You are here . on the pale blue dot


Blog notes

Anonymous comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.
The blog owner is unable to ‘unfollow’ Followers.

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Easter message


The bishops of the Church in Wales,                                                                                                                                                             Source: Church in Wales


The first of the Church in Wales bench of bishops to issue her Easter message was ♀Joanna. Her opening paragraph was straight out of the feminists handbook:

"Women, weeping and numb,  came to the tomb determined to do the last thing they could for the teacher and Rabbi they loved and revered and in whom they had put their hope for renewal and change, justice and hope."

The women did what women did. That was that. A completely different interpretation to Joanna's from a Catholic woman's point of view can be read on the Les Femmes - The Truth blog here.

Jesus did what He did, not what feminists today think He should have done for renewal and change, justice and hope.

The Easter messages from June and Gregory suggest that the other half of the bench will have nothing better to offer the spiritually assassinated. Those poor souls robbed of the very core of their being. Women who have given a lifetime of service to the church only to find that the renewal, change, justice and hope spoken of by Joanna is not for them. It is for those who regard the Resurrection is an opportunity for political advancement.

Update

At last, bishop Andy's Easter message puts Christ firmly at the centre with no frills, no modern comparisons, no do-gooders.  Very well done.



28 comments:

  1. How refreshing to read the Episcopal letters, each in there own way supporting Christ at the heart of renewal. The raw coalface of giving ones life for others (+June). The need to reach out and touch those in greater need (+Gregory) and through the passion, bring Christ to the World, one cannot change the fact women were at the heart of the revelation "He is risen" (+Johanna).

    Is there a need to see a pseudo political agenda here? Advancement of women over men, I think not! Whatever level of service All have a place in being Christ at the coalface, it is a personal choice to choose to serve or, not.
    Reading the other article about women linked above, although speaking about both Mary mother of Jesus and the Magdalene, it is however out of theological context. Some may choose to venerate, other may not. The context clouds the real re of the women, they were both messengers of the risen Christ.
    We can all have various theological perspectives, the clear message is God chose to use women to announce the joyous news. Doing so does not set a political train in motion for womens ministry or, demean a womens role, but moreover, expresses a view debated down the centuries, women and men are equal in God's service. Therefore, if He calls, ordains and commissions who are we to argue.
    Is it not time to fall in behind the bishops, like them or not, and seek God's grace as He leads through His appointed. Perhaps an embargo on decent might help. DPM.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your response DPM amounts to like it or lump it, echoing the sentiments of the Archdeacon of Llandaff when she said, "New individuals with conscientious difficulties over women’s ministry will simply have to make personal decisions and individual choices, to find accommodation as best they can – just as many already have to do over a host of other current issues, some very uncomfortable, where people find themselves representative of a view which is not that sanctioned by the ‘church’ as a whole, and upheld through Synod and Parliament”.

    You are easily moved by what the bishops have written but you have not one word of comfort for worshippers the church has abandoned. Just ‘fall in behind the bishops, like them or not’. It is not a question of liking them. It is about sacramental assurance.

    How does one fall in behind bishops who have strayed from the apostolic faith practised by the vast majority of Christians, the real ‘church as a whole’, not a tiny province that has strayed using synodical voting as justification for their actions.

    I take your point regarding the ‘Les Femmes - The Truth’ blog which I used as an example to illustrate differing interpretations of women regarding the importance of women at the tomb. For more orthodox examples read a previous entry ‘Women, Discrimination and The Church’ at https://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/women-discrimination-and-church.html
    and Marianne Dorman at http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Index.html

    And don’t forget the feminist campaigner and prominent activist in the movement for the ordination of women, the Rev Dr Una Kroll. She was greatly lauded by fellow activists for her contribution ‘Bread not Stones’. She saw the light and converted to Roman Catholicism after helping to ruin the spiritual lives of other women and men in the Anglican Church.

