Never, never, never trust a bishop!

Binding together                                                                                                                                            Source: FaceBook

'Never, never, never trust a Tory' was the infamous tweet from the bishop of St Davids. 

The bishop, Joanna Penberthy, issued an apology after a torrent of complaints: "On March 25th, 2021 I put out a private tweet about Conservative Party supporters which has caused offence and for which I sincerely apologise."

She later went on extended sick leave and has again been signed off. Readers will not wish the bishop ill but why did she not do the honourable thing and resign having offended just about everyone in her diocese and beyond who were not of her party political persuasion?

Archbishop Cranmer wrote in his blog, "The apology issued by the Bishop of St Davids (of the Church in Wales) in the wake of her ‘Never never never trust a Tory‘ tweet is disingenuous. It is expediently sly. In short, it is a lie."

The archbishop of Canterbury was 'deeply embarrassed,' but not Andy John, the future archbishop of Wales, who as the senior bishop issued this statement:

  “I think the question whether Bishop Joanna resigns is done and dusted”, Bishop Andy states. “She made clear that she regretted what she had to say… I think if we cannot provide a way in which people can acknowledge wrongdoing, learn from their mistakes, and come back, then it begs questions about whether we believe people can change. Whether or not we think the Christian faith is about second chances. To me, fundamentally, it’s about that. And those who are baying and frothing at the mouth seem to me to be part of what I think is quite pernicious in society: which is that we dress up in virtue – or in the language of virtue – a kind-of campaign to persecute.”

In a previous blog I wrote, "Having found 'Biblical support for church gay marriages' the divorced and re-married bishop of Bangor can no doubt justify anything he fancies."

The whole bench is committed to gay marriage. Some just cannot wait. 

The above photo has a caption from the Revd Sarah Hildreth-Osborn, leader of the chaplaincy service for the LGBTQIA+ community in the diocese of St Asaph where Gregory Cameron is bishop:

 "A huge thank you to Gregory K Cameron for conducting such a beautiful and life giving service for us at St Grwsts at lunchtime today, the blessing of our marriage. A reminder to all that it is only love that sets us free!!! Thank you so much Bishop Gregory 💕"

 As one correspondent put it, "If that isn’t mimicking a wedding, I don’t what does . . . binding with his stole and presumably saying, "Those whom God hath joined . . ."

The Rt Revd Gregory Cameron  received the Religious Leader Award 'for his leadership within the Church in Wales in bringing them to a point of enabling same-sex blessings'.

A news item issued by St Asaph diocese in December 2021 described the award as "Bishop Gregory honoured for his outstanding contribution to the lives of LGBT+ people of faith."

The bench has jumped the gun before. They could not wait to see a woman bishop celebrate the Eucharist so imported a converted Jewish, Episcopalian woman bishop from the United States before women bishops were legal in the Church in Wales.

These actions typify the current bench of bishops. 

What of others 'of faith' in the Church in Wales? They count for nothing. The Church in Wales has become obsessed with promoting just about anything LGBT+ . 

The bishop of Monmouth is the first same sex partnered bishop. The bishop of Llandaff, June Osborne appointed the first transgender priest and has recently appointed a same sex partnered dean of Llandaff, thus perpetuating their main mission as she retires. 

Osborne has long been associated with rumours of bullying tactics with a disciplinary panel finding she had a case to answer. 

The Vicar of Radyr submitted her resignation saying that she could no longer, with integrity, knowing the many things she knew, serve in the diocese where she believed a 'culture of fear' exists. A diocesan survey conducted after her initial exposure 'brought up the same results'.

Today it has been reported that the vicar of Aberporth has "quit his post after revealing a lengthy battle with mental health he says brought him to the brink of a nervous breakdown.

"In announcing his intention to leave the Anglican Church In Wales he also had harsh words for Bishop of St Davids, Joanna Penberthy."

