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.

Women and the[ir] Church

 

 

 

Affirming themselves + campaigning for themselves + transforming the Church for themselves. Self + self + self.

 

The six bullet points used in an earlier blog entry on marriage may be equally applied to  WATCH feminist campaigners who demand parity for women in what they now see as their church:

• Exploit the “victim” status;
• Use the sympathetic media;
• Confuse and neutralize the churches;
• Slander and stereotype [traditionalist] Christians;
• Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
• Intimidation.

Thinking Anglicans yesterday reproduced this press release: WATCH continues to call for complete withdrawal of Clause 5(1)c.

 "Amongst the key points in the[ir] thinking are:

• We do not agree with the reasons given by Archbishop Rowan for the need for further amendment. Opposition to the priestly of episcopal ministry of women is based foundationally upon theologies of gender.
• Those who support the ordained ministry of women have already made huge compromises in supporting the unamended Measure that already made provision for those opposed to have a male priest and a male bishop. Accepting the new Clause 8 represents a further compromise on our part.
• The unamended Measure received an overwhelming mandate from the dioceses. 42/44 have debated and approved this legislation. General Synod should be allowed to vote on legislation that is as close as possible to that which was approved by the dioceses.
• We are concerned that hasty amendment will again prove to be a hostage to fortune. Any new wording inserted at this stage will not have received adequate scrutiny given the timing of the consultation (25/7 to 24/8). It is likely that the full implications of any new wording will only be discovered later in the autumn influencing Synod voting in unforeseen ways.
• If further concessions are made, some Synod members will no longer be able to support the draft legislation and the loss of just a few votes from those who support the ordained ministry of women may be enough, in combination with those who would vote against it anyway, to bring the legislation down.
• With the full support of the bishops and archbishops, legislation with the new Clause 8 but without Clause 5(1)c would have a better chance of passing than any other option.

We conclude that withdrawing 5(1)c is the safest path to the successful passage of this Measure and the only way to keep faith with the diocesan consultation process."
 
The first point of their 'thinking' boldly states: "We do not agree with the reasons given by Archbishop Rowan for the need for further amendment. Opposition to the priestly of episcopal ministry of women is based foundationally upon theologies of gender." I have written previously here and here that Archbishop Rowan has done everything possible to empower women in the church but unlike the women he has supported, he remains mindful that there are still many Anglicans who adhere to the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and have deep theological objections to the Anglican Communion deviating from the Universal Church, thus hindering the cherished ambition of Christian Unity. The 'huge compromises' supporters of the ordained ministry of women say they have already made are meaningful only to themselves. As the Church of England struggles to find a compromise fair to all, that one small crumb is more than they can bear because it is for others, not self.

The first comment  listed in response to the Thinking Anglicans article makes a fair point:
   "Rachel Weir and members of WATCH have conveniently forgotten that a significant minority of the 44 Dioceses also passed following motions expressing a desire for a proper form of provision for traditionalists. What kind of a church are we developing into, I wonder, where majority rule becomes the order of the day, and there is no place for conscience or space for those with whom we disagree. The Church of England has never been of that ilk, and I suspect that Ms Weir will actually (hopefully) discover that the Bishops will remain mindful of their pastoral imperative to care for ALL in their respective dioceses. If the current unyielding and unbending position of WATCH is any guide to the future with women Bishops, I fear not only for traditionalists but for the Church as a whole. It is definitely not the sort of pastoral care I or others in our local church would wish to receive. Many in the congregation (of both genders) are becoming increasingly irritated at the stance of WATCH. Irritation will lead to refutation and refusal, so WATCH members need to be careful what they wish for. Conscience will never be overriden in these matters. - Posted by: Benedict"

Back in June WATCH asked the question: "What do ordinary people think about the House of Bishops' amendment to Clause 5?" The truth is that 'ordinary people'  haven't a clue what the House of Bishop's amendment to Clause 5 is all about and care even less. In fact, most 'ordinary people' gave up going to Anglican churches long ago, fed up with an institution that has become obsessed with gender politics, preferring to look elsewhere for spiritual fulfilment. When our churches are completely empty we will know who to blame.

For what shall it profit a woman, if she shall gain the whole world, and lose her own soul?