Is this really what we want for the Church of England?

"The way Finns feel about the Church is changing faster than ever, as is the Church’s position in the community. A generation ago, 90 percent of the Finnish population held membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, whereas now the number has shrunk to about 78 percent and is falling by about one percentage point annually. Ties between Church and State have also decreased....While the role of the Church as an institution has weakened, its social role has grown. This becomes apparent in the reinforcement and expansion of diaconical work. For instance, the Church represents one of the most important providers of family counselling, and plays a central role in professional crisis work." - The 'down-to-earth' Finnish Church.

 It may be Finnish but is it British? Their 'diaconical work' is most laudable but it is neither necessary nor desirable to turn the Holy Priesthood into an organisation for social workers in vestments. Surely the highest calling of every woman is superior to that of man in motherhood and the nurture of our children but in the women's movement Mary's role in the incarnation is made to appear insignificant compared to the weight given to the example of  Mary Magdalene who is constantly extolled as 'the Apostle to the Apostles' because of her messengerial role having witnessed the Resurrection before conveying the message to the Apostles who were specifically appointed by Christ rather than inferred to bolster a case for lack of evidence.

There is nothing motherly about the campaign for women bishops. The vindictive statement by WATCH in their call for a single clause measure for women bishops totally misrepresents the position of orthodox Anglicans: "Women clergy and supporters of their ministry have had enough of the wasteful wrangling over women bishops. Years have been spent in trying to make legal provision that would satisfy those opposed...." I would be the first to apologise if I misinterpret their allegations but it is difficult to see how the oppressed could be satisfied with the terms of the oppressor simply on the oppressors' say so. I wasn't present at any of the discussions but the Bishop of Ebbsfleet was. His more credible account of 'The General Synod Vote on Women Bishops' is given on the See of Ebbsfleet web site here.  

Orthodox Anglicans have endured many false charges of misogyny, even when the vote in the House of Laity was lost with a large tally of women's votes. As an example of the many women in the church who simply suffer in silence, my wife was deeply hurt and bitterly disappointed on being abandoned by Abp Rowan when he gave his response to the vote. It is difficult to understand why he recognised hurt only in the strident women of WATCH. On reading Bp Jonathan Baker's account Mrs Briton's comment was, "Why couldn't Rowan have said that?" before adding "+Jonathan has been far too charitable to the women of WATCH." - Apparently one has to be a woman to understand women.

Theoretically there is a danger in the strategy of WATCH but no doubt they have either made the necessary calculations or are confident in their ability to manipulate the authority of the church. If the current injustice to a significant minority is made worse, more people may be encouraged to vote against the new measure but like a second-rate trade union, having failed to stuff Synod with sufficient support to assure victory, the call now is to change the rules to give them that assurance. There has already been a no confidence vote in the Diocese of Bristol and a hypocritical call by the Chair of the House of Clergy to oust the Chair of the House of Laity. 

The final absurdity in this process is the claim that we have to be responsive to the priorities of secular society. As if he had become WATCH's trumpet Abp Rowan commented after the vote: The Church of England has "a lot of explaining to do" to the church and to wider society after its rejection of legislation ... In a strongly worded speech to the General Synod [he] warned that the failure of the vote in the house of laity on Tuesday had made the church's governing body appear "wilfully blind" to the priorities of secular society. "We have – to put it very bluntly – a lot of explaining to do," he said. "Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday … the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society."

It would have been understandable if these comments had come from WATCH but coming from a world-renowned theologian they are incredible. If the early church had been guided by the trends and priorities of wider society at the time there would be no church for them to meddle with.

The disingenuity of the Welsh 'Mafia'

According to 'people in the know' across the border, the retirement of 'Napoleon' as Dean of Llandaff leaves only two of the so-called Welsh 'Mafia' in place; another has already gone to meet his Maker. Their aim? To change the nature of Anglicanism so that it reflects society rather than reinforcing the Christian tradition that has shaped our two nations. The move of the 'godfather' to Canterbury from Wales spread their influence considerably. Feeling secure that their goal of women in the episcopacy in England had been achieved bar the formality of a vote, the godfather has decided to vacate the mire created and return to academia, leaving his faithful lieutenant to sort out the mess he created for himself in Wales after taking the Governing Body for granted. Both badly misjudged the situation and both lost the vote. The House of Laity in England and the clergy in Wales had enough members who would not be bludgeoned into voting other than according to conviction that worshippers who now found themselves in a minority had been lied to as promises were rescinded. Sufficient confidence was shown prior to the recent Synod vote that members were actually told to vote according to conscience but the facade of tolerance quickly crumbled with the result giving rise to all manner of intemperate accusations.

