Wednesday, 20 October 2021

Slowing the death of Anglicanism in Great Britain

General Synod                                                                                            Source: Church of England

An analysis of  the votes for membership of the Church of England General Synod Elections 2021 shows a majority of the House of Clergy to be revisionists while the House of Laity reflect more orthodox Anglican views despite intensive canvasing by Inclusive Church to elect revisionists:

 House of Clergy

Orthodox – 79    (40%)
Revisionist – 83  (42%)
Unknown – 34    (17%)

House of Laity

Orthodox – 73    (37%)
Revisionist – 69  (35%)
Unknown – 55    (28%)

(Analysist's note: The labels Orthodox and Revisionist refer to the member’s position on blessing same-sex unions.)

As in Scotland and Wales bishops in the CofE are out of touch with views in the pews but in England there is some hope for Anglicanism in the House of Laity.

Commenting on the results the Rev Peter Ould wrote, "this puts to bed finally the misconception constantly spun by those wanting a change in the church’s teaching that the average person in the pews supports their position. In reality, the representatives of those in the pews were more likely to back someone who took a traditional stance than someone who wanted to revise the church’s teaching."

In Christian Today a different analysis led to the conclusion that "Church of England conservatives on marriage and sexual ethics have held their ground in this month's elections to the General Synod but have not made significant gains" leading a co-creator of the Thinking Anglicans website to predict "It is likely that following the Church in Wales vote to allow services of blessing for same-sex couples a similar proposal will go before the new Synod within the next two years."

Already leading the way on same sex marriage the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church continue to show their contempt for orthodox Anglicans in the way they are handling the behaviour of their appointee, Anne Dyer, bishop of  Aberdeen & Orkney. Two reviews have recommended she “step back permanently” from the episcopate with immediate effect. Instead the bishops have chosen a mediation route to resolve the case, that is, to provide the result they want which is typical of revisionists. They persist until they win. 

The long suffering laity in Wales know only too well that their bishops regard themselves as the Church, manipulating Governing Body to do as they please.

The extending absence of the bishop of St Davids, who, like her Scottish counterpart, seems incapable of doing the decent thing and resign, calls into question the cosy structure the bishops have created for themselves. 

Following the extended absence of the former bishop of Monmouth, the review of which is still being massaged before release, one would have thought that the extended absence of another bishop while awaiting the appointment of a third would have at long last triggered a response to the recommendations of Section 15 of the 2012 Church in Wales Review

Recommendation XXII
There should be three administrative centres, one in the North
and two in the South and South West.

Recommendation XXIII
The Dioceses served by the three administrative centres should
form joint committees for all areas of work, unless there is an
overwhelming reason to keep a particular committee separate. 

Recommendation XXIV
The administrative centre in the North should also be the base for
the provincial work that relates most naturally to those offices of
the Welsh Government that are located in Llandudno. 

Recommendation XXV
The recommendations XXII, XXIII and XXIV should be reviewed
after three years and a judgement made about whether the
Church in Wales is best served by six dioceses with three
administrative centres or whether it would be more effective to
reduce to three dioceses, together with four area bishops.

While the Church in Wales has been turned upside down the bishops continue to do it their way, ignoring any recommendations that upset their privileged position.

Orthodox laity in England have shown that they can slow the death of their Church. Others should follow suit to protect the Anglican Church from its bishops.

Postscript [21.10.2021]

"Results of the General Synod (national church parliament) election in the Church of England indicate that conservative evangelicals will have the numbers to block changes such as authorising same-sex blessings or wedding ceremonies." Eternity News

45 comments:

  1. Tim Stanley nailed it three years ago.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/20/western-christianity-isnt-dying-natural-causes-dying-suicide/

    "Western Christianity isn't dying out from natural causes. It's dying of suicide."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Baptist Trainfan20 October 2021 at 15:57

    I doubt very much if lay membership in church councils, whatever the denomination, is ever truly representative of the folk in the pews. For instance, people who attend synods have to be those who have the time to do so (thus excluding, for instance, many who are employed or the parents of young children). They also tend to be those who are "keen" on church politics and matters - so those who are more concerned with getting "stuck into" the grassroots of their communities are less likely to stand for election. And then, of course, we have the "silent majority" who come to worship each Sunday (or, at least, some of them) but who are happy to go no further. The first part of this article seems to be based on the assumption that the House of Laity truly reflects the views of the "average person in the pews" - that may or may not in fact be the case; and I actually suspect that the average congregant has little interest in Synod discussions and debates!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No the house of laity do not represent the views of the average lay member of the average parish of the church in Wales. Time to stand for election and depose those who have made our church heterodox!

