The morning after

"David Cameron hails vote on women bishops as a 'Great Day For Equality' "(here). His deputy Nick Clegg said "Allowing women to become bishops is another long overdue step towards gender equality in senior positions. I welcome the Church of England’s decision which means that women can now play a full and equal role in the important work of the Church" (here). 

Isn't that fantastic! An opportunist and an atheist, the top two in government, while scurrying around trying to redress the gender imbalance in their coalition take time out to applaud a decision on a subject they clearly know nothing about. 

Questioned on Newsnight last night the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, insisted that the vote had nothing to do with being relevant to society. The debate had been 'theological' indicating that he must have been switched off when supporters trotted out time and time again that it was about relevance and equality in today's world. However, I must give credit to one lady supporter who had a different approach. Without batting an eyelid she listed from the Bible as many women as she could in the time available before declaring that scripture proved women should be bishops. She should go far.

Pushed on the wider agenda of new Anglicanism Justin Welby declined to comment on same sex marriage and the ordination of gay clergy on the grounds that he just wanted to enjoy the moment after Synod's momentous decision. But he wasn't deterred from talking about Abp George Carey's intervention on assisted dying, giving the impression that there is much more to come as imported 'theology' continues to dominate the thinking of the House of Bishops. In Australia recently a judge claimed that incest was no longer a taboo suggesting that it is on a par with homosexuality (here) while in California: "Governor signs bill replacing words 'husband' and 'wife' in state law" (here) so plenty of scope for being even more relevant to society.

Now that the enabling legislation is out of the way the next step requires women bishops to be fast-tracked into the House of Lords (here) where they can make more 'theological' decisions. Will that be before or after "theology" is redefined by the Government I wonder?

In conclusion, spare a thought for the poor woman from Women and the Church who said she had worked for years for this day. Now, at last she feels 'valued'! 

I wonder how Mary, Martha.... felt?

The Church of England should abandon religion and become a political party.

Photo: Guardian

"The Church of England should abandon religion and become a political party." That is the conclusion drawn from YouGov’s latest poll for Prospect magazine here (£):

"Back in 1957, Gallup asked people a range of questions about their faith. They found that most people were Christians who regarded Jesus Christ as the son of God. Most people drew a clear distinction between religion and politics and wanted religious leaders to worry about our souls, but not about government policy.

Half a century later, YouGov has repeated Gallup’s questions and discovered a precipitous decline in religious belief. The decline in church attendance reflects more than a stay-at-home culture dominated by television and computer technology. It flows from a collapse of faith in the central tenets of Christianity."

Of those questioned 60% believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection while only 8% believe biblical explanations of life on earth. More worrying for the Church, only 26% believe that the Bible's account of the resurrection is broadly right with 48% not believing this happened. Perhaps this is to be expected when trendy clergy express a similar view ignoring, or in ignorance of, what St. Paul had to say: 

"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.... But, in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead" (1 Cor 15:14, 20).

Something else for the enhanced House of Bishops to ponder.

The beginning of the end?

Back Row l-r: the Venerable Christine Wilson, the Venerable Nicola Sullivan, the Venerable Annette
 Cooper, the Venerable Joanne Grenfell Front row l-r: The Reverend Libby Lane, the Reverend Jane
Tillier,  the Very Reverend Vivienne Faull, the Venerable Christine Wilson.     Photo: Christian Today

From Christian Today (9 December 2013):

"Eight women were today welcomed as participant observers at the meetings of the House of Bishops of the Church of England. The women come from across England and have been given the right to attend and speak at meetings until there are six female members of the House of Bishops following the admission of women to the episcopate. They took up their role on 1 December and the meeting of the House of Bishops in York today and tomorrow is the first meeting they have attended". Details here.

In an exceptional display of submission the House of Bishops of the Church of England decided to use the backdoor to "soothe the anger" of women whose demands to be bishops had been rejected under the accepted procedure. In anticipation of their foregone conclusion, they decided earlier this year to allow senior female clergy to attend and speak at their meetings until women are legally permitted to become bishops.

If we are to believe feminist propaganda that the refusal to ordain women has been responsible for all their oppression around the world, all oppression should cease in recognition of their new found status, but don't bank on it.

Meanwhile, MPs were told last week that “the persecution of Christians is increasing, that one Christian is killed around every 11 minutes around the world, and that Christianity is the 'most persecuted religion globally'.” That means 47,782 persecuted Christians are killed every year or around half a million in a decade, half the number of approximately one million who participate in Church of England services each Sunday.