The silence of the Archbishops in defence of those of their flock who they regard has having gone astray is deafening. Faithful Anglicans are allowed to be pilloried and condemned within the church and without. From mis-quoting the bible to scare stories, from buffoonery to an angry protest, all is sanctioned by their silence. The women bishops movement has followed greed with anger. It seems that nothing is barred in the campaign to discredit those who put Christ before political correctness - although one is forced to admit that the 'apron protest' is far more civilized than the dirty campaign they waged in favour of women priests.

Such is the arrogance of the ruling liberal wing of the church that Affirming Catholicism (AffCath), the society formed to further the liberal cause, brazenly uses the image of Christ on their web site as if to claim Christ's affirmation for their secular ambitions which focus more on gender issues  than on the unity of the Apostolic Church. It is no surprise therefore that AffCaff have stepped into the women bishops debate with a predictable statement which mimics that of Women and the Church (WATCH): "a new way forward must be found, which recognises from the beginning that acceptable provisions cannot mean structures for separate existence" [my emphasis - Ed.]

Speaking on the subject of 'Affirming Tradition' at the AffCaff inaugural meeting in 1990 the then Revd Professor Rowan Williams, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford had this to say: It's not much use fighting tribalism by inventing new tribes; and at present the Church of England is in an unusual tribal phase, when every group seems convinced that its vision of the truth is terminally at risk, and everyone but them is making the running. Part of the trouble with this, of course, is that it fosters the delusion that unless we strain every nerve to preserve our vision, God's promise to be with the Church becomes void; as if God could do nothing unless 'we got it right' and defeated the opposition. If today's title is serious, we are supposed to be hear to affirm something which means helping each other towards confidence and gratitude and away from anxiety [my emphasis - Ed].

Quoting from Michael Ramsey's book The Gospel and the Catholic Church, Rowan Williams continued: "We are a Catholic and a Reformed Church; we believe that the real continuity of the gospel is sometimes served by apparent rupture and discontinuity; and we know a bit about having to stand in worship alongside people of very different visions. We ought to be able to manage a 'theology of disagreement'. if I can so call it - understanding that our diversity is not primarily a mutual threat, but a mutual gift. We can afford to listen to each other, and to our cultural and intellectual milieu, not anxiously waiting to be offended but expecting to be taken somehow deeper into the life of the giving God. Our security is not to be in what we possess and hold tight, but in God's promise to hold us, the promise realised at every baptism and mass, when we are brought again to the one whose whole identity is the promise of faithfulness, the 'Yes' of God. 

As the original 'tribe', orthodox Anglicans have 'stood alongside people of very different visions. Two decades later the invaders want traditional Anglicans expelled: the 'opposition' must be defeated, if necessary by changing the rules. The 'Yes' of God has become subordinate to the Yes of Synod in a measure designed to silence orthodoxy for the sake of a politically correct view of society when society generally couldn't care less about the church other than in time of need.

Statements such as "acceptable provisions cannot mean structures for separate existence" are made in the full knowledge that only a separate existence would allow both the integrities to move forward equally in good conscience. So we are back to 'Go'. All the reasons for saying no rather than 'Yes' will be rehearsed to ensure that there is no existence rather than a separate existence. AffCath claim to be a movement of inspiration and hope in the Anglican Communion, seeking to bring together and strengthen lay and ordained people. As reformed and reforming Catholics, [they] seek to renew the universal Church by including those with different perspectives and bearing witness in the world to Christ’s healing and reconciling love. I see no evidence of their witness to Christ's healing and reconciling love. Having set themselves apart from the universal church they have convinced themselves that they 'got it right' even though they are part of a church within the Universal church. Is that not a separate existence?

Without doubt it will be claimed that the circumstances are different but that sums up the disingenuity of a clique that pretends to be working for the good of all while erecting every possible obstacle to ensure that others fail to flourish. Their ingenuity has been to use secular criteria of equality in the work place as a cause for dissatisfaction. Their disingenuity is in its application to faith and doctrine, impugning the integrity of others. They have pleaded their cause widely in society to the extent that if their supporters filled the pews we would have to increase the number of services rather than close churches for lack of attendance. So much for their integrity.

