I blame the Churches myself;

One in four people no longer believes in any religion, official analysis of national census returns found yesterday. It revealed Christianity is in decline and Christians are increasingly likely to be older or retired people. Many young people, young men in particular, appear to be rejecting religious belief altogether. Nearly one in three under-25s – 32 per cent – say they do not have a religion.

It wasn’t always like this of course and not ALL religions in the UK are in decline. One is growing massively. (Yes, you can guess it) The turning away from faith is sad to witness but I can understand why. Churches have become bland, anaemic, places that seek to be all things to all men. They are riddled with hypocrisy and faithless clerics who outdo each other to be “modern”. For me faith is not about modernity, but rather eternity.  I walked away from Churches when I decided that they were whited sepulchres. But I could never  walk away from my faith. I am also reminded of the aphorism that when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. You see the results of that on  daily basis. I think having faith  - having a religion if you will – is a courageous thing in this secular age. It’s not an easy thing but then again the road to hell is paved with smooth stepping stones.

If the Ities elected him as Prime Minister about four times, its a comparatively easy election to sway.

h/t to Cranmer for the pix

Think we will see more and more of this as the Church abandons eternity and embraces modernity.

The minister of an Aberdeen church and its members have become the latest to leave the Church of Scotland in protest at the Kirk allowing the appointment of gay ministers.  Gilcomston South’s minister Reverend Dominic Smart and its membership of more than 300 have been discussing the issue for some time. The Church of Scotland said it was sorry and saddened by the decision.

The congregation took issue with the General Assembly approving the appointment of the openly gay minister Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross church in Aberdeen in 2009. Revered Smart said: “Our decision to leave was the culmination of careful study, sincere discussion and prayer over the past four years. ”We have weighed up many different options and believe the decision we have reached has the most integrity. ”We are looking forward to the first chapter in the life of our new generation”

Undoubtedly this is the right thing to do. The gayification of the modern Church is an inevitable consequence of its failure to appreciate that following latter day opinion polls are no basis for the tenets of Biblical faith.

Say what you want about the Church of England but when it comes to persecuting those within it who dare to espouse traditional teachings, well, God help you;

“The chairman of the Church of England’s House of Laity is facing a vote of no confidence. A bid to oust Dr Philip Giddings from his post was launched after women failed to win the right to become bishops at the General Synod in November – a measure he had spoken against. The legislation failed in the House of Laity, one of three houses which makes up the Synod, by just six votes.

So, when the liberal wing of Anglicanism fails to gets it way, it has a hissy fit!

Interesting views here;

More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England. They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition’s plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage. Even the freedom to speak from the pulpit could be under threat, they claim. And they fear that Christians who believe in the traditional meaning of marriage would effectively be excluded from some jobs – just as Catholics were barred from many professions from the Reformation until the 19th Century.

I think they are quite far sighted in this regard and one dismisses their argument with some peril. The entire “equalities” industry is about restricting liberty and when it is combined with gay militancy, it becomes toxic to those who seek to maintain traditional Christian values. So, a cleric standing up in a Pulpit quoting from Leviticus, for instance, is going to find himself frog marched off to the nearest rehabilitation center tout for some emergency treatment!

The Anglican Church digs an even BIGGER hole for itself as it tries to modernise and abandon tradition;

“Gay clergy in civil partnerships can become bishops, following an apparent U-turn from the Church of England. Despite rejecting proposals to allow women to become bishops, a new ruling means homosexual men can be appointed as long as they remain chaste and repent for any past sexual acts. The Right Reverend Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, released a statement on behalf of the Church yesterday, saying it would be ‘unjust’ to exclude them if they were ‘living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality’.

Can anyone see gay bishops going with this? How will it work? How will the authorities KNOW if they are having sex? If they are gay, then it seems to me that their attraction will run skin deep so why this banal ban? The Anglican Church should come out and say that homosexuality is AGAINST the teachings of the Bible but that those who choose a gay lifestyle are welcome in the Church (we are all sinners) BUT can have no place in the hierarchy until they repent of their gayness. The alternative route is to accept sin which ..erm..rather invalidates the Church in the first place.

