The baptism row

Distortion has become a feature of the Anglican Church under the influence of feminist ideology. God's kingdom is regarded as part of a new PC world where dissenters are branded misogynists, homophobes, bigots and the rest. Anything in fact to discredit opposition to liberal excesses.

Unlike the US where the feminist agenda is in control, women are not yet officially running the Church of England but with their feet now firmly on the threshold even some liberal clergy are beginning to question where feminist excesses masquerading as equality are taking the Church. The Pilling Report caused ripples but the proposal to ignore the devil and all his works has caused waves of dissent.

Feminism has used a 'stepping stone' strategy in its use of the Church to reach a political goal. Each step shows a relatively small change from the previous position but looking back the change is obvious especially for those finding themselves in an unintended position.

Small changes may not have appeared to be very important to those willing to be converted until they look back. The watered down baptism service provides a clear example of this. In the latest revision the vicar will simply ask: “Do you reject evil? And in all its many forms? And all its empty promises?” leaving the hearers to make what they will of the question, a far cry from the Book of Common Prayer which has:

"DOST thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?"

There can be little doubt what the original BCP version means. In fact it neatly sums up the work of the devil and the covetous and carnal desires that are wrecking the Anglican Communion.

Hardly surprising the revisionists want rid of it!

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.

Pilling: It's all about Eve

It is ten years since Michael Kalmuk and his long-time partner Kelly Montfort recited their solemn Anglican vows that would bless their relationship in what was described as the World's first "official" Anglican same-sex blessing. They had been together for twenty-one years and spent much of their careers working with people with disabilities. Story here.

Unless one is homophobic it is difficult not to be touched by such a story but the Rev. Margaret Marquardt who conducted the ceremony said in her homily that it amounted to "an act of healing for gay and lesbian people throughout the Anglican church"! In another report here she is quoted as saying said that it was an affirmation of "God's presence" in the couple's relationship, making one wonder if she was familiar with the Bible or simply chose passages to re-interpret Holy Scripture  according to her will, now common practice in liberal Anglicanism. 

A similar story can be read in the report of House of Bishops Working Group on human sexuality, the Pilling Report, where natural sympathy leads to the wrong conclusion that members of the clergy should be allowed to offer blessings to same-sex couples (summary here). Another of the report's recommendations is that The whole Church is called to real repentance for the lack of welcome and acceptance extended to homosexual people in the past, and to demonstrate the unconditional acceptance and love of God in Christ for all people. This it seems to me is the main thrust of the report. God loves all, we have been beastly to gays so same-sex unions should be blessed by the Church as an act of repentance. This conclusion ignores biblical facts but there was not unanimity. The report includes a dissenting statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead who said that he was "not persuaded that the biblical witness on same sex sexual behaviour is unclear". It is true that gays have been treated badly in society but I have not witnessed the reported lack of welcome and acceptance in the Church and don't know of anyone who does, quite the contrary.

The item in the report which I find most illuminating is the advice given by a female 'expert' which so baffled the Review Group that it is included as a separate Prologue "Living with holiness and desire". As Pilling remarks in his Forward, "One of our advisers, [the Rev Dr] Jessica Martin, challenged us to think about human sexuality more widely than most of our evidence was leading us to do. We asked her to write a paper which now forms the prologue to the report. We wanted to give others a chance to read it and reflect on it and we feared that, if we tried to integrate it into the main body of the report, much would be lost."

After her opening statement "Desire begins and ends with God", implying that its all His fault, the Rev Dr waffles on page after page implicating St Augustine of Hippo in the process before her aim is made apparent in the final sentence: "In Christ all things may be made new, every failure may be made the occasion of a generous forgiveness", or to put it another way as Pilling does, to demonstrate the unconditional acceptance and love of God in Christ for all people, ergo, same-sex blessings!

The Rev Sharon Ferguson, Chief Executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) welcomed the Pilling recommendations as "a small step of the Church of England towards greater inclusion but urges them to continue this work to enable the church to witness effectively to God’s love for all", echoing the Prologue message, God loves us, so what the hell!

Speaking on behalf of the Inclusive Church we have another female cleric, the Very Rev’d Dianna Gwilliams, Dean of Guildford Cathedral and Chair of Inclusive Church who says: "We hope that this will enable all Christians to find ways of celebrating the covenantal love between people which reflects the love of God for all people."

The House of Bishops has become incapable of coming to any conclusion without using women to do their thinking for them but only women who represent the old Eve. Women in the image of Mary, the new Eve, who gave us the Church in the Body of Christ have no say. Accordingly, even when it is absolutely clear that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that Christ deliberately chose men, not women, to be his Apostles, they work their way around these awkward facts by spinning a yarn about inequality which, if true, must have been what Christ intended. But He saw no inequality, only difference.

The process which gave us women deacons and priests, soon to be women bishops, is being repeated. Not quite as grand as Charles and Camilla but gay couples will be able to get married in a Registry Office before their grand Church service which will appear to be a marriage ceremony. That is a very small step from an actual marriage ceremony, just as women claimed it was only a few words separating deacons from priests.