      Whamab

      Delete
  3. Baptist Trainfan I have an idea as to where you are coming from.
    The laity component of church councils, whether parish, diocesan synods and the like does tend to be narrow. My gut feeling is that understanding of theology among such laity tends to go little further than Sunday School.
    So yes, Amen
    Cambrophile.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rather than slowing it's death, let it be hastened and put out of its misery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who needs the church nowadays anyway?
      I can think of several priests who have been reciting prayers like robots for decades.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-58983047
      "Experts say major global faiths are discussing their relationship with AI, and some are starting to incorporate this technology into their worship. Robot priests can recite prayers, deliver sermons, and even comfort those experiencing a spiritual crisis."

      Delete
  5. We had enough orthodox clergy on GB to stop the bill passing. One was unable to attend because he had covid and two abstained, bowing to the pressure of being surrounded by people as we raised our hands to vote. The three of them would have stopped the bill passing. Be cautious about putting your hope in the numbers adding up!

    ET

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the point is they didn't and the ship has sailed. We should thank God that the Church in Wales has moved in the direction of inclusivity.

      Ruth

      Delete
    2. Why can't you find your own nom-de-plume?
      Is it the same reason you're intent on destroying the Church in Wales rather than founding your own?

      Delete
    3. The ship has indeed sailed and we should mourn that, not celebrate. Without mass repentance, the Church in Wales is surely damned. Fortunately, the Church in Wales is not actually THE Church in Wales, but rather A Church in Wales (though perhaps it has ceased to be even that) and there are plenty of other churches that do not seek to bless sin.

      ET

      Delete
  6. Abstentions made no difference. They are equivalent to a No vote, because the passing of a bill requires two-thirds in favour. If the absentee had instead been present and either abstained or voted against, the bill would not have passed.
    Barnabas

    ReplyDelete
  7. In truth this is still a cross section of middle England, and middle England has become more liberal in the last decade. Going forward there is likely to be more interest in debating green issues than anything to do with morality, sexuality, gender and the like. Most of the die hards have finished this time around, not many interesting characters now I’m afraid, even Mr and Mrs Farty of the Wirral can’t be bothered to get involved these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll have heard this many times before, but Jesus was more interested in where we put our pennies than he was our penis. His concern was justice not a narrow pre-occupation with morality. I'd love to know how charitable Ancient Briton is or indeed the majority who blog on here ...

      Ruth

      Delete
    2. In the interests of clarity, I confirm this imposter is not me and I do not share the views being espoused in my name.

      Delete
    3. How peculiar, imitation Ruth.
      In my copy of the new Testament Jesus was very much concerned and pre-occupied with morality.
      He didn't merely say "Your sins are forgiven" but added "go and sin no more".
      Not forgetting that in his time nobody called 'Ruth' had a penis.

      Delete
    4. Bogus Ruth,
      'his concern was justice...'. Not a good or just summary of his teaching and main aims. Justice first? I think not.
      Rob

      Delete
    5. I disagree Rob.

      Ruth

      Delete
    6. If his priority was "justice first" then kindly explain how he ended up nailed to a cross as a replacement for Barabbas the well known murderer?

      Delete
  8. Astounded by the arrogance of Ruth who believes she is the only person to be so named. Says it all!!!!

    Ruth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two questions (both of which remain unanswered) and a statement (for the benefit of other readers) clarifying that our original Ruth is not you (and vice versa) is hardly arrogance but clearly just trying to avoid confusion.
      Genuine contributors to Ancient Briton's esteemed blog generally follow the site rules and policies which exist for good reason. All contributors are asked to identify themselves uniquely so as to avoid any such confusion. The alternative would be for all contributors to post all comments anonymously which became a real problem several years ago.
      Original Ruth has been a regular contributor for many years and so, if for no other reason than common courtesy, it falls to you to decide on a different pen name, e.g., Ruth 2 or Ruth(b) etc.
      Your failure to adhere to AB's simple rules/requests combined with your aggressive attitude towards original Ruth suggests your agenda is indeed to cause confusion and subvert original Ruth with your own pro-gay stance and is a typical text book tactic of those who have been queering the Church in Wales for the last two decades.

      Your attempt to attribute and infer your own arrogance to another speaks volumes about you rather than original Ruth.

      I request AB gives due consideration to banning duplicate IDs on here else we may as well all revert to "Anonymous".

      Delete
    2. Really, get a life! Seriously.

      Ruthy

      Delete
    3. Ladies (with a penis) first.