Read about it here. If the report comes as a bit of a shock, other issues such as the Pilling Report have captured the attention of the media dealing as it does with the more pressing issue of the liberal establishment trying to satisfy the carnal desires of a minority in a Church charged with spreading the Gospel as received.

The House of Bishops no longer sees it that way. Composed mainly of like minded bishops sharing the liberal values which put them where they are, they now regard the Church of England as the lapdog of society, reflecting the will of the people, few of whom ever enter the house of God and those who do often hear a perverted version of the Gospel.

Following an earlier entry on the Pilling Report I was taken to task for linking sexuality with the ordination of women. I was not alone in doing so. Read here how the briefly Dean of Llandaff saw it but from an entirely different perspective, that of feminist theology. The Dean was just one of the many placements in the Church in Wales used to pave the way for the acceptance of women bishops, a strategy which used religion as a platform for a feminist ideology which resulted in liberal minded clerics vying with each other so as to appear more open minded but having no regard for the consequences other than self advancement. 

The strategy has been a disaster in Wales. Aging congregations are declining at such a rate, here and here, suggesting that a separate Church in Wales will be untenable in the foreseeable future. The Church of England is on the same course. Archbishop George Carey has predicted that the Church of England could be extinct in a generation, a suggestion echoed by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, here. Women bishops and gay marriage now dominate the agenda. That may strike a chord with society but it is not the way of the Church. Wales has paid the price. By embarking on a similar path England looks set to share the same fate. 

Postscript
Meeting report here.

Back seat drivers

The Agenda for the July Synod  has been published, the latest move in the drive to appoint women to the episcopate regardless, thus widening the divide between the Church of England and mainstream Christianity.

The House of Bishops lost no time in recruiting women to provide the leadership they themselves lacked in an intemperate display of anger and outrage after the Church of England was forced to pause and reconsider her shabby treatment of dissenting loyal Anglicans: “those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the episcopate are both loyal Anglicans” or, in its latest revised form, "those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests". So is there any hope now for the minority? Not if the back seat drivers can avoid it, maintaining control by skirting around the unwelcome obstacle of Anglicans who remain true to the faith of the majority of Christians in the Anglican Communion and beyond.

The new proposals suggest that it is difficult for anyone to claim outright victory. That is true to the extent that dissenters still have a brief mention even if no longer described as 'loyal Anglicans'. Their continued presence is based on trust rather than security but trust has a hollow ring after all the previous manoeuvring to avoid mutual satisfaction. Proponents could easily have demonstrated their sincerity by first making a determined effort to satisfy the legitimate needs of "those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests". Agreeing  procedures in advance could only enhance the prospect of achieving the primary goal of women in the episcopate. To date, any excuse has been used to deny those of traditional theological conviction a secure place in the Church of England, an unenviable position still under the new proposals pending what threatens to be ultimate exclusion given the lack of any safeguards.

Threats of parliamentary interference if the Church of England 'fails to put her own house in order' are now contradictory given government assurances of religious independence under the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. A poll conducted last year by the UK-based polling firm ComRes found that most homosexual people in this country are not interested in gay ‘marriage’. Just half of gays and lesbians in the UK considered it important to extend marriage to same-sex couples, while only 27% say they would marry their partner if they could. The Government is moving heaven and earth to pass legislation for the personal proclivities of this tiny minority. Are loyal Anglicans adhering to the traditional faith of the Holy Catholic Church less worthy of consideration? In the Lords debate on the gay marriage Bill [17 Jun 2013 : Column 62] the importance of avoiding discrimination by protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority was strongly advocated. Why not in Synod?

The anger of the majority resurfaces in GS 1886, the Report from the House of Bishops on 'Women in the Episcopate - New Legislative Proposals': "The House of Bishops ... acknowledged the profound and widespread sense of anger... at the decision of the Synod not to give final approval to the proposed legislation to enable women to become bishops." Never make a decision in anger is both scriptural and conventional wisdom but the Bible is no longer the basis of decision making in the Church of England. Regardless of any vote the House of Bishops has decided that the Church of England will have women bishops using The Episcopal Church in the United States as the foundation of their faith. 

God willing, the latest dollop of unconventional wisdom from the 'enhanced' House of Bishops will result in yet another defeat for the illiberal liberals and a triumph for the overwhelming orthodox view that (some) Anglicans are renouncing the historic faith of the orthodox church for personal ambition.

Bishops throw in the towel

Bishop Tim, aka the Lord Bishop of Leicester and Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, yesterday threw in the towel with this statement on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:

“Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales. It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape. The concerns of many in the Church, and in the other denominations and faiths, about the wisdom of such a move have been expressed clearly and consistently in the Parliamentary debate. For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned. The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace. Our focus during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement.”