Shortly after the World's first "official" Anglican same-sex blessing took place, an article in Orthodoxy Today was published under the heading 'Thoughts on Women's Ordination'. One sentence particularly stands out: "Virtually every Protestant group that has decided to ordain women has to one degree or another begun to reject Biblical language and images of God in favor of images more acceptable to feminist theology." Pilling it seems is no exception.

Queer bashing

■ Peter Tatchell:  “Traditional hetero masculinity

oppresses women and gay people, with sexist

jibes, domestic violence, rape, homophobic taunts

and queer-bashing assaults.” 

Source: UK Gay News

Readers may have noticed that I was taken to task by a commentator following the 'Morgan's organ' entry for interpreting 'gifted queer' as a slur rather than a badge of honour. Forgive my ignorance and my apologies to all those queers, gifted or otherwise, who glorify in the appellation while choosing to read this blog if only to find offence when none is intended. For others who are similarly ill-informed in matters queer, there is some preparatory reading on "The New Sexual Radicalism" here.

Lest there be any doubt, I have no problem with 'queers' as such. But let me be clear. I have little if any sympathy for queer bishops who put themselves first by promoting their gay agenda at the expense of the Church. The damage they have caused to the Anglican Communion in particular has been immense yet the promotion of their self-centred movement has been described as progress! The first openly gay bishop in The Episcopal Church, Gene Robinson, attributes this to "decades of activism and of gay people identifying themselves as such" (story here). The reality can be read here. Shrinking congregations hardly equate with progress.

 Earlier this year the House of Bishops announced that they would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promised to be celibate. I had no problem with that in principle but the policy created a conflict between intrusion and Gene Robinson's "gay activism" which puts bed sharing above house sharing. Activists did themselves no favours with supporters of civil partnerships when it became clear that we had been used by people who regard civil partnerships only as stepping stones to their true goal of same-sex marriage. Same sex people living together for companionship is nothing new. Being able to benefit from the legal safeguards provided by the civil partnership legislation was a matter of justice, not a sexual liberation free for all. I campaigned for civil partnerships on the basis that security should not be denied to people living together for companionship simply because they are of the same sex. But that was not good enough for same-sex marriage campaigners. They demanded that marriage should be redefined. Dave fell for it and made one of his biggest mistakes.

How people behave in the privacy of their own homes, regardless of their sexuality, is not something that should concern others but actively promoting homosexual preferences does not indicate celibacy. The latest rumours have it that the Pilling Report will suggest a further relaxation of the guidlines: "Clerics should be able to follow Church teachings without having to make a solemn vow", what amounts to a "don't ask, don't tell policy" leaving sexual matters to conscience and the mercy of God. The difficulty with this approach is that clerics such as Gene Robinson queer the pitch for others by making it clear that their sexual proclivities are paramount creating open conflict within the Church in a campaign of stealth leading to same sex marriages in church and blessing civil partnerships.

When Prince Charles let it be known that he was to marry Camilla Parker Bowles with whom he had been having an adulterous affair, it was decided that she would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, not the Princess of Wales for fear of offending people's memories of Princess Diana. It was also misleadingly suggested that she would become the Princess Consort on the accession of Charles to the throne for fear of offending loyal subjects who couldn't bear the thought of 'that woman' being Queen Camilla. Not so according to experts. Unless legislation is enacted, which is most unlikely, when Charles is King we will also have Queen Camilla. This strategy of progression by stealth is the same process which Women and the Church have used in their campaign of self-advancement regardless of the fate of others and is being used by the LGBT movement to advance their objectives.

Homophobia, like Islamophobia, has become a common charge against anyone who dares to have a contrary opinion. So let's get this in proportion. "LGBT people constitute at best 1 percent of the entire globe’s population. Their “rights” are largely non-essential things such as the sentimental need for acceptance, the joy of throwing a wedding banquet, the delight in showering with people of different genitalia, and the ambition of having children without having to share property with a partner of the opposite sex. Yet the campaign for such “rights” has received 6 percent of all generosity in the world, from a pool that also meets the needs of orphans, paupers, refugees, and victims of famine and natural disasters." See Witherspoon Institute report on Sexual Radicalism here.

Gay bishops: Episcopal Bishops Gene
Robinson (New Hampshire, retired, left),
and Mary Glasspool (suffragan, Los
Angeles) with Guy Erwin Bishop of
Southwest California Lutheran Church. 
(Gene Robinson via Twitter)

Not content with the decriminalisation of homosexuality in this country, the introduction of civil partnerships which many non-queers supported, and 'same-sex marriage' which many queers and non-queers alike did not support as Dave rammed it through parliament, queer bashing continues. But queer bashing has been reversed in this country. It is the queers who do the bashing if they take exception to anything they don't like. From UK Gay News: "Gay Activist Says Straight Male Machismo Underpins All Tyranny". If that sounds familiar, it is the same strategy used by the feminist movement to blame all the world's ills on opponents of the ordination of women, see here and here to give two examples.

