Bishop of London undermines Archbishop's authority

The Bishop of London has written to her clergy telling them they can ignore guidelines banning them from conducting services in their own churches thus contradicting advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

By her actions the former Chief Nurse gives support to those people who think they know better than the government and the Church, ignoring Covid-19 guidelines designed to protect our NHS and save lives. 

Shame on her.

God Save the Queen!

Before I set off with my wife to spend Christmas with family I read an advance report of what the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury would say in his final Christmas sermon as Archbishop. My heart sank. I comforted myself with the thought that the headline remark may have been taken out of context. But no, in his sermon there was indeed another dig at those accused of damaging the credibility of the church in the vote over women bishops. The Archbishop added: "Faith is not about what public opinion decides, and it is not about how we happen to be feeling about ourselves. It is the response people make to what presents itself as a reality – a reality which makes claims on you". You can listen to his remarks here and make of them what you will but this part of his sermon is clear enough: In the deeply painful aftermath of the Synod’s vote last month, what was startling was how many people who certainly wouldn’t have said yes to the census question [referred to at the beginning of his sermon] turned out to have a sort of investment in the Church, a desire to see the Church looking credible and a real sense of loss when—as they saw it—the Church failed to sort its business out.

I interpreted Rowan's contorted departing message as meaning that while "Faith is not about what public opinion decides" people outside the church have some sort of investment in the church which they desire to see looking credible. In other words, they have no real interest in the church and support her even less but public opinion in its ignorance is a useful tool which conveniently 'supports' the view that Rowan and his entourage are correct on the question of women bishops while the rest of us, including the much larger universal church of East and West, are wrong and simply don't understand Jesus properly.

In the 'women bishops at any cost' campaign, the Queen's position as 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England' has been tossed into the debate to justify the call for women bishops with remarks such as: "The queen is the head of the Church of England; if the Queen can head the Church of England why can't we have female bishops". This shows either a lamentable ignorance of the Church of England and of the priesthood itself or it is an attempt to influence those outside the church who feel that they have some sort of an investment in the church which entitles them to an opinion on the faith of people who are being unfairly criticised by their own clergy.

It was most heartening therefore to watch the Queen's traditional Christmas Day broadcast. Her Majesty delivered a simple Christian message that could be readily understood by all with the words: "This is the time of year when we remember that God sent his only son 'to serve, not to be served'. He restored love and service to the centre of our lives in the person of Jesus Christ. It is my prayer this Christmas Day that his example and teaching will continue to bring people together to give the best of themselves in the service of others. The carol, 'In the Bleak Midwinter', ends by asking a question of all of us who know the Christmas story, of how God gave himself to us in humble service: 'What can I give him, poor as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb; if I were a wise man, I would do my part'. The carol gives the answer, 'Yet what I can I give him – give my heart'." 

A clear simple message to live by Christ's example, not from a priest but from one who clearly understands the meaning of 'to serve, not to be served'. Something that the laity recognises but which has been largely forgotten by the clergy in their quest to see the Church of England relegated to the status of a Protestant sect.

Archbishop of Canterbury Poll

Photograph: Graeme Robertson/PA

In March 2012 when Rowan Williams announced his decision to return to academia after 10 years trying to hold the Anglican Communion together as Archbishop of Canterbury, the Guardian speculated on his successor with the bookies favourite, John Sentamu, in the lead. Now the Telegraph is running a poll which again shows John Sentamu in the lead with 38.5% of the votes followed by Richard Chartres with a respectable 23.8% and Justin Welby, enthroned less than a year ago as Bishop of Durham, in third place with 14% of the votes. Perhaps next time after more experience?

For me, Richard Chartres is the obvious choice. He has considerable gravitas and has not raised the doubts about his suitability which have dogged John Sentamu's chances. Also, as pointed out in 4 News he has actually increased attendance in his diocese, a rare attribute when church attendance is falling in this country. But the Archbishop of Canterbury is leader not just in England, but of 77 million Anglicans worldwide, the majority of whom regard the liberal direction of the church here and particularly in the US as a hindrance to the mission of the church, something which the Crown Nominations Committee now sitting must seriously consider in the interests of church unity.

Almighty God,
you have given your Holy Spirit to the Church
to lead us into all truth:
bless with the Spirit's grace and presence
the members of the Crown Nominations Committee.
Keep them steadfast in faith and united in love,
that they may seek your will, manifest your glory
and prepare the way of your kingdom;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord.
Amen.

