Double standards

Sydney Anglican Archbishop Glenn Davies has said to supporters of same-sex marriage:
‘Please leave us.’  Source: Guardian. Photograph: David Moir/AAP

The Bishop of Liverpool rebuked the Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, after he called for gay marriage supporters to leave church saying he ‘seems to want to exclude people rather than to engage with them’.

That's rich.

From the Guardian: "Archbishop Glenn Davies said last week that those who supported same-sex marriage should abandon the church. If people wish to change the doctrine of our church, they should start a new church or join a church more aligned to their views – but do not ruin the Anglican church by abandoning the plain teaching of scripture,” he said. “Please leave us.”

The Australian Newcastle Herald reports that "Anglicans have joined two other Australian dioceses to support same-sex marriage church blessings at a Hunter Synod where Bishop Peter Stuart said he had "spoken frankly" to a Sydney archbishop against the move. Newcastle Anglicans strongly supported changes to church rules that could allow clergy to bless same-sex marriages and protect clergy in a same-sex marriage from church discipline."

The Dean of Newcastle, the Very Reverend Katherine Bowyer supports the diocese's move to bless same-sex marriages. She rejected comments by the Archbishop of Sydney that supporters of same-sex marriage should leave the church, saying differing views deserve respect.

Her views and those who side with the Bishop of Liverpool have nothing to do with traditional Church teaching.

The Archbishop of Sydney is correct. If Western Anglican leaders had adopted the same approach many of us would still have a church to attend.

Dean Katherine Bowyer's attitude typifies the double standards of liberal Anglicans amply illustrated by Mae Cymru the Welsh offshoot of the feminist organisation Women and the Church.

Mae Cymru recently tweeted an article from cruxsolablog An Open Letter to John MacArthur (re: Beth Moore). The author states:
"Recently John MacArthur commented that Beth Moore (Christian leader and teacher) should “go home.” As I have pondered this over the last few days, I wondered what Paul would say to John. So, I wrote an open letter.

It is not my intention to comment on the letter's content. Readers of the letter can draw their own conclusions but I was drawn to the double standards of the new breed of Anglican.

The membership secretary of Mae Cymru the Ven Peggy Jackson, Archdeacon of Llandaff and scourge of  orthodox, often cradle Anglicans is a late convert to Anglicanism. Their idea of engagement is exclusion dressed up as inclusion.

Before Barry Morgan imported her from the Church of England as his hatchet woman the then Rev Canon  F A Jackson wrote in a paper for GRAS (Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod):

"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." 

Ten years later with attendance figures still plummeting, thousands of often cradle Anglican women and men have been abandoned by their Church.

Far from relenting Jackson has attempted to turn the screw ever tighter by seeking to exclude from ordination anyone who does not conform to her wishes, misrepresenting genuine theological doubt about sacramental assurance as misogyny.

The concept of twin integrity has been all but abandoned. As Sir William Fittall said in response to a complaint:
"To expect someone whose theological conviction does not enable him to receive the sacramental ministry of women routinely to turn up to a celebration of Holy Communion when he cannot discover in advance whether he will be able to receive Holy Communion seems to me to be asking too much."

Following the appointment of a third woman bishop in the Church in Wales half the bench will be female.

The diocese of St Davids has been quickly feminized after the appointment of the first woman Bishop. She lost no time in appointing a woman Dean. Two female minor Canons have also been appointed. If the Canon in Residence is a female cleric the sub-Dean is the sole male priest at Wales' premiere place of pilgrimage.

There is no indication for pilgrims who will be celebrating yet the Cathedral online Worship Sheet merrily quotes St David's last words to his followers, “...Be Joyful, Keep the faith and do the little things that you have heard and seen me do...”

The Bishop of Liverpool should have looked closer to home before whinging about the Church in Australia.

Sell out?

Photo: Getty Images

There is something about this image that makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. Perhaps it is because a person is the focus of attention. It has been used many times to illustrate articles about the ordination of women, most recently here under the heading 'The Church of England is on the brink of resolving its 13-year battle to introduce women bishops'. As the Telegraph puts it: "Under the new proposals, an independent ombudsman would be appointed to intervene when traditionalist parishes complain they are not sufficiently “protected” from women bishops’ authority. Leading opponents of female bishops believe the measure will “go sailing through” this week’s debate and on to final approval by next year or 2015".