So successful has this ploy been that, with the rare exception, condemnation comes from all quarters despite the fact that the correct procedures were followed with a high expectation that a significant minority, many cradle Anglicans, were being asked to vote themselves out of existence. Contrary to reports, the vote did NOT 'tear up plans to ordain women as bishops despite overwhelming support in the parishes'. Rather it sought proper provision for doubters as previously promised. If those now reveling in the description, reformed and reforming Catholics seek to renew the universal Church by a process of submission, then the new Anglican church will have more in common with Islam than Catholicism. Talking about the unavoidable introduction of Sharia law in the UK in 2008 Dr Rowan Williams told the BBC that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. - Rather like Synod and their legal system if they don't relate to the result!

Vindictive, conniving, manipulative - Is this the Church of England?

Unlike women in religious communities who put God and mankind before self, Women and the Church (WATCH) exists only to serve themselves. The fury exhibited after losing the vote in a Synod specially convened at considerable expense for the purpose of reaching a conclusion under agreed procedures is extraordinary. Their performance is matched only by the high priestess of schism who is busy tearing apart The Episcopal Church  in the United States of America.

WATCH gambled recklessly, constantly raising the stakes until they lost. Having done so they cry foul and blame everyone but themselves. It was a calculated gamble. They were expected to win with the support of bishops and clergy and assumed they could manipulate the laity in the same way but they have more about then when it comes to keeping the faith. Having gambled and lost, WATCH are deperate to throw the dice again but this time loaded in their favour. It comes as no surprise that they want a single clause measure which makes no provision for dissenters, the sort of vindictiveness we have come to expect from an organisation that claims to be doing one thing but does another.

In a recent TV programme Christina Rees referred to "those who are opposed to this [measure], who have completely refused to accept all the arrangements that we have worked painstakingly over years to provide" with no hint of responsibility for the fact that WATCH have scuppered every attempt to reach agreement unless it is on their terms. 

The bishops have given every reason to believe that they are conniving with WATCH. A statement on 28 November after the Archbishops' Council read as follows:
 "As part of their reflections, many council members commented on the deep degree of sadness and shock that they had felt as a result of the vote and also of the need to affirm all women serving the church - both lay and ordained - in their ministries. In its discussions the Council decided that a process to admit women to the episcopate needed to be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod in July 2013. There was agreement that the Church of England had to resolve this matter through its own processes as a matter of urgency".

One wonders what the council members had in mind when they commented "of the need to affirm all women serving the church - both lay and ordained". Does that include the women, almost half of those in the House of Laity who voted against the measure? They have already been condemned for being out of step not only with with the diocesan synods but with wider society as if secularism guides our faith. If everyone was supposed to vote in accordance with the wishes of WATCH, the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, what was the point of debating the measure all day or, indeed, even of holding a special Synod? This is an abysmal example the Church of England has set for society. If we all rejected established procedures when we don't like the result there would be total anarchy.

It beggars belief that WATCH claim to have done everything in their power to accommodate others when they have vetoed every concession that has been suggested. Let us be clear about this. There is one word for saying one thing but doing another. That word is Hypocrisy which is condemned throughout Matthew 23. Further manipulation must be expected but it must be countered. We belong to Christ's church not to a women's church as asserted by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In the TV programme mentioned above orthodox Christians were referred to as being toxic. The bishops who serve them by exercising our credal belief in the Apostolic Church were described as 'Flying Bigots' by the Rev George Pitcher who is a former public affairs advisor to the Archbishop of Canterbury no less. The Archbishop was correct when, speaking after the vote, he said: “We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,” but he added, “Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do, we have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society." 

It is clear that Archbishop Rowan was admonishing worshippers in the Church of England who acted out of conscience because Synod had reneged on a pledge. Some of those in favour of women bishops but who voted against the measure have explained their reason: “Our vote against stemmed from the Measure’s failure to honour the inclusiveness which we believe fundamental to the future of Anglicanism. The Church of England needs all the voices it currently has, and to hear them all. Unity has never been unanimity.”

The Church of England has lost a very large measure of credibility. She has broken a solemn promise of care for all and has become vindictive, conniving and manipulative. Is a Church of England with women bishops to be a Church without honour? 

Many in our constituency had faith that Rowan would not abandon us. That is now wearing very thin.  If he too keeps the faith, this could still be his finest hour.

Women in distress: An apology

"I don't have a latrine. Sometimes I go to the bush.
 It's quite far and there have been a lot of people going.
 Sometimes I feel ashamed and go back without defecating.
 Sometimes I wait until dark so no one can see me.
 To reach the bush, first there is a bridge.
 Sometimes people fall off the bridge and then they die.
 At night it is very dangerous. A woman I know has been raped."