The Call of Wisdom

Click here to listen a beautiful new anthem, The Call of Wisdom, written by British composer Will Todd and performed for the Queen at the Diamond Jubilee service of thanksgiving at St Paul's Cathedral today by a choir made up of children selected from around the country. The Queen's face says it all as she listens intently to the repeated words 'I am here' which have much resonance for people of faith and recall Her Majesty's Coronation Oath. The Queen has 'been here' reigning for sixty years in a remarkable act of service and devotion to duty, demonstrating what a promise means, an example well captured by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury in his sermon, contrary to the carping criticism in the Mail Online. 


Having said that, if only our Bishops and Clergy likewise would seek to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof":

   Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

   Queen. All this I promise to do.


God Save The Queen.

Crown Nominations Commission: Fair play?

Today I spotted this interesting observation from the American Anglican Council on the Archbishop of Canterbury selection procedure:

   "Finally, with regard to the larger Anglican Communion, we see the revisionist elite in the Church of England and the current politicians in Parliament working together to produce a desired outcome in the selection of the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The fact that the Archbishop and Primate of Wales, Barry Morgan, will sit on the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) is absurd. Wales is a miniscule church, with fewer and fewer people attending church practically every week. Archbishop Rowan Williams was the previous Primate of Wales, and he did such a good job of shrinking the Welch Church that they made him Archbishop of Canterbury. Now Rowan's successor Barry Morgan, who has continued Dr. Williams' work of shrinking the church, is to sit on the commission that will nominate the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Another person who has been chosen to sit on the CNC is the Rev. Kenneth Kearon, who as the head of the Anglican Communion Office helps to foist the revisionist agenda of the Anglican elite onto the rest of the Communion. What does Kearon bring to the Commission if not the desires of the liberal elite of the Church of England and the revisionist West?" Full text here.

Dr Morgan's appointment has already attracted criticism here with some choice comments here. While I cannot comment on the possible shrinkage of the Church in Wales when Rowan Williams was Archbishop, in the September 2011 edition of 'Highlights' the Church in Wales published some disastrous Membership and Finance details. They were hidden away on the back page of a document that trumpeted Equal Opportunities for all in the Church, all who matter that is - see this report from the Let nothing you dismay Blog.


I am told by those close to him that the Archbishop of Wales feels hurt when people are unkind to him, that is, whenever people disagree with him. If people hold to their creed they are not being unkind, rather they are defending the faith. If Dr Morgan and his modern liberal friends followed Christ's example rather than spending their time trying to force their own agendas onto the Anglican Church (here and here) we wouldn't be in the mess in which we now find ourselves with declining membership, shortage of funds and constant squabbling about secular issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the wider Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So the question has to be asked, do they believe what they recite in the Creed? If not, all becomes clear.

How did we get here?

The General Synod of the Church of Ireland has passed a motion upholding marriage as a union between one man and one woman but for upholding tradition, the Church of Ireland Synod [is] blasted for 'homophobia'.

How did we get ourselves into the ridiculous position that those upholding tradition are pilloried as extremists? What was previously considered normal is now considered outrageous. In another example, Cranmer is being persecuted by the Advertising Standards Authority following "a number of complaints about an advertisement carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage". Same sex marriage is the latest trend in a movement, often in search of votes, that has brought the church to its knees, not to pray but by pressing fashionable minority, secular values on the church with no regard for tradition and scripture. In research carried out for the Coalition for Marriage, the majority of the 150 MPs who have declared themselves support equal marriage, a decision also taken by President Obama, perhaps sensing some electoral advantage in the decision. 

While there is no excuse for unchristian religious extremism, the homosexual campaign for so called equality is in danger of turning away supporters of equal rights. Same sex couples deservedly have equal rights through civil partnerships but it is not homophobic to reject the notion of same sex marriage. Equality does not mean sameness especially when it dilutes the faith of the church. Unsurprisingly the champion of minorities (other than those who keep the faith), the Archbishop of Wales has already expressed his support for same sex marriage along with so called senior bishops of the Church in England. In a recent hard hitting article for Virtueonline the question was posed: What future for the Church of England: Is it too late to save her?  The Church of England is now a very short step from following precisely the same agenda as The Episcopal Church. Here a few paragraphs to give the flavour of the article:

 "The tragic facts are these: in order to maintain the illusion of a universal Church of England, inseparable from the state and its people, the Church's leaders have spent more than 150 years in trimming Christian doctrine so as not to "offend" anyone. Or to be "inclusive". Or to make the scriptures and Christian doctrine conform to the prevailing scientific fad of the day. Or, perhaps worst of all, in the truly misguided belief that by watering down the gospel they might be more successful in persuading unbelievers to come to Christ. They have compromised, with relative impunity, down the years, writing from the security of senior positions within the Church's establishment and protected by the national courts from any complaints which have come from concerned church members - but rarely, if ever, from the bishops who are supposed to be the guardians of Christian teaching. ... The Church of England has no effective mechanisms, either for guaranteeing orthodoxy of public teaching by its leaders, or for dealing with those who lead the way in subverting its witness to the gospel. Many of the leading revisionists have actually commenced their careers as teachers at the Church's seminaries. The outcome for the Church is constant drift in the direction of unbelief. Every novelty which is proposed has to be met halfway, with a compromise. The direction of movement each time is a step away from a recognisable faith in the gospel as the Church has received it, and the further alienation and exclusion of those within the Church who seek simply to be faithful to that gospel.

The catastrophic abandonment by the Church of England's bishops of their intrinsic role as guardians of Christian teaching concerning the Scriptures and the Creeds has been accompanied by a progressive relinquishment of their teaching authority in favour of voting on doctrinal and moral issues by the Church Assembly and latterly by the General Synod, whose members are not required to possess any qualification for judging such matters and who increasingly take their lead from media and politicians who want to see the Church redesigned in their own image. If it is possible for leading Anglicans to declare that there is no Hell, that there was no Incarnation and no Resurrection, and that there is no need for repentance and conversion in the universalist institution which the Church of England has become, then any appeal to the Scriptures for guidance as to God's will, or definition of morality, is met with blank looks and bafflement by many lay and clerical leaders for whom such an intellectual and spiritual universe is largely unknown." 

So what hope is there for the Church of England? It was not encouraging to read that the Apostle of Faith by Fad has been elected to serve on the Crown Nominations Commission, the body that will nominate the next Archbishop of Canterbury, an honour he will no doubt regard as an endorsement of his secular creed. 


The writing is on the wall.

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.

Hold Thou Thy Cross

Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;

Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies.

Heaven's morning breaks, and earth's vain shadows flee;

In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has angered many campaigners with his suggestion that the cross itself has become a religious decoration. As ever with the Archbishop, if you understand what he is trying to say you know what he means but the average Christian in Britain today will not analyse what was said so may misinterpret the message. Nowadays many Christians, especially Anglicans, may go to church at Easter and/or Christmas. Otherwise they are more likely to be taken in at their baptism, walk in for their wedding and be wheeled in for their funeral when Abide with me will be sung. Sometimes families will have long forgotten the hundreds of other hymns in the English Hymnal but for others, the hymn and the Cross have a deep religious significance, a significance that will encourage them to wear a cross rather than, eg, the mark of Satan even if as a piece of jewellery the latter may appear more decorative. 

Whether worn as jewellery or not, the Cross is still the most potent Christian symbol. The fact that there is no compulsion to wear it makes Christianity what it is, relying on God's grace rather than the compulsion of man-made rules. But is this to be our undoing? Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, has embarked on a battle to stop Christians being able to wear a cross at work 'because it is not a strict requirement of the Christian faith' but where is the equality in that when we are daily forced to observe the religious symbols of other faiths. I recommend reading a legal view of this decision here and an interesting political judgement here. 

Whilst the Government is busy helping to suppress Christianity and Christian values in this country, sadly Mrs Featherstone's “live-and-let-live policy” does not extend to Christians who are under threat simply for being Christian. To use two current examples of blind prejudice, In Iran Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani faces execution for refusing to recant his Christian faith. In Pakistan the life of Shamim Bibi, mother of a 5-month-old girl, is under threat charged with ‘Blasphemy’ for refusing Islam. 

If you believe that the Government's action to stop Christians wearing a cross at work is wrong you can act now as suggested here.

It is finished

"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

The Church of England has been reminded in various Synod debates this week that the timeless faith of believers has little relevance in their 21st Century church. Weighed down by complexities of their own making designed to appeal to those with imported beliefs or none at all, they cast their votes leaving the Lord's disciples to make of it what they will with no hint of thought or compassion.