    Refreshing? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You forget too DPM that every single Welsh Bishop spouts only left wing politics. That is not balanced and does not represent the wide range of political views in the pews. They make things sound so simple....for example...I have worked on homeless projects and think we should take it seriously as Christians...however...the majority of people I worked with have addictions......therefore it not a simple answer just to give them shelter....we found that some people made themselves homeless (seriously they would give up housing association flats etc) in order to come to the night shelter....as it was free and they could spend their money on their addictions. Desperately sad.....but many people working with the homeless are now concentrating on helping people over addictions not just providing shelter. That's just one of many examples. But life and politics aren't as black and white as the bench would like to make out.
    John Davies suggested recently that we ought to pay more tax and get more services. Sadly with his own house in disorder that was unwise...how many Churches have seen their full time clergy disappear yet no reduction to parish share....doesn't the Archbishop's idea work both ways? Apparently not .........

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are several aspects here. The first being the lost, the left behind. Has anyone sought a meeting with there bishop, as a group, parish or, representatives? Discussing concerns, solutions. I notice the Bishop June has said she is listening and welcomes comments, suggestions as she learns about her diocese. Has anyone tried to arrange an appointment. Similar could be done with other diocesans too.
    From a recent conversation, I learnt the +Gregory frequently met with a Parish during a recent interegnum the result, the right oversight.
    The Parish share issue is one of serious struggle for many Parishes, has any voiced concerns in a meeting with a bishop?
    Homeless people do deserve respect, help and services, the Churches do have a duty of care. But, as noted, funds need to be targeted in the right order with, addiction, poverty, debt, mental illness etc. The Church should lobby political sources, many denominations have, do and successfully help. The CinW seem to speak but less action. Again, has anyone challenged a bishop?
    The parishioners who for whatever reason are lost, or unable to accept a womens ministry, of course need rightful pastoral provision. But, with the sometimes malign of criticism of women, some rightfully deserved, is it any wonder things have significantly worsened. Has any RB member tabled a motion in regards to restoring provision? I notice, the former bishop of Monmouth, has been licensed in Llandaff. Its a start.
    Anglo catholicism has a place in the Church, but as the Church moves forward after the rather turbulent recent years, maybe its time once gain for a representative number to formally voice opinion as to that possible provision.
    Whether one follows the Roman Catholic line of apostolic succession, which in essence has some theological merit, or, the more liberal approach, that the Holy Spirit calls both genders to the priesthood. The status quo is here to stay, an anathema to some and a blessing to others. The solution is talking, learning and listening. PP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PP, you wrote "the former bishop of Monmouth, has been licensed in Llandaff. Its a start."
      It is not. Substituting a male for a female turns a theological position into one of sexism. Barry Morgan killed off alternative episcopal oversight with the full support of the bench when Bishop David Thomas retired.
      Provision was made under the ludicrous code of practice for a male diocesan to stand in for a female diocesan but they all hold views on the ordination of women that are not shared by the majority of Anglicans, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
      From my own experience the bishops are simply not interested unless you agree with them.

      Delete
    2. I understand that the two Davids and others took Caiaphas at her word, spoke to her, were ignored and rebuked with false allegations made against them.
      She wasn't interested in either learning or listening!

      Delete
  5. Excellent Easter Message from the Bishop of Bangor. A beautiful and professionally produced video. Well done to all concern and thank you, Bishop Andrew, for your uplifting spiritual message full of the joy and hope of the resurrection of our Blessed Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AB are you satisfied that you were strictly fair to Joanna? Wasn't the first half of the sentence you quote thoroughly biblical and humanly sensitive? Is not the only part you might argue with the reference to 'change, justice and hope'? Then only in certain interpretations. It does not help the cause to be unfair. Perhaps an apology might be in order? If her words had been penned by a twelfth century abbess, would you have written similarly? Just asking.
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes and no Bob. The first half of the sentence is, as you say, biblical and humanly sensitive but it is used to support the second part which is politicising the actions of the women. The disciples followed Jesus to hear what He had to say. Some followers may have expected more than Jesus promised, a practice being continued today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, AB, I agree with Joanna that the women who visited Christ's tomb loved and revered him and, before his crucifixion, had been imbued with hope for renewal; as for desiring change and justice, there is no evidence that the Lord intended to intervene politically. He decisively rejected the offering of material bread as forming the central object of his ministry, although, as we know, he healed the sick etc. Would that the modern Church showed greater concern to offer the Bread of life than mere social activism! There must be a balance. The modern Church, in my view, has for the most part got it wrong.
      Bob

      Delete
  8. AB have you noticed the latest theological feminist fatuity? (see BBC website); a professor (female, needless to say,) claims that when the disciples were sent out two by two, one of them was a woman in each case.
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  9. AB please correct my last blog. The two by two story is from the Mail on line, not the BBC.
    Sorry.
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another way to kill a Church.......