I must give credit for this entry to a persistent critic who prides himself on being "queer" and who opined in response to a comment: "gifted queer" is not in any way a slur - queers (like myself) have reclaimed the term into a positive self-description. It's the true genuis [sic] of us homosexuals to take an insult and redeem it into a label of self-idenitification [sic] (something almost Christian there). I'd be happy if someone called me a "gifted queer". That is on the same lines as voiced by the 'gifted' but offensive queer, Peter Tatchell who along with other queers invaded the pulpit while the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, was preaching an Easter sermon in his Cathedral, story here. Nothing is sacred any more. The Church is being used from without and within.

The way homosexual people were treated in the past and are still treated in many countries is abominable but so is their treatment of straight people now. To protest in a Cathedral on Easter Sunday showed an astonishing insensitivity but so does the use of the Church by bishops who choose to advance their own cause at the expense of the Church . It has been widely trailed that the Pilling Report, in addition to relaxing the rules on celibacy, will also recommend that "a formal form of liturgy is introduced by the Church for couples entering into same sex ‘marriages’ or civil partnerships". The tail is now wagging the dog. How queer is that!

Christ humbled Himself on a cross; women insist on honour. How did it come to this?

The GAFCON Jerusalem cross has been brought from Jerusalem where the first GAFCON was held 
in 2008. It was carried in procession during the final communion service. It will stay in Nairobi
 until the next GAFCON to which the Conference committed itself.

"Synod to consider women bishops ‘ombudsman’"

- + -

I discovered the above juxtaposition while looking through the entries on the 'Anglican Mainstream' site (Right hand column). Under the picture of the GAFCON cross was this entry: Synod to consider women bishops ‘ombudsman'. (Story here).

From the days when you could buy a 'penneth' of chips with one old penny I well remember Sunday School posters which illustrated life in areas of Africa which were known then as Tanganyika, Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Every Lent we eagerly collected coins in sealed cardboard boxes to aid the spread of the Gospel in Africa. Now the countries which spread the Word in those far off days are being taken to task for re-interpreting scripture to justify the wants of minority groups from women's ordination to same-sex relationships. Read Peter Ould's important article on Pilling here.

The women bishops measure was lost fairly at Synod but the result was not accepted. A more aggressive, winner-takes-all campaign was launched by Women in the Church (WATCH) and their supporters. Desperate to have women bishops at any cost, the latest proposals have been published. The Church of England should have "an ombudsman-style arbitrator" to rule on rows about the issue of women bishops: "The Church's ruling general synod will decide next month whether to introduce an "independent reviewer" to resolve disputes between Anglicans." ... "Under the latest proposals it is hoped can break the deadlock, an arbitrator – similar to a health service ombudsman – would rule on disputes about the guarantees offered to traditionalists."

For the love of God, how has it  come to this? Essentially because, while claiming the contrary, WATCH along with their fellow travellers are more concerned with power and authority than serving as chief pastors.  Pope Francis put it concisely when he consecrated two new bishops last week, the Episcopacy is a service, not an honour: 

“It is Christ who, in the bishop's ministry, continues to preach the Gospel of salvation and to sanctify believers, through the sacraments of the faith”, he said. “Indeed, 'episcopate' is the name of a service, not an honour. It is the bishop's responsibility to serve rather than to dominate, according to the commandment of the Master: 'the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves'”... Finally, Francis encouraged them to pay close attention to “those who have strayed from the fold of Christ, because they too have been entrusted to you by the Lord. Pray for them (full report here).

This issue is now so politicised that the media constantly report it in secular terms of women's rights and job opportunities with no regard for conscientious beliefs. The BBC report referred to above links to a previous article in which "BBC Radio 4's Charlotte Smith, a regular church-goer herself, samples the views of clergy and congregations". One churchgoer told her "It is absolutely ridiculous, it looks like we are stuck in the 1740s. My daughter loves this Church because of our attitude towards women but says she is not going to come back to the Church of England 'til they actually get this sorted out." Not thy way O Lord but mine!

And this: "The issue was certainly enough to bemuse the 10 and 11-year-old girls at a recent schools day at Winchester cathedral. They were not really planning careers in the church. Singing and doctoring seemed better options to them. But they could not understand why women could be vicars but they could not be bishops. Some of the volunteers working in the cathedral were equally mystified. "If women are made priests, inevitably, if they're good, they should become bishops," one said." Doubtless nobody bothered to explain that it is a problem of the Anglican Church's own making because in the wider church, woman are not admitted to the priesthood.

Despite that, opponents of the ordination of women, including other women, who simply want to keep the faith of the Holy Catholic Church are constantly portrayed as bigots and misogynists as though they are against women per se. That is absurd. So what is the problem? There isn't one. It is simply that a contrary view is not tolerated. WATCH and their supporters want outright victory with no provision for opponents. Claims of being demeaned as second class bishops are mere devices to crush any opposition using secular criteria because they don't have a theological leg to stand on.

That is why they are now pointing to the Church in Wales as an example after the shabby procedure there resulted in a vote to accept women as bishops with no statutory provision for dissenters, a decision greeted with loud applause by 'broad church' Anglicans! The Church in Wales campaign has been as devious and underhand as in the Church of England with suggestions of collusion by the bishops but they are not interested in anything Pope Francis has to say because Rome does not recognise their orders. Once we have women bishops neither will many Anglicans.

"And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love"!