Enough is enough

After watching Dr Inge's video I was left with the feeling that if people believe what the Bishop of Worcester says in his 'Enough Waiting' contribution they will believe anything. That is no disrespect to the bishop. I am sure he fervently believes what he says but it does not hold up to scrutiny. I have not seen any evidence to prove that the Church of England has been "enriched immeasurably through the ministry of women as priests" but I have been told by various parishioners that their new woman priest is 'a lovely person' and how friendly she is with people. Why shouldn't she be? Bar the odd exception, women in the church are but they have not been ordained to fulfill their ministries. This attitude may help to salve the consciences of those who have gone with the flow of women's ordination but it is totally meaningless in theological terms. The great hope of enrichment through the ministry of women as priests has been an abject failure for the church. Church attendance continues to fall at an alarming rate with the fate of the US Episcopal Church acting as a warning beacon of what we can expect in this country if the measure is approved.  But Dr Inge really takes the biscuit when he says: 

"The legislation presently before Synod strikes what seems to me is the best balance we are ever likely to get between rejoicing in the ministry of women as bishops but at the same time honouring those who don’t feel that this present move is warranted either by scripture or tradition. It enables us to move together, respecting one another; it enables us to remain a broad church."

That the balance is completely outweighed does not appear to have any significance for Dr Inge yet he speaks of honouring opponents when in truth the promises made to secure the ministry of woman as priests have been dishonoured removing any notion of a broad church.

The Bishop of Worcester is just one of a number of people who have been encouraged to add their support to Archbishop Rowan's 'Enough Waiting' campaign. In a postscript to a previous entry I noted that the Bishop of Chelmsford, like the Archbishop of Wales before him, had wrongly applied Galatians 3:28 to justify the ordination of women. There appears to be no limit to what supporters will say in an effort to get the measure through. Mark Russell, Chief Executive of the Church Army, had this to say: What happens if we say no? If we say no, we condemn this to the long grass, and years more discussion and years more synodical debate and more reports and more meetings – to get exactly to where we are right now. So I think this is the right time to make a decision, and to say yes.

Can they not see the imbalance when traditionalists are expected to accept their lot, as the Bishop of Worcester puts it, moving together, respecting one another, enabling us to remain a broad church, but if the vote goes the wrong way as they see it, we can expect years more discussion and years more synodical debate and more reports and more meetings. It doesn't have to be like that. The decision of Synod could be accepted in good grace as the will of the Holy Spirit. But be assured, if the vote does not go their way, it will not be accepted because their cause is not spiritual but secular, an attitude typified by an anonymous comment in this Telegraph report which referred to the "poor, poor beleaguered minority” ... “They have been pushing this but they are like a spoilt child: the more you give them, the more they want” when, in reality, what is on offer has become less and less, reduced to another meaningless promise.

Another bishop joining the 'Enough Waiting' campaign is the odd-ball Bishop of Willesden, The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, who believes that his support is affirming women on equal terms with men. I don't know what world these people live in but I don't know of any women who do not already think that they are on equal terms with men. The only difference is that again, they don't see the need to be ordained to prove it. But worse, Bishop Broadbent also believes that there is a logic to what we’re going to do anyway, because when we ordained women as priests, it was only right that we should then say that they should be bishops as well. No, the logic is that they should not have been ordained to serve as priests if they were unable to accept that they may not be allowed to become bishops. He goes on to say that it is important to get a two thirds majority this time around not to "look completely stupid in the eyes of society"!

Let us hope that those eligible to vote allow themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit, putting aside what society may think, not feeling pressured to vote in the affirmative because there has been enough waiting to get to this point. We are the Church, all of us; society may think what it will. The stark fact is that the measure as presented has lost all credibility. It is being steam-rollered under the banner of women's liberation in defiance of the wishes of the wider catholic church, hindering the cause of unity which should be our first priority. Women in the church have been liberated but a vociferous minority interested in their self advancement are seeking to control the direction of the church by unscrupulous methods as illustrated by this outrageously dishonest campaign. 

What these campaigners are saying is never mind that what we are doing is contrary to scripture and tradition, there has been enough waiting. We allowed women to be priests so we must allow them to be bishops; the measure must be approved now, otherwise we will look silly. This is not a waiting game, it is a fundamental change in our understanding of ministry. The church already looks silly as a result of adopting its liberal policies which have led to illiberal practices and disunity. Never mind Enough Waiting, enough is enough. This is no longer a question of whether there should be women bishops but a question of honour. The church is failing in its duty to care for all. Abstaining is not an option. The only honest vote is NO.

Charity Bags

 

Photo: BBC

 

 

Almost daily we have a 'charity' bag or leaflet pushed through the letter box. Most boast of their giving to a registered charity which benefits by around £50 per tonne of clothes collected. What is not said is that a tonne of clothing is sold for £1,000. There is also a thriving 'business' in lifting bags left out for others as illustrated above.