This apparently is sufficient for Forward in Faith and Reform to claim that "the latest plan is 'the best way forward' for the Church". Is this a sell out? There is a weariness about the whole affair but is that any reason for those who in conscience are unable to accept the ordination of women to throw in the towel? 'The Church' is much bigger than the Church of England. Can we still claim to belong to the Holy Catholic Church if we fail to oppose what we believe to be wrong? I am heartily sick of listening to the secular drivel trotted out by supporters to justify their covetousness. There is no justification for the ordination of women in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church yet there appears to be a readiness to run up the white flag as Damian Thompson puts it here. 

Reliance on a referee has seen many a battle unjustly lost on the field of play but even assuming that the 'independent ombudsman' is of the highest integrity he/she will have an unenviable task. WATCH have fought tooth and nail to get their own way, objecting to everything they have regarded as a concession to their opponents. How many times will they be prepared to 'lose' before there is pressure to have the new measure rescinded?

The last of the Guiding Principles in the  Report from the Steering Committee for the Draft Legislation on Women in the Episcopate [GS 1924] states:

Pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of 

England will be made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that 

maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to 

mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England. 

In the run up to the vote on women bishops in the Church in Wales, the Ass Bishop of Llandaff lost no time in telling people that provision for the Provincial Episcopal Visitors (flying bishops) in the Church of England's Act of Synod was intended to be of a "temporary nature" (here).
Claiming insider knowledge, he testified as to what was meant:

"John Habgood, formerly archbishop of York, is widely acknowledged as the architect of the Church of England's Act of Synod, the Act that was promulged in 1994 and included the provision of PEVs. I was John Habgood's chaplain at the time, worked with him on the Measure and can testify that the intention of the Act was to be of a temporary nature, giving people opposed to the ordination of women a gracious space during a period of reception of women priests. As you probably know, I am now Lord Habgood's official biographer, and so have had recent conversations with him about that crucial period. His recollection coincides exactly with mine, that the intentions of the Act was that it would apply for a limited period of time. Inevitably the provision of PEVs strained the catholic understanding of episcopacy and ecclesiology as expressed in a UK Anglican setting, where formerly the bishop of a diocese was the centre of unity in that diocese; however, it was felt, in the run up to the Act of Synod, that that strain was bearable for a limited period in order to hold things together."

In the Church in Wales the time limit expired when women were ordained to the priesthood. The post of Provincial Assistant Bishop created to get the measure through was immediately dropped when Bishop David Thomas retired in 2008. In September this year the Welsh bishops introduced a bill which included a measure that would have made statuary provision for dissenters, a measure hailed by some as the way forward in the Church of England. That was a farce (here). The bishops voted in favour of an amendment in opposition to their own bill to remove statutory provision and make it voluntary through a code of practice. The mover of the amendment was a former GRAS activist imported into Wales by their scheming archbishop for now obvious reasons (here, and here).

The dissembling Statement of guiding principles in GS 1924 should act as a warning that what we are dealing with is politics, not the faith of the Church. If trust is to be of the essence for the future, the past does not augur well but one thing is clear, those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests cannot in all conscience vote in favour of women bishops or even abstain. That we have had to fight, fight and fight again to save the Church we love should be proof of that.

What should a Code of Practice do?

The Ven. F A Jackson's church received a grant of £500,000 to save the Seven Deadly Sins 
  Credit Clerical Whispers

It is instructive to compare what the Bishop of St Asaph had to say about a code of practice when he proposed the legislation to allow women bishops in the Church in Wales with the long term aim of the amendment mover, Canon Peggy Jackson, as she then was, in her GRAS paper for WATCH in 2009. Bishop Gregory said: "The problems are formidable—there are questions of conscience, of not creating second class bishops, of not creating second class fellowships, of providing fruitful avenues of sacramental and pastoral care for all". Almost encouraging had it not been for the reference to creating second class bishops.

WATCH women constantly make the claim that separate sacramental and pastoral provision would make female bishops second class bishops. Presumably this is a gender fixation because I have not heard any complaints from diocesan bishops about being second class bishops in areas where PEVs have been administering sacramental and pastoral care. The 'second class' bishop claim is a simple ruse which deceives the gullible into believing that a great injustice is being perpetrated because everything has to be 'equal' in today's world, ie, the same. A fuller explanation of mono-episcopacy can be read here. This is a comparatively recent concept which becomes clearer if the earlier meaning of epískopos, 'overseer' is substituted.