      Delete
    4. Corrupt this blog, corrupt the Church, it's all the same to you isn't it untRuthy?
      Seriously.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. Thank you Gabriel. Much confusion has been avoided by the insistence of using pseudonyms but duplication presents problems of identification. Some folk like to write their own rules but thanks to the quality of most commentators those seeking to confuse rarely succeed in anything but showing up themselves as 'inclusive', uncaring individuals who regard anyone outside their circle of 'love' as unworthy. That is not a Church I recognise as Anglican or Christian.
    A bigger problem is comments being made without a pseudonym and therefore unpublished which is a shame because they are often useful contributions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One is increasingly encountering those who describe themselves, with great humility you understand, as "the liberal elite".
      Of course, the reality is that they are invariably anything but liberally minded and certainly not "elite".

      Delete
  10. Baptist Trainfan23 October 2021 at 12:06

    I know that many people on this site do not share my views; nor am I a member of the CinW.

    But I would have thought that Jesus, who often seemed to make a point of engaging with folk on the margins of society (woman at the well, Bartimaeus, people with leprosy, tax-collectors, the man by the pool of Bethsaida, the thief on the cross etc) was a model of inclusivity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To which did he say "Carry on sinning!"?

      Sounds to me as though you have him confused with Sid James. 😂

      Delete
    2. My recollection of all your examples, especially the man on the cross next to him, is they each repented of their sins.

      The fundamental problem with the likes of untRuthy is that they want to continue sinning in their ungodly lifestyle choices whilst demanding the Church distort and deviate from the straight and narrow to bless their choices.

      Delete
    3. Faulty memory, Urban, I fear. Look again.
      Rob

      Delete
    4. Highly likely at my age Rob but I see you don't take issue with the fundamental problem identified.

      Delete
    5. No need. We appear to be at one.
      Rob

      Delete
    6. Don't give them a penny. There is no way I can support CinW Bishops who are busy deconstructing Anglicanism and approving same sex relations. Who do they think they now represent?
      LW

      Delete
    7. Quite right, LW. Anyone who gives to a church that contributes to the Church in Wales is supporting sexual immorality. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

      ET

      Delete
  11. Caiaphas must go!25 October 2021 at 20:15

    I see Llandaff Cathedral has made another appearance in the Western Mail for all the wrong reasons again.

    The finances are up sh*t creek once more and the new lay Chapter are holding out the begging bowl to the few remaining gullible pew sitters.

    £65k a year deficit, the Memorial Hall has been sold off and now there's no Cathedral Choir or assistant Organist to make redundant.

    And no dud in the Deanery to take the fall for his abject failure to sort out the finances in the last seven years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know if there a link to the article on WallesOnline?

      Delete
    2. Caiaphas must go!25 October 2021 at 20:49

      No sorry, but Martin Shipton has quoted the Cathedral's own website and all the details are there.
      It must be said that the new lay Chapter are being more open than their predecessors because they need hard cash but there's still no sign of the concealed organ appeal accounts, quinquennial reports or the communicant numbers.
      So they still won't be getting a penny from me.

      Delete
    3. It was said repeatedly at the time his appointment was announced by Darth --Indidious.
      His golf caddie was never up to the job but he was the only mug bully boy Bazza could find to take on the poison chalice of Llandaff.

      Delete
    4. I see that fewer "choral" services are on the cards though.
      The faux "Director of Music" of the faux Cathedral Choir would be wise to brush up his CV.

      Delete
    5. After the chicanery of the organ appeal, the refusals to produce accounts, Bazza's public statement they'd lost £3/4 million and Gerwhine's poison pen letters, let the gullible increase their giving.
      They won't be getting a penny from me ever again.

      Delete
    6. Llandaff Cathedral has only survived this long by leeching off the Friends, increased support from the Representative Body,selling off properties and revaluing the remaining ones annually (since Gerwhine's arrival) rather than every 5 or 10 years.

      The gullible pew sitters would do well to remember that as a registered charity the Trustees should be liable for the losses so there's no need to worry.
      Let lay Canon Gerrard Elias QC and chums take the hit, they can afford it. Surely, it's why Caiaphas changed the Cathedral's constitution and appointed them in the first place?


      Delete
    7. Subversive Canon27 October 2021 at 12:01

      The Cathedral has been a disaster waiting to happen since the retirement of John Rogers as Dean.
      The toxic internal politics of Cathedral versus Parish was an ever-present undercurrent but for many the final straw was the £1.5 million organ appeal launched for an instrument quoted at £980k followed by the failure to keep proper accounts and repeated refusals from Peggy the Pilate (of "the taxman will never know" school of accountancy).

      Delete
  12. AB, there is a tweet on the CinWs website indicating that Bishop Joanna a will make a phased return from November 1st.I
    So she has her way, then. Waited till the controversy died down. But it hasn't. All the consequences are not yet known.
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mrs.Legg will always have her way. Similarly all Bishopettes will have their own way

      Delete