If you have clothes or other items for disposal, please take them to a charity shop. Some will collect if too much to carry. Below are some interesting facts from http://www.charitybags.org.uk/
 Next time you receive a plastic bag to fill, check the small print first or go to the above web site.

 

  - 0 -

 

 How to stop a bogus house-to-house collection... 

. . . You need to act quickly - see the hands-on guide below

Charity shops raise 50 times more than house-to-house collections . . .

Taking your unwanted clothes etc to a charity shop raises around  50 times more  money for charity compared with giving your clothes to a typical house-to-house 'charity' collector !

• House-to-house collectors:  Most of these are commercial companies - who give the partner charity only £50 or so for each tonne of clothes collected.
  That's only  5 pence  per kilogram (35 ounces) - that's the weight of a jacket or winter dress.
  [There's a thousand kilograms in a tonne.]
  Usually the company exports your clothes (especially to Eastern Europe - eg Lithuania) and they're sold for private profit.  The company sells the clothes for over £1,000 per tonne.
• Charity shops:  By contrast, if you take the same item of clothing to a charity shop they'll sell it for around £10, of which over  £2.50  is profit (=net proceeds) for the charity.  Also, you can increase this by 25% by using "Gift Aid"  

Do you want your item of clothing to raise only  5 pence  for charity - or over  £2.50  . . . ?
Worse still, around 50% of house-to-house collections are misleading/bogus/illegal.
... And fewer than 1 in 10,000 (=0.01%) illegal collections is prosecuted.
... And over 10% of filled bags are stolen before the house-to-house collector arrives.
With CDs and DVDs, around 200 times more money is raised for charity by charity shops compared with typical house-to-house collections (10 cased CDs weigh 1 kilogram) :
A house-to-house collector gives only  a half-penny (0.5p)  per CD to the charity !
A charity shop makes almost  £1  profit (=net proceeds) per donated CD or DVD
With jewellery, over 1,000 times more money is raised for charity by charity shops compared with typical (royalty-per-tonne) house-to-house collections.
There are over 9,000 charity shops in the UK - including :

• Age UK, Barnardo's, British Red Cross, Cancer Research UK, Children's Society, Extra Care, FARA, Marie Curie, Oxfam, RSPCA, Salvation Army, Scope, Shelter, Sue Ryder, YMCA; local cancer hospices.

However, if you're unable to take your donated goods to a charity shop, some shops are happy to collect them from your house - eg British Heart Foundation (BHF)  
For more information on how charity shops raise 50 times more than collections, see the following :
the Charity shops versus house-to-house collections page
the Statistics page

Catholic revival?

Well perhaps not but welcome news indeed.

Breaking News from Forward in Faith.

Next Bishop of Fulham announced Oct 30, 2012

It has been announced this morning from 10 Downing Street that the Chairman of Forward in Faith, Bishop Jonathan Baker, is to be the next suffragan Bishop of Fulham in the Diocese of London. He will be translated from the suffragan See of Ebbsfleet, which he has held since his episcopal ordination in June 2011.

Bishop Jonathan said, ‘I am delighted to be taking up this new post, though of course very sorry to be leaving the priests and people of the Ebbsfleet parishes after such a relatively short time as their bishop. I am looking forward enormously to leading the Fulham parishes and to playing my part in the mission of the church in London across the Diocese.

I am assured that the process of appointing a new Bishop of Ebbsfleet is already underway, and so in due course I am confident that my move will lead to a strengthening of the team of catholic bishops in the Church of England at this critical time.

After having spent the whole of my ministry thus far in the Diocese of Oxford, it will be very good to be living and working in the heart of London for, having grown up in the capital, it will represent something of a homecoming for me.

I will, of course, continue to serve as Chairman of Forward in Faith.’

FiF Secretary Fr Ross Northing, who also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Ebbsfleet Council of Priests, added:  ‘Whilst we are naturally sad to be losing Bishop Jonathan from the Ebbsfleet area so soon, we nevertheless rejoice that he has been given this wonderful opportunity to minister to our brothers and sisters in the Fulham area.  He will leave Oxford with our prayers and very best wishes.’

Misogyny

Thanks to Alan's Angle for his report here on Tackling Sharia Misogyny. The graphic descriptions of the way women are treated under Sharia law in this country serve to highlight the absurdity of the charge of misogyny thrown at those of us who oppose the ordination of women on theological grounds.
  
A clue to this phenomenon may be found in the recent blog by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes who previously compared the Church of England to an abusive husband. She claims that at the heart of Christian Feminism is liberation theology. Liberation theology is defined as a political movement in Christian theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. I do not see the link between the suffering of the poor and the demand for the ordination of women but we can be sure of one thing. There is no need to 'interpret' the teachings of Jesus Christ with regard to the ministry of women in the church. Like it or not, he left us His example.

