Anglican Church Aims to Spread Gospel to UK Muslims, Others

I think the thread title ("Anglican Church Aims to Spread Gospel to UK Muslims, Others") could be misleading, as could the opening of the quoted article: "With more and more Britons reported to be embracing Islam, the Church of England has launched a campaign targeting Muslims for conversion." The Church of England has launched no such campaign. The BBC news site, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7418957.stm perhaps makes the situation a bit clearer (my emphasis):

A traditionalist Anglican has said he will continue with a campaign for the Church of England to work explicitly to convert Muslims to Christianity.


Paul Eddy, a lay member of the General Synod, has come under intense pressure from bishops to withdraw his plan.
But he has secured enough support for his motion to be debated at the next meeting of the Church's ruling body.

The motion calls on the Church to proclaim Christianity as the only route to ultimate salvation.

Mr Eddy, who is training to become a priest, has been denounced by some Muslims, but says the Church can no longer avoid hard questions about its beliefs.
He said he had received angry e-mails and telephone calls from senior figures in the Church denouncing his motion.


​

Albert Mohler's site, http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1158 has a more detailed report, including:

However, his (that is, Bishop Nazir-Ali's, a supporter of Eddy) comments were condemned by senior figures within the Church. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Hulme and the newly appointed Bishop of Urban Life and Faith, said: "Both the Bishop of Rochester's reported comments and the synod private members' motion show no sensitivity to the need for good inter-faith relations. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are learning to respect one another's paths to God and to live in harmony. This demand for the evangelisation of people of other faiths contributes nothing to our communities."

Bishop Lowe sets the issue clearly. He denies that the church should share the Gospel with persons of other faiths, but should instead "respect one another's paths to God."


​

So, sadly, although there are some whithin the Church of England like Paul Eddy, who know the importance of spreading the gospel to Muslims and others, there are plenty more who hold to the "many valid paths to God" idea.

Incidentally, not sure what you meant by Post 2, Capro. Did you mean that there are some on the BB who hold to the "many valid paths to God" idea?

 

Good for the Anglican church, let us not be ashamed of the gospel, despite how politically incorrects its promotion will be seen.

 

The Anglican church is a bit of a mess really. The other day a Bishop compared people who deny 'climate change' to Hitler - it seems that you have to have a few bizarre opinions to be an Anglican bishop.

It's not surprising that the most successful evangelism and charity work in the UK is done by non-denominational, evangelical churches. The Church of England is for people who seem content to stand still for years and enjoy their church fellowship. Our local Anglican church has had a lot of the same people running things for about 15-20 years.

 

It would be "good for the Anglican church" if true, but as I explained in Post 3, The Anglican church has made no such plan. Paul Eddy, a trainee "priest" in the Church of England, has tabled a private member's motion on the matter, for discussion at the next meeting of the General Synod. Although some in the C of E have indicated their support for Eddy, many are vociferous in their opposition.

 

It's a pity that the British media, when they want a ''christian comment'' always either go to Christian Voice (nutters) or they go to Catholic or Church of England figures who often have slightly odd views. In effect they go to the ultra-conservatives or the ultra-liberals. What a pity people like the Spring Harvest team don't have more of a profile in the secular media.

 

We should pray for our Anglican brothers and sisters that their leadership will be able to see the value of the words of Paul Eddy and his supporters. But even if the leadership cannot see it, we should pray that Mr. Eddy and those like him will be able to make a postive impact on their parishoners and the Muslims they encounter.

 

As a believer, I have a hard time agreeing to the acceptance of the notion, "there are many paths". All people in religions apart from Jesus Christ, are doomed, despite their sincerity, and to intercourse with them on a regular basis, which this notion dictates, would be intellectually dishonest, and frankly very uncomfortable to me, if the ground rules forbid witnessing for truth.

 

Lots of legislation has been to handcuff Christianity, and facilitate Islam. It's not "lost it's nerve" but it's legislatively, and politically, a handcuffing. The Body of Christ is not strong in Europe anymore.