In this victory for pragmatism over principle the Lords Spiritual may have safeguarded their reserved seats in the House of Lords but at what cost? The recently published analysis of the 2011 census figures suggest that only a minority of people will describe themselves as Christians within the next decade. On that basis the Church of England may as well shut up shop now and defer to Islam in matters of 'faith', indeed, many already have. Modeled on his successors, if the Apostle 'Pete' had looked around noting the prevailing fashions of the time after being handed the keys, he may as well have handed them to the Romans while expressing some reservations about the worship of idols. 

Bishops encourage sin

As a child I was taught that Anger, or Wrath (Latin, ira), also known as "rage", was one of the seven deadly sins. It is described in Wikipedia as "inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. Wrath, in its purest form, presents with self-destructiveness, violence, and hate that may provoke feuds that can go on for centuries. Wrath may persist long after the person who did another a grievous wrong is dead. Feelings of anger can manifest in different ways, including impatience, revenge, and vigilantism.
Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest, although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy (closely related to the sin of envy). Dante described vengeance as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite". In its original form, the sin of anger also encompassed anger pointed internally as well as externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, albeit tragic, expression of hatred directed inwardly, a final rejection of God's gifts."

I see that the Diocese of Lichfield is to hold an open Women Bishops meeting, announced here, at the express wish of the four bishops of the diocese in the wake of the defeated legislation at General Synod last November. Standing orders will be suspended so that non-members can "speak and express their own views about two key issues:
1) What we can do in this diocese to help General Synod pass legislation that enables women to be consecrated as bishops – as has already been agreed in principle – while acknowledging and respecting those who oppose the change.
2) What steps we need to take to recover the credibility of synodical governance."

Widespread anger has already been reported by the House of Bishops without rebuke so it is no surprise that the Synod will also consider this motion:
 “Hodnet Deanery:
1) is shocked and angry about the General Synod vote which prevented the consecration of Women Bishops.
2) Reaffirms our strong conviction that it is God’s will that women be ordained as bishops in the Church of England.
3) Calls on the House of Bishops to explore, as a matter of great urgency, every possible avenue to effect the will of the Church on this issue.” 

What is it about this current generation that after two thousand years of apparent ignorance they think they know God's will above all who have gone before including the Apostles and even Christ Himself? They don't. The Anglican church here and in the US is being taken over by self-promoting clerics who have no interest other than self advancement. If any have a right to anger it is those who remain true to the faith but vengeance is mine saith the Lord!

Why is obedience to Christ's example anathema to new Anglicanism?

I maintain a link to 'Thinking Anglicans' but tend not to visit their site very often, largely out of despair of the comments of those determined to rid the Anglican church of anyone who does not accept the latest fad or fashion, even if that person sincerely believes that he or she follows the example of Christ. On 22 January, 'Thinking Anglicans' included a Press Release under the heading 'Diocese of Blackburn clergy write to the Archbishop of York':  Over fifty clergy from the Diocese of Blackburn have written to the Archbishop of York, urging him to ensure that the next Bishop of Blackburn will be prepared to ordain women as priests, and fully affirm their ministry. Apart from the blatant discrimination against priests holding views which liberals regard as unacceptable, there is no sense of holiness or that the most suitable man should be appointed, just the advancement of the ordination of women in the Church of England to the exclusion of all else.

This new 'liberal' church is no longer the broad church of old but an exclusive club for like-minded people based not on scripture but on conjecture in deference to political correctness and a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes equality. In their drive to exclude anyone who does not support the ordination of women, either they ignore or are ignorant of existing legislation which stipulates that "there will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood". 

Ignorant or not, some of those commenting under the 'Thinking Anglicans' entry feel free to brand as 'bigots' fellow Anglicans who adhere to the historic catholic faith along with the vast majority of Christians who look to Christ's example rather than to conjecture based on what is not said in the Bible. There are many biblical accounts of people questioning Jesus but there is no record of the women He favoured asking why He had no regard for parity of the sexes when calling His Apostles or what He thought about gender-neutral marriage. Hence the free rein taken by Anglican revisionists.

It is conjecture based on silence in scripture that enables the House of Bishops to issue statements which could have been written by WATCH as in this example: The House expressed its gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England, and its sadness that recent events [the consequences of the 20 November General Synod vote on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure] had left so many feeling undermined and undervalued. Anyone who feels "undermined and undervalued" should ask themselves how they find themselves in this situation. It is because of the determination of many holding the 'majority' view that others should accept what little they are offered or get out. But there are still Anglicans in favour of the ordination of women who are not prepared to see other loyal Anglicans treated in such a shabby manner. Consequently the selfish failed to triumph over the selfless who demand no more than their right of freedom to worship according to conscience, unencumbered by restrictions allegedly designed to avoid a two-tier church, a position easily avoided if there is a will to do so .