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5566155/amp/Archbishop-Wales-chooses-EASTER-cast-doubt-Resurrection.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Danny, what a grotesque failure he is proving to be in following the notoriously unbelieving David Jenkins. If the cathedral lightning strike was not divinely caused, it should have been! Who in the Church in Wales will dare to attack him (John Davies). He deserves to be bishop at least
      Bob
      Bob

      Delete
    2. A punch on the nose for the archbishop, from a tutor at St. Padarn's college in Llanddaff: https://t.co/KjyXoclVPh
      Evangelical Ed

      Delete
  11. Of course you can attack John the Fart - "We continue as we please".

    ReplyDelete
  12. It was a non-story and so typical of the Daily Mail. ++John is corrent to say that we don't know how the resurrection happened precisely because it took place "whilst it was still dark" in the silence and secerecy of the night. Resurrection is something we literally wake up and discover has already happened and we are left speecheless as to how. That is not to deny it happened at all, it's to say that God brought it about whilst the first disciples were asleep; 'it was still night'. And it is still night in terms of our explaining the resurrection, God leaves us in the dark. That's, I believe, what ++John was saying in the article and it's just so typical of those who contribute to this blog to misrepresent his words.

    Dare I say that this does not surprise me: I suggest that many of the extreme contributors to this site have yet to discover what resurrection means let alone live out its meaning in life-affirming, forgiving and generous ways. Many remain entombed in the dark ages with their misogynistic and homphobic rants against this that and the other; wake up and discover the resurrection life at work in those around out. Come out!

    ReplyDelete
  13. A'non story'? It does not appear so. Did the archbishop say 'I don't think anybody can tell you what happened when it comes to empty tombs...'Physical bodily resurrection is terribly hard for people to think about today...'? Did he not quote the heresiarch David Jenkins, who was openly sceptical of a bodily resurrection? Is it unfair to deduce from these statements that he is dubious about why the tomb was empty? As such, is the archbishop proclaiming the faith that Christians everywhere have proclaimed at all times and in all places? He seems only half way there! A disappointment. Perhaps half pay would be appropriate?
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  14. Resurrection Life you are incorrect.......the Daily Mail was simply quoting from a longer interview with Christian today UK, a well respected Christian news outlet, they weren't out to twist The Archbishops words. If you read the whole interview, it is clear that The Archbishop was not able to affirm a personal belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and quoted The Bishop of Durham with his offensive words about a "pile of bones".
    We also have him joking about telling people that Jesus died to save sinners...which is also deeply offensive. The direct quote is........He joked that, 'I must remember now, next time I visit a food bank, to say Christ Jesus died to save sinners – that will cheer them up no end.'

    This blog the only voice normal pew sitters get, as the CiW is now Bishop-centric. We don't mean to be negative, but many of us have left or are thinking of leaving the Church we have been part of since birth. Having an Archbishop publicly mocking and denying things that are important to us does not help.

    I am evangelical not extreme, celebrating the resurrection does not mean that I can believe what I like....life affirming and forgiving yes......but go and sin no more.......No where does liberalism grow Churches. People get out of bed on a Sunday morning because Jesus really did die to save sinners. And bodily rose...

    this is the whole interview:
    https://www.christiantoday.com/article/archbishop-of-wales-interview-i-am-not-left-wing-for-backing-justice-equity-and-compassionexecute1/127898.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My brother Danny, I must correct you. Jesus did not rise from the dead; he "was raised" from the dead. If our Lord "rose" from the dead, his death was meaningless. He died simply to show off. His resurrection was brought about through the actions of God the Father, and he was raised to life, as proof to that early Christian community that God had accepted his sacrifice on the cross, and that salvation was now complete.
      In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul struggles with language to describe the resurrection. He talks about physically spiritual and spiritually physical bodies. This must have blown the Greek minds who heard it first. Nevertheless, it is clear that the risen Jesus was both spiritual and physical. He offered Thomas the opportunity to place his fingers in the scars left by the nails. Yet when the doors are locked, they prove to be no barrier to him. For forty days, he comes and goes, as he pleases.
      What bothers me most about the Archbishop's actions over this past week is how many more worshippers have been lost to the Church in Wales through his foolishness? The one thing is certain: the Archbishop is no David Jenkins. At least David Jenkins had a doctorate in Divinity and had a grasp of theology, whether we agree with his views or not. With his Mickey Mouse diploma, the Archbishop is trying to sound clever, but he is anything but theological. Likening the resurrection story to fake news is bound to upset those who have been faithful to the Gospel and to their Lord and his Church. If the bishops have got nothing to say to build up those entrusted to their charge, then it time they hang up their mitres, and get off the stage. What the Church needs is pastors of the flock, rather than hirelings, who care nothing for the flock.

