Anglicanism on the rocks

How depressing to listen to the leader of the Anglican Communion responding to questions on the LBC radio talk show yesterday morning.  

Had the archbishop been a candidate for election to Parliament I doubt that we would have ever heard of him again. 

Sitting on the fence for half an hour Welby said next to nothing spiritually worthwhile ('teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you' as in the Great Commission) that would encourage anyone to become a Christian. 

No wonder traditional Anglicanism is on the rocks.

Diluting the faith

"British citizens are right to fear mass migration"             Source: Express/Getty

Over the past week the media was full of the Archbishop of Canterbury's claim that "British citizens have a right to 'fear' the migrant crisis". The Telegraph put it more bluntly: "For the many millions of Britons who have seen their country changed irrevocably in recent years, his words are too little, too late".

Archbishop Justin Welby said that many Britons had a genuine and justified fear of mass immigration. In fragile communities particularly there was a genuine fear about housing, jobs and access to health services.

Important as these matters are there is a more fundamental concern, that of social cohesion which requires co-operation but for Muslim communities this is only on their terms. As they increase in strength they demand increasing privileges for themselves on religious grounds regardless of the impact on others. Immigrant Muslims do not leave the perils of their ideology behind them, they bring them with them, adding to the demands for special treatment.

Coverage of Archbishop Welby's intervention by the BBC included video clips of schools in which there were no indigenous white children in sight, confirming earlier reports that in more than 200 schools nine in ten pupils do not speak English as their mother tongue and that 14 different languages including Pahari, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Somali, Polish, Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Portuguese, Arabic, Spanish and Pashto, are spoken in some schools, increasing the pressure on scarce resources.

In another BBC video in which descendants of immigrant families featured, the problem of integration rather than immigration was identified without mentioning the biggest problem, the formation of Islamic enclaves where Muslims live according to their own imported laws. In January 2013, Manchester University statistician Ludi Simpson analyzed official data from the 2011 census and found that native white Britons are already a minority in Leicester (45%), Luton (45%) and Slough (35%). He also forecast that they would be a minority in Birmingham by 2019, nearly a decade earlier than the previous estimate.

Despite the glaring problem of integration, Church and State tend to regard Islam as just another religion which has been hijacked by a few fundamentalists. These 'terrorists', (Islamists) plan terror attacks around the world including attacks on those they regard as bad Muslims. Ironically the attackers are 'good' Muslims in their ideology because they are following their prophet's example, believing that slaughter of the innocent to be God's will. As they maim and kill their defenceless victims they cry 'Allahu Akbar' (God is greater).

Ignoring the facts that Christians and Jews are being specifically targeted, misguided clerics encourage the spread of Islam in this country. The evidence for the Muslim invasion is broadcast daily. Archbishop Welby says proclaiming the Gospel is “integral to being a Christian” so why the softly, softly approach to Islam when the only answer to the world's problem is to expose the ideology for what it is, one of supremacy regardless of the consequences.

"Western policies of multiculturalism are founded on the principle that immigration should not discriminate on the basis of nationality, creed, race or any other distinguishing feature among people. Yet such refusal to take account of the differences and oppositions that are essential to human nature mean that well-intentioned Western immigration programs are setting up the rivalries and conflicts of the future."

There are fundamental differences between Christians and Muslims which cannot be dismissed. Why, after the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, would the Angel Gabriel confide in Muhammad that it was all a load of baloney and that God's real purpose was to crush everyone who did not conform to a warlord's modus operandi?

Diluting the faith is not the answer, it is a matter of conversion. Doubting clerics should read 'Christ has revolutionised my life' here.

Postscript [16.03.2016]
THE GENOCIDE OF CHRISTIANS. Petition to recognise the genocide of Christians and other minorities. Please read and sign here.

Welby's view

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby                                        Source: Reuters

"In Muslim countries, Archbishop Welby said, ‘it is often pointed out to me that only one Muslim country was not colonised by Western powers in the 19th century: Saudi Arabia. By 1920, the world’s principal ruler of Muslims was King George V.’ The Archbishop added that western attitudes to the Prophet Mohammed and ‘the media perception of the Muslim community’ were ‘often mentioned to me with savage and bitter anger’."

Perhaps if Muslims had confined their activities to Saudi Arabia instead of seeking to convert mankind to Islam the world would not have been fighting against colonisation for 1400 years.

