Monogamy not ideal
Sir: Robert Fraser and Meriel Oliver (Let- ters, March 14 and 21) miss the point. It is true that there would be no priests, and no Christians, if Church membership were limited to those who followed the ideals of Christ: no purse or scrip, no treasure saved UP, no resistance to violence in any cir- cumstances, no oaths, no thought to the morrow. Rather, the Church is composed of sinners, who aspire after these ideals, and fail. It is quite another thing to change the ideals. This is what the Church of England has done. It has authorised the ordination of divorced men `in some cir- cumstances'. Recently, the Bishop of Southwark apologised profusely for not ordaining some divorced women. Thereby, the Church is saying, `Monogamy is no longer our ideal. We are discarding Christ's ideals in favour of something Which we have made up for ourselves.' To Pursue Mr Fraser's analogy, it is as if they had declared that malice and envy were no longer sins.
I now wonder what other sins will be given approval by the General Synod. In its attitude to South Africa, it has already given tacit approval to political violence, as has the World Council of Churches. The Church of England's Board of Finance is Probably at this moment drafting a sugges- tion that `in some circumstances' you can serve God and Mammon. Since the ordina- tion of women will destroy the Church of England's chance of reunion with the more ancient branches of Christendom, they will be left free to explore other areas. Not long ago in California, an organisation rose to prominence called `Happy Hookers for Jesus'. If the House of Bishops acted swiftly enough, it might be possible to enter into serious and meaningful dialogue with this denomination before the next Lambeth Conference, and ensure that a good time was had by all.
A. N. Wilson
16 Richmond Road, Oxford
Previous page