The code of practice strategy is a pretence designed to appear fair-minded by implying provision when what is offered is known to be unacceptable putting dissenters in a situation of accept it or leave . Elsewhere in society that would be regarded as pure deception. Nevertheless, the former Treasurer of  the Society for the Ministry of Women in the Church, now defunct,  the Ven. Peggy Jackson advocated this strategy in her 2009 WATCH paper summarised thus:

Therefore the Code should:

• be simple

• be mutual (applying equally to both sides, e.g. in the

  Diocese of Chichester)

• introduce no change in the understanding or definition of

  episcopacy

• define no special categories of bishops, or differential

  ways of exercising the role of bishop, arising out of issues

  of gender

• be operated and upheld by trust, in preference to law.

Her message is clear but what is galling is that this duplicity comes from a woman who admits that she had no religion until she was welcomed into the church in her hour of need after her husband left her. Such is her gratitude that she is prepared to see cradle Anglicans who welcomed her forced out of their church because they cannot agree with her interpretation of her acquired faith.

Also back in the frame is the Archbishop's last disaster in illjudged senior appointments, the Very (short term) Rev. Janet Henderson. She has emerged from ecclesiastical hibernation to bang the feminist drum again (bang, bang, bang here) demanding no surrender in the Church of England. It says much for Dr Morgan that he couldn't achieve his ambition, even with the connivance of his bench sitters, without feminist assistance from outside the Province. On the evidence available it appears that spirituality is not the Archbishop's first consideration which may explain his distaste for orthodoxy and his lack of consideration for worshippers not sympathetic to his revisionist policies.

There is no pretence of care for dissenters from the briefly Dean of Llandaff, just faithless propaganda designed to appeal to the ignorant who are urged to exert pressure on the church even though they ridicule religion and religious practice. From her new blog:
"The Anglican churches of England and Wales need to wake up and realise it is ten to midnight. It is not possible for the church to offer a moral lead when we are so fundamentally caught up in supporting and perpetuating attitudes that devalue and dehumanise women, gay people and victims of abuse. Such collusion with oppression is completely unacceptable to almost everyone in society in the same way that human trafficking and exploiting children as soldiers and for sexual purposes are beyond the pail (but have not always been so). To continue to justify these attitudes seems to most people outside the church contrary to the gospel and makes fools of Christians." And if her view does not prevail, go back to Synod again and again until the sisterhood get their own way. Anyone who doesn't accept their terms can leave. So much for the fruit of the Spirit!

The absurdity of this 'moral' lead is that by implication, it condemns Christ for criminal negligence in failing to see that by appointing only male apostles He condemned women to a lifetime of oppression and sexual abuse. If WATCH women really want to aid the oppressed they should get off their backsides and do something about it instead of attacking the faith of people who have maintained the Anglican church long enough for entrists to abuse them with their absurd claims of discrimination.

So what should a code of practice do?  In GRAS/WATCH terms, first and foremost it must give the impression of generosity. It must ensure that - you have to laugh at this one - introduce no change in the understanding or definition of episcopacy (ie, after they have changed it). It must define no special categories of bishops, or differential ways of exercising the role of bishop - thus effectively nullifying any semblance of sacramental and pastoral care. Don't make it legal in case there is something they haven't thought of to exclude anyone who disagrees with them.

A former Archbishop of Wales said that the devil had been at work when a previous vote on the ordination of women was lost. He was right but not on that occasion. If the promises of the present Archbishop prove to be a sham then the Governing Body vote will be seen as a fraud. In those circumstances a new measure should be put to the Governing Body under a new Archbishop using honesty rather than deception .

Dr Morgan wins, the church loses.Picture: Highlights

Rowan buckles under feminist pressure

Photograph: Paul Hackett/Reuters

No price is too high it seems to satisfy Rowan's longing to see women bishops in the Church of England. His 'unfinished business' of making satisfactory provision for all has been gradually whittled down in the House of Bishops to one word, respect. ‘With all due respect’ to Archbishop Rowan I think he deludes himself. The word 'respect' may have legal content in the Archbishop's book but Oxford Dictionaries has "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements".
  