Christians were living peacefully in the so called Muslim lands well before Islam came on the scene. Of course the Muslim community shows savage and bitter anger against Western attitudes because they believe that they are above objective scrutiny.

While Christians journey through Lent to prepare for the Resurrection, Muslims confidently claim that Christ did not die on the Cross and even that Jesus was a Muslim.

Should we agree with that too, wiping out 2,000 years of hope through Christianity?

Guiding Synod

The General Synod yesterday approved a private members motion on a new promise introduced by Girl Guides UK in September 2013. Guiders, ex-guiders, lay and ordained queued to speak, mainly in favour of the motion. One woman priest went so far as to claim that she owed her ministry to her membership of the Girl Guides when she developed a liking for parading up the church aisle in uniform. Despite procedural manoeuvres including a call to proceed to next business, the motion had strong support although a male priest protested that Synod had no business meddling in the affairs of the Guide movement. At one stage unwholesome tittering erupted around the chamber after the mover confessed that she didn't like young girls very much; she preferred older women. In the sexually charged atmosphere created by the items on the agenda the mover was forced to clarify what she meant which tended to confirm a claim that the Church of England has become obsessed with sex and the ordination of women.

For reasons previously explained (here) I found it particularly ironic that the now secularised Church of England was complaining that the Guide movement was following the same path. The background paper [GS 1943A] compared the new "To be true to myself and to develop my beliefs" with the previous "To love my God". Better still would be the original "To do my duty to God and to the Queen". If that is not acceptable, then join an organisation or form one which accords with one's own beliefs. But that is not how it works today as traditionalist Anglicans have found to their cost. Feminist entrists in the Church of England have been so successful in appealing to a godless general public to promote their secular ideals that the spirit of the age is now more important than the Gospel giving rise to statements such as 'others would see the Church as increasingly “irrelevant” and promoting attitudes “akin to racism” over its response...to hold special services honouring same-sex relationships' - Justin Welby (here). 

Being true to oneself and to develop one's beliefs are fine principles in themselves as Buddhists would no doubt agree. 'To love my God' would probably have more appeal to Muslim recruits. For Christians there is only one way to the Father and that is through Jesus Christ. That is what the Church of England should proclaim.

The Scouts retain their promise "To do my duty to God and to the Queen" but unlike the (girls only) Guides, the Scouts have had to become gender neutral. How long before they are forced by a potential girl Scout to force another change. 

Synod,  'Physician heal thyself'.

Mutual flourishing

Honoured and lauded, for what?

"The former Church of the Good Shepherd building is now the Islamic Awareness Center."
Photo: Jamie Dean

Archbishop Justin has welcomed news that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, is to be awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity by the University of Oxford. He said "This award, richly deserved, reaffirms Bishop Katharine’s remarkable gifts of intellect and compassion, which she has dedicated to the service of Christ."

Read about her "dedicated service to Christ" here in the case of the former Church of the Good Shepherd which was sold to become the Islamic Awareness Center rather than let orthodox Anglicans buy their own church building. 

More stories here, here, here, here and here among others. Here is an extract from a recent entry :

"A.S. Haley of Curmudgeon blog fame wrote on Sept. 2010, "We thus arrive at an estimated total of some Twenty-Six Million, Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($26,650,000) dedicated thus far by the Church of Katharine Jefferts Schori to lawsuits and illegal disciplinary actions. That is quite a negative achievement for someone who has been in office for not even four years yet." He now estimates the figures to be between $30 million and $33 million. "If the spending continues at the same rate, by the time her term is up in November 2015 (and assuming her last budget is like those before it), she will have committed the Church to an impossible-sounding Sixty-Four Million Dollars in legal costs." http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/09/just-how-much-has-ecusa-spent-on.html"

Archbishop Welby added: "Prior to becoming ordained, Bishop Katharine pursued a career in oceanography, and her enduring deep commitment to the environment has evolved into a profound dedication to stewardship of our planet and humankind, especially in relieving poverty and extending the love and hospitality of Christ to those on the edges of society. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said of Bishop Katharine, 'In her version of reality, everything is sacred except sin.'

"It must be noted, too, that Bishop Katharine’s achievements serve – and will continue to serve – as a powerful model for women seeking to pursue their vocations in the church."

If the Presiding Bishop is "a model for women seeking to pursue their vocations in the church" it is not difficult to see why Anglicanism is where it is.

Postscript [09/02/2014]
For further background information watch Anglican Unscripted video newscast, Episode 91, here.