The Rev Christopher Frost said: "Earlier this week I tendered my resignation as vicar which was accepted by the Archbishop of Wales in the absence of Bishop Joanna."

The bench does as it pleases. They have no regard for the Christian message as received and delivered by others. Instead they distort it, a pretence intended to validate their own opinions while deceiving others.

The bench has become a self perpetuating clique leading others to perdition. Honour escapes them.

 

It leads one to believe never, never, never trust an Anglican bishop in Wales.

Postscript [27.09.2022]

Leaving the Church in Wales...but not the church in Wales. A broken vicar's story. God bless him.

  

"Bishops in our Church have too much power and far too little accountability which has the tendency to make a little chaos in our diocese particularly. When the bishop is installed, who is pleasant to be with in person, but who makes very divisive and unwise decisions that bring the whole Church into disrepute while also having a catastrophic effect on clergy morale is a problem being keenly felt in our diocese today. Also over the past five years or so, the teaching of the Church in Wales has been pulled very hard into what I consider to be a wildly liberal theological direction, one that no longer really represents truly the teachings of Jesus Christ on a number of key moral issues that are facing our society today. So the banner of the Church in Wales, the Anglican Church in Wales, is becoming one which is becoming just a bit too difficult for me in good conscience to work under any more." - Rev Christopher Frost in a video posted to YouTube.

What-a-mistaka-to-maka!

Captain Alberto Bertorelli and Private Helga Geerhart in the BBC sitcom 'Allo 'Allo

In the BBC sitcom 'Allo 'Allo, Capt. Bertorelli's response to his latest faux pas was, "What-a-mistaka-to-maka", sentiments that could well be shared by the former Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, having done everything possible to ensure that his favoured candidate Joanna Penberthy was elected to the office of Bishop of St Davids.

A political appointment to advance the cause of feminism in Wales, Penberthy's 'election' was a disaster. Labour politician and LGBT+ activist, she unashamedly uses a sacred office to promote her own secular causes. Any hint of criticism is simply brushed aside as prejudice and discrimination.

Part of her antipathy towards Tories may result from her being placed bottom of the poll with 5% of the votes as the Labour candidate in the 2015 Blackmoor Vale election in Somerset. While the two Liberal Democrat candidates received 37% the two Conservative Party candidates were elected with 59% of the votes, a sizable majority 'never to be trusted'. 

The bishop's position is untenable but she doesn't have the balls to do the honourable thing and resign to pursue her secular interests outside the Church. 

Following an unprecedented wigging by the Church in Wales one would have thought that the bishop would have put the Church before her own self interests but there is no indication that she is considering her position.

The diocese of Winchester had a remedy. Will St Davids follow their example?

Postscript [06.06.2021]

"The Church in Wales is a joke within the Anglican world" - the Rev George Conger on Anglican Unscripted. Starting at position 37.20, George Conger explains that the diocese of St Davids has an average Sunday attendance about the same size as his Deanery in North Western rural Florida. 

He explains how the 'aggressively, left wing' bishop of St Davids, Joanna Penberthy has tweeted on average 20 or 30 times a day, over 40,000 times in the last few years, wearing her emotions and her politics on her sleeve in a Conservative area. Her one notable feat is that she is the first woman bishop in Wales. Click on the link for a withering commentary on the state of the Church in Wales today.

Tory loathing bishop of St Davids issues apology

The bishop of St Davids, Joanna Penberthy, with Barry Morgan (ABp), Andy John (Bangor) and Richard Pain (Monmouth) in 2017    Source: Anglican Journal 

In 2017 the then archbishop of Wales led the applause after the Church in Wales ordained its first woman bishop, Joanna Penberthy, the best person to be a bishop - in Barry Morgan's opinion!

Penberthy does not care much for views which do not accord with her own. She labels genuinely held opposing views on the ordination of women as discrimination. There is no engagement.  She has described views contrary to her own simply as 'water off a duck's back' to her.

