition towards it. Given all the other genetic defects. All these other birth defects are real but this it is claimed can not ever be you can have a child born with two heads but not with one being predisposed to homosexuality.
What if there is a genetic element has homosexuals claim. It is not anymore than cystic fibrosis. If it could be pre-screened would it not be grounds for termination?
I can’t help thinking the ‘genetic’ factor is a red herring. If homosexuality was inherited, the very nature of homosexuality, which precludes reproduction, would have resulted in its extinction.
i can not be sure. I would agree that so called bisexuals who also marry and have children are probably just deviant. However there are a number of inherited genetic defects which mean that the child does not live long enough to father any children. Genetics does not work on a so called Darwinian elimination by selection process. A genetic trait can also be passed down from the female to one of her children. As Hermaphrodites do exist. I have very occasionally seen a female who has seemed very masculine by nature recall those Soviet era
female athletes subject to some sort of sex test and excluded from competing .
I am against the absurd concept of gay marriage and the promotion of homosexuality to children . I personally find the thought of it revolting , But i am not sure that there are not a small percentage of cases where it is not a biological defect rather than a mental condition or perversion.