More here from VirtueOnline correspondent Mary Ann Mueller [10/02/2014]

See also How TEC funds Facilitated Conversations from TitusOneNine (here) [11/02/2014]

Happy Easter!

This year we searched in vain for packs of Easter cards with an icon depicting the Resurrection. There were plenty of cards to choose from with fluffy bunnies, flowers and eggs, even a few floral crosses but not what we wanted. After our initial disappointment I found myself reflecting on the part that flowers and eggs have played in our Easter celebrations. In particular I recalled the powerful fragrance of freesias and lilies which adorned the Altar of Repose, the result of many hours of work when help was taken for granted. Much has changed in the passing years. Divided congregations have become increasingly elderly. There are fewer, if any, children in many churches compared with the days when the Sunday School children, later re-named the more trendy 'Junior Church', would join the main congregation to await the vicar's usual question, "Why Easter eggs?" Back would come the eager replies of "New life!" earning the reward of a Cadbury's cream egg - and not just for the children :)

Happy Easter!

The egg also symbolises the tomb from which sprang new life. Following the installation of Pope Francis heralding a new pontificate of simplicity, the Anglican Church too witnessed a change in emphasis in the installation of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury: “I am Justin, A servant of Jesus Christ, and I come seeking the grace of God, to travel with you in his service together.” - Together as one, a new beginning?

Hope and despair

Following his pilgrimage of prayer there is an interesting BBC interview with Justin Welby here as he prepares to be placed in the Anglican hot seat. As ever the headline indicates that sex is the main focus of media attention but this obsession masks a broader understanding of what it means to Abp Welby to be a Christian and an Anglican in particular. 

Less encouraging is the Archbishop's fatalistic 'conviction' that the role of Archbishop of Canterbury will eventually be held by a woman, something that his predecessor alluded to. The BBC's coverage of the inaugural Mass of Pope Francis conveyed a similar approach to religion from a secular perspective with emphasis on the role of women in the church in an age of so-called equality. This conveys a lemming-like inevitability that must be resisted if we are to avoid the example of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the United States.

Postscript

I was on the school run today so I missed what was described afterwards by Jane ('Um') Hill in the BBC News headlines as the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be enthroned by a woman.  I managed to catch the beginning and the end of the service. True to form 'Auntie's' guests were, in order of introduction, the retired Bishop of Manchester, the Right Reverend Nigel McCulloch KCVO, Christina Rees - introduced as a member of the Archbishops' Council - and the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, parish priest, 'Loose Canon' and former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, all of which was enough to make Mrs Briton retire from the room in despair. As readers will know Ms Rees is the ex-WITCH WATCH spokesmanperson who is determined to see Christianity adapt to her way of thinking. Asked for her thoughts she trotted out the usual feminist approach to Christianity, women first, Jesus Christ second as she continues to press for women bishops regardless of the occasion and Abp Welby's constant stress on reconciliation. 

Unlike the inaugural Mass of Pope Francis commentators could not complain of the absence of women. First, looking very pleased with herself, was the new Archbishop's Chaplain, the Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, as was the Archdeacon of Canterbury who, in the Mail Online picture caption is described as "Presiding: Sheila Watson, Archdeacon of Canterbury, enthroned Mr Welby as a bishop". I didn't see the Presiding Bishop in the throng but I glimpsed her disciple the Archbishop of Wales behind the throne, a position no doubt he regards as his being one of the CNC selectors.

Justin time

The chair of St Augustine of Canterbury is soon to be occupied by the Rt Rev Justin Welby following the confirmation of his election in St Paul's Cathedral on Monday, 4th February. I say occupied because the retired 104th Archbishop demonstrated in his valedictory 'Goodbye to Canterbury' TV programme, that the chair is too big to be filled by one man, or woman as he implied in a typical gender neutral comment, perhaps alluding to an earlier comment that the job was too big for one man.

There is a touch of irony in the opening paragraphs of a letter to another St Augustine published by the Ship of Fools when Rowan 'wrote' as the then newly elected Archbishop of Wales: What everyone remembers, of course, is the things you got wrong – or the things we're quite sure you got wrong. [...] And we blame you for messing up Christian attitudes to sex, because for you it was an area of humiliation and tragedy – forgetting, again, that you truly thought sex between husband and wife had something of heaven in it. We look for a scapegoat to explain why Western Christianity and Western civilization are so much of a mess. You wrote such a lot and so powerfully that I'm afraid you're a very good candidate for the position. But I think you would have turned around and challenged us: why the passion for a scapegoat? What are you refusing to look at in yourself?