Yesterday I listened to a conversation between Peter Ould and Steve Chalke about their different approaches to same-sex relationships. It is a typical example of the divisions created in Anglicanism between those who conjecture on the basis that the Bible has nothing specific to say about current trends and those who take a traditional approach to the message of scripture. The conversation was prefaced with the new commandment: 'Jesus said to His followers, if you have love for one another, everyone will know that you are my disciples' and quoted Jesus as He prayed for all believers. The question for discussion was, How can we be a Jesus shaped church while disagreeing on this question?

I did not recognise the 'unwelcoming' church which Chalke described, a church which had to make up its own rules because long term same-sex relationships are not mentioned in the New Testament, the same attitude that can be traced back to the ordination of women and and the 'anything goes' culture in the US which is being imported into the Church of England. This conversation takes us to the heart of the problem with new Anglicanism which takes its cue from society, making the rules as they go along because, as they see it, the Bible is silent on a specific issue instead of taking the message of the New Testament as a whole. Consequently they condemn those who strive to bear witness to Christ's example by taking passages of scripture out of context to reinforce a point or claim that the teaching is irrelevant today because Christ was a man of his time. If that were so, miracles would be mere conjuring tricks and the Resurrection a fabrication. That is not the basis of the Christian faith.

There may be trouble ahead!

Reading Dr Philip Giddings’ speech in response to the Motion of No Confidence in him as Chair of the House of Laity, here, I was particularly struck by Bishop Justin Welby's response to the first charge. 

Dr Giddings: "Mr Barney’s paper that he circulated makes a number of charges. The one [charge] which has troubled me most is the first one: that by speaking directly after Bishop Justin and against the approval of the measure, I undermined what Bishop Justin had said. ... So I have actually offered Bishop Justin an apology for any offence my words may have caused him.  He has replied to me and I quote with his permission: that “It never crossed my mind that you were in the slightest bit offensive, discourteous, impolite, disrespectful or anything other than engaging very appropriately in discussion of a serious issue.  I did think you were wrong.  You thought I was.  But we really need to be able to disagree as I am sure you do agree.” 

"I did think you were wrong", said Archbishop elect Justin Welby. What had Dr Giddings said to warrant this response? Essentially: "Can we not find a better way of taking this historic step of allowing the consecration of women as bishops without unchurching those who cannot in conscience accept it?" Dr Giddings was encouraging Synod to honour a promise that had been made in order to allow women to be ordained priests. How can it be wrong to honour a promise, particularly in a religious context, or have our bishops simply become politicians in fancy dress, ignoring pledges for political ends? There should be no coalition between the House of Bishops and WATCH which appears to be the case.

Unfairly described in the Guardian as the 'controversial head' of the House of Laity, Dr Giddings has become a scapegoat in the wake of the fury expressed by supporters of women bishops because he dared to do what all Synod members should, care for all Anglicans. Some of the initial reactions to the November Synod vote were reported by the BBC here. The attitude of supporters was probably best summed up in the comment by the Rev Janet Appleby, author of the 'respect' get-out used by the bishops when she said: "After 12 years of discussion and consultation, the proposal we had before us at General Synod on 20 November was the best possible, given the incompatibility between the beliefs of those on opposite sides of the debate - that women can be bishops or that they can't." The 'best possible' proposal was the best possible for the majority short of outright exclusion, now the aim of hard-liners. As Dr Giddings put it in his Synod speech: "Those who have worked for reconciliation in various areas of life know that you cannot achieve a solution unless all parties agree to and own it. That is the missing piece in this legislative package. Those for whom the provision is intended do not own it".

From Wikipedia: In 2002, Welby was appointed a canon residentiary of Coventry Cathedral and the co-director for International Ministry at the International Centre for Reconciliation. In 2005, he was appointed Sub-Dean and Canon for Reconciliation Ministry. What hope of reconciliation can there be if, before he becomes the next Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby has already made up his mind that Dr Giddings is wrong and Mrs Appleby was right in suggesting that the proposal before General Synod on 20 November was the best possible? His concluding remark "But we really need to be able to disagree as I am sure you do agree" looks ominous. 

