Synod fallout

"Rev Andrew Foreshew-Cain, right, with his husband Stephen."             Photograph: The Guardian

The General Synod Report from the House of Bishops Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations GS 2055 was debated on Wednesday 15 February after group discussions. Ahead of the group work there was a presentation by the Bishop of Norwich and the Bishop of Willesden.

What was said in the presentation should be broadly acceptable to anyone who wants to uphold the Christian faith. Church Doctrine must inform society not bend to it. That society takes a more liberal view of sexual activity today is irrelevant.

Most regrettable is the need constantly to apologize for upholding the Christian faith. The Bishop of Norwich said he regretted the pain and anger felt by those who were disappointed adding an apology to those who thought the tone of the Report was wrong.

Worse, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have written to members of the General Synod setting out the next steps following the vote not to take note of GS 2055, a procedural motion allowing Synod to move on. Their tone is worrying.

In their letter they write "How we deal with the real and profound disagreement - put so passionately and so clearly by many at the debate - is the challenge we face as people who all belong to Christ...The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our common humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to Christ - all of us, without exception, without exclusion."

Inclusion for LGBT campaigners means having their demands met, for same sex marriage in church to be accepted on a par with traditional marriage regardless of the consequences for the Church. Learning from the movement for the ordination of women they will agitate until they have what thy want. Ironically the lost vote was counter-productive as explained here.

When the Archbishops of Canterbury and York write about our belonging to Christ - all of us, without exception, without exclusion - they seem to forget the thousands who have left their Church in despair at the constant pandering to minorities who have no interest other than their own satisfaction.

Last year a group of gay Church of England clergy revealed that they were defying the official line taken by church leaders on same-sex marriage (the first pictured above). Ignoring the authority of their bishops and the teaching of their Church, half the signatories declared themselves already to be in a gay marriage. Why is the Church apologising to them?

Another Anglican priest, George Pitcher, writing in the Telegraph sets out the position plainly: "I'm a bleeding-heart liberal cleric – but the Church of England must not accept gay marriage". That is more like the authentic voice of the Church. If gay activists find that unacceptable it is they who should leave, not cradle Anglicans. LGBT people can live together. They can have civil partnerships. They can attend Church but they cannot be married there. Those are the rules. Greed does their cause no credit.

As the CEO of Christian Concern wrote, It's time for the Church of England to lay down the law on marriage.

Also, from a Christian Today memo, To Bewildered Bishops - Please Be Shepherds, Not Sheep

A desire to satisfy the wants of the few must not obscure the need to keep the many.

Postscript [23.02.2017]

Mission Llandaff II

A rainbow of hoops under the Majestas in Llandaff Cathedral         Source: Church in Wales/Llandaff

 "Our purpose is therefore to: Worship God and share the gospel of Jesus Christ. In so doing, we welcome all who come here, irrespective of gender, race, creed or sexuality, in order that we might share and pass on our rich Christian heritage and the joy of Christian Faith." - From the Llandaff Diocese Mission Statement.

From the 2014 Trustees' Report (page 5) in the Llandaff Diocesan Board of Finance  Accounts which can be found on the Charity Commission web site.

"Public benefit

The trustees confirm that they have complied with the duty in section 4(1) of the Charities Act 2011 to have due regard to the Charity Commission's general guidance on public benefit, "Charities and Public Benefit". The Board believes that, by promoting the work of the Church in Wales in the Diocese of Llandaff it helps to promote the whole mission of the Church (pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical) more effectively, both in the Diocese as a whole and in its individual parishes, and that in doing so it provides a benefit to the public by:

• providing facilities for public worship, pastoral care and spiritual, moral and intellectual
development, both for its members and for anyone who wishes to benefit from what the Church
offers; and

• promoting Christian values, and service by members of the Church in and to their communities, to
the benefit of individuals and society as a whole."

It difficult to reconcile Dr Morgan's eager promotion of same sex unions with the 'Public benefit' referred to in the Trustees Report. He should explain how it is helping 'to promote the whole mission of the Church (pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical) more effectively'.

Estimates of the number of homosexual people in the UK vary but taking 6% as the most reliable estimate, they will not all attend church let alone the Church in Wales. Of those who attend, few in my experience have expressed any desire for a church 'wedding'.

The accounts show that a grant of £12,579 was made to the 'Bishop's mission fund'. Donations are made to this fund 'primarily from collections taken at induction and confirmation services, and Gift Aid is claimed where appropriate. All monies received are paid over to the Bishop to be used at his discretion'.

I understand that it was this "Mission" fund which was used to finance the Llandaff clergy school in Oxford. If the Archbishop believes that mission funds are best spent on advancing same sex unions he should think again and ask the LGBT lobby to fund their own campaign not use money given to fund the mission of the Church.

The Church Times recently carried an article headed "Dr Morgan gives Bishops’ response to same-sex unions" in which he said: "The debate on same-sex relationships was not over. The issues around human sexuality that are being debated will not go away, and the pain is not over. We do believe that we are called to live in love and charity with one another, whatever our experience or convictions on this issue."

The only lack of love and charity is towards anyone who dares to take a contrary view and support traditional marriage. There lies the true pain.