There is no evidence whatsoever that women lobbyists in WATCH, GRAS or DARC have respect for the views, let alone the abilities, qualities or achievements, of anyone but themselves in the advancement of their feminist cause. If there were, how is it that opponents are left with nothing but a vague notion based on a word that will be ignored in the same way that the pleas of opponents have been ignored thus far? To date every suggestion of a concession has been met with howls of anger and resentment claiming that the proposals are insulting to women and would make them second-class bishops. Rowan's grovelling apology [position 6.25] illustrates how successful their tactics have been while more traditional views of women in the church have been overlooked.

Archbishop Rowan said at the July 2012 General Synod in York: “I also long for there to be the kind of provision for those who continue to have theological reservations on this subject, for their position to be secured in such a way that they can feel grateful for the outcome. That is the essence of what I believe Synod at large still thinks despite the unfinished business of sorting out what that means in practice.” His statement gave some hope that reason might prevail but that hope proved to be unfounded in the face of the petition organised by WATCH for the withdrawal of Clause 5(1)(c) on the grounds that it would “entrench permanent division in the Church” and “feed a deeply damaging ambivalence towards women as made in the image of God.” Many more women in the church are also 'made in the image of God' and they profoundly disagree with the claims of WATCH but their views have been ignored in a campaign which has been based on false accusations of discrimination and misogyny showing a complete lack of respect for opponents.

The campaign launched by Archbishop Rowan to persuade General Synod members to back the new women-bishops legislation next month makes sorry reading. It would be presumptuous of me to argue against Rowan on theological grounds but however skillfully he weaves his justification for the ordination of women on the basis of their 'baptismal relationship with Jesus Christ', what he presents as an anomaly is anomalous only because the Church of England has departed unilaterally from the faith and tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. With all due respect, the majority of Christians, East and West do not believe that women should have been ordained into the priesthood. If Synod had first considered whether or not women should be ordained as bishops in the Church of England there could be no anomaly.

It cannot be right to vote in favour of the proposal simply to avoid public embarrassment or internal conflict. That would be the worst possible reason for supporting the legislation. What the church needs to do is to take a step back and think about what Synod is being asked to do in the name of every member of the Church of England. It is no coincidence that Synod is being asked to correct an 'anomaly' now that the 'equality' argument has been turned on its head since the true effects of the feminisation of the church are becoming apparent. If this legislation is allowed to go through there will be a seismic shift in the church resulting in her domination by women clergy. The ordination of women has not halted the decline in church attendance and voting in favour of women bishops will result in the inequality proponents of women's ordination complained about. That is the true anomaly.

Postscript

Two appeals supporting Archbishop Rowan's plea have appeared on The Archbishop of Canterbury website. The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, urges those who cannot support the legislation for conscientious reasons to abstain because we are all ‘one person in Jesus Christ’ while Rebecca Swinson provides a gender reversal justification based on Give me a child until he is seven and I'll give you the man having spent her formative years under predominately female influences.

Like the Archbishop of Wales before him the Bishop of Chelmsford picks out what he regards as a scriptural justification for choosing a pattern of ministry contrary to Christ's example. He quotes Galatians 3:28* as one of the ‘climatic’ passages in the Bible – ‘the one through which we then interpret many others’. Although the church interpreted the reference to Jew and Gentile within 20 years, we have had to wait 2,000 years for the Bishop of Chelmsford to decode the reference to male and female. If he had read John 14:6 instead - “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" - he would have had the key passage without the need to re-interpret what has been understood by most Christians for two millennia. Bishop Cottrell says: “…I hope that we in the Church of England will say yes to women bishops at our General Synod in November. I even dare to hope that those who disagree may choose to abstain. That those who aren’t sure will see that if we don’t pass this it would look terrible in the eyes of the world, would hold back our mission, and would also plunge us into years more debate on this issue. But, most of all, I’m going to be voting yes because I believe this is of the Gospel. It is the Holy Spirit leading us into the truth of that text whereby in Christ we are one humanity.” - Ah yes, the Holy Spirit, but only if it is a yes vote of course; otherwise, try again later!