      Seymour Clearly

      Delete
    2. Gosh Seymour.....that means the apostles creed and Nicene Creed both have it wrong as they claim "he rose".

      Delete
    3. Danny, the reason the creeds are incorrect is because of bad translation. The original text of the Nicene Creed says, “καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς”, and the original text of the Apostles’ Creed is ”τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἀπò τῶν νεκρῶν”, The word in bold is anastanta, which comes from the Greek verb anistemi. This verb is causal – the subject is “made to stand up” or “made to rise”. Therefore, our creeds should say: “He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” and “On the third day he was raised from the dead”. The matter became clouded with the translation of the Creeds into Latin, where the word resurrexit – he rose – was used to translate anastanta.
      Yet again, how many clergy say of the faithful departed, “May they rest in peace and rise in glory”? If it was fitting for God to raise Jesus to life, what makes the clergy, or anyone else for that matter, think that us lesser mortals should be any different? We will be raised in glory; if it pleases God.
      It might be pedantic and it might be a case of semantics; but it is good to remind ourselves that we are not above God, and we have no power to decide whether we will rise in glory or not. In the final hours before his death, Jesus placed himself wholly and completely in the hands of God, and God vindicated him. It was complete surrender on the part of our Lord, which we would do well to learn. It appears to me that there is too much pride and vanity in the life of the Church, which has nothing to do with the living Lord, nor with his resurrection.
      Nevertheless, I wish you all a blessed and joyous Eastertide. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed.

      Seymour Clearly

      Delete
    4. Yes, traditional theology does state that the Father raised the Son.
      In view of the doctrine of the Trinity, and especially the statements of the Athanasian Creed, I should be interested in Seymour's interpretation of the implications of the doctrine.
      Rob

      Delete
    5. Rob, you are a mischievous individual, if no-one has told you that before!!
      The Athanasian Creed states quite clearly that Son is equal to the Father in respect to his divinity; but inferior to the Father in respect of his humanity. Therefore, when the Son became human, he laid aside his divinity to become like us in all things, except sin. In other words, Jesus didn't have an unfair advantage in living the perfect life. His incarnation brings him to the starting block that we start from. The difference is that Jesus learned obedience to the Father through his sufferings (Hebrews 5: 8), and that obedience brought him to the cross (Philippians 2: 8). It is for this reason that the work of Christ was acceptable to the Father, which is why he raised him from the dead. It is the guarantee of salvation for all who believe and trust in him. In Ephesians 4, St Paul presents to the Ephesians the victory parade of the Messiah, who takes the ransomed souls from hell in his procession to heaven. At that point, his redeeming work is done, and he assumes his mantle of divinity once more, when once again he becomes equal to the Father.
      Hope that helps Rob, but I wouldn't have sleepless nights over it! If you do, you could always make an appointment with the Archbishop! I hear that he thinks "divine" is the thing digrapes grow on.
      Seymour Clearly

      Delete
    6. Seymour,
      Thank you for taking my query seriously.There is more to be said, but it would be best discussed in conversation with the credal texts before us.Let's agree that we are in the realm of mystery here.
      Rob

      Delete
    7. Rob, we most certainly are in the realms of mystery; but the good news is that one day, we will know it and understand it fully, just as we have been fully known! Have a blessed Eastertide.
      Seymour

      Delete
  15. Unhelpful semantics, Seymour! He was raised: therefore he rose. Otherwise, first rate contribution.
    Archbishop, you have caused a new shameful low for the Church in Wales.
    What's your take on this AB?
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  16. They certainly like dressing up in the Anglican Church of Wales.

    ReplyDelete