A house divided

The House of Laity will meet on 18 January to discuss a vote of no confidence in their Chairman, Dr Philip Giddings, an honourable man stained by feminist puppets who pretend that they are doing God's work, praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit then ignoring the result if they don't like it. As a former Archbishop of Wales said on first losing the vote to ordain women, it was the work of the devil but the Holy Spirit spoke when the measure succeeded! With senior clerics given to such ridiculous outbursts a lack of confidence in their leadership is hardly without foundation. There are many passages in the Bible providing guidance for the church but trendy clerics tend only to misquote Galatians 3:28 while ignoring passages which they find unhelpful to their cause such as 'the whiles of the devil', blind guides, lost sheep, etc, all which support the orthodox view of Christianity.

Plenty of vitriol has already been spilled on the Thinking Anglicans web site. A couple of guys had a crack at Anglican Mainstream for being 'unrepresentative' claiming that the opinions expressed were neither 'Anglican' nor 'mainstream' when in fact it is these parochial trendies who are unrepresentative of the Anglican Communion, voting their way out of the universal church to which we profess allegiance in our creeds. It would be a disgrace if Dr Giddings were to be removed for telling the truth as he and others see it, especially when his only motive was to care for the 'honoured' minority whom the bishops ignored despite their previous assurances. His Synod speech can be read here. Canon Stephen Barney moves the motion: ‘That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House’. Canon Barney explains his reasons in a paper here. His reasons are ridiculous as indicated:

 His speech against the measure followed directly after Justin Welby’s and therefore I believe directly undermined what the Archbishop elect had said - What was the point in having a debate if the measure was to go through on the nod? The Archbishop elect is not infallible. The departing Archbishop said that members should vote according conscience so shouldn't Abp Rowan also be censured for undermining his successor?

 Since it was against it did not support the views of the House of Bishops as a whole - Why should it? The House of Bishops have shown themselves to be in hock to WATCH. They  are unrepresentative of the Anglican Communion as a whole and of the bishops of the Apostolic Church.

 Speaking as the Chair of our House his speech was instrumental in convincing some of the undecided members of the House to vote against - If the Chair of the House of Laity carried more weight than the Archbishops, bishops and clergy, why is that not the work of the Holy Spirit? The implication in this remark is that other members of the House are mindless idiots awaiting direction.

 I believe the speech was therefore a significant contributor to the reputational damage the Church of England is already suffering at the hands of the press, which is also manifest in the comments of the Prime Minister, the emerging reports of withdrawal of financial support, the angry reaction of church members and the disbelief and ridicule expressed by many of our secular friends, all of which I believe will damage the mission of our church - Any 'reputational damage' is solely attributable to the reaction of the ungracious losers who, let us not forget, just scraped the necessary majority for the ordination of women to the priesthood based on assurances given to those who opposed the measure consistent with the view of the Holy Catholic Church.

 The failure of the Measure is already giving momentum to the idea that the only likely solution now is a single clause Measure, which would result in a worse outcome for the minority groups than was on offer on Tuesday - How disingenuous can one get? The vote was NOT against women bishops, it was against the watered down 'provision' until it was meaningless, especially when considered against previous assurances. If a single clause measure results from this it will clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of the movement to ordain women from the outset. It is clear that they want to rid Anglicanism of orthodoxy because it is an uncomfortable reminder that the liberal agenda they follow has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with secular fancy.


If the trendies had any honour they would agree provision acceptable to those for whom it is intended. Anything else is a cruel sham which will collapse the whole edifice if not properly addressed: "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." 

Today comes the news that the Church of England has dropped its prohibition on gay clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops. Drawing ever closer to the failing Episcopal Church in the united States one has to ask how much confidence there can be in the absurd suggestion that the House of Bishops would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promise to be celibate. Read here of the promise made by the bishops of the Church in Wales when the Bill to allow women to be priests was passed. This was passed unanimously among the bishops following coercion, a process which continues today with intimidation of those opposed to the ordination of women. Among the signatories was Rowan Williams, then Bishop of Monmouth, who as Archbishop of Canterbury at least maintained the appearance of caring for all by continuing to appoint Provincial Episcopal Visitors while the then Bishop of Bangor, now the Archbishop of Wales and archliberal Dr Barry Morgan, along with his fellow bishops, has reneged on the undertaking given. Likewise the House of Bishops has reneged on their promise of an honoured place for 'traditionalists' in the Church of England. I suppose on that basis one could say that the bishops are undivided - except that they have excluded themselves from the rest of the Apostolic Church. Promises are made to be broken apparently. 