Bishop Cottrell also says: "I know that there are some people who conscientiously disagree with this, and I respect them and I want them to be part of the Church along with everyone else. But I believe the Measure, as we have it, gives people that provision." - That word respect again. He 'respects' them but not with "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements", just, I'll decide what provision is adequate so accept it. Does he understand what he is asking? Vote for the legislation to avoid losing face and if you can't agree, then abstain with all the consequences of inadequate provision. This is not about saving face. There is no question of abstaining; those who do not agree with the legislation must vote against it or risk losing everything they believe in.

Adding her message in the Archbishop’s campaign, Rebecca Swinson - the youngest-ever member of Archbishops’ Council – outlines why she wants to see the legislation for women bishops passed at this November’s Synod. Basically Rebecca thinks we have waited long enough and the danger is that too much time will be spent in the coming years discussing the issue when there are much more important things to debate such as the healthcare system and benefits. - Not if the decision is accepted as the work of the Holy Spirit. If the church had not embarked on this divisive scheme which has resulted in churches emptying in the UK and is seeing the ruin of TEC in the United States there would have been ample time to talk about things that 'really matter to people'. Rebecca claims that it is really important for the mission of the Church of England that we are able to show that women are an accepted and valued part of our ministry. Women already are an accepted and valued part of ministry. Ask the women who are indispensable in the work of Church. They don't feel the need to be ordained to prove it.

* Read a full explanation here. 

Two wrongs don't make a right

Three stories here, here and here with ever more appearing in the run-up to the synod vote, all suggesting that women are being cheated out of their rightful place in the church hierarchy when in reality it is they who have cheated and continue to cheat with false claims of misogyny and discrimination to achieve their goal of outright victory no matter what the cost to others. In addition to WATCH (Women and the church) and GRAS (Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod) they even have their own self-promotion lobby, Darc (Women Deans, Archdeacons and Residentiary Canons) from whom the first woman bishop in the Church of England is likely be appointed.


Quoting immature school girls in her sample of views of clergy and congregations for the BBC, Charlotte Smith says that they could not understand why women could be vicars but they could not be bishops. Also, 'some of the volunteers' working in the cathedral were 'equally mystified'. One said, "If women are made priests, inevitably, if they're good, they should become bishops", apparently ignorant of the fact that we profess to belong to one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the ordination of women to the priesthood is not permitted, a point side stepped by WATCH in their briefing notes when they compare the Church of England with Methodists, Baptists and others in Catching up with our sister Churches:

        • The Methodist Church: the Church of England is close to joining formally with them, but they have made it clear that they will not agree to this unless we allow women to be bishops. They have had a number of ordained women as Presidents since the first in 1992.
       • URC:  this year they have two women (ordained and lay) as joint Moderators of their General Assembly (equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury) and they have had others in the past.
       • Baptist Union: have women as regional ministers – their equivalent of Bishops.


If that is what they wanted the way was clear for them to join one of those denominations but that would have implied an act of faith rather than a secular drive for so called equality when inequality did not exist in the Anglican church until feminists succeeded in turning traditionalists into an underclass unworthy of provision other than on the victors' terms.


The Independent puts it this way: "Supporters of change say they are "furious" at the House of Bishops for adding the concession and a coalition of senior ordained women now say they cannot support the legislation. The group, known as Darc ... urged church members to vote down the Bill as they believe the latest changes have made it discriminatory. The Rev Celia Thomson, Canon of Gloucester Cathedral and Darc convenor, said: "The House of Bishops are, in good faith, concerned to keep as many people happy as possible, but the amendment they have added won't serve that purpose. It would discriminate against women in law. Do we really want to be... responsible for putting through legislation that discriminates against women? It's very distressing for all women clergy and for lay women in the Church, because it's saying something profound about how women are viewed. And that's not how the majority of the Church thinks about it". 


The 'majority of the Church' as the Rev Celia Thomson puts it sees no discrimination against women. What she refers to is a simple majority conjured up through synodical process in what is fast becoming a protestant sect. Selective in their approach, they first claimed that they would be 'second class' bishops if concessions were made, now they use the familiar charge of discrimination. Anything in fact that they can stir up to avoid any concession to those who do not embrace a scheme which is turning the Anglican church into yet another protestant denomination. 