'Give me the child...I'll give you the man' was the cry of old but the male role model, already whittled away in primary education, is declining in the Anglican church along with attendance while the influence of the Anglican Church wanes. Sexuality over reason has seen Christian marriage devalued to the level of a political ball game which takes all and gives nothing with the implication that there must be something seriously wrong with people who share spiritual values beyond current flights of fancy. Who cares? Those men and women of conscience who do so are characterised as misogynistic bigots. They are forced to defend themselves against false accusations of discrimination clearly designed to appeal to secularists who see no place in society for a church that shaped our history; people who are content to see mosques replace our churches in the misguided belief that Islam is, as one commentator put it, just another 'Old Testament religion' or an Arabic version of the Bible. Traditional Christian values are being destroyed. The extremists who occupy our church insist that they are being generous as they strangle the life out of all who oppose them. They show utter contempt for those who do not share their distorted values and reward those who have shown them generosity by excluding them from the church they now see as their own.

The women at the cross stood weeping under Christ's broken Body as His garments were divided. In today's Anglican Church they simply divide His garments among themselves.

Lords debate: Situation of Christians in the Middle East

An interesting debate took place in the House of Lords yesterday. Opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, he drew this tribute from Lord Mackay of Clashfern: "My Lords, I would like very warmly to thank the most reverend Primate for the opportunity of having this debate in your Lordships' House, and for the scholarly and profound speech with which the debate has been opened." Well deserved praise echoed by subsequent speakers, often in short supply outside the House.

Speaking in the debate (at 12.23) Lord Sacks' contribution was also praised by many speakers. He felt as a Jew in Christian Britain that he could not be silent. He quoted Martin Luther King saying, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends". Lord Touhig quoted his late old friend Leo Abse who, on his retirement as an MP, gave only one piece of advice to his successor. He said, "Tolerate everyone, tolerate everything but never tolerate the intolerant". 

Replying, Lord Howell of Guildford said, "This has been a hugely enlightening debate, unlocking the vast stores of wisdom that are to be found in your Lordships' House on the issues that we are addressing, on the history behind them-the hinterland of knowledge-and on the prospects for the present and the future in a very turbulent world. We have had some excellent speeches." The speeches clear up many misunderstandings about Christians in the Middle East and are well worth the time reading or listening to them. I particularly liked this aside from the Archbishop of Canterbury: "A Palestinian Christian friend of mine was wont to say when asked by westerners, 'When did your family become Christians?'  'About 2,000 years ago' was the reply." 

In his contribution to the debate, Lord Ahmed of Wimbledon quoted his mother saying: "The Abrahamic faiths are that Judaism lays the foundations, Christianity builds the walls and Islam is the roof. We all have the same origin and the same destination. Together we build a single house of worship". The reality is different. Mosques are demanded while other places of worship are destroyed. The plight of Coptic Christians is well documented. One of their priests gives a clear insight into their problems here. Translating their situation to Great Britain, the "silence of our friends" is contributing to the demise of Christianity while Islam is in the ascendency. The suggestion that Islam is the roof is used to claim that Muhammad was the last in a line of Jewish prophets of which Jesus was just another, raising the prophet above the Son of God. That is unacceptable to Christians. Leo Abse's advice "never tolerate the intolerant" is particularly apt.

There is a video link to the debate here. Highly recommended.

Gender politics to trump Christian unity

From the Archbishop of Canterbury: "We're very conscious that one of the reproaches that can be laid against the bench is that it's not exactly representative in gender terms. As and when women become bishops, we don't particularly want women bishops to have to wait until 2025 or something before there is any possibility of their being represented on the bench. We want the discretion and flexibility to allow a little bit of fast-tracking there."

So gender politics, not spirituality, will be the life-blood of the Church of England (as it is in the Church in Wales), putting aside any chance of responding to Christ's prayer for unity. Giving evidence to the joint committee on the draft House of Lords reform bill, Archbishop Rowan Williams explained that 'the Church of England was nearing the end of a "complex, protracted process" to allow the ordination of women as bishops'. A confident prediction which implies a forgone conclusion. A similar confidence afflicted his successor as Archbishop of Wales who lost the vote largely because of his mean spirited attitude to those who did not share his conviction that he knew better than the teaching of the Universal Church which has handed down our core beliefs and tradition for two thousand years. One can only hope that when it comes to the vote in Synod there will be a pause for deep thought and reflection on what the Church of England is doing, not in the name of God but in the name of feminism.