Fight the Good Fight

There are those who have given up the fight, there are many who are weary of the fight, but there are others who will continue to fight the good fight to save the Church they love.

It is now clear that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in the Church of England have been betrayed. In good faith they believed the promise of an honoured place in their church if the measure to allow women to be ordained went through. Since then every glimmer of hope of living together from the prospect of a 'Third Province' to a statutory 'Code of Practice' has been dashed. It has been made abundantly clear that we are not wanted in the new Anglican church. All that remains is a vague promise; this time the promise of a voluntary Code of Practice which ultimately will be unworkable because anyone not in favour of the ordination of women will be gradually weeded out. This final compromise is summed up in an offer of 'Respect' but what value can be placed on respect after years of false accusations of bigotry, misogyny and everything else the women's movement has chosen to hurl at us in pursuit of their cause while their opponents turned the other cheek. The brazen campaign by WATCH and their like to exclude opponents from the church as though they are cleansing the Temple has been over-egged to such an extent that many of their supporters have become uncomfortable at the lack of love and respect shown to their neighbours, many of whom have worshipped in Anglican churches long before the Church of England was infiltrated by these feminists in pursuit of their secular cause. 

The hoped for live and let live stance has become so one-sided that if women are ordained bishops there will no longer be a place in the church for dissenters. Their objective is based on lies. This cannot be right in any circumstances let alone a religious environment. The last ditch face-saving campaign to encourage opponents to abstain rather than vote against the measure is offensive to those whose sole objective has been to act in a way they believe to be the mind of Christ. Since WATCH and their fellow travellers are the authors of their own misfortune it is now time for their supporters to turn the other cheek. If the women's movement had shown any sign of respect or understanding for their fellow worshippers whom they seek to crush through the legislative process they would have been guaranteed success. Now it is too late, their thirst for power has served no-one but themselves. They deserve defeat.

 

Rowan buckles under feminist pressure

Photograph: Paul Hackett/Reuters

No price is too high it seems to satisfy Rowan's longing to see women bishops in the Church of England. His 'unfinished business' of making satisfactory provision for all has been gradually whittled down in the House of Bishops to one word, respect. ‘With all due respect’ to Archbishop Rowan I think he deludes himself. The word 'respect' may have legal content in the Archbishop's book but Oxford Dictionaries has "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements".
  
There is no evidence whatsoever that women lobbyists in WATCH, GRAS or DARC have respect for the views, let alone the abilities, qualities or achievements, of anyone but themselves in the advancement of their feminist cause. If there were, how is it that opponents are left with nothing but a vague notion based on a word that will be ignored in the same way that the pleas of opponents have been ignored thus far? To date every suggestion of a concession has been met with howls of anger and resentment claiming that the proposals are insulting to women and would make them second-class bishops. Rowan's grovelling apology [position 6.25] illustrates how successful their tactics have been while more traditional views of women in the church have been overlooked.

Archbishop Rowan said at the July 2012 General Synod in York: “I also long for there to be the kind of provision for those who continue to have theological reservations on this subject, for their position to be secured in such a way that they can feel grateful for the outcome. That is the essence of what I believe Synod at large still thinks despite the unfinished business of sorting out what that means in practice.” His statement gave some hope that reason might prevail but that hope proved to be unfounded in the face of the petition organised by WATCH for the withdrawal of Clause 5(1)(c) on the grounds that it would “entrench permanent division in the Church” and “feed a deeply damaging ambivalence towards women as made in the image of God.” Many more women in the church are also 'made in the image of God' and they profoundly disagree with the claims of WATCH but their views have been ignored in a campaign which has been based on false accusations of discrimination and misogyny showing a complete lack of respect for opponents.

The campaign launched by Archbishop Rowan to persuade General Synod members to back the new women-bishops legislation next month makes sorry reading. It would be presumptuous of me to argue against Rowan on theological grounds but however skillfully he weaves his justification for the ordination of women on the basis of their 'baptismal relationship with Jesus Christ', what he presents as an anomaly is anomalous only because the Church of England has departed unilaterally from the faith and tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. With all due respect, the majority of Christians, East and West do not believe that women should have been ordained into the priesthood. If Synod had first considered whether or not women should be ordained as bishops in the Church of England there could be no anomaly.