With hindsight it is clear that trust was misplaced when women were made deacons then when they were ordained priests, that is the real cause of distress in the church. It is not the case that "If women are made priests, inevitably, if they're good, they should become bishops", they should not have been ordained as priests". They should not have been ordained in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right!


Postscript
In a recent survey by Christian Research among over a 1000 CofE worshippers, 75% of those surveyed said they wanted traditionalists to be enabled to remain in the CofE by appropriate provision for their position. 
In response to another survey which showed that ordained women priests now outpace men in Church of England, David Martin, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, told The Sunday Times, "It's obvious that over time the priesthood will become increasingly a female profession. As far as the church has a future it will include a predominant ministry of women and they will get to the top." 
(3 July, 2012)

Order out of chaos

"We live in a time when the leadership and structures of The Episcopal Church have abandoned the faith once delivered and substituted a "false gospel" which they are now threatening to spread - as a matter of manifest destiny - to the rest of the Anglican Communion." - AAC

The latest update from the American Anglican Council provides some encouragement for Anglicans who have not been swept along by a fashionable urge to fit the Gospel around current political obsessions. For the fortunate, order has been created out of the chaos resulting from the "false gospel" now spreading, as predicted, through the Church of England and beyond having already consumed the hierarchy of the Church in Wales whose Primate has been appointed to the Crown Nominations Commission and who will no doubt regard the opinions of The Right Reverend Dr Richard Chartres who should be the next Archbishop of Canterbury as completely irrelevant to the church today. 

As the feminist movements in the Church of England ponder over the Amendments to the women-bishops Draft Measure I was amused to read in the Church Times article that the Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod (GRAS) said that the Bishops had pushed the Draft Measure beyond an acceptable level of "generosity and compromise”. Where did generosity and compromise figure in their deliberations or those of Women and the Church (WATCH)? They have used every device to secure exactly what they want on their terms. Don't be mislead by claims that they may have to vote against the measure because it demeans women. They will do anything to gain power. Once they have it that will signal the end of the broad church that was the Church of England.

Mean-minded gender politics v. traditional Anglican faith

Readers may have observed that I find it difficult to be 'slow to anger' where the Anglican church is concerned today. What makes me particularly angry is the complete absence of compassion for men and women in the church who, in common with the majority of Christians, simply want to practice their religion in accordance with tradition, something that should be a human right. I have witnessed and valued women's ministry for its dedication in many areas of church life but much has now changed setting one against another. I didn't see the need for Deaconesses to become Deacons any more than actresses needed to became actors or heroines to became heroes but whereas actors and heroes of either sex were equal in pursuit of their ambitions, so called equality in the church meant something different, a change in our understanding of the priesthood using faith as a vehicle for gender politics. 

Women deacons became priests on the dubious pretext that there was no biblical objection and the assertion that there was little difference between deacon and priest other than the utterance of a few words (such regard for the sacred ministry!). Now it is the 'stained glass ceiling' that has to be shattered in the guise of equality. Such is the success of this secular based campaign that even some opponents of the ordination of women express sympathy for their position, one which has been manipulated to appear one of prejudice. If they succeed in their goal the next step will be parity which is the aim of Women and the Church (WATCH). Only when we have a woman Archbishop will cries of injustice be allowed to fade.


The appointment of women bishops shatters the tradition of the Universal Church of which Anglicanism has been part. In England, 2012 sees the culmination of a process of deception and lies using false promises to achieve this objective. In Wales their Archbishop is determined to reintroduce the measure in 2012, ignoring the earlier defeat on the basis that the Holy Spirit is only at work when the Archbishop finds the result favourable. Out of spite he went on to deny traditionalists acceptable pastoral and sacramental care by imposing oversight by a bench of bishops none of whom shows any sympathy towards traditionalists. The Church of England has been more tolerant in consecrating replacement PEVs but what of the future given the intransigence of members of Synod, particularly the hard edged women of WATCH and GRAS?


