Categories: uncategorized
Date: 26 October 2006 08:56:27
There has been much made of the EA saying Prince Charles should be "Defender of the Faith" rather than his intended "Defender of Faith" when/ if he becomes King. Personally I'm with Prince Charles on this one & veiw the idea of the King as a defender of all faiths against the growing tide of secularism as cool and as a good Baptist, who understands my denominations history, I recognise the right of one religion to be tied to the state at the exclusion of other expressions of faith as against my core beliefs.
Anyway the thing is that is one section of a huge 170 page report called Faith and Nation which is intended as a discussion document to shape the response of mainstream Evangelicals in the UK. I think that dismissing its varied contents with discussion of one minor point is both dangerous and wrong.
This type of document may not seem to directly important to us "average bums on pews / uncomfortable chairs" but it is, because it is a key document which will shape the discussions amongst leaders and in turn thinking of key speakers at conferences like Spring Harvest and in turn will filter into the thinking of our own church leaders before it comes down to us in a more distilled reductionist form.
Even for uninvolved, interested observers, it may also be a useful document to look at (or atleast the 100 final recommendations if you skip to the end) in order to see where main stream Evangelicalism is at the moment in the UK and where it differs from its trans-atlantic counterpart. In all it seems the majority is good, but l think there is also a certain amount of contradiction between intent and action, and some downright dubious stuff which needs to be challenged by those within the Evangelical community (in love).