I found the ‘Two faces’ in my previous post amusing but being ‘two faced’ is quite a different matter particularly when people describe themselves as Christians. The majority of people in Great Britain think of themselves as Anglicans especially at times of baptism, marriage and burial but few attend church regularly and many of those who do have forgotten the basis of their faith as expressed in the creed of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
Disingenuous from the start, supporters of the ordination of women have used stealth to achieve their aims. With the majority of people in the church happy to support women’s ministry there seemed little objection to women being made Deacons rather than Deaconesses especially in an age of political correctness. Not content with that, there soon developed a movement to ordain women to the priesthood using spurious claims of sexism and prejudice which pricked the consciences of the uninformed but fair minded. Hence they gathered support not only from those who, as nominal Christians, had never thought deeply about their faith, but more importantly from agnostics and atheists adding secular, political pressure to the soft under belly of the broad Anglican Church which had traditionally tolerated many kinds of churchmanship.
It wasn’t long before women Deacons were complaining that the only difference between them and Priests was that priests uttered a few words in the Prayer of Consecration and were allowed to administer the blessing. They insisted that their demands for ordination to the priesthood didn’t mean that they wanted to be bishops! Sufficient numbers believed them to gain a slender majority in a body not regarded in the wider church as competent to make such a decision but they entered the sacred ministry. The task of ‘converting’ parishes then followed encouraging those who couldn’t care less about theology and tradition to sing their chorus of ‘Oh what a lovely person, she’s doing a splendid job’ as though that were all there were to it. One could say the same of Albert Pierrepoint but it has no relevance.
Despite previous assertions they again raised their cries of discrimination because they were excluded from the Episcopate, notwithstanding the doubt about their admission to the priesthood in the first place. Now it seems they are to have what they always aimed for if the Church of England Synod accepts the recommendations of the Revision Committee set up to consider the necessary legislation. Those who oppose the measure on grounds of conscience are to be left with nothing despite being assured of an honoured place in their Church. A worthless ‘Hobson’s choice’ code of practice is offered with expressions of hope and desire that orthodox opponents will not leave.
This is duplicity in the extreme. They show themselves to be two-faced ‘Christians’ who read from the gospel according to WATCH. For Christ’s sake, Synod must reject the Revision Committee’s proposals and return to His teaching.