In England, Archbishop Rowan does not share the same attitude as his successor in Wales, preferring to make some sort of provision for traditionalists but in their usual narrow minded way, Women and the Church (WATCH) have poured cold water on the idea that there could be renewed hope for traditionalists following the diocesan process of debating proposed legislation for the admission of women to the episcopacy - the process which determines religious obligation by voting on the whim of the day instead of theology. That has been a disaster for the Anglican church in the USA and well illustrates the path being followed here. I can no better sum up my feelings than quote from this heartfelt cry:


"This once-noble Church is being transformed, at the hands of single-minded activists, into a secular cult which will reflect only its lack of all Scripture-based grounding and tradition, and (in their place) will embody only the sacrifice to Caesar of those things which are properly God's. Nothing will then distinguish such a "Church" from its pagan predecessors. As a consequence, nothing about it will any longer have any claim to loyalty or adherence on the part of its traditional members."

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Photo: PA/EPA

This weekend the Archbishop of Canterbury hopes to meet President Robert Mugabe to discuss the ugly situation in Zambia. The difficulties Archbishop Rowan face were highlighted in a Telegraph article on 30 September. 

The former Anglican bishop Nolbert Kunonga has his own way of doing things in the name of the lord, not Our Lord, but Robert Mugabe, a Roman Catholic! Pope Benedict XVI rightly remarked "the church is a net of the Lord which pulls in good fish and bad fish". Apparently dying of prostate cancer Mr Mugabe shows no sign of softening his stance before he meets his maker.

Nice try Rowan but be prepared for yet another disappointment unless the president is called much earlier than his prognosis suggests.

A message from the Archbishop of Canterbury

Rejoice! is the message from the Archbishop of Canterbury "on the occasion of the consecration of the Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Richborough" in the August edition of New Directions:


"Today has been a very happy day indeed. We have welcomed Bishop Norman and Bishop Jonathan as colleagues amongst the Bishops of the Church of England and we have celebrated in a very moving service at Southwark Cathedral the inauguration of their Episcopal ministry.


Speaking for myself I'm delighted that we have bishops of such quality to join us in ministering to this very significant section of the church of England. Without the traditional Catholic voice and presence the Church of England would be less than itself.


It would lose a robust, creative, deep rooted part of its tradition. My hope and prayer is that the appointment of these two new bishops and their future ministry will consolidate that tradition, reinvigorate it and help it play its part in the Church of England and the wider church of God for many years to come."


Shame on the Archbishop of Wales, then, for not sharing ++ Rowan's vision, stubbornly refusing those in the Catholic tradition in Wales the Episcopal ministry they also value. If the Ordinariate takes root and Archbishop Morgan loses "this very significant section" of the Church in Wales with all that implies, not least financially, there will be no-one but himself to blame .

Another screw in the Anglican coffin

The slow death of the Anglican church looks set to continue. While the role of bishops and priests becomes ever further divorced from traditional religious reality congregations continue to haemorrhage. 

Despite earlier pleas for restraint from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, after the Bishop Gene Robinson affair, Canon Mary Glasspool was elected a bishop in Los Angeles while being in an openly long standing lesbian relationship. 'Restraint' is now turning to farce as synodical Christians seek additional ways of bending Christianity to their will rather than the will of the church Universal. 

Politically correct these decisions may be, but what is more important, the kingdom of God or personal desire? Christians should not discriminate against lesbian and gay people but that view is becoming one-sided. What consenting adults do in private is their own affair  but those Anglicans who try to remain faithful to the tradition of the Universal church rather than synodical debate are increasingly marginalised. 

Christina Rees, introduced by the BBC as "a senior member of the Synod", describes the latest move as "a very controversial issue still in the Church of England". Formerly the leading light in WATCH, Ms Rees was probably the right person to consult about controversy since she and her chums have done their level best to silence those who do not share their parochial view of the Universal church. They have sought to exclude anyone who is not a sympathiser of trendy, worldly desires. It will be interesting to see if they can find it in their hearts to accommodate all in the church, even those who don't share their view of the kingdom of heaven, by voting for appropriate episcopal oversight for traditionalists when/if the opportunity arises.