It is too easy to look for a scapegoat. The sorry spectacle of Dr Philip Giddings being hounded for fulfilling his Christian duty as he saw it was the culmination of the fury of the  movement for the ordination of women when they should have been asking themselves how they landed themselves in that mess when their goal was so easily within reach. The verdict of the majority who voted at the special meeting of the House of Laity was that the Christian virtues of love and charity exemplified by Dr Giddings had been replaced by greed with one excuse after another being advanced to reject any compromise other than that deemed acceptable to WATCH and their allies. I fully accept that women would not want to be placed in what they regard as an inferior position but that is something of a red herring when in reality the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had explained why it would not be so. Indeed how could it be for anyone sent as a servant? 

The new Archbishop has a difficult job on his hands. The stumbling block of 'second class' women bishops cannot be overcome by going over the same ground which has been deemed totally unacceptable to the women's movement. Much to the chagrin of some in the women's lobby the recognition by the C of E of Free Church of England orders presents the opportunity to be more outward looking. As the Right Revd Christopher Hill, Chair of the Church of England's Council for Christian Unity, said:  'I hope there will be good relations between us and especially in those places where there is a Free Church of England congregation.' Charity begins at home! 

No doubt when St Augustine of Canterbury was installed as Archbishop he could not have imagined the prospect of a woman sitting on his chair although we can be fairly confident of what St Augustine of Hippo would have thought about it. However, we can be certain that if three of the greatest theologians of our day, Pope Benedict, Metropolitan Hilarion and Archbishop Rowan had to decide on the ordination of women they would have voted two to one against Archbishop Rowan as would the majority of Anglicans. But now is the time for reconciliation. We have a new Archbishop who has that gift giving us the opportunity for a re-appraisal in the knowledge that we are all members of the One body. 

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.

They have only themselves to blame

Just one small wafer Ms Creosote?

As every Sunday school pupil knows, greed is one of the seven deadly sins. When Rowan Williams was humiliated by Women and the Church (WATCH) in July I sensed that the tide was about to turn. Every concession had been a step too far for WATCH. From 'a divided church' to 'demeaning women' then 'second class bishops', any excuse has been used to squeeze the opposition further. Listening to yesterday's debate it was clear that those in favour of women bishops wanted more than just that. Those opposed to the measure had no place in the church despite so-called assurances and solemn promises. Had they not been so greedy WATCH could already have achieved their goal and Archbishop Rowan could have retired a happy man. As one speaker put it, he would have voted in favour at every previous compromise but what was now on offer was not good enough. That summed up the mood. Enough was enough, so they lost. 

Contrary to the hysterical headlines in the press, it was NOT a vote against women bishops. It was a vote against a lack of charity towards a substantial minority whose faith means more to them than their bishops and clergy realise. Going back to 1992, there were jubilant scenes among supporters of the ordination of women priests. That was passed by just two votes. Yesterday's vote dwarfed that margin by 200% a substantial majority! One could well argue that if the Holy Spirit was in favour of women priests, a popular cry, then the Holy Spirit must be categorically opposed to women bishops. But as we know, there is no logic in the ordination of women campaign, just prejudice. There is an honest assessment of the vote by a female trainee chaplain here. Without retracing ground covered this comment was very interesting: 'One argument kept ringing true: the claim that the pro-women campaigners were too quick to try and make the church like the world. Uncomfortably, I had to agree. Too many of those in favour of women bishops just sounded too… well… worldly'.

Writing in the Telegraph, Tim Stanley made a similar point: 'In the 21st century, what is the purpose of the village church? For much of the establishment of the Church of England, the answer seems to be “relevance” – they must earn their status in society by reflecting society's diversity of background and opinion. The great irony is that they want to make relevant something that is actually devalued by the attempt to make it relevant. God doesn’t do “relevance.” He just is – and, for most religious consumers, that’s what makes him so appealing'. Precisely!

In what I thought was a disappointing contribution to the debate after all the previous hype, the Bishop of Durham, Justin Welby, said: “It is time to finish the job and vote for this measure...the Church of England needs to show how to develop the mission of the church in a way that demonstrates that we can manage diversity of view without division; diversity in amity, not diversity in enmity”. Nothing was offered beyond the same old devalued promises. So far as the mission of the church is concerned Bishop Welby should reflect on the figures here. The mission of the church has accelerated rapidly downhill since 1992 following the introduction of women priests, so what is his point?