A proud Corbynista, Penberthy has issued a statement of apology following a 'private tweet' on 25 March about Conservative Party supporters in which she tweeted Never never never trust a Tory.

As Adrian Hilton (AKA Archbishop Cranmer) aptly puts it: "The Rt Rev'd @jo_penberthy, Bishop of St David's @ChurchinWales, believes she can say one thing on her 'private' Twitter, and another in her pulpit.

Orthodox Anglicans are well familiar with such tactics. Feminist appeals to neighbourliness soon evaporated after they achieved their goals of women's ordination to the priesthood and to the episcopate.

Looking again at the above 2017 photograph it sums up the disaster the Church in Wales has become. In 2018 bishop Penberthy wrote her 'Dear John' letter dispensing with the services of loyal, elderly male clergy.

The report on the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the early retirement of the former bishop of Monmouth, Richard Pain, is still awaited after being promised within six months in May 2020 while the divorced and re-married bishop of Bangor is in line to be the next archbishop of Wales. 

Having achieved parity on the bench no doubt the three women bishops will be insisting that it is time for a woman to lead the Church in Wales, especially if another woman is elected to fill the Swansea and Brecon vacancy.

Postscript

A slap on the wrist for the bishop of St Davids, Joanna Penberthy in this Church in Wales statement:

“The Church in Wales expects all its clergy to engage robustly in public life. However, they need to do so in a way which is respectful, responsible and fair, acknowledging the breadth and diversity of political opinion within the Church. We do not support intemperate claims or poorly informed commentary and we urge all clergy to recognise that, as public office holders, there should be no expectation that personal views will be regarded as private.

“The Bishop of St Davids’ strong political views are well known. We recognise that she has apologised for causing offence and are pleased she has acknowledged the hurt and damage she has caused and deactivated her personal Twitter account.”

Bishop of St Davids is right but probably wrong

Joanna Penberthy is right to encourage people to vote and to vote wisely in the forthcoming General Election.

Probably she will not. The first female bishop in Wales is a proud Corbynista which may account for the subliminal red vote going into the ballot box on the St Davids diocese web site and the red X on the ballot paper rather than the traditional graphite pencilled X.

Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove has warned that Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to national security and unfit to become Prime Minister. Sir Richard who spent 38 years with the intelligence service warned bluntly: "Do not even think of taking the risk of handing this politician the keys to No. 10."

"Jeremy Corbyn and his then-lover Diane Abbott
 visited communist East Germany together in the
1970s "                 Credit: Times Newspapers Ltd

 According to a report in The Sun Jeremy Corbyn was "granted access by communist East Germany to go behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s. He travelled with his then-lover, and now Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott." He also attended a wreath-laying ceremony for Palestinian terrorists who "castrated and murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics".

The Daily Mail has accused Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott of being "unashamed apologists for terror, who have devoted their lives to befriending the enemies of Britain while undermining the very institutions that keep us safe in our beds."

In her video address to electors the bishop of St Davids says that in what is "undoubtedly the most important election in British history", we will be voting on "what sort of people and what sort of behaviour we want to see in those we elect to Westminster. Ask yourself: Does this person have my community's interests at heart? Can I trust them?"

Based on the above press reports the Corbynista cannot be trusted.

Numerous Anglicans in Wales can testify that Penberthy and her fellow bishops on the bench are not best placed to speak of trust.

They promised twin integities to provide mutual flourishing when women were admitted to the priesthood. A promise they quickly dropped while developing an 'inclusive' Church which excludes anyone who follows scripture and tradition, effectively excommunicating them for believing what most of the world's 86 million Anglicans believe.

Why would anyone believe a bishop in the Church in Wales?

Time to draw a line

St Woolos Cathedral                                                                                                                                                                                   Source: Church in Wales

From the South Wales Argus: Archbishop of Wales John Davies declares saga that has engulfed Diocese of Monmouth for months is 'now closed' but for whoever is feeding the Argus and for some commentators it is not closed.