Claims that women bishops would be second class bishops unless they have their own way are completely spurious. Such claims are more about power politics than the sacred ministry. Christ humbled himself. If that is not good enough for would-be bishops they have no claim to the role: Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. The interests of others, in this case a significant minority in the church, are best served by providing an environment in which there is no conflict of interest or scope for women being able to claim that they are second class. Maintaining two integrities each owning their own provides the missing piece referred to by Dr Giddings in his Synod speech: "Those who have worked for reconciliation in various areas of life know that you cannot achieve a solution unless all parties agree to and own it. That is the missing piece in this legislative package. Those for whom the provision is intended do not own it". That should be self-evident.

House of Laity has confidence in Dr Giddings

One would think that Dr Philip Giddings, Chair of the House of Laity, had been guilty of some heinous crime but in fact he has been pilloried simply for speaking the truth, something with which the House of Shame Bishops have shown themselves to be decidedly economical. The motion of no  confidence moved by lay Canon Stephen Barney was suitably rejected by a substantial majority which, using the criteria of the accusers, means that members of the House of Bishops must examine their consciences very carefully.

For readers wondering what Dr Giddings may have said to incur the wrath of the women bishops movement I have copied below an unedited transcript of Dr Giddings’s speech made during the debate on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708D) at the November 2012 group of sessions of the General Synod. Note particularly the paragraph in bold type [my emphasis]. Had there been no generosity of spirit when Synod accepted the women priests measure there would be no women priests demanding to be bishops but having achieved their aim their promise was rescinded showing a complete absence of Christian charity. As if that were not shame enough, it took the courage of a layman to prick the conscience of Synod because the bishops took as their guide yet another erroneous passage from the Bible and washed their hands of it. 


Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I want first, as Chair of the House of Laity, to welcome Bishop Justin as Archbishop-elect and express my very great appreciation for the speech he has just made. Sadly, although I agree with almost everything that he said, I cannot agree with his conclusion.

As Chair of the House of Laity, it is part of my role to ensure that the views of the whole House are heard, particularly on final approval business. Synod already knows that a substantial majority of the House and of laypeople generally are in favour of women bishops and of this draft Measure. Many speeches today are making that point. Therefore, I want to focus on a significant minority of laypeople who are opposed in principle to women bishops and to the content of the Measure before us.

Essentially, I wish to say that it is unwise to go ahead with a Measure dealing with fundamental matters of ministry and doctrine with a significant minority of our Church unable to accept its provisions. I do believe that we can find a better way.

On 7 February this year in Westminster Abbey, representatives of the Church of England and the URC took part in a service of penitence and reconciliation to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of non-conforming ministers in 1662. In November 2003, this Synod endorsed the covenant for unity with the Methodist Church in ‘a spirit of penitence for…our past divisions, believing that we have been impoverished through our separation and that our witness to the gospel has been weakened accordingly’. 

Surely we do not want to make the same mistakes again? Can we not find a better way of taking this historic step of allowing the consecration of women as bishops without unchurching those who cannot in conscience accept it?

Last week I received a letter from a former distinguished lay member of this Synod who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministration of women bishops. He says, ‘All I ask for is a place in that one CofE where I can continue and flourish with integrity and mutual respect, but it is precisely that which this proposed legislation denies me’. I do not agree with his views on sacramental ministry but I do not see why our disagreement requires that one or other of us has no future in the Church of England.

In 1992 I voted in favour of ordaining women to the priesthood but knowing it was unacceptable to many of my fellow Evangelicals because of their understanding of the biblical teaching on headship. I voted for that legislation because it was designed to ensure that those who could not in conscience accept it could remain with us. Today’s legislative package will not achieve that.

Do we really believe that such diversity of opinion no longer exists? Legislation does not remove diversity of opinion. It is diversity. It is not prejudice. It is not simply refusal to accept change. It is solidly theologically based judgement. That is not my view; that was recognized fully in the Rochester report. We may disagree with the dissenting minority but does that mean we have to exclude them from a future in this Church? 

Those who have worked for reconciliation in various areas of life know that you cannot achieve a solution unless all parties agree to and own it. That is the missing piece in this legislative package. Those for whom the provision is intended do not own it.

We have been told that we have debated these matters long enough. Long enough perhaps for those who are in the majority and can impose their will, but not long enough to gain the consent of those who are opposed and whose consent is essential if we are to remain a united and growing Church committed to mission. We should not be in this position. We can and should find a better way.

Chimps beat bishops in fairness test

Photo: Rex Features

 A report in today's Telegraph shows that a "sense of fairness" has been identified in man's closest relation, chimpanzees. Researchers used the Ultimatum Game to determine the human sense of fairness. "In the game, one individual needs to propose a reward division to another individual and then have that individual accept the proposition before both can obtain the rewards. Humans typically offer generous portions, such as 50 percent of the reward, to their partners - and that's exactly what we recorded in our study with chimpanzees."