With the advent of opposition from the spokesmen of the only Religious Body whose followers mean exactly what they say, will we now see a speedy U-turn, withdrawal and consignment to the rubbish bin of history for all this Gay Marriage tripe?

When these people (murderous, fanatical scum) state that they don’t like something, the politicians of the Western world had better listen, or the Semtex Belts will be worn at the correct angle.

As a disinterested observer of the convulsions racking the Anglican Church, I suppose that my opinions would not matter a great deal, but since no-one else has placed a different perspective on the shambles as observed, I thought I may as well add my few matches to the fire.

All through the convulsions concerning women bishops, and explanations about the voices of a few wrecking the hopes of the many, not many have actually commented that they are only commenting upon a series of steps in a path which is quite similar to a Democracy, but only similar. Three bodies or groups of people, very dissimilar in numbers, positions in life, and philosophies, all selected, chosen or nominated; have to agree, or at least speak with a two-thirds majority, to alter a ruling which has been in place since the days of Henry 8^th , who engineered the split with Rome so that he could cloak his adultery with Anne Boleyn with respectability.

The Houses of Bishops and of the Clergy have long been disposed towards the welcoming of women as Bishops, but the stumbling block of the House of the Laity has always proved a difficult row to hoe, as, whilst in general being amenable to change, the Laity have always balked at a system which would give women bishops power over church parishes who did not accept the authority of those newly-appointed bishops. Various forms and proposals have been floated over the years, but all have failed because either the protections afforded the protesters were not strong enough, or the arguments of those who would not accept any change at all have swayed the votes in the Synod.

The last words in the previous paragraph stand to the heart of this debate, because all three Houses must hold a two-thirds majority to initiate change, a change which is too far in the eyes and minds of the ones who vote ‘Nay’, and the trouble is that, as with so many examples of so-called democracy, the ones who lose are the ones who are now continually crying ‘foul’, and ‘it is so unfair’ etc.

As with the so-called ‘referendums’ called by the European Union behemoth, if they don’t get the result they wish, they simply bully the offending country, such as the Republic of Ireland, into re-running the vote until they get what they wish. Anglicans throughout this Nation will no doubt be battered with words, again and again, until the ‘Reformers’ get what they want.

Democracy? Don’t make me laugh!

Well, the BIG news is that the next Archbishop of Canterbury has called the rejection of women bishops a “very grim day”, as bishops prepare for an emergency meeting on the issue.

The ordination of women bishops in the Church of England was narrowly rejected by its ruling general synod on Tuesday. The Rt Rev Justin Welby, who takes over the Church’s top role next year, said the lost vote was hard “most of all for women priests and supporters”.

The liberal wing of the COE will be gutted. Big deal. I couldn’t care less if there are women Bishops are not. What WOULD be nice to see is the emergence of Christian Bishops however. Those within the COE need to have a very careful read of the 39 articles of  religion which they ALL sign up to when joining that Church and ask themselves why they choose not to debate these instead of gender politics.

This guy writes with a great deal of conviction, and whether you agree with him or not, the future looks more than a little dodgy.

Today, the Middle East is standing on the edge of an internecine eruption that is likely to sweep away the existing order and radically alter the regional order, with far-reaching strategic implications for the West.

The region is splitting apart and ready to explode out of its largely artificial boundaries along two major fault lines, ethnic and religious. These emerged most prominently after the toppling of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003. The ethnic divide is between Sunni and Shia Muslims; the religious divide is between the Islamic extremist Wahhabi and the even-more-extremist Salafi movements. The differences are not merely ideological, they are existential.

The conflicts are likely to involve the major regional players: Sunni Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey; Shia Iran, and, richest of all, pro-Salafi Qatar, where annual GDP is running at more than $100,000 per person. Jihadist movements like al-Qaeda will no doubt muscle in on the anarchy in an attempt to gain new adherents.