You are here . on the pale blue dot


'Anonymous' comments are not published.
Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Saturday, 12 July 2014

Bishop material?




"So I can expect a miracle and if the miracle comes then hey - God is good!" - said Rev. Hudson-Wilkin. Then no miracle, God ain't good? - He is bad! This is the weird world of 'feminists of faith' (see previous entry.)

Listen to what the Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin has to say about people of faith in her interview - ziltch. She has nothing to say that is spiritually uplifting; just you deserve to be a bishop in the Church of England if you are a woman regardless of the views of the Apostolic Church. If I may adapt a well worn autograph-hunters' phrase - By hook or by crook and ignoring The Book!

Rose argues, "If  this happens [women bishops] then we are going to be getting a Church that truly reflects the people of God and truly reflects what it means to be the Body of Christ, male and female together in leadership". She concluded, "As a Church it is important that we are relevant  to the people whom we serve and I think we would be sending a huge message out that we are irrelevant". What utter twaddle.

Apart from the weight of scripture and tradition, this view completely ignores the fact that since the start of the 'feminists of faith' campaign of self advancement the Anglican Church has become less relevant to society. Using secularism to advance their cause is destroying the mystery of faith and emptying churches but it does not occur to supporters of this destructive movement that they should pause and take stock of what is happening to the Church of England as they rush towards the precipice.

As the Mail Online puts it (story here) "The Church of England is being given a second chance to back the introduction of women bishops ... after the plan was derailed by just six votes cast by lay members in November 2012, causing shock and bitter recriminations within the Church of England and prompting threats of an intervention by Parliament." Note the language. 'Derailed' and 'second chance' suggesting an automatic right for women to be bishops, adapting the rules where necessary to achieve the desired result. A second chance should be an opportunity for reflection but little else matters besides the advancement of women. So successful has their campaign been that bringing the Church into the 21st Century as they see it has become written into the psyche without a thought for the consequences.

We are told that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, is preparing to "drive through" the plan should the General Synod choose to reject it for a second time. "The body could be dissolved so that fresh elections could produce the necessary majority by November or the bishops in the House of Lords could move to introduce the legislation without the approval of the Synod." [Patheos provides an interesting analysis of the plan here.]

Writing in The Yorkshire Post Sir Bernard Ingham says: "Nothing to prevent Church’s final leap of faith in women. - Frankly, it is overdue and I don’t know what all the fuss is about". Clearly he doesn't so he would be better advised to study the faith of the Church before sounding off about his idol, Mrs Thatcher. She was the Methodist Prime Minister who exerted her authority on the Church by imposing George Carey on the Church of England as Archbishop of Canterbury. He has now come out in favour of assisted dying much to the annoyance of the women bishops lobby deflecting attention as their big day approaches.

Ingham quotes: "If you want anything done, ask a woman, was Thatcher’s view". The point he misses is not whether women 'can' but whether they 'should' be bishops based on theology, not "this day and age" as I heard someone say on the Breakfast show this morning. Looking at some of the trendy, modern day bishops it is not a hard act to follow when relevance to society is your mantra but the question has already been answered by the wider Church including the majority of Anglicans. It is a resounding: NO.

2 comments:

  1. Interesting to hear Rose on Radio 5 this morning, debating 'assisted dying' against a liberal rabbi. She is exactly the kind of person the BBC would support - a shaven headed female black priest who wants to be a bishop. Sadly she chose the wrong subject and the interviewer/host turned against her because the liberal rabbi supported the pro-death lobby the BBC allies itself with. She was forced into saying that suffering is part of life's tapestry, which the rabbi was not even questioned about. Later, when she was safely off air, the host read out text after text condemning her views. Lets hope she has learnt a lesson in how to deal with the press and the BBC in particular!

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10971046/Ephraim-Mirvis-Instead-of-promoting-assisted-dying-we-should-help-the-living.html

    The true biblical understanding, from the Chief Rabbi

    ReplyDelete