Compare this result with the performance of the House of Bishops as they cowered against the feminist onslaught and surrendered decision making to WATCH. Once the women's movement had the scent of victory in their nostrils there was to be no acceptable provision for opponents, only false claims of generosity which were in direct contradiction to the assurances  of an honoured place in the church for those opposed to the ordination of women. When the vote was lost at Synod members of the House of Laity who demonstrated that they could pass the 'fairness' test were vilified for being unfair on the grounds that supporters were intended to win. - I have yet to hear an explanation of why a lengthy debate at considerable expense was necessary simply to rubber-stamp a foregone conclusion!

Previous efforts by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to safeguard the position of traditionalists were scuppered by an uncaring House of Clergy resulting in the loss of the Archbishops' amendments as summarised here. Regarded by the bishops as a fair compromise the amendments actually left the minority in a substantially worse position than the majority but that was not good enough for those who demanded equality through inequality; read here, here and here. Greed ultimately was their downfall. Had the Archbishop's amendments been accepted the process of establishing women bishops in the Church of England would now be well on its the way. Instead of examining their consciences there has been further talk of punishing the oppressed by removing any semblance of consideration, a long way from the human sense of fairness where "humans typically offer generous portions, such as 50 percent of the reward, to their partners". In the Church of England, what was given with one hand has been taken with the other in a winner takes all approach which suggests that chimps beat bishops hands down when it comes to fairness. 

But fairness can still prevail. If both sides were allowed an equal stake in their church as originally implied neither side could blame the other for their own failure. The Church of England is relatively small within the Anglican Communion, itself a minority of those who profess the catholic creed with whom traditionalists are aligned leaving traditionalists in a majority. Talk of sanctioning schism by allowing each side to go their own way is ridiculous when the church already comprises many distinctive members. If the Catholic Church can make room for an Ordinariate, what does it say about the Church of England reneging on promises and failing to make acceptable provision so that traditionalists are still regarded as loyal Anglicans? Fairness must be seen to be done. If chimps can do it why can't bishops? 

Faith, hope and charity?

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity". Perhaps some of the most familiar words in the Bible and it seems, the most readily forgotten. Compare these words with those used in the statement by the House of Bishops: The House recognised and felt the profound and widespread sense of anger, grief and disappointment experienced by so many in the Church of England and beyond. 'Beyond' could well refer to the Episcopal Church of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori who shows a complete lack of charity towards those who disagree with her here, here, here and here. I could go on but for the latest read Anglican Ink here. 

If ever there were a need to heed warning signs! But the fractured liberal wings of the Anglican Communion are so obsessed with (some) women in the church and sexual equality that they flap around ignoring the wider spiritual direction of the universal church and risk ending up in a protestant Cul-de-sac completely separated from the Catholic church of East and West of our creed.

Unrepresentative liberal bishops constantly use selective figures to justify their actions while ignoring the reality of the position in which they find themselves having become slaves of WATCH. I was particularly interested to read the statement put out by Reform in response to the announcement about the working group on women bishops: Prebendary Rod Thomas said he was ‘nonplussed' as to why the membership of the working group does not contain anybody who shares our convictions about male headship – despite the fact that this was a key concern underlying the vote on 20th November. 

This comes hot on the heels of an excellent article here about the Church failing to respect its minority voices. But I would add a note of caution to a suggestion repeated in the article: One of the ways forward might be to look at what the Church in Wales is trying to achieve in having separate arrangements for both matters and not having one without the other. Read the reality of the position in Wales here.

The working group must recognise that the 'majority' view regarding the ordination of women is a minority view in the wider church beyond the Church of England. Within the C of E a significant minority opposed to the ordination of women on theological grounds are also loyal members of the Church of England and in all charity deserve the right to test their resolve in arrangements designed to suit their needs. Anything else is not only unethical, it is unscriptural.   

Postscript
Typical of the double standards employed by liberal bishops, the Archbishop of Wales says he does not want a ban on gay marriages in the Church in Wales. He said: "I am not sure we want that kind of protection which makes us out to be very unwelcoming and homophobic". It is not homophobic to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman but his attitude to the 'traditionalist' minority within his own church is already very unwelcoming. Dr Morgan added: "It is not that I am advocating that the Church in Wales is right to perform gay marriages but that decision needs to be made by the Church in Wales, it’s not for the State to decide for us." As with his proposals for woman bishops, my guess based on previous form is that he wants to make same-sex marriage legal and sweep up the opposition afterwards.

Liars or in denial?

