The sound of silence

Who could fail to be moved by the Pope's visit to our shores. Already there have been many special moments. The enthusiasm of young people has been truly inspiring as exemplified by a young student, Paschal Uche, who greeted the Pope on behalf of those who had waited patiently outside Westminster Cathedral as the Mass proceeded inside. But what has struck me most forcibly is the hush of reverence that descends on the multitudes as if sensing the presence of the Lord. What would the typical Anglican priest give for that expectant silence, absent in most Anglican churches.

That difference was mirrored profoundly by two women who were interviewed. First, a Catholic, who despaired that a women could even consider wanting to be a priest protesting that such women showed no understanding of the priesthood. The other, an elderly ordained Anglican woman from Women and the Church, complained that her grandchildren did not want to belong to a church that did not ordain women - the sort of 'I want' attitude the Pope has been warning about.

The overwhelming support the Pope has received suggests that the normally silent majority cherishes what they have, or what little they have left. Activists are busy changing everything for their advantage according to their secular whims. Perhaps it is too late for the Anglican church but not for Christianity as a whole. Divided we fall leaving a vacuum in Britain that others will fill with an ideology that does not tolerate dissension. If that happens we shall all be the losers.

POSTSCRIPT

From my Blog List, "Christ in our midst", this stark warning:

http://thehandmaid.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/ground-zero-mosque/

Freedom of religion for all - except 'traditional' Anglicans

Pope Benedict's official visit to Great Britain has had a good start in Scotland. Faith seemed to matter again, not just Catholicism but faith in general. Even the Government says it will 'do God', whatever that may mean in reality. Religious tolerance is in the air.

President Obama spoke of religious freedom in relation to the proposed mosque near ground zero quoting Thomas Jefferson, among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will.

Article 18 of the universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This is echoed in the The European Convention on Human Rights.

Her Majesty the Queen ended her speech of welcome to the Pope with the words "Your Holiness, in recent times you have said that ‘religions can never become vehicles of hatred, that never by invoking the name of God can evil and violence be justified’. Today, in this country, we stand united in that conviction. We hold that freedom to worship is at the core of our tolerant and democratic society." My emphasis, but that comes emphatically from from the Defender of the Faith and Head of the Church of England. Only out of step is Synod.

Burning issues

Watching books burn is an unpleasant experience for those old enough to recall newsreel footage of Nazi excesses. With e-books and Library deposits the notion of denying or limiting knowledge to others is a thing of the past in the free world. Now the act is more a gesture of principle or defiance as dangerously demonstrated by the obscure US pastor who caused worldwide uproar by threatening to burn copies of the Koran and encouraging others to do likewise.

Just the suggestion had Islamic people on the streets waving placards and threatening violence particularly against against US troops. There is an odd contradiction here. The pastor had the freedom to exercise free will in a free country but was shackled by public opinion and political pressure. Islamists on the other hand have no qualms about desecrating non-Islamic religious symbols or even killing people just for being Christians.

As we celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain we remember those who fought and died in the war against tyranny. Today we face a different tyranny, the threat to freedom of expression. Islamic fundamentalists are succeeding in muzzling everyone but themselves. The slightest hint of criticism is regarded as abuse yet Islamic abuse is rife, particularly in Iran. If as claimed, Islam is a religion of peace, protestors could demonstrate that forcibly by taking up the cause of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, sentenced to death by stoning, or is a book, however sacred, more precious than a life?

Water of life - and of death!

In Britain our weather is rarely far from our lips. When it's not a 'Nice day!' it is too hot, too cold, too dry or, more often, too wet.

We can't live without water while too much can cause misery and death. The tragedy that has struck Pakistan has brought this home even more forcefully but for some it is part of the on-going struggle to provide for others what we take for granted. 'Water Aid' is an international non governmental organisation. Their mission is to transform lives by improving access to safe water, hygiene and sanitation in the world's poorest communities.

Their current campaign "Dig toilets Not Graves" seeks to save the lives of 4,000 children who die every day through the lack of this basic amenity. There are "2.6 billion people worldwide still don't have access to clean, safe toilets – a basic human right.

This is more than an inconvenience. It's a killer. Diarrhoea kills more children than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

The solution to the problem is simple - safe toilets will save thousands of lives. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will be attending a Millennium Development Goals summit in New York to discuss global poverty targets and we are asking him to make building toilets a priority.

We call on our coalition Government to tackle this global crisis and prove their commitment by increasing aid to sanitation and water to £600 million.

Please help us shout so loud the UK Government has to listen. There is no time to lose, so please put your name to our petition right now and together we can work to dig toilets, not graves."

Water Aid is asking for our support by signing a petition by 19 September 2010. You can do so here.

Postscript - Please forward this request to others who will be willing to sign the petition using the email facility below.

Space to think...

Christ Abandoned

I have noticed that some Blogs are taking a break during the summer so perhaps I should take the hint and leave some space to ponder for a while, in particular on what has happened to Anglicanism and where we go from here.