It cannot be right to vote in favour of the proposal simply to avoid public embarrassment or internal conflict. That would be the worst possible reason for supporting the legislation. What the church needs to do is to take a step back and think about what Synod is being asked to do in the name of every member of the Church of England. It is no coincidence that Synod is being asked to correct an 'anomaly' now that the 'equality' argument has been turned on its head since the true effects of the feminisation of the church are becoming apparent. If this legislation is allowed to go through there will be a seismic shift in the church resulting in her domination by women clergy. The ordination of women has not halted the decline in church attendance and voting in favour of women bishops will result in the inequality proponents of women's ordination complained about. That is the true anomaly.

Postscript

Two appeals supporting Archbishop Rowan's plea have appeared on The Archbishop of Canterbury website. The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, urges those who cannot support the legislation for conscientious reasons to abstain because we are all ‘one person in Jesus Christ’ while Rebecca Swinson provides a gender reversal justification based on Give me a child until he is seven and I'll give you the man having spent her formative years under predominately female influences.

Like the Archbishop of Wales before him the Bishop of Chelmsford picks out what he regards as a scriptural justification for choosing a pattern of ministry contrary to Christ's example. He quotes Galatians 3:28* as one of the ‘climatic’ passages in the Bible – ‘the one through which we then interpret many others’. Although the church interpreted the reference to Jew and Gentile within 20 years, we have had to wait 2,000 years for the Bishop of Chelmsford to decode the reference to male and female. If he had read John 14:6 instead - “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" - he would have had the key passage without the need to re-interpret what has been understood by most Christians for two millennia. Bishop Cottrell says: “…I hope that we in the Church of England will say yes to women bishops at our General Synod in November. I even dare to hope that those who disagree may choose to abstain. That those who aren’t sure will see that if we don’t pass this it would look terrible in the eyes of the world, would hold back our mission, and would also plunge us into years more debate on this issue. But, most of all, I’m going to be voting yes because I believe this is of the Gospel. It is the Holy Spirit leading us into the truth of that text whereby in Christ we are one humanity.” - Ah yes, the Holy Spirit, but only if it is a yes vote of course; otherwise, try again later!

Bishop Cottrell also says: "I know that there are some people who conscientiously disagree with this, and I respect them and I want them to be part of the Church along with everyone else. But I believe the Measure, as we have it, gives people that provision." - That word respect again. He 'respects' them but not with "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements", just, I'll decide what provision is adequate so accept it. Does he understand what he is asking? Vote for the legislation to avoid losing face and if you can't agree, then abstain with all the consequences of inadequate provision. This is not about saving face. There is no question of abstaining; those who do not agree with the legislation must vote against it or risk losing everything they believe in.

Adding her message in the Archbishop’s campaign, Rebecca Swinson - the youngest-ever member of Archbishops’ Council – outlines why she wants to see the legislation for women bishops passed at this November’s Synod. Basically Rebecca thinks we have waited long enough and the danger is that too much time will be spent in the coming years discussing the issue when there are much more important things to debate such as the healthcare system and benefits. - Not if the decision is accepted as the work of the Holy Spirit. If the church had not embarked on this divisive scheme which has resulted in churches emptying in the UK and is seeing the ruin of TEC in the United States there would have been ample time to talk about things that 'really matter to people'. Rebecca claims that it is really important for the mission of the Church of England that we are able to show that women are an accepted and valued part of our ministry. Women already are an accepted and valued part of ministry. Ask the women who are indispensable in the work of Church. They don't feel the need to be ordained to prove it.

* Read a full explanation here. 

Relentless self-publicist fuelled by personal ambition

"Relentless self-publicist fuelled by personal ambition" was the description of Gerald of Wales used by the Archbishop of Wales in a 'withering critique' of one of the nation’s most renowned historical figures in a lecture at the National Eisteddfod of Wales in August, 2012. Dr Morgan claimed that the 12th century cleric was an “ambitious spin doctor”.  He said: “One can never get away from the impression that everything Gerald did, and said, was ultimately for the greater glory of Gerald. Gerald was never short of an opinion on anything. Gerald died embittered and estranged from the people of Wales whom he regarded as ‘simple, uneducated and uncultured’. He blamed everyone else for his tribulations, claiming to be misunderstood and maligned. He totally failed to realise that, for the most part, he was the author of his own misfortunes.”

To the surprise of many, a Church in Wales press release on Friday 12 October not only resurrected the idea of churches and chapels joining together but quoted the Archbishop as starting another passionate campaign saying: “This is the largest ecumenical gathering in Wales for many years. Our lack of unity does not help our message of reconciliation. I hope that we can find a way forward together as Churches in Wales.” 

Still reciting a credal belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church while taking unilateral action to distance the Church in Wales from the rest of the Apostolic Church, the Archbishop is now leaning strongly in favour of nonconformity in a bid to inflate the number of worshipers under his control if he becomes the first in a new line of Presiding Bishops of the planned United Church of Wales. If he fails he had better not blame everyone else for his tribulations, claiming to be misunderstood and maligned.