So near, yet so far

The Agenda for the July 2012 General Synod has been published. As the news release succinctly puts it:  "The Agenda provides for the Synod to deal with the final stages of the major legislative process designed to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of England while also making some provision for those who, for theological reasons, will not be able to receive their ministry. If the legislation is approved, by simple majorities, by the House of Laity and the Convocations, the way will be clear for it to be presented for final approval on Monday 9 July. As with the women priests legislation in 1992, the whole of the morning and afternoon sittings has been allocated to the Final Approval debates."

'Some provision' just about sums it up. A mere nod towards those who were promised an honoured place in the church. WATCH has plotted their removal on just about every false pretext. Why? So long as traditionalists remain in the Church of England (and the Church in Wales) they are an embarrassing reminder that the Anglican church has separated itself from the historic faith which we affirm in our creed yet the feminist mitre is almost in their grasp, so near yet so far from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in which we profess our traditional belief.

If the liberal cause is just why has there been such a dirty campaign? It is no coincidence that the same weapon is being used to make people accept same sex marriage as has been used by those in favour of the ordination of women, deception. Regardless of their views, opponents of same sex marriage are described as 'religious hardliners and anti-gay'; homophobic bigots discriminating against homosexuals to deny them equal rights while ignoring the fact that many homosexual people oppose the move believing marriage to be the joining of a man and a women and what is being sought is not equality but a hastily ill-considered re-definition of marriage.

Despite the fact that thousands of woman petitioned against the measure, many of those in favour of the ordination of women accuse opponents of misogyny, homophobia, prejudice, discrimination and the brutalisation of women when in fact they simply disagree on theological grounds. Others try to read into the Bible anything that suits them. For example, much is made of Mary Magdalene being 'the Apostle to the Apostles' ignoring the important fact that what Mary did after she found the tomb empty was to run to tell the men, Peter and the disciple Jesus loved, the Apostles to whom Jesus entrusted His church.

Now the vote is said to be in doubt. Supporters of women's ordination threaten to vote against the measure just as they threatened to leave the church if they did not get their own way and have threatened again, even calling of strike action. There is a feeling by many that we have come thus far so just get on with it reminding me of the minister who suggested we raise the motorway speed limit to 80 mph because so many people ignored the law. The wider church is in no doubt, what is proposed is, in theological terms, unacceptable in the catholic church, Orthodox and Western. This is not about equality of opportunity in the work place. 

There can be only one legitimate vote: NO.

Minority madness

Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for it and died penniless in exile. Alan Turing killed himself after providing our nation with unparalleled service in our greatest need. Just two tragedies illustrating that prejudice against homosexuality does humanity no credit. But is there a line to be drawn? Estimates suggest that just 1% of the population consider themselves gay or lesbian, only some of whom would like the opportunity to be 'married' rather than to be bound by a civil partnership. This is seen as a step too far, particularly in a religious context. The debate about same-sex marriage appears to be out of all proportion to the numbers involved but an injustice is still an injustice if it is legitimate. But what of justice for whom marriage is a sacrament which joins man and woman together for the procreation of children in biological and spiritual union as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer:

At the day and time appointed for solemnization of Matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church with their friends and neighbours: and there standing together, the Man on the right hand, and the Woman on the left, the Priest shall say,

   DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
      First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
      Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
      Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.


Government assertions that churches will not be forced into conducting same-sex unions have already been dismissed. There is a cautionary warning from Canada here.


The Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, summed up the position in this piece in the Guardian: the CofE had been supportive of civil partnerships when the legislation was introduced eight years ago. But he added: "I think the difficulty we have here is the substitution of equality for uniformity, that is to say that there can be no distinction at all between men and women. The government is seeking to meet what it perceives to be the needs of the gay community. I would say that the Church of England is sympathetic to those needs, we want to see a society in which gay people are fully included and their needs are fully provided for.""But this does not amount to a basis for introducing a complete redefinition of the concept of marriage based on a consultation process which is at the very least rapid
"From a standing start within three months to arrive at a fully considered, weighed and articulated redefinition of a fundamental social institution which has been thought about in one particular way for centuries and which is broadly accepted as a social institution in the same way internationally - to change all that on the basis of a consultation like this seems to be at the very least unwise and ill considered."



What I find remarkable about this debate (which seems to have arrived from nowhere and has become such a divisive issue when there has been no mandate for change) is the supposed drive for justice for a tiny minority view which confuses equality with uniformity. Why is it that those in the Church of England who now see themselves in the majority do not have the same regard for those of us who, through synodical procedure, find ourselves in a minority as we seek to uphold our traditional belief in the priesthood in common with the wider Apostolic church?  The Church of England at last sees the writing on the wall with the threat of exclusion. Many of us already know what that means!  

God's grace or wishful thinking?

Today it is the turn of Church of England bishops to rejoice over same sex unions. In a letter to the Times reproduced here, 'influential Anglicans' see the prospect of same-sex marriage as a "cause for rejoicing". Absent from the list of signatories is the leader of the disestablished Church in Wales who hit the headlines on Wednesday after using his Presidential address to the Governing Body of the Church in Wales to encourage Anglicans to support civil gay marriage despite legal advice here, (or perhaps because of it!) that a change in the law would compel churches to offer same sex marriages. 


Archbishop Morgan is the most senior cleric to support this innovation - along with every other liberal cause - while church attendance continues to drop; more than 15% on his patch during his time as Archbishop with those who are left constantly pressed to increase their giving.


If only these 'influential Anglicans' spent more time holding the church together rather than ripping her apart.