In a postscript to my entry The Monmouth effect?, I published a link to the Archbishop's statement of 5th June 2019 regarding the Bishop of Monmouth's long absence. It was hoped that the Archbishop's statement would draw a line under this sad episode in the life of the diocese of Monmouth.

Archbishop John said, "In July of last year, I met, at their request, with Dean Lister and Archdeacons
Ambrose and Jonathan who raised with me, as Archbishop, concerns about Bishop Richard’s well-being. This was entirely the right and proper thing for them to do, and I commend them for doing so. I then asked others to look into some of the issues which they raised with me and to report back confidentially" after emphasising that he was "not going to betray confidences or disclose confidential matters".

That seemed perfectly reasonable, especially in conjunction with the clarification:

"Keeping confidences can be a two-edged sword since, whenever matters are, for legal or
other reasons, required to be kept private and confidential, rumours and misinformation begin
to develop, grow and then circulate.

"I am aware that all manner of rumours and some salacious speculation have been circulating
in this Diocese, and this has been deeply critical of particular individuals, some of whom are
here, myself included. This leaves those of us in full possession of the facts with a temptation
to betray trust and breach confidentiality to set the record straight. So, I pay tribute to those,
who in the face of severe, ill-informed criticism, and sometimes to their own detriment, have
neither breached confidences nor disclosed confidential matters."

It is time to draw a line and move on.

Who can we trust?

The Church of England is being asked to reconsider if it can still accept conservative bishops who oppose women priests (here and here). Should we be surprised? Women's movements such as WATCH aided by their pathetic fellow travellers have it all except parity. They are working on that.

Remember the debates? - It did not mean that women would be made priests if deaconesses were allowed to be deacons. - It was unfair not to allow women deacons to become priests, after all, there was little difference other than being able to say a few extra words! - The 'stained glass' ceiling was unjust; having agreed that women can become priests we cannot deny them the right to become bishops. The rest is history. Faith is passé. It is about so-called equality and being relevant to society, never mind the consequences.

Past dirty tactics are forgotten but filth was sent through the post to opponents who simply wanted to uphold the faith as received. In one of the earliest comments on this blog I was branded a c*** for my conscientious objection to the catholic faith we shared with most Christians throughout the world being amended by synodical procedures for political purposes.

The message is clear. Say anything, do anything to achieve your goal then renege on agreements claiming further persecution and discrimination until all opposition is eliminated.

Many of the faithful have given up the struggle as churches become little more than tea rooms with an opportunity for dressing up to perform parodies of ancient rituals. The younger element may be attracted to messy church and toddler groups especially if access to education is enhanced by church going but where are the in-betweens who should replace the increasingly elderly congregations? Churchgoers have in many congregations been replaced by church users. Consequently buildings which were loved and cared for are falling into decay.

Figures produced by ComRes, and commissioned by the Church, show that many of those who claim to be Christian don't actually take part in many of the activities which are normally associated with the faith. Figures show that 60 per cent of self-declared followers of the Church admit they never read the Bible, and 36 per cent say they never attend church. One in three said they never pray.

By contrast Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group. "In the next half century or so, Christianity’s long reign as the world’s largest religion may come to an end". Who cares? What is the Government's response to the continuing 'Islamic extremist' threat to our democracy?

If there were a secular book for sale which was full of hate against non-believers with instructions on how to deal with kafirs by decapitating them for not agreeing to subjugation it would be banned but it is acceptable as a religious book of instruction because devotees assure the ignorant that Islam is a religion of peace despite all the evidence to the contrary over the last 1400 years.

The Government and media are so caught up in the political correctness that in addition to the constant threat of violence, countless young British white girls have been trafficked by Muslims who have a totally different outlook on life and the position of women in their adopted country.

So successful has the Muslim community been in claiming to be persecuted victims that anyone daring to draw attention to the many anomalies are branded hateful racists even though Islam is not a race but a religious ideology. That alone should indicate a level of ignorance which demands attention but critical analysis is immediately challenged as Islamophobia. - Heads you loses, literally, tails they win.