SCREWTAPE PROPOSES AN EPISCOPAL TOAST

First posted By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org 
January 1, 2013

SCREWTAPE PROPOSES AN EPISCOPAL TOAST (20) 
With apologies to C.S. Lewis

My Dear Wormwood,

2012. What a year. Once again Americans confused license with freedom and their gadarene slide towards us continues at even greater speed. The president now says he believes in Gay marriage, with the whole LGBTQI agenda being pushed in every state and promoted in nearly all the major Protestant denominations is sweet music to our Father's ears. Make sure the gay Washington lobbies have pots of money to keep the political pressure on.....

....But, on to business. We were shocked to learn that Rowan Williams' replacement is an evangelical cut from the ALPHA, Carey, and Coggan mold. This is a disastrous turn of events. That the Queen gave ol' Rowan a life peerage and that he will henceforth be known as Baron Williams of Oystermouth had our father in stitches. OYSTERMOUTH for Hell's sake. Our Father hates it when the British outdo themselves with their dark irony and sardonic humor. What a black pearl Williams turned out to be.

This Welby fellow, however, poses a serious threat to our final takeover and co-opting of Western Anglicanism. We almost had it in the bag with the Church of England. Endless talk of social justice, women bishops, and sodomy...it was all moving in our direction when then this geeky looking oil executive comes along and says he actually believes in HIM. Our Father was apoplectic and was heard to rage around hell, so much so that even his closest minions quivered and quaked for days. Now he has calmed down a bit and is working on a new strategy to undermine Welby. There are some here who are saying we overplayed our hand. If so, we must work harder to change that....

...Make sure they never compromise, Wormwood. Make sure words like "generous orthodoxy", inclusivity, and diversity are buzzwords embedded in their brains till death do them part. Make sure the constant whine of pansexualists yelling "justice" and "rights" is constantly in the forefront of liberal and moderate bishops thinking; morality be damned. Make sure the constant shrill cry of lesbians like [the Rev.] Susan Russell is heard in all their ears and they feel her pain. We don't want a repeat of South Carolina....

Read it all here

Rowan: at home

I had not expected to blog again on Archbishop Rowan, at least not so soon after my previous entry, but having watched Goodbye to Canterbury my wife and I were entranced seeing the Rowan of old. Here was the man whom his students adored, plainly in his element, at home in teaching others without the political contortions we have come to expect over the last ten years. But there were some puzzling moments. Rowan referred to the stability that Canterbury epitomised amidst the chaos that surrounds us but here was the man who helped create chaos in the church by his slavish adherence to the feminist cause almost implying a sort of 'Jekyll and Hyde' character forcing change on an institution while cherishing its essential heart. 

Speaking of St Thomas Becket towards the end of the programme, Abp Rowan comments: "What is it that makes it possible to take a stand for the Kingdom of God? What is it that is going to make that possible for me?" - For many of us it is the ordination of women. How is it that this eludes him?

He concludes: "The more diverse we get the more we need Canterbury". Precisely! Recommended viewing.

New Year 2013

If only...

If only Rowan had not sided with the women's lib movement he may have stepped down as Archbishop of Canterbury having made significant steps towards unity with the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Instead he leaves office with utter disappointment etched on his face. He has had a difficult task in difficult times exacerbated by the ravaging of The Episcopal Church of the United States where the Presiding Bishop has thumbed her nose to Rowan as she pursues her campaign to turn the church into a secular-orientated institution with reverberations in the UK and commensurate falls in attendance. If, on reflection, he has a change of heart putting unity before politics there is still much for him to do building on his relations with church leaders. That must be our prayer while wishing him well as he continues on life's pilgrimage.

Another politician in clerical clothing

 In the latest helping of the views of the Archbishop of Wales in WalesOnline we have Organ Donations, Devolution, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Women's Rights, Demographics and the Welsh language. Unlike Her Majesty the Queen who broadcast a simple Christian message in her Christmas Day broadcast [see previous entry], here is another cleric who finds it much easier to preach politics from the privilege of the pulpit than to offer himself for election. The closest Dr Morgan gets to God is when he talks of the decline of the church, again abdicating any sense of responsibility with the words: “At the end of the day, the church is not the clergy and the church is certainly not bishops. The church is the whole people of God.” - If that is the case, why does he insist on ploughing his own furrow contrary to the direction of the universal Apostolic church to which he professes allegiance every time he recites the Creed?

Apart from the dwindling few he has gathered around him, the 'whole people of God' as he sees them couldn't care less for the views of the Archbishop according to the results of the 2011 census which showed his diocese of Llandaff as home to areas in the UK with the highest rates reporting no religion. Caerphilly takes the lead on his patch: Some local authorities in Wales also reported some of the highest levels of no religion. Caerphilly had the largest percentage point increase since 2001 of 16.7 to 41.0 per cent . Blaenau Gwent, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Torfaen also saw large increases of no religion with 16.0, 15.5 and 15.4 percentage points respectively.