When I came across the above image a few years ago it spoke volumes to me. The church was derelict leaving Jesus hanging abandoned on the cross.
 ("O my people, what have I done to you? What have I done to make you tired of me? Answer me!")
Old Anglicanism hangs by a thread; New Anglicanism wants it cut. Why? The road to the ordination of women was not easy for them. There were failures and disappointments which proponents put down to the work of the devil but after the voting procedures had been suitably engineered, success was proclaimed as the work of the Holy Spirit. That cannot be right. The constant misrepresentation of those with a conscientious objection to the ordination of women, together with the way New Anglicanism is moving, demonstrates that what has been ‘achieved’ cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit, in fact, it is the other way round.

While I have been heartened by the ‘traditionalist’ faithful women and men who have contributed to blogs on this subject, I have despaired of the mean, vindictive ‘Christian’ people, often women, who, now they have what they wanted, enjoy rubbing the noses of the faithful in the dirt as they attempt to cast us adrift. To their credit, there are still faithful Old Anglicans who are determined not be put down by these strident advocates of liberalism whose attitude is “If you don’t like it, leave!” But leave for what? For confirmed Anglicans there is nowhere to go. If, as seems implied, Rome were an option, worshippers would have made that decision on its merits, not on a single issue however fundamental that issue. It does not concern ‘liberal’ Christians that for many there simply isn’t anywhere to go, hence our desire for sacramental and pastoral oversight that accords with our consciences and with what we believe to be Christ’s example. That does not make women bishops second class, it maintains the gospel.

New Anglicans pick and mix to suit their cause while many of them regard Jesus simply as a man of his time from which we have to move on. If that were true, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church must be nonsense but for those who believe that Peter answered Jesus correctly when he said You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, there can be no leaving. Can New Anglicans seriously suggest that Christ did not know what He was doing, or is it that they simply do not care?

'Great' Minds Think Alike!

A report in Wales Online shows Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church, and the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, to be in complete agreement on how religion should be brought into the third millennium to make it more relevant to society today.

Unhappily for those trying to keep the faith, these church leaders are just big fish in small ponds, completely out of touch with the wider Christian church. Rather than adhere to scripture and tradition, the new make-it-up-as-you-go-along Anglican church twists events to suit their stance and misrepresents the facts giving rise to claims of discrimination and misogyny to crush those who disagree with them.

Thy do it their way without the humility to consider that they may be wrong, dragging their flocks down with them. The very least they could do is to allow those who disagree with them to worship according to their own beliefs, not how they, as church leaders, determine. Neither has the authority to do so other than that taken upon themselves by a flawed procedure.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

The Church Times today (23 July 2010) is carrying an article showing that “a poll by YouGov, which was not commissioned by any external organisation, found that 63 per cent of those questioned agreed that the Church of England should appoint women bishops, while ten per cent objected to the move. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) said they had no opinion either way, and three per cent did not know what they thought.”

In response to their own ‘survey’ the Church Times found that Synod did the right thing for traditionalists in the women bishops' votes. These figures will now be bandied around by the supporters of women’s ordination as justification for their stand, ignoring the fact that the historic faith shared by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world cannot be changed by committee simply to satisfy feminist whims.

Accepting that the YouGov survey was a representative sample, what did the sample really represent? It represents the views of people with scant, if any, knowledge of the real issues. The organisation Women and the Church (WATCH) have skillfully manipulated public opinion, including many church-goers, into believing that it is simply a matter of women’s rights. Having achieved their aim in principle, they sought to put the measure into practice while claiming that adequate provision will be made for those worshippers who, in common with most of Christendom, believe the innovation to be illegal, breaking our bond with the wider Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The proposed voluntary code of practice is another skillful device which, to those looking at the issue from the women's rights perspective, obscures the real issue that it cannot be acceptable to those who, in conscience, believe that what is being done is not the will of God but of man, or, in this case, of woman with the support of many men who have been hoodwinked into supporting the measure under false pretences.

In another YouGov poll, 67 per cent of people agreed that the burqa should be banned in Britain. Along with the Immigration Minister, many oppose such a ban on the grounds that we are a tolerant society and Muslims should be allowed freedom of expression. It has been admitted that for security reasons there are circumstances where the face would have to be uncovered leaving one to wonder if the only time it would be permitted in public would be on the public highway where it could conceal anyone or anything. As witnessed on Question Time last night, strong passions are aroused in such discussions, similar to those aroused over the possible restoration of the death penalty in 1998. In that debate, 99 per cent of those questioned said that the death penalty should be re-introduced according to “a staggering 99 per cent of the 95,000 [Sun] readers who responded to our You The Jury poll”. You can get almost any answer you want if you ask the ‘right’ question of the ‘right’ people.

So what of our so called ‘tolerant’ society when the very thing we pride ourselves on is used against us? Our cherished values are being undermined under the banner of political correctness but we deceive ourselves at our peril. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed in their attempt to provide a crumb of comfort for traditional orthodox Anglicans in their battle for survival. As one female activist shouted from the gallery on an earlier occasion, “We asked you for bread but you gave us a stone!” Short memories!

The intolerance of Islam towards Christians in Islamic countries is being echoed by intolerance of ‘Christians’ towards traditional Anglicans. So much so that Dr John Sentamu the Archbishop of York had to remind Synod members to behave like Christians. Tolerant Britain?