Anglican bullyboy and girls thump Archbishop Rowan

Photograph: John Giles/PA

Not for the first time the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Douglas Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury has been humiliated by those he has sought to help gain power and prestige in a changing church. Why? Because he dared to act with a Christian conscience.  In the eyes of the bullygirls' club, WATCH, the now infamous Clause 5 (1) c, the minimum thought necessary to honour a commitment to embrace all Anglicans in the church of England regardless of theological convictions is a step too far. The bullygirls are having none of it. They sense outright victory in a fight between ruthless women and weak men who clearly do not understand women. They have succeeded in gaining more time in which to badger the bishops into submission and have the clause dropped leaving acceptable provision only for themselves, the victors. (The Ugely Vicar has initiated a petition to retain Clause 5 (1) c - please read about it and vote here).  

In what appears to be a humiliating climb down, "Defending their motivations, Rowan Williams said the bishops had only been trying to help when they tinkered with the draft legislation in May. He said he remained unconvinced they had got it wrong. But he said they should question why they failed to anticipate the outpouring of anger from senior female clergy and campaigners for female bishops.

"It is quite clear that the reaction cannot be ignored," he said. "When there is a reaction of real hurt and offence in the church at large, Christians, and Christian pastors particularly, cannot afford to ignore it, because it means that should the measure go through … it's not easily something that can be celebrated by the church as a whole.

"The bishops will be aware that they underrated the depth of that sense of hurt and offence and if other bishops feel as I do they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence that they did not recognise just how difficult that was going to be." "

I can assure Archbishop Rowan and the bishops that the 'sense of real hurt and offence' is not peculiar to 'senior female clergy and campaigners for female bishops'. Many women and men of faith have been devastated by the way they have been treated. Deemed by WATCH as not worthy so much as to gather up a crumb under the Table of New Anglicanism, these are the people who have been betrayed. Archbishop Rowan says he 'remained unconvinced they had got it wrong'. The bishops must stand firm and not succumb to unscrupulous pressure. They have no need for 'penitence', unlike those who harass them. If contrition were needed it should come from WATCH and their supporters. They show no remorse for the agonies they have inflicted on others. - 'Christians, and Christian pastors particularly, cannot afford to ignore the hurt'! 

WATCH watchers will not be in the least surprised by the ruthless tactics of these domineering, self-promoting women who see service in the church as something to be received while they constantly push the secular values of the general public to justify their cause. But perhaps more alarming is the intervention of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, who not only 'issued a stinging rebuke' to the Church’s General Synod but appeared to use blackmail concerning the position of bishops in the Lords. 

Mother Church, what have you done to deserve this, is there no honour left?


Postscript

Now read this. 


Having accused those who are apparently regarded as 'appeased conservatives' of being responsible for the "rape, sexual abuse, violence against women and women's political and economic subjugation", the Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has suggested a different amendment [to Clause 5 (1) c] that would,  "Not just to try and tweak the wording, ... but maybe put something in that's a lot more open and gracious and, frankly, a lot more Christian."!

Her suggestion is that female bishops from countries whose Anglican churches already allow them into the episcopate – such as the US or Australia – advise the Church of England bishops "as equals". She cannot be serious.  

Does she have any idea of the mess that has been created in the Anglican church in the US and Australia? Just a couple of examples here and here. Dr Threlfall-Holmes should have the courage of her convictions and resign.

Balderdash!

"Women priests are treated as second-class Christians, suffering from institutionalised sexism and racism within the Church of England, female clergy claim." Well they would claim that, wouldn't they? That is the whole thrust of their argument. What utter balderdash. Even the Church of England, hell-bent on creating women bishops denies that: "The church does treat men and women equally...It is true that a higher proportion of women have tended to serve in self-supporting rather than stipendiary posts.... Decisions are made on the basis of their individual situation and not on the basis of their sex; much depends on their personal circumstances as well as their aptitudes."



But never mind the facts. This shabby campaign has little to do with religion and everything to do with secular feminism with their aim of "achieving equality within its ranks". In a Parliamentary debate on Women in the Church of England yesterday, Diana Johnson MP opened by "[paying] tribute again to the women and men who have been fighting for justice and equality in the Church of England for many years". She spoke about the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010, international women’s day, the suffragette campaign, and "the legislation in relation to women priests [which] went through in November 1992, but it specifically said that women could not become bishops". 


No impediment there of course, merely the opportunity for another campaign. Contrary to the assertions that women priests are treated as second-class Christians, Ms Johnson stressed that: "There are now 3,000 women priests. The talents and abilities of both women and men are now being recognised and utilised by the Church. There are four female deans of cathedrals and many others in senior roles." Surely Ms Johnson would not mislead the House!


There was no surprise to see Sir Peter Bottomley quipping his way through the debate to make the point: "However, from 1928 to now, we have had arguments over the ordination of women as deacons rather than deaconesses and the decision, eventually, to ordain women as priests. Now we come to the decision—this could have been taken at the same time as the decision to ordain women as priests, but out of kindness to the last ditchers it was deferred —about women being ordained as bishops [my emphasis - Ed].


The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry) made an interesting point: "Leaving nothing to chance, I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons. Using the precedent of what happened in respect of the Measures for ordaining women as deacons and priests, it is deemed to be appropriate to consider this Measure on the Floor of the House, rather than upstairs in Committee. The understanding that I have reached with the Leader of the House is that we will set aside half a day—we hope, some time in November—to approve the Measure in this House. It has to be approved separately in the House of Lords, and I hope that it will do similarly. If the Measure is approved by General Synod in July, it is my ambition to do everything possible to have it pass all its legislative stages before the end of this year. We would therefore hope to see the first women bishops appointed as early as 2014." 


In her opening speech Ms Johnson remarked: "As I said, the draft Measure goes to the House of Bishops in May, and it can amend the reforms as it sees fit. If it does, that would be unacceptable to WATCH [my emphasis -Ed] and most senior women [can't be second-class then], because it would change the episcopacy in ways that would undermine the Church’s integrity and mission, as well as limiting female bishops’ ministry too far."


So it is all laid out. Carefully crafted claims that women bishops will be second-class bishops unless WATCH have their way and exclude all who disagree with them. Ms Johnson spoke of a 'broad church' but not broad enough to accommodate 'yesterday’s people', or Sir Peter's 'last ditchers' as they refer to their fellow Anglicans. Dishonour, deception and outright balderdash is the recipe for change 'to serve the people of today and tomorrow'. It almost makes one glad to be un-churched.