Wilful blindness

PA Photos

This must be one of the saddest images in the history of the Church. A man who is loved by many, admired for his spirituality and respected for his intellect: 'a scholar, a historian, a theologian, a linguist fluent in ancient and modern Greek, and even Syriac, and a poet and a translator' but also a man apparently held captive by a political movement in a kind of Stockholm Syndrome situation. From an earlier blog entry in March this year: "In 'Rowan's Rule' [page 95] his 'change of heart' over women priests is recorded as: 'I had to change after looking around at my own side, and seeing the company I was keeping.' If only he had kept different company! He may have led us to unity but, with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ++Rowan has simply been used by many of those he has supported. Clearly he had the best of intentions but failed to realize that his integrity is not necessarily shared by others, even at the highest levels. He was ignored when he sought an honourable compromise for those who do not support the ordination of women and he has seen his authority rejected on the controversial issue of the Anglican Covenant."

The great mystery is in Abp Rowan's reaction to the vote that was intended to clear the way for women bishops and his subsequent reference to wilful blindness after its failure. He correctly identified the problem but missed the target. Those most guilty of wilful blindness are the bishops who ignore the example of the Good Shepherd and hold their office in the church because of their willingness to marginalise swathes of cradle Anglicans for a political correctness which has allowed secularism to override faith. Are the bishops so blind that they cannot see what their actions are doing to the Church of England? In his valedictory Advent letter to Anglican Primates, Abp Rowan wrote: "Our Communion has endured much suffering and confusion, and still lives with this in many ways; yet we are still privileged to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ in different ways within our common life, and so are reminded by God’s grace that it is still Christ who lives secretly at the heart of our fellowship, and renews it day by day."

It should be blindingly obvious to the House of Bishops that the suffering and confusion to which Abp Rowan refers comes as a direct result of liberal bishops implementing their secular values in many parts of the Anglican Communion in defiance of warnings from other parts of the Communion and from other members of the Holy Catholic Church about the consequences for unity. Their slavish obedience to the demands of Women and the Church (WATCH) now has the prospect of leaving many Anglicans without the pastoral care and sacramental assurance they were promised and in so doing, denying them what Abp Rowan claimed in his Advent letter: "yet we are still privileged to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ in different ways within our common life". If WATCH are allowed to have their own way, there is to be no common life in the Church of England for the beleaguered minority, only suffering and confusion.

If ever there were a need for a Damascus moment it is now.

Blind guides

Members of two Houses, Bishops and Commons, have been singing to the same tune over what they see as the wrong vote in an agreed democratic process of Synod. The lyrics hark to a narrow world of their own making but these are the very people who should have a sense of proportion, impartiality and care for all. None of these has been in evidence. Just a one sided chant based on misguided concepts of making mother church 'intelligible to our wider society'. Rowan Williams was correct when he said 'it seems as if we are wilfully blind' but mistakenly he was referring to the 'trends and priorities of society', not to the House of Bishops or to Parliament. 

It is disgraceful that there should have been such wilful misrepresentation of the orthodox position but it is time to move on. There has to be a solution that first of all is consonant with the faith of the Apostolic church however quaint that appears to modern society. Secondly we recognize that the Church of England has taken a different view from the Universal Church and that the majority of Anglicans in England are content to see women at the Altar and, therefore, for them to be bishops. If Women and the Church (WATCH) had not erected so many barriers to agreement they would have already achieved that objective but we must start afresh. 

WATCH must give ground. Talk of removing 'concessions' is ludicrous. Also, talk of a 'divided church' and a 'Church within a Church' must be forgotten. That is where we are. The Anglican Church is divided throughout the Communion and, more importantly we are divided from the rest of the Catholic church. The creation of a Third Province covering both England and Wales would enable us all to live together in a spirit of unity and Godly love, to prosper or to fail according to conscience, giving greater hope for the survival of the Anglican Church in England and Wales in one form or another if not both without any grounds for regarding some bishops as 'second-class' bishops, something that Parliament says it will not tolerate. This solution would give the Holy Spirit a chance to work God's grace without wilful impediment. If a solution on these lines is not acceptable it will confirm that both Houses representing the Establishment are hellbent on turning the Church of England into a form of secularism.

Postscript
A compromise suggested here.

 

Second Class or Second Rate?

I am becoming increasingly tired of pressure groups complaining about being 'second class' if they don't have exactly what they want, when they want it and as they want it.

This claim grew ever louder in the campaign for the ordination of women to the episcopate. As soon as there was a whiff of compromise to allow defeated Anglicans to worship as they wish, the feminist lobby denied that any promises had been given and cried foul: if women bishops were not to be absolute rulers they would be seen as second class bishops, an argument swallowed by ineffectual clergy and MPs who are charged with looking after the interests of us all.

It is no coincidence that the lesbian and gay movement have come up with the same strategy complaining that if they are not allowed to be 'married', their unions will be regarded as second class. But their campaign has gone further than that. They refer to interfering 'religious' people condemning them as homophobic if they fail to support gay marriage, somewhat odd since every Tom, Dick and Sally felt it their right to decide on the ordination of women even if they had never crossed the threshold of a church. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, a former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, went further. On a BBC Newsnight programme he accused people of using opposition to gay marriage as a cover for their homophobia, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people are opposed to re-defining marriage whether they are 'religious' or not.