There have been some interesting responses to the publication of the 2011 census data relating to religion in this country, particularly regarding the drop in the number of people claiming to be Christians. My favourite is this from the Ven Jan McFarlane, Archdeacon of Norwich, in response to the revelation that Norwich is the most godless city in England.  Her description of religious life in Norwich as she sees it suggests that either she is wilfully blind or the good people of Norwich are liars when it comes to filling in census forms. Although the 'religion' question is voluntary it is an offence to supply false information. I have seen no evidence to suggest that citizens of Norwich are less trustworthy than others in the United Kingdom but according to the Archdeacon they are "doing their churchgoing differently" whatever that means.  

In her interview she reminded me of Geraldine Granger trying to convince me that despite the evidence to the contrary everything was rosy. All became clear after a little investigatory work which revealed that, like the Prime Minister, the Archdeacon is a communications person, the Director of Communications for the Diocese of Norwich no less. All the more surprising then that I missed her contribution to Archbishop Rowan's notorious Enough Waiting campaign in what must rank as the most disingenuous performance of the many broadcast especially with the benefit of hindsight.

Next in line and always keen to grab a headline even if it undermines the position of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Wales. Based in Llandaff in deepest penitential purple - but only on the map - Dr Morgan's response to Wales coming second to Norwich in godlessness showed the same sense of denial in comparing the declining membership of the church with the decline of the TUC. There is no surprise that TUC membership has declined after the decimation of Welsh industry which has left many young people on his patch with no hope of work but the Archbishop has only himself to blame for the decline in church membership, enthusiastically aided by a single-minded bench of bishops which leaves no room for an alternative strategy. Dr Morgan claims that 'relatively speaking' the church is still 'quite strong' and believes that further decline is 'by no means inevitable'. Strange then that he had to set up a Review to manage the decline of the Church in Wales while safeguarding the cosy position of all seven bishops in a Province only the size of the Diocese of Oxford.

But there is worse to come for the Archbishop and other senior management staff in the 'modern institution' the Anglican Church is being converted into. Commenting on the decline in Christianity, Professor Richard Dawkins congratulated the people of Wales for coming out ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom, apparently giving little if any thought for those who have nothing as he encourages them to consider 'why they are here'! As bad as the figures are on face value, they are even worse based on what Professor Dawkins had to say about a Mori poll his Foundation commissioned in the census week. When asked why people ticked the 'Christian' box, they said that it was because they think of themselves as 'a good person' so the decline in Christianity is even worse than it appears. I wonder if that is what the Ven Jan McFarlane had in mind when she said that the people of Norwich were doing their churchgoing differently? I can think of many Christians in that category, going to church regularly once a year to sing a few carols. No wonder churches are closing for lack of support.

Had the position been reversed with census figures showing a dramatic increase in churchgoing, advocates of change would be shouting from the rooftops that it was all due to the ordination of women but with the figures as they are and put in an even worse light by Professor Dawkins' poll, they are simply met with denial using one excuse after another. Before the figures were published the Archbishop of Canterbury dismissed the expected fall saying that it was 'a common “cliché” that religion is in decline' drawing attention to a recent study showing a dramatic rise in the number of people visiting cathedrals for prayer or reflection as much as the architecture. With cathedral sightseeing fees of up to £15 per head I am not in the least surprised that people opt to go in free for prayer and reflection during one of the services.

All the evidence suggests that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are heading for disaster while other religions continue to grow but they refuse to provide a life boat for those who can see what is coming. Judging from the response by the House of Bishops to the lost Synod vote nothing is about to change. Their agenda is summed up in this paragraph: "The House expressed its ongoing gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England, and its sadness that recent events should have left so many feeling undermined and undervalued. Effective response to this situation is a priority on which all are strongly agreed." Having acknowledged the deadly sin of 'profound and widespread sense of anger' ...felt by so many in the Church of England and beyond, and agreed that the present situation was unsustainable for all, whatever their convictions, the House of Bishops will have an additional meeting in February and expects to settle at its May meeting the elements of a new legislative package to come to Synod in July. Note the absence of regret for the beleaguered minority left feeling undermined and undervalued after daring to vote according to conscience as instructed by Archbishop Rowan before the vote was taken.

The statement continues: For any such proposals to command assent, the House believes that they will need (i) greater simplicity, (ii) a clear embodiment of the principle articulated by the 1998 Lambeth Conference "that those who dissent from as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal Anglicans", (iii) a broadly-based measure of agreement about the shape of the legislation in advance of the beginning of the actual legislative process. These concerns will be the focus of the working group in the months ahead. Forgive me if I am wrong but listening to the Venerable Jan McFarlane after the hysteria that followed the lost vote, I venture to suggest this may be interpreted as (i) a single clause, (ii) 'loyal Anglicans' can go to hell, and (iii) anything they can get away with since WATCH are in the driving seat. As indicated in my previous post there is only one safe way forward to counter this. Orthodox Anglicans must insist that provision is first made for traditionalists in any legislation. The House of Bishops, WATCH and their supporters imply that intention but without any guarantee and we know what to make of past promises. If they are sincere, what have they to fear? 