I hear on the grapevine that managing the decline of the Church in Wales has already run into trouble with problems implementing the 'Harries' Review. Despite a great deal of time and effort looking at clustering parishes this is now regarded as a non-starter. Also, as if to kick a man when he is down, Dr Morgan's cherished plan of making the Diocese of Llandaff the Archiepiscopal see will not take place in the foreseeable future. Added to which parsonages will not be sold off as recommended and the Archbishop has admitted that he has no power to close buildings so churches will continue to be used until they fall into disrepair for lack of funds and, presumably, become unusable on grounds of safety. None of this really matters to the bishops because all seven of them keep their jobs (I use the term advisedly) regardless of further decline below the 1% of the 'whole people of God' they care for in Wales, allegedly. This strategy also keeps all the bums on the bench so that when women bishops take over they will have somewhere to sit while wondering where all the people have gone. As senior appointments now go to outsiders, they could of course spend their time learning Welsh so they can talk among themselves in their 'home' language since a vast amount of money has been spent on translations for Welsh speakers, now down to 19% of the population and a tiny fraction of churchgoers practically all of whom no doubt would be bilingual.

Dr Morgan is very keen on supporting (some) minorities. He was particularly miffed at not being consulted over plans to exempt the Church in Wales from David Cameron's same-sex marriage proposals claiming that it would make the Church in Wales appear homophobic. What an appalling claim for an educated man to make, even worse by a cleric and more so by a bishop. It is not homophobic to believe that marriage is a life-long union between one man and one woman. But this is just another smokescreen. It is an attempt to conceal Dr Morgan's main aim which is to enhance his liberal credentials at any cost in the same way that he proposes a sleight of hand to allow the admission of women to the episcopate by making supposed provision for those opposed when he has already indicated that there will be no provision other than on his terms. If he were to offer himself for election, who would vote for such duplicity?

God Save the Queen!

Before I set off with my wife to spend Christmas with family I read an advance report of what the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury would say in his final Christmas sermon as Archbishop. My heart sank. I comforted myself with the thought that the headline remark may have been taken out of context. But no, in his sermon there was indeed another dig at those accused of damaging the credibility of the church in the vote over women bishops. The Archbishop added: "Faith is not about what public opinion decides, and it is not about how we happen to be feeling about ourselves. It is the response people make to what presents itself as a reality – a reality which makes claims on you". You can listen to his remarks here and make of them what you will but this part of his sermon is clear enough: In the deeply painful aftermath of the Synod’s vote last month, what was startling was how many people who certainly wouldn’t have said yes to the census question [referred to at the beginning of his sermon] turned out to have a sort of investment in the Church, a desire to see the Church looking credible and a real sense of loss when—as they saw it—the Church failed to sort its business out.

I interpreted Rowan's contorted departing message as meaning that while "Faith is not about what public opinion decides" people outside the church have some sort of investment in the church which they desire to see looking credible. In other words, they have no real interest in the church and support her even less but public opinion in its ignorance is a useful tool which conveniently 'supports' the view that Rowan and his entourage are correct on the question of women bishops while the rest of us, including the much larger universal church of East and West, are wrong and simply don't understand Jesus properly.

In the 'women bishops at any cost' campaign, the Queen's position as 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England' has been tossed into the debate to justify the call for women bishops with remarks such as: "The queen is the head of the Church of England; if the Queen can head the Church of England why can't we have female bishops". This shows either a lamentable ignorance of the Church of England and of the priesthood itself or it is an attempt to influence those outside the church who feel that they have some sort of an investment in the church which entitles them to an opinion on the faith of people who are being unfairly criticised by their own clergy.

It was most heartening therefore to watch the Queen's traditional Christmas Day broadcast. Her Majesty delivered a simple Christian message that could be readily understood by all with the words: "This is the time of year when we remember that God sent his only son 'to serve, not to be served'. He restored love and service to the centre of our lives in the person of Jesus Christ. It is my prayer this Christmas Day that his example and teaching will continue to bring people together to give the best of themselves in the service of others. The carol, 'In the Bleak Midwinter', ends by asking a question of all of us who know the Christmas story, of how God gave himself to us in humble service: 'What can I give him, poor as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb; if I were a wise man, I would do my part'. The carol gives the answer, 'Yet what I can I give him – give my heart'." 

A clear simple message to live by Christ's example, not from a priest but from one who clearly understands the meaning of 'to serve, not to be served'. Something that the laity recognises but which has been largely forgotten by the clergy in their quest to see the Church of England relegated to the status of a Protestant sect.