How the world sees the vote is illustrated by this coverage by Channel 4 News. It shows such appalling ignorance that one would have thought bishops and clergy would be keen to correct the misrepresentation but unfortunately they are part of the same problem, secularism. The Ch4 reporter Kattie Razzall remarked that "the secular world will not understand the decision that looks so out of step with modern society". She went on to describe the debate as 'a straight forward case of discrimination'. Interviewed by Jon Snow who showed an abysmal level of ignorance and understanding, Tony Baldry MP was at a loss to know how he would explain the vote to Parliament. Obviously the wrong man for the job then. This is the response to the vote from Parliament, again showing a lamentable understanding of anything sacred.

Looking at today's reaction to the vote, the House of Bishops has learned nothing. Statements such as "it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of wider society" imply a form of secular Christianity in which scripture is useful only for mis-quoting selected verses while tradition and reason are forgotten. Our bishops and clergy are no longer fully representative of the church which is the problem where proper provision is concerned. Advancement is denied to those not singing from the same sheet. Ordinands are deterred by blatant discrimination. It should have come as no surprise therefore that the fair minded would see this for what it is, a gradual elimination of clergy opposed to the ordination of women. So much for their majority which is achieved by manipulation.

To illustrate how these secular Christians are obsessed with their own agenda, the Church in Wales has been brought into the controversy by the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He has called for the Church in Wales to take the lead. He said: 'I think it would be very interesting and salutary if the Church in Wales over the next year or two had women bishops and the Church of England didn't' but what happened in England yesterday was a re-run of what happened in Wales in 2008 when their Governing Body rejected women bishops because proper provision for a significant minority was refused by their Archbishop. Dr Morgan maintains that position while advancing another cunning scheme he hopes will be approved in September 2013.

This goes to the heart of the problem. There is no negotiation; only a statement that 'this is as good as it gets'. There is more sympathy and support from Africa than we have from our own Archbishops. If they genuinely want to make progress this must change. There must be genuine negotiations to ensure that all may flourish in the church.

WATCH OUT!

You have to hand it to them, the campaign by Women and the Church (WATCH) has been well executed but it is entirely self-centred. It is misplaced in a Christian setting because it looks inward with the aim of satisfying their own desires regardless of the effect on others in the church. Their subtle campaign plays on the respect due to Christian women but it is deceitful. It uses secular criteria to pursue false claims of inequality gathering support from members of the general public who have no religious affiliations whatsoever.

WATCH is a feminist pressure group which presumes to dictate the direction of the church over the heads of the House of Bishops. Most of the bishops are incapable of coping with this pressure as demonstrated by their constant capitulation, latterly taking refuge in the notion that 'respect' is the way forward when none has been in evidence so far. Their retreat in the face of opposition by WATCH has been relentless. The pledge by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to attend to ‘unfinished business’ has been neutered leaving not so much as a glimmer of hope for opponents of the ordination of women. Surprisingly for a bishop admired for his conciliation abilities I was disappointed to read a report in The Telegraph that the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is treading the same path:
“Bishop Welby’s vocal endorsement of the measure last week, moments after being announced as the next Archbishop, is being seen as a potential “game-changer”.
He is understood to be spending much of this weekend drafting his speech, striking a balance between saying that it is time for the Church to move on and offering assurances to those with theological objections to women bishops that there will be proper “provision” for them.”

Mere assurances are worthless. What is described in the Synod agenda notice as ‘some provision’ will be based on what is acceptable to the provider. To assure proper provision would be to agree enforceable terms in advance of the vote but such a solution is unacceptable to WATCH. They demand a solution only on their terms to avoid having what they would regard as second class women bishops. It matters not one jot to them that a substantial minority of Anglicans will be made second class members of their church under current proposals despite being assured of an honoured place. Anyone who has settled a bill with an assurance that problems will be rectified afterwards will know that such promises quickly evaporate after payment. 
  

It is obvious that Christ's commandment to love your neighbour does not figure large in the WATCH camp. They claim to be inclusive but have done everything in their power to marginalise those who find themselves in a minority for staying loyal to the tradition of the Apostolic church. If they succeed in persuading Synod to pass the measure then WATCH OUT!