One wonders how the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury now feels after championing many of the causes that today threaten society. In 'Rowan's Rule' [page 95] his 'change of heart' over women priests is recorded as: 'I had to change after looking around at my own side, and seeing the company I was keeping.'  If only he had kept different company! He may have led us to unity but, with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ++Rowan has simply been used by many of those he has supported. Clearly he had the best of intentions but failed to realize that his integrity is not necessarily shared by others, even at the highest levels. He was ignored when he sought an honourable compromise for those who do not support the ordination of women and he has seen his authority rejected on the controversial issue of the Anglican Covenant .

And so it goes on with one minority group or another constantly chipping away at society, trading on traditional British values of fair play until only minorities rule. The British Sunday is now barely recognisable from any other day of the week. Soon there will be no difference after the Sunday Trading Laws are relaxed for the Olympic Games leaving only the Friday Muslim day of prayer as having any religious significance and appearing to be the British norm. It is the silent majority of British citizens who are being rendered second class by those airing their second rate views, unable to see further than the confines of their own narrow self interest to the detriment of the rest of us.

Self or selfless?

The current debate on gay marriage ignores an important aspect of marriage - children. Children may not be in the minds of all gay or lesbian couples but if they are, they ignore the fact that it is normal for a child to have a mother (female) and a father (male). 

In probably the most high profile case, Sir Elton John and his partner have admitted that their son "faced 'challenges' and potential 'double' stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems." Hardly surprising when the boy's 'mother' (and possibly his biological father) will be 84 when Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John is 21 and his father (also possibly his biological father) is in his 70th year and both are/were male. In the US there was another bizarre story of a pregnant father giving birth to a bouncing baby girl. These sort of cases are so far removed from normality that they highlight the absurdity of change for no apparent reason other than self-gratification. I want, therefore I must have, no matter what the consequences.

Fresh from his Review for the Archbishop of Wales who appears to be somewhat accident prone in his choices, the liberal-minded former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth has stepped into the debate with the suggestion: "Instead of at first opposing civil partnerships, and then only accepting them grudgingly with gritted teeth, they should have welcomed them warmly from the first and immediately proposed services of commitments and blessing in church. They should do this even now." Few people are any longer interested in what the Anglican Church has to say but it will be interesting to see what trendy recommendations Lord Harries comes up with for the Church in Wales to hasten its further decline.

Many religious and non-religious heterosexual people supported civil partnerships despite reservations that some participants sought to have their partnerships seen as a marriage. In the church this has become a familiar pattern of give a little, grab the lot. Spurious arguments about equality have seen women's ordination and liberal sexuality take more bites out of the apple until there is nothing left but a barely recognised core. The Anglican Communion is now in its death throws as the Anglican Covenant attempts to paper-over the cracks. For some odd reason, once a band wagon starts rolling people jump on for fear of being left behind and branded yesterday's people, many clergy included. 


PM David Cameron has been followed by the Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband in support of so-called gay rights but in reality it has more to do with electoral advantage than ethics or conscience. By implication Cabinet Minister Francis Maude now associates family values with being nasty!  There is a moral here. Trendy desires have done the Anglican Church no favours in her drive to become more relevant to society. What the country needs is strong leadership based on traditional values instead of pandering to current whims which favour self over selflessness.

At last some sanity in the C of E

The Church of England has warned its clergy not to register same-sex relationships, following government confirmation that places of worship can host civil partnership ceremonies from next month. 

This is welcome news. Civil Partnerships are a sensible development but as ever some people want continually to push the boundaries. On past form promises are discarded or there are denials that they ever existed.  

News from the US has it that the Anglican Covenant has been rejected because it is "a political and theological threat that would alter the American church’s power base and undo the advances made by the church’s liberal wing in recent years." 

We have had more than enough of the liberal US church's views wrecking the Anglican church in this Country. Let's hope sanity prevails this time.

For better or for worse...

...for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death us do part, according to God's holy law.

The Mail Online has reported that "Two million husbands and wives are not lawfully married because of a Church of England blunder" speculating that "marriage partners heading for divorce may try to deny their spouse maintenance, support or even a home on the grounds that they were never really married". What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

There is a serious point here. Constant change has made a complete mess of Anglicanism but in reality, however man or woman legislates it is in the sight of God that we shall be judged. The Anglican Church has been on a slippery slope ever since change was introduced to make it more 'relevant'. Gone is much of the mystery, the awe, the beautiful language making worship commonplace. Political correctness has replaced tradition, so much so that the catholicity of the church is being surrendered. The result? An Anglican Covenant that proposes the use of sticking plaster to heal broken limbs.

Drastic surgery is needed. The feminisation of the church must be halted. The first step is to abandon the divisive measure permitting women bishops signalling to the Universal Church that unity is more important than feminism. The alternative is further decline with the Anglican church becoming little more than a social network when the Lord's table might as well be used to serve tea and biscuits.