The misplaced remarks of Canon Jonathan Wilmot of RCN attacking Pastor John Angliss and journalist Alan Franklin for their criticisms of Barak Obama's pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage policies as unbiblical and dishonoring of those in authority, and his appeals to Imagio Dei arguments, reflect a fundamental ignorance of scriptural doctrines and principles.

Jesus Himself as our perfect divine example incarnate directly denounced Herod as a "fox" referring to his dubious character (Luke 13:32). Was Jesus guilty of dishonouring the one in authority, or with his unscrupulous actions and demeanor did Herod dishonor himself?

Clearly Jonathan Wilmot’s definition of honouring those in authority is not a biblical definition as Jesus in no uncertain terms drew an obvious distinction between honouring the position of one in authority and honouring them (Matthew 23: 2-3). The Hebrew prophets, moreover, denounced the deeds of multiple rulers from Saul and Ahab to Jeroboam and Athaliah. In his Pentecost kerygma in the first sermon ever preached in the history of the church the apostle Peter made patent reference to the Roman authorities who crucified Jesus as "godless"; actually "devoid of God’s law" (from the original Greek "anomos"). As an Anglo-American Christian and minister of religion (my family were from Britain but I hold American citizenship), it remains my testimony that a politician promulgating same-sex marriage and unrestricted partial birth abortion as Barak Obama openly does is likewise godless and devoid of God’s law. Additionally, for 25 years Mr. Obama attended and according to his released tax statements contributed $500 weekly to the church of Jeremiah Wright who preached a well-documented racism.

Alan Franklin jointly operates his website with his American wife who has merely exercised her legal and democratic rights as a U.S. citizen to criticize politicians and their policies as is safeguarded by American constitutional democracy. These constitutionally enshrined rights enjoyed by Americans were framed in theistic documents such as the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence by authors motivated by Judeo-Christian conviction and in principle do not broadly differ from the kindred spirit of British parliamentary democracy.

It is within the mandate of the Christian church to uphold biblical standards of morality. Examined scripturally, to fault those striving to do so on the hollow basis of "Imagio Dei" argumentation is an irrational and theologically bankrupt proposition. The church is called to be salt and light and its failure to do so by moral compromise and political correctness has spelt catastrophic consequences for both the church and for society. Indeed, Jonathan Wilmot’s very own numerically declining and self-destroying Church of England could not institutionally exist but would likely fragment and collapse without such moral compromise. The current caliber of Anglican compromise that is represented (if not personified in the estimation of some) by Jonathan Wilmot on moral essentials undoubtedly would see its own founding fathers "“ Tyndale, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper"“ out the door of the modern Church of England faster today than they left the Church of Rome in the 16th Century. This is the undeniable reality. The Church of England no longer even appears to believe or uphold its own 39 Articles. It seems that the only thing contemporary Anglican theoctrats will take a stand against are those willing to take a stand.

The real issue is neither John Angliss or Alan Franklin but a politically correct acquiescence to demands to accept things inimical to Holy Writ which God’s Word unambiguously condemns for taking the form of a hideous religious charade that some could only view as both cowardly and supremely hypocritical.

J. Jacob Prasch (Rev)
Moriel Ministries