Monday, 19 November 2012 was World Toilet Day. Like many others I was too concerned about Mother Church and what the future might hold for around one third of Anglicans in the Church of England who feel that they are being squeezed out so the email I received from Water Aid sank further down my in-try. It made this plea: "1 in 3 women worldwide risk shame, disease, harassment and even attack because they have nowhere safe to go to the toilet. That's 1.25 billion women – daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers. In April, the UK Government pledged to double the number of people they would reach with water and sanitation to 60 million by 2015. Now is the time to turn that promise into action and every voice adds pressure, so please add yours today."

As the Church of England Synod counted up votes on the women bishops measure, both sides praying that the Holy Spirit would shine upon them, one third of the women in the world were praying for rudimentary sanitation. It is hard not to feel ashamed that an unnecessary controversy deflected attention form the genuine need and suffering of one third of all women. They cannot be dismissed as a small minority. If you have not already done so, please sign-up to Water Aid and help the 1.25 billion women who are in desperate need of our vote.

Ungracious losers

Click HERE to watch while there is still time.
Too late to view but see end note for a good summary.

This morning I was alerted by Anglican Mainstream to the BBC's 'The Big Questions' programme. With only five days left to view I thought I had better tune in. I was shocked. The anger and untruths coming from the losers convinced me more than ever that Jesus knew what He was doing when He appointed only male Apostles. Sitting opposite them were the objects of their anger, those who had secured the vote under the agreed rules. The 'opposition' appeared almost apologetic by comparison but I realise now that what I was witnessing was a living example of the Christian faith revealed in Galatians: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Ruth Gledhill was very keen to emphasise that our failure to play their game will ensure that we will be subject to the law. But the law they speak of is of this world, something that they are unable or unwilling to grasp. 

Thank God then for Peter Hitchens who, from a position of neutrality, met force with force and considerable candour in refuting the disingenuous claims of Christina Rees and the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin that every concession has been made to accommodate traditionalists. Ms Rees spoke of 'trust' suggesting that opponents should leave the church if they do not trust their bishops. She quoted Archbishop Rowan Williams to reinforce her point: "When you say to your neighbour I don't trust you, what do you say next to them?" She continued, "Those who are opposed to this, who have completely refused to accept all the arrangements that we have worked painstakingly over years to provide is that if you don't trust us, what are you doing in the church where you do not trust the authorities.....? "

Ms Rees is economical with the truth. Back in July, in defence of the climb down by the bishops over Clause 5(1)c, Archbishop Rowan said: "The bishops had only been trying to help when they tinkered with the draft legislation in May. He remained unconvinced they had got it wrong but they should question why they failed to anticipate the outpouring of anger from senior female clergy and campaigners for female bishops. So the bishops changed their minds not because they had got it wrong but because of the outpouring of anger repeated in this programme and at every stage through the process. The Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin even condemned the arrangements which allowed women to become priests as making them second class. That "fudge" as they called it will no doubt become another arrow in their quiver. 

In answer to the question posed by Ms Rees, yes we do trust the authorities. The authority of scripture, reason and tradition all of which put the authority of the Church of England into perspective. Many have already left the church of their birth which, in charity, allowed a minority of liberals to prosper and gain control. Now those who find themselves in a minority within the Church of England are invited to leave. It is increasingly clear that this has been the liberal agenda all along resulting in torn-up promises, deceit and, I can't think of another way of putting, lies. That WATCH have been invited to attend the meeting of the House of Bishops after their climb-down suggests that they enjoy a higher authority in the Church of England but whatever their standing the ungracious losers should meditate on Galatians before they speak.

NOTE
A revealing summary of the programme can be found HERE.

The Church of England: A new Sect

"The Church of England's decision to reject the introduction of
women bishops makes it look like 'a sect'." - Sir Tony Baldry

 The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, displays an unusual understanding of the word sect which in Christian terms means a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. In our case that means the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which Parliament, the House of Bishops and a majority of clergy in Synod choose to ignore for purely political purposes.

Much has been made of the Commissioner's buffoonery in sporting a male-only, club tie while he was berating orthodox Christians for being sexist. What he had to say about sects was equally ridiculous. It is the rejection of Christian orthodoxy that will turn the Church of England into a Protestant sect, not the other way around. As mentioned in my previous entry, the new Dean of Llandaff wrote that "We should listen to Parliament". Why? MPs have demonstrated that they have no understanding of the issues involved. Every member I heard made false accusations on the lines of that peddled in the press by 'over one thousand clergy' when they suggested that orthodox Anglicans believe women are inferior to men. What utter nonsense and from senior clergy!