Ironically it seems that many Muslims know as little about their religion as many Christians while many Anglicans are prepared to twist the faith to accord with their own selfish desires.  A 'good' Muslim will follow instructions in the Quran to defeat the kafir by whatever means. Most will choose deception while a few pursue violent jihad. That the majority live peacefully convinces the gullible that Islam is a religion of peace.

Can we trust the Government to study this contradiction before we too become a minority in our own land as loyal Anglicans have been sidelined by secularists in their own church?

"For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance.Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." Matthew 25:29

Another nice mess

As my friend Barack said to me George, "Well, here's another nice mess we've gotten ourselves into!"

The world and his wife it seems are piling on the pressure to tell us Brits that we should remain in Europe. To leave would be a catastrophe. If that is so, why in the world has Dave 'gotten' us into this mess at enormous cost financially and politically?

'Paddy Pantsdown' wagged his finger throughout BBC Question Time on Thursday as he previewed what President Barack Obama was to say about American blood being shed in Europe in the US's contribution to the 1917 - 1918 and the 1941- 1945 wars fighting for freedom in Europe. As Albert Steptoe once said, it might have been the '17 - '18 and '41 - '45 wars for them but it was the '14 - '18 and '39 - '45 wars for the rest of us. 

All in the 'IN' camp at home and abroad appear to be reading from the same news sheet prepared and circulated by No 10. That is in addition to the £9 million of tax payers money they have spent on circulating propaganda for the 'IN' campaign. So much so that it is difficult to trust anything that is said or written about the consequences of leaving Europe.

Paddy Pantsdown claims that every important world organisation and every world leader "with the exception Vladimir Putin" wants us to remain in Europe. Indeed, the President of the United States has gone so far as to threaten that the UK would be left at the back of the queue when negotiating future trade deals with the US if we left, not that Obama will be President in that eventuality. But so much for friendship and our 'special relationship'. When self-interest rears its head it is OK in the US but not in Great Britain!

For many I suspect the head says IN but the heart says OUT. The decision would be easier if the self-perpetuating bureaucracy in Brussels desisted from regulating everything they can think of plus anything else they had not thought of when it comes to light. If Turkey is allowed in that will allow another flood of economic migrants with all the dangers already apparent as they try to impose their alien ideology on their hosts. The last thing we need is more failed multiculturalism.

My feeling is that the British people have had enough of being told what to think and what to do and are inclined to vote with their hearts, sink or swim.

They still don't get

Memorizing Islamic texts which condemn other religions.                 Telegraph/Photo: REUTERS

"The Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, has asked officials to review home schooling amid fears that thousand[s] of children are having their minds “filled with poison” by radicalised parents. Between 20,000 and 50,000 children are thought to be educated at home – but the Government has no idea of the exact number because parents are under no obligation to inform their local council.

Ms Morgan has already announced a crackdown on unregistered schools and “weekend madrassas” after some were found to be promoting extremist ideology. But senior government sources have revealed that home schooling is now “on the radar”.... The focus on home schooling highlights growing concern in government over the problem of children being radicalised by religious extremists abusing positions of trust to promote hardline doctrine." [My emphasis - Ed. Full report here.]

From the  Telegraph in 2011: "Several madrassas – religious schools often run by mosques – use “excessively strict approaches to discipline” to keep children in line, it was revealed. Researchers said the imposition of hard-line rules on behaviour instilled a sense of “spiritual fear” in young people, marking them out from mainstream schools.

The study, by the Institute for Public Policy Research, found a number of examples of madrassas actually employing corporal punishment. A ban on physical beatings, including the cane, was introduced in the 1980s. But the legislation does not cover “supplementary schools”, including many madrassas, where lessons are taught for fewer than 12.5 hours per week."

What is being studied? This is the Conclusion from "Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam":

"The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims."