The statements referred to above indicate that the Anglican Church is in denial and doomed to failure without a period of deep reflection. This is the response of the Church in Wales to the state of Christianity in Wales: The figures show that Christianity "is no longer the default setting it once was for many people in Wales...Today we find people go to church because they want to, not because they feel they have to or because it's the place to see and be seen...It should also be borne in mind that statistics can't show the whole picture in matters of faith...The past few months, for example, have seen people in different parts of Wales turn to churches in their thousands following various tragic events: in Machynlleth, in Ely, in St Asaph...People find God when life gets tough and it is the Church's privilege to be there for them whenever and wherever we may be needed."

We are rapidly reaching a situation that when life gets tough there will be no churches for people to go to. After they have been converted to mosques not even Jedi Knights will be able to help them. Britain will miss Christianity when its gone. 

Two faced

Who would have thought it? The Prime Minister, David Cameron has been accused of a 'broken promise' as gay couples told they can marry in church". Tut tut; the Archbishops, guardians of our moral values are not at all pleased. But to be fair to them, they are experts in their field. The broken promises over the ordination of women, calls to fix voting procedures when they don't like the result, vilifying the opposition has all become part of New Anglicanism. Too bad they cannot rig Parliament so the bishops will have to live with the consequences of their actions.

My wife and I were reflecting earlier today on the changes we have experienced in a generation. Gone is the calm assurance that the church is just there, standing firm against the whiles of the devil, looking to the moral fibre of the nation and providing  comfort in time of need. Instead we have angst, betrayal and exclusion, often by people 'new to faith' who have no understanding of the word let alone of the theology of the minority they like to criticise as misogynistic bigots, a term now used by enthusiasts for same sex marriage. After every disaster covered by television church doors are opened, nightlight candles appear everywhere, hymns are sung and 'the minister' has some trite comments to make before everyone trots back home forgetting about church until the next rite of passage.

That rite of passage increasingly looks as if it will be same sex couples exercising their right to be 'married' in the Parish Church despite Mr Cameron's protestations. Once the European Court of Human Rights has been visited by activists that will be the end of the matter. One of those shouting loudest to complain from the sidelines is Mrs Thatcher's placement, Abp George Carey. Constantly screaming 'foul', it is he who bears much of the responsibility for the mess we are in. Whatever your views on the ordination of women, it is inescapable that church attendance is dropping at a quickening rate, the authority of the church has diminished and teaching, such as it is, has in many churches more to do with civil rights and relating to society today than with teaching the faith as it has been handed down over the centuries. Instead of guiding the church along the path to unity, the Archbishops and bishops have set the Anglican church apart from the Apostolic church to which we belong. 

Creeping changes in the church represented as small steps at the time have left us mired in controversy. Tolerance has been repaid with vindictiveness in the process of allowing deaconess to become deacon, deacon to be ordained priest and now, priest to bishop. This process has been mirrored in society. Tolerance of minorities in the interests of so-called equal rights has become a hammer to bludgeon anyone who dares to speak their mind. The bishops are reaping what they have sown in their objections to the abhorrent proposal to redefine marriage. They are correct in their objection but they have lost their moral authority. Even if the Government had a mandate, which it does not, it would be contrary to natural law which binds a man and a woman together in the act of procreation without which neither same sex nor complementary sex couples would exist. 

The problems we are experiencing in society first manifested themselves when we turned away from the teaching of the universal church. Consequently we have lost not only the moral authority but the sympathy of those who identify themselves as Anglican for census purposes but who, in the main, have lost any sense of its meaning. This could not be more stark than in The Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) where the Presiding Bishop is disregarding Canon Law as she punishes bishops and priests for remaining true to the Gospel. The American Anglican Council (AAC) reported 'illegal acts' to the Church of England in February 2010 after the Holy Orders of 152 priests and deacons and 9 bishops had been renounced by TEC but to no avail. The ACC is now appealing to leaders of the Anglican Communion for help but the Church of England is impotent because she is heading in the same direction as TEC.

The House of Bishops meets next week. They MUST apply the brake and take stock of what is happening in the Anglican church and in the society they strive to emulate rather than set an example. They cannot face both ways being liberal on the one hand and conservative on the other. They must face the truth.

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.

Women and the Church demand the right to attend the all-male House of Bishops

The full story here