Comments made in Parliament showed an abysmal ignorance of the theology involved. This offering from David Winnick was typical: I am not involved with the Church of England and I am a lifelong non-believer, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire for the stance he has taken, that it is simply impossible to understand how on earth it can be argued that if women are considered appropriate to be deacons and priests, as they have been in the last 20 years, they are not worthy to be bishops. It is simply impossible to understand that. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that, for many of us, this opposition to women bishops bears comparison with the opposition 100 years ago to women having the right to vote and to sit in the House of Commons? It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics—that I find contemptible.

It is contemptible that an Honourable Member is allowed to get away with such statements such as "they are not [considered] worthy to be bishops" and "It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics" when nothing of the sort has been suggested. That is not the position of the church but it remains unchallenged because clergy and bishops in general hold their positions not for their belief in orthodox Christianity but in the church being relevant to society. Typical of the bishops' response came from the Bishop of Sheffield who told the BBC that 'he hoped the news would not affect congregation numbers' when the most vocal don't attend church anyway. He should wake up to the fact, as one historian put it, 'God doesn't do relevance'. What has affected congregation numbers is the use of half-truths and even lies to promote a liberal agenda at variance with Christian teaching. 
 
There are far too many women who experience real suffering and desperately need our help instead of squabbling over imaginary injustices. Although illegal in the UK Female Genital Mutilation goes on because of "respect" and "cultural sensitivity" which makes detection in the UK almost impossible. Also, gender inequality is one of the main reasons for early and forced marriage: women and girls often occupy a lower status in societies as a result of social and cultural traditions, attitudes, beliefs that deny them their rights and stifle their ability to play an equal role in their homes and communities. Young girls are forced into marriage as child brides. It is ironic that immense suffering is allowed to continue out of respect for other cultures while a lack of respect for our own culture sees Christian orthodoxy overturned and genuine believers marginalised.

Women and men who complain about the supposed pain and suffering of women because they are not yet able to be bishops in the Church of England should focus on the real pain experienced by women and even girls in this country and far beyond. If they had had any thought for others they would already have secured the vote they crave for. All that is needed now is to allow orthodox Anglicans to practice their faith as it has been received. If they would only do that they could direct their considerable talents into helping to ease real suffering among women. That is the challenge. As Christians they should have the humility to accept it.

Not a good start for the new Dean of Llandaff

Unfortunately for readers of my previous entry, the oddly titled 'Inevitably' post under The Women Bishops Debate link, mysteriously disappeared - see here. Fortunately I have a copy (below) so readers can make of it what they will. [Note - the post has reappeared as mysteriously as it disappeared so I have removed the reprint but will keep a copy - just in case!]

It is intriguing how posts come and go in the secular integrity. In this context the women's lib movement has a strong affinity with Islam where one awkward verse is abrogated by another so peace will reign when we all abide by the rules of the oppressor. 

The soon to be Mr(s) Dean concluded her entry thus: The Second Estates Church Commissioner has given purposeful leadership which showed itself in the open debate in the House of Commons yesterday. We should listen to Parliament. They may yet help us salvage something from this and reform the governance of the church so that it is better fit for purpose. If I may paraphrase Mrs Thatcher: You listen to Parliament if you want to; this integrity is not for turning. Watch this space for my thoughts on the performance of the Second Estates Church Commissioner.

Lest it be thought we cannot agree on anything, I commend the Venerable Janet Henderson for remarks in an earlier post: "We all make mistakes and act from mixed motives that are sometimes a great deal less pure than we would like to admit. Most of us find it very difficult to walk a balanced line between justice and compassion, loyalty to tradition and response to new developments. The art of being church is to live repentantly and graciously with those with whom we disagree". Also: "The Holy Spirit is able to work through the church's honest debate and interaction, through its members' pain and frustration and to bring to resonance the voice of the voiceless. Listening requires full attention and the ability to put aside our own ideas while we listen". Having lost the vote that becomes: "The debate on Tuesday was no more than the logical conclusion to the fact that we have spent 20 years encouraging people not to change their position on this issue, not to listen to each other, and not to work together, but to feel safe in which ever set of beliefs they hold".

Do I detect an abrogation?