Political and religious leaders need to understand that "...everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5 which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth." Once that fact is grasped it is evident that the "Islamic extremist" horrors witnessed are carried out according to the texts being studied.

Children in Britain should be educated according to British standards in the British way of life if we are to achieve any sense of integration. There is nothing to be gained by allowing children to memorize that their host nation is inhabited by less worthy creatures (apes and pigs) who deserve to die if they do not convert to Islam.

In the entry, "Why there will be no Merry Christmas wishes from 'ordinary' Muslims", twelve months ago I included video of an Imam explaining that in Islam, wishing each other a "Merry Christmas!" is "worse than fornication, drinking alcohol or killing someone" because Christmas celebrates the Incarnation which is rejected by Muslims along with the Crucifixion.

One has to wonder therefore why the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed Shia theologians to Lambeth Palace at the culmination of three days of dialogue with Christian theologians. Expressing his appreciation for this dialogue, Archbishop Justin Welby said: "At a time of increasing fear and division in the world, it is ever more important that people of faith, Christians and Muslims, come together to work towards the common good for the betterment of all." What delusion. His sentiments are sound but can not be genuinely reciprocated by Muslims because it is contrary to their beliefs. It would have made more sense if he had followed a predecessor's example and demanded an explanation of why other faiths are persecuted in states where Islam dominates.

As Islam expands and Christianity wanes there is an unsettling change in attitude which regards Islam as fact and Christianity as fiction when there is Incredible Proof for Why You Should Have Faith in the Bible: "There are 16 total historians apart from Scripture that reference Christ. Almost everything about Christ we can find without ever going to the New Testament" and "There's more evidence that Jesus lived than Julius Caesar, yet no one doubts Caesar existed." Islam claims to be authoritative but denies historical evidence.

Christians know that false prophets will test their faith but our faith leaders entertain representatives of a supremacist ideology on an equal level which accords legitimacy to beliefs that, certainly in Christian terms, must be wrong because there is "only one way to the Father". Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." There is no ambiguity.

What is needed is not an education system which permits children to memorize texts that demand all to convert or die but one in which faith can be challenged in the same way that Christianity has been challenged and proved to be true. Any faith which can not tolerate scrutiny must be suspect. Denying Muslims the truth is to deny them salvation.

This morning I read "Archbishop of Canterbury supports 'our Muslim brothers and sisters' ". Read The Logic of Islamic Intolerance for an explanation of why such trust is a perilous mistake.

Bishops: Trust us!

General Synod service in York                                     Photograph: John Giles/PA

Women clergy and their devotees are clearly getting it all their own way. The vote at Synod for Option One brings the prospect of women bishops in the Church of England a step closer. Archbishop Welby's talk of reconciliation has led to a worsening of the position of opponents but a significant advance for WATCH. From their Press Release:  "WATCH remains committed to full engagement with the ongoing process" forgetting to add, only on their own terms in their battle annihilate the enemy. 

Calls from bishops for trust had a hollow ring in the knowledge that they cannot trust themselves. From the Telegraph: "Before they can be considered for a mitre they will have to persuade an archbishop that they are not involved in activity which might be considered sinful – and are not planning to do so." Could that be another hurdle for women candidates too or discrimination against male candidates? 

There were the usual impassioned speeches from talented women who years ago could have done well selling encyclopedias or more recently, unwanted insurance to gullible customers but the reality of the process was greeted with bored indifference when another lady explained that the proposed  route had been followed by the Anglican church in Canada and had proved to be a complete sham. Perhaps because the process already operates here!

In what I thought a very unconvincing interview afterwards, Archbishop Welby suggests that "we will arrive at something that works, that is simple and gives people real security to flourish in the church whatever their views". The question remains, then, if this is the sincere desire of the proponents, why is acceptable provision not made first? 

Women in the episcopate: a new way forward!