And look what's happening to the spreading of the Gospel in Canada.

 

A bit of further info, clarification and comment on what has been written thus far on this thread:

+Michael Nazir-Ali is evangelical, was raised in Pakistan and frequently speaks out against Islam and the 'Islamification' of Britain, much to the chagrin of some of his more liberal colleagues.

Paul Eddy's motion isn't specifically targeted at Islam, but calls for Anglicans to evangelise all those of non-Christian faiths. I don't know what sort of likelihood there is of Synod passing it but I would be grateful for your prayers that they will.

The Synod only speaks for the Church of England, which is the province of the Anglican Communion within England; it doesn't affect other provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion such as TEC in the US.

+Gordon Murrell, the Bishop of Stafford's comments about climate change were OTT IMO, unnecessarily laced with polemic and hyperbole; it would have been more appropriate if he had likened those who ignore climate change to those who ignore child abuse (as opposed to perpetrate it), but still a bit strong.

And, yes, with Born_in_Crewe, I wish the media would interview Christians other than either 'lone gunmen' like Stephen Green (Christian Voice) or ++Rowan Williams (I would however take issue with the Catholics being 'leftfield' spokesmen: ++Cormac Murphy-O'Connor tends to be straight down the line on issues like abortion); ++John Sentamu and +Michael I have a lot of time for and would like them to receive more media coverage.

 

I agree that Paul Eddy's motion isn't specifically targeted at Islam - that is just what the media picked up on and emphasised.


I also agree with the "lone gunman" comment. I remember Stephen Green being interviewed on BBC Radio Devon. (For non-Brits, I should stress that that is a secular radio station).Part of that interview went something like this:

INTERVIEWER: "How many members does Christian Voice have?"
STEPHEN GREEN: "We don't have members, just supporters."
INTERVIEWER: "OK then, how many supporters do you have?"
STEPHEN GREEN: "They are more in number than David's band."
INTERVIEWER: "How many is that, then?"
STEPHEN GREEN: "Go and look it up for yourself."

​

Am I right in assuming that the addition signs in your post are shorthand for bishop (+), and archbishop (++)? I hadn't come across that before.

 

Sorry, yes, it's 'high church shorthand' ; + for a bishop, ++ for an archbishop, and +++ for a patriarch, (and ++++ for a Pope if you're Roman Catholic, but I'm not so B16 only gets a +++ from me!). If you look at official episcopal letters, that's how bishops sign themselves (or are supposed to) eg: the Archbishop of York signs off as '++John Ebor' and the AoC as '++Rowan Cantuar'.

[ETA - David I agree with you about the media making the Synod motion into an 'anti-Islamic' vote, but that's only because the Muzzies are the only one who will get cross about it; Danish flag, anyone?]

 

I agree... apart from the fact his comments were OTT, it just doesn't look good to the non-christian majority.

I should have made it clearer that when I mentioned Catholics, I was thinking of them more as being over-conservative. Rowan Williams obviously is the polar opposite. Sentamu seems allright but can be a loose cannon, e.g. cutting up his collar to protest against Mugabe (as if Mugabe would be bothered by that).

 

Hmmm...not sure that I'd characterise being anti-abortion as being 'over conservative'. Yes, the Catholics do have some extreme uber-conservative nutters like any other denomination (eg: Opus Dei, EWTN), but they are very much on the fringe; to say that Catholicism is characterised by EWTN is a bit like saying that evangelicalism is characterised by the GOD Channel or TBN.

I also have a lot of time for ++John Ebor; maybe cutting his dog collar up about Mugabe didn't achieve much there and then but I'd prefer him any day to our supine, hand-wringing government ministers who sit around mouthing meaningless platitudes while Zim goes to hell in a handbasket. ++John, like +Michael, knows what he believes, and speaks it out when he can - a refreshing change from quite a bit of the CofE episcopate.

 

What's the deal with the God channel? I have seen it criticised by a few people but others speak highly of it.

 

Basically it's Kenneth Copeland and other Prosperity Theology name-it-claim-it types. At least it was last time I looked