|The Ven. F A Jackson's church received a grant of £500,000 to save the Seven Deadly Sins |
Credit Clerical Whispers
It is instructive to compare what the Bishop of St Asaph had to say about a code of practice when he proposed the legislation to allow women bishops in the Church in Wales with the long term aim of the amendment mover, Canon Peggy Jackson, as she then was, in her GRAS paper for WATCH in 2009. Bishop Gregory said: "The problems are formidable—there are questions of conscience, of not creating second class bishops, of not creating second class fellowships, of providing fruitful avenues of sacramental and pastoral care for all". Almost encouraging had it not been for the reference to creating second class bishops.
WATCH women constantly make the claim that separate sacramental and pastoral provision would make female bishops second class bishops. Presumably this is a gender fixation because I have not heard any complaints from diocesan bishops about being second class bishops in areas where PEVs have been administering sacramental and pastoral care. The 'second class' bishop claim is a simple ruse which deceives the gullible into believing that a great injustice is being perpetrated because everything has to be 'equal' in today's world, ie, the same. A fuller explanation of mono-episcopacy can be read here. This is a comparatively recent concept which becomes clearer if the earlier meaning of epískopos, 'overseer' is substituted.
The code of practice strategy is a pretence designed to appear fair-minded by implying provision when what is offered is known to be unacceptable putting dissenters in a situation of accept it or leave . Elsewhere in society that would be regarded as pure deception. Nevertheless, the former Treasurer of the Society for the Ministry of Women in the Church, now defunct, the Ven. Peggy Jackson advocated this strategy in her 2009 WATCH paper summarised thus:
Therefore the Code should:
• be simple
• be mutual (applying equally to both sides, e.g. in the
Diocese of Chichester)
• introduce no change in the understanding or definition of
• define no special categories of bishops, or differential
ways of exercising the role of bishop, arising out of issues
• be operated and upheld by trust, in preference to law.
Her message is clear but what is galling is that this duplicity comes from a woman who admits that she had no religion until she was welcomed into the church in her hour of need after her husband left her. Such is her gratitude that she is prepared to see cradle Anglicans who welcomed her forced out of their church because they cannot agree with her interpretation of her acquired faith.
Also back in the frame is the Archbishop's last disaster in illjudged senior appointments, the Very (short term) Rev. Janet Henderson. She has emerged from ecclesiastical hibernation to bang the feminist drum again (bang, bang, bang here) demanding no surrender in the Church of England. It says much for Dr Morgan that he couldn't achieve his ambition, even with the connivance of his bench sitters, without feminist assistance from outside the Province. On the evidence available it appears that spirituality is not the Archbishop's first consideration which may explain his distaste for orthodoxy and his lack of consideration for worshippers not sympathetic to his revisionist policies.
There is no pretence of care for dissenters from the briefly Dean of Llandaff, just faithless propaganda designed to appeal to the ignorant who are urged to exert pressure on the church even though they ridicule religion and religious practice. From her new blog:
"The Anglican churches of England and Wales need to wake up and realise it is ten to midnight. It is not possible for the church to offer a moral lead when we are so fundamentally caught up in supporting and perpetuating attitudes that devalue and dehumanise women, gay people and victims of abuse. Such collusion with oppression is completely unacceptable to almost everyone in society in the same way that human trafficking and exploiting children as soldiers and for sexual purposes are beyond the pail (but have not always been so). To continue to justify these attitudes seems to most people outside the church contrary to the gospel and makes fools of Christians." And if her view does not prevail, go back to Synod again and again until the sisterhood get their own way. Anyone who doesn't accept their terms can leave. So much for the fruit of the Spirit!
The absurdity of this 'moral' lead is that by implication, it condemns Christ for criminal negligence in failing to see that by appointing only male apostles He condemned women to a lifetime of oppression and sexual abuse. If WATCH women really want to aid the oppressed they should get off their backsides and do something about it instead of attacking the faith of people who have maintained the Anglican church long enough for entrists to abuse them with their absurd claims of discrimination.
So what should a code of practice do? In GRAS/WATCH terms, first and foremost it must give the impression of generosity. It must ensure that - you have to laugh at this one - introduce no change in the understanding or definition of episcopacy (ie, after they have changed it). It must define no special categories of bishops, or differential ways of exercising the role of bishop - thus effectively nullifying any semblance of sacramental and pastoral care. Don't make it legal in case there is something they haven't thought of to exclude anyone who disagrees with them.
A former Archbishop of Wales said that the devil had been at work when a previous vote on the ordination of women was lost. He was right but not on that occasion. If the promises of the present Archbishop prove to be a sham then the Governing Body vote will be seen as a fraud. In those circumstances a new measure should be put to the Governing Body under a new Archbishop using honesty rather than deception .
|Dr Morgan wins, the church loses.Picture: Highlights|