I have to accept that not everyone shares a traditional understanding of the sacred ministry but I cannot understand why, as Christians, new Anglicans would want to deny traditionalists the opportunity to continue to practise their religion as they have done well before many of the new breed of Anglicans entered the church. While some traditionalists may be able to look to the Ordinariate or possibly to the Western Rite of Orthodoxy many will find themselves in the wilderness as their own church adopts a take it or leave it approach, carefully crafted to offer only something known to be unacceptable on the basis that anything else would imply that women would be seen as second class bishops. I was particularly saddened over Christmas to receive a card from a very devout lady with a message that she had had enough and given up going to church. Like many disenchanted souls before her, she had been receiving the sacrament regularly before many of the new breed of Anglicans were born. Does people's faith count for nothing in the gender politics that now obsess our church? 


In my previous entry I again highlighted the plight of traditionalist Anglicans in the Episcopal church of the United States and the road to ruin the liberalised Episcopal church there has embarked upon. There is another report here which well illustrates what happens when liberalism replaces the traditional faith of the church. Our once tolerant, broad church should look again to the faith of the Universal church and end its obsession with gender politics while there is still Anglican church in which to hold the office of bishop.

Godless Guides?

The Queen and Princess Margaret.
 Picture: Associated Newspapers / Daily Mail /Rex Features

"I promise that I will do my best, to love my God, to serve the Queen and my country, to help other people and to keep the Guide Law."

A story in the Telegraph just about sums up the absurdity of life in Britain today especially for Christians. Because a girl "felt unable to take part in her Brownies enrolment in north Somerset due to the religious content of the Promise" the Girl Guides Association is reported to be considering reviewing the wording of its affirmation for new members, to remove religious references. What next? Immigrants and secularists objecting to Her Majesty the Queen being "Defender of the Faith"? 


Baden-Powell must be turning in his grave. The Guide Promise has already been amended from 'To do my duty to God' to 'To love my God', in order to accommodate different faiths leaving secularists free to have a stab at changing the foundation of Guiding again but oddly, not Scouting which retains the original Promise. Give them time! The Scouts are now a mix of boy scouts and girl scouts although the Girl Guides remain exclusively sexist reflecting what has happened in the rest of society. Thanks to that enemy of democracy, political correctness, we no longer have the heroine, actress, headmaster or chairman but curiously we still have the Baroness.

For many in today's eunuch led liberal church, belief in the one true God has become an optional extra but belief in one God means just that. As Christians we should be above the political correctness that implies the legitimacy of other faiths. People may believe what they want in a free country but tolerance has been perverted to allow our Christian heritage to be eroded by do-gooders who have nothing to offer other than a suffocating desire to impose their bland sterility on Christians. Much of this is a consequence of  the feminist campaign for the ordination of women which has resulted in the spiritual decline of the Episcopal Church in America and continues to emasculate the Church of England as WATCH and GRAS demand their own way here.

"On my honour, I promise that I will do my best

To do my duty to God and to the Queen,

To help other people

And to keep the Scout Law"

Scouts of my generation felt 'honour' bound to keep their 'promise', two words that the new breed of Anglicans in the churches of England and Wales have consigned to the PC dustbin only to be replaced by deception. 

Deception in the church

Ali Bari and his Band

In a previous blog entry I referred to the recent suggestion made by a woman vicar in the Church in Wales that those opposed to the ordination of women should no longer be accepted for ordination. More information has come to light including a copy of the Credo Cymru (Forward in Faith) 2011 Autumn Newsletter from which I quote:

“We were also made aware that Prospective GB candidates were now being asked to state their position on some major topics that might be coming up for debate. Within the last GB debate some participants were arguing that the church should no longer be ordaining men who cannot fully embrace the priestly ministry of women. It may be worth noting that this part of the debate did not get reported in Highlights and the viewpoint was strongly challenged by some of the speakers.” [My emphasis - Ed]

Selective reporting suggests further evidence of duplicity by the Church in Wales ruling elite, a view strengthened by other reports of an insidious campaign to marginalise those who refuse to abandon the traditional faith by favouring those who have fallen under the spell of the liberal establishment. 

In an earlier development, Fr Michael Gollop in his LNYD blog had expanded the theme tracing it back to a 2009 blog entry which referred to a report of the Standing Committee Working Group on Representation of Women in the Church in Wales. Among the Report’s gender politics was this quote: 'The authors also (section 6.5 on page 18) make the following observation: “The Working Group found it difficult to understand why the ordination of those opposed to the ordination of women continues in a Church committed to the ordination of women.”' Fr Gollop went on to expose the deception used by the Church in Wales in their failure to honour promises made to those who did not accept the ordination of women as explained in his link.