This is the nature of the challenge from "Women in the episcopate: a new way forward" (GS MISC 1042): 

"There are various ways of interpreting what happened on 20 November. But one 
thing on which there is a very wide measure of consensus is that the outcome of 
that day has left the Church of England in a profoundly unsatisfactory and 
unsustainable position. There are several reasons for this: 

    It is apparent that opening all three orders of ministry equally to men 
      and women has a very wide measure of support across the Church of 
      England; 
  
    For those women already serving in the ordained ministry, the Church 
      of England’s continued indecision is undermining and harmful to 
      morale; 
   
   Even for those with theological difficulties over the ministry of women 
      as priests and bishops there is little appeal in a further prolonged period 
      of debate and uncertainty;  
   
   Wider society – including its representatives in Parliament - cannot 
      comprehend why the Church of England has failed to resolve the issue
      and expects it now to do so as a matter of urgency."

This is the new Church of England, now hardly distinguishable from a trade union for women in the church. To be 'called' to the priesthood is one thing, to presume preferment is quite another and peculiar to the ordination of woman, contrary to what one would expect from those sent to serve. How can the Church of England’s 'continued indecision' be undermining and harmful to morale for those women already serving in the ordained ministry unless they are in the ordained ministry for the wrong reasons?

But they have already been handed the key:

"...while not involving the majority in any new element of compromise on matters of principle" in providing... a greater sense of security for the minority as having an accepted and valued place in the Church of England. - Isn't that the same way forward?

A member of the working group, the Chair of the women's union has already set out her stall here suggesting a new mission statement for the Church of England: A female episcopacy at any cost. The search for simplicity in the General Synod paper shifts the emphasis away from 'respect' to 'trust' (Paras 14, 15, 39 and 40). Now call me a cynic but  all experience so far indicates that revisionists cannot be trusted. If they could be we would not be where we are. The latest example arose in the debate on same sex marriage [Hansard 5 Feb 2013 : Column 160]

"Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): We should indeed treat one another with tolerance and treat everybody’s sexuality with understanding, but the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether English law should declare for the first time that two people of the same sex can marry.

Parliament is sovereign—we can vote for what we want—but we must be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, in seeking to make the point that Parliament is sovereign, said that Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman or a woman a man. Of course, in 2004, we did exactly that with the Gender Recognition Act. We are now proposing to make equally stark changes to the essence of marriage. During the civil partnership debates, I was given solemn assurances on the Floor of the House, including by some sitting on the Opposition Benches now, that the Civil Partnership Act would not lead to full same-sex marriage.

Chris Bryant rose—

Mr Leigh: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who gave those assurances to me.

Chris Bryant: Assurances from me do not necessarily determine what happens in Parliament in future. Several hon. Members have raised what I said in that debate. At that time, I believed that civil partnership was the be-all and end-all of the story. I have since entered a civil partnership and believe that the world has moved on. Many Conservative Members who voted against civil partnerships know that Britain’s mind has changed and want to reflect that in a change of the law."

Trust?

"The Christian faith is based on trust". What a joke!

"In the church you do have to accept a certain amount of trust. After all, if you can't accept that trust is pretty fundamental in the church, then where are we? The whole base of the Christian faith is based on trust."

- Lord Harries of Pentregarth, former Bishop of Oxford

Since the House of Bishops can no longer be trusted to care for all, the implication in Bishop Harries' remark is that they are no longer Christian. You can listen to his interview here. A strong advocate of blessing civil partnerships in church he was rather coy about discussing the current controversy of gay marriages in church saying, "there is a prior and more important step and that is actually warmly to welcome civil partnerships and offer a blessing for them. That is what I think the church could do and what it should do". 

Bishop Harries continues to push the liberal strategy of change by stealth while denying traditionalists what they were promised, an honoured place in the church. If the bishops want to restore trust in themselves they must show due contrition and make proper provision acceptable to orthodox Christians in their care.

Integrity today

"Let down" and "betrayed" by people they "trusted",

can't say anything, see anything, hear anything or do anything.

Aren't other people beastly!