A challenge to the ordination of women priests
A Church of England vicar, Rev. Paul Williamson, has been challenging the lawfulness of ordaining women priests. He has now taken his case to the Court of Appeal, claiming that the Queen has broken her coronation oath by allowing such ordinations and agreeing to this “theological heresy”, now enshrined in the canon enacted for this purpose.
At her coronation she was asked: “Will you preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof as by law established in England?”
The Appeal Court judges dismissed his appeal, a decision that is not surprising in the light of the Church Society already failing to prevent Parliament agreeing to the introduction of the canon.
However, the fact of “theological heresy” cannot be denied. Scripture so plainly prohibits the woman from usurping authority over the man in the spheres of the Church and the home. Nothing short of obstinate obtuseness in both the Church of England and many other churches throughout the world lies behind their repudiating Scripture and ordaining women to hold office in the Church.
Lord Runcie and the Prince of Wales
THE forthcoming biography of the former Archbishop of Canterbury confirms what many suspected, and what the Dimbleby interview with the Prince of Wales made clear — that the Prince of Wales has no enthusiasm about being head of the Church of England, preferring to have a pluralistic approach to religion. This approach evidently does not include love for the Protestant faith.
The Hindu and Muslim communities in Britain are buoyed by his multi-faith enthusiasm and his manifest goodwill towards their religions.
It augurs ill for a nation when its rulers or rulers-to-be do not hide their low esteem for the faith once delivered to the saints. May the Lord bring them to truly value our Reformed heritage.
Television and the subversion of morality
IN Britain today, we have “a militant, well-organised and influential movement which wants to smash taboos and push them aside, a movement which is currently scoring success after success.” So said a recent press article — and it is true.
The article was drawing attention to the latest depths to which the TV programme, Brookside, has descended by featuring incest in one episode. One producer declared that the clip broke the “last taboo”, but added, “I’m sure there are no more. But if there are we will find them, I’m sure.”
Scripture speaks of those who defiantly say, “Our lips are ours, who is lord over us,” and who show the spirit of the Pharaoh who asked, “Who is the Lord that I should obey Him?” Those who broadcast corrupting material with evil intent will yet discover that God Himself will deal with them.
The Lord Chancellor’s defence of the Family Law Act
SCRIPTURE allows divorce, but only on the ground of the adultery or wilful desertion of one of the parties. The implication of this fact is that in God’s sight a court is obliged to ascertain which of the parties is at fault before granting a divorce. The removal of the fault element from the divorce process is the glaring flaw in the Family Law Act.
It is therefore difficult for those who believe the Scripture teaching on divorce to understand how the Lord Chancellor can defend the absence of the no-fault element from the Family Law Bill. This he did recently at the annual meeting of Family Mediation Highland.
He also asserted that the Bill would “support the institution of marriage”. We think otherwise. Legislation which is contrary to Scripture, while it may bring some benefits, must sooner or later and overall, have an undermining effect.