The following day the Rev John P Richardson wrote in his ‘The Ugley Vicar’ Blog exposing similar duplicity in the Church of England. He wrote that he "was responding to the claims by a leading member of the Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod [GRAS - Ed] that ‘no promises have been broken’ regarding the ordination of women."

Fr Gollop would not have been the only witness to promises made by the Church in Wales any more than people in the Church of England could have forgotten the basis on which earlier decisions were made. There may be no written contract but an oral contract with witnesses has equal force so why claim that promises have not been broken? But this is not a matter of contractual obligation, it is simply a matter of trust between Christians which has descended into a game of denial and deceit in order to marginalise anyone whose only wish is to keep their traditional faith in the absence of an acceptable alternative. Now the lies have been nailed in Wales and in England where, as The Ugley Vicar puts it, “the proposed legislation [for the ordination of women bishops] will introduce two classes of Anglican — the central and the legally marginalized.” Following the experience of those in the Church in Wales that will mean marginalization followed by the easing out of loyal members of the Church of England. This must not be allowed happen.

While the liberal majority talks of equality they see no contradiction in denying a significant minority of fellow Christians the opportunity to worship according to conscience, something fundamental to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This feminist inspired form of New Anglicanism makes much capital about women being ‘called by God’ yet they can dismiss God’s call in favour of “gender equality” when it suits them. Perhaps too much inter-faith dialogue has encouraged a culture of Taqiyya in the church but which ever way one looks at it, in Wales Ali Bari and his band are out to rob traditionalists of their heritage. The same deception is being used by GRAS in England. The feminist cause is robbing us of our right to the promised honoured place in the Anglican Church. That is stealing, contrary to God's law. 

The Three Wise Persons

After a brief interlude, back to the story of the Three Wise Persons travelling from the East to the land of His Darkness to find a re-birth solution to the mess created in the Church in Wales now that religion has given way to gender politics and relitivism. First, apologies to the last member of the panel appointed, Professor Patricia Peattie, former Chair of the Episcopal Church in Scotland’s Standing Committee. Try as I may I can't find a picture of her - unlike the Chairman, the Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford of whom, unsurprisingly, there are numerous pictures. What the other panel member, Professor Charles Handy, former professor at the London Business School, will make of the overblown management of the now tiny Church in Wales is anyone's guess but as they set out on their journey, "Bazzer" is sure to have let it be known that he doesn't like to hear anything unkind said about him, ie, views opposed to his own. Given "Bazzer's" feminist outlook and need for parity it is strange that female representation is in a minority unless that is something he wishes to emphasise.


Had I not been delayed in putting together this post by Archbishop Rowan Williams' briefing on 'humanising of the ordained ministry' I would have missed an interesting point. Yesterday the Blog Let Nothing You Dismay carried an item about the conversion to Roman Catholicism three years ago (in 2008) of an Anglican priest, Una Kroll. Other ancients who have suffered the whole painful crusade of the Movement for the Ordination of Women (MOW) may remember her cry ‘we asked you for bread and you gave us a stone’. Looking through the Church in Wales web site there is a link where people can find out more about the Anglican Communion Covenant. Among the contributions is this intriguing entry:

 "Una Kroll - 07/04/2011
I am a priest in the Church of Wales. Ordained in 1997. I do not want to see the Covenant come into force as it is not Anglican to punish peopple for holding to their conscience. The Instruments of Communion already in existence offer us all a chance of freely accepting Communion with those who dissent from our own preferential opinions and is a profound expression of Anglicanism. Una Krol."


Unless the Catholic Herald story referred to on LNYD is a complete hoax how can this be explained? Only last year an article appeared in the Guardian in which Kroll referred to "the Act of Synod [which] introduced structural discrimination against women", the same distorted cry we hear from her feminist friends in WATCH and GRAS. 


In open meetings in each diocese the Panel will be asking five questions, the first of which is, "What aspect of your diocese and the Church in Wales, do you feel most positive about?" For many in Wales, particularly those not finding favour with their Archbishop the answer has to be 'nothing'. I would be interested to know if Una Kroll turns up to offer them anything from her wide experience but if they are really wise, the Panel will make an excuse and leave by another route.