Blind guides

Members of two Houses, Bishops and Commons, have been singing to the same tune over what they see as the wrong vote in an agreed democratic process of Synod. The lyrics hark to a narrow world of their own making but these are the very people who should have a sense of proportion, impartiality and care for all. None of these has been in evidence. Just a one sided chant based on misguided concepts of making mother church 'intelligible to our wider society'. Rowan Williams was correct when he said 'it seems as if we are wilfully blind' but mistakenly he was referring to the 'trends and priorities of society', not to the House of Bishops or to Parliament. 

It is disgraceful that there should have been such wilful misrepresentation of the orthodox position but it is time to move on. There has to be a solution that first of all is consonant with the faith of the Apostolic church however quaint that appears to modern society. Secondly we recognize that the Church of England has taken a different view from the Universal Church and that the majority of Anglicans in England are content to see women at the Altar and, therefore, for them to be bishops. If Women and the Church (WATCH) had not erected so many barriers to agreement they would have already achieved that objective but we must start afresh. 

WATCH must give ground. Talk of removing 'concessions' is ludicrous. Also, talk of a 'divided church' and a 'Church within a Church' must be forgotten. That is where we are. The Anglican Church is divided throughout the Communion and, more importantly we are divided from the rest of the Catholic church. The creation of a Third Province covering both England and Wales would enable us all to live together in a spirit of unity and Godly love, to prosper or to fail according to conscience, giving greater hope for the survival of the Anglican Church in England and Wales in one form or another if not both without any grounds for regarding some bishops as 'second-class' bishops, something that Parliament says it will not tolerate. This solution would give the Holy Spirit a chance to work God's grace without wilful impediment. If a solution on these lines is not acceptable it will confirm that both Houses representing the Establishment are hellbent on turning the Church of England into a form of secularism.

Postscript
A compromise suggested here.

 

I really am appalled

Older readers will recall how, in pre-PC days, comedy was used to defuse a stressful situation. This clip about another ministry humourously conveys a feeling of utter disbelief. My reaction to the ungracious reaction of the losers of the vote was the same. The performance of the press, Parliament and, most distressingly, of our own church to the lost vote in Synod was appalling. The vote was secured by the agreed democratic process with a margin three times greater than that which secured the ordination of women as priests - clearly a colossal mistake in hindsight. The winners of the vote are representative not only of the majority of Anglicans in the world, but of the view of the Apostolic Church to which we claim allegiance. That we have been treated with such contempt truly is appalling. The reaction of the press was to be expected since they are more interested in a good headline than the facts but Parliament! MPs are used to being whipped to vote without having listened to the debate but had they done so on this occasion they would have heard much stronger reasons for voting against the measure than for it.

I don't know whether the MPs who condemned the vote ever enter a church but whether they do or not, I would have expected a greater understanding of what is involved, not a misplaced view of equality of opportunity in the workplace as if they were considering female representation on the board of Tesco. Having demonstrated an extraordinary ability to fiddle expenses in many cases, one would have thought they would at least have been able to acquire a rudimentary understanding of the church's democratic process before condemning it whether they agree with it or not. Had they been dealing with Muslims instead of Christians there would have been outrage at their criticism. Their hypocrisy is on a level matched only within our own church. 

The baying crowd reminded me of a biblical scene: 'And he said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they kept shouting all the more, saying, "Crucify Him!" ' Matthew 27:23. Few are interested in the facts. The expressions of outrage were continued in BBC 1's Question Time. As in Parliament, there was a perceived 'inequality' but no-one admitted to being Anglican. We have come to expect people to have an opinion on everything in the media age whether or not they have any understanding of the underlying issue but the church should know better. The clergy have shouted the loudest and have been matched by the crowd. Most appalling for me was to hear our Archbishop tell Synod: "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." [My emphasis]. 

Promises of 'respect' quickly evaporated. Is that what the Church of England has come to? In the Church in Wales Dr Morgan has also taken up the cry, mimicking the Archbishop of Canterbury who, when asked what he would say to women in the Church following the result, said: “I can well understand that feeling of rejection and unhappiness and deep disillusion with the institution of the Church. "But I would also say: it is still your Church. Not mine, not Synod’s, but yours. Your voice matters and will be heard. It’s important not to give up.” This is the crux of the problem in England and in Wales. The Anglican church is being transformed into a reformed, women's church.

There is some explaining to do. First and foremost to orthodox Anglicans who have been pilloried by their own church for defending the faith of the Apostolic church.

They have only themselves to blame

Just one small wafer Ms Creosote?

As every Sunday school pupil knows, greed is one of the seven deadly sins. When Rowan Williams was humiliated by Women and the Church (WATCH) in July I sensed that the tide was about to turn. Every concession had been a step too far for WATCH. From 'a divided church' to 'demeaning women' then 'second class bishops', any excuse has been used to squeeze the opposition further. Listening to yesterday's debate it was clear that those in favour of women bishops wanted more than just that. Those opposed to the measure had no place in the church despite so-called assurances and solemn promises. Had they not been so greedy WATCH could already have achieved their goal and Archbishop Rowan could have retired a happy man. As one speaker put it, he would have voted in favour at every previous compromise but what was now on offer was not good enough. That summed up the mood. Enough was enough, so they lost. 

Contrary to the hysterical headlines in the press, it was NOT a vote against women bishops. It was a vote against a lack of charity towards a substantial minority whose faith means more to them than their bishops and clergy realise. Going back to 1992, there were jubilant scenes among supporters of the ordination of women priests. That was passed by just two votes. Yesterday's vote dwarfed that margin by 200% a substantial majority! One could well argue that if the Holy Spirit was in favour of women priests, a popular cry, then the Holy Spirit must be categorically opposed to women bishops. But as we know, there is no logic in the ordination of women campaign, just prejudice. There is an honest assessment of the vote by a female trainee chaplain here. Without retracing ground covered this comment was very interesting: 'One argument kept ringing true: the claim that the pro-women campaigners were too quick to try and make the church like the world. Uncomfortably, I had to agree. Too many of those in favour of women bishops just sounded too… well… worldly'.

Writing in the Telegraph, Tim Stanley made a similar point: 'In the 21st century, what is the purpose of the village church? For much of the establishment of the Church of England, the answer seems to be “relevance” – they must earn their status in society by reflecting society's diversity of background and opinion. The great irony is that they want to make relevant something that is actually devalued by the attempt to make it relevant. God doesn’t do “relevance.” He just is – and, for most religious consumers, that’s what makes him so appealing'. Precisely!

In what I thought was a disappointing contribution to the debate after all the previous hype, the Bishop of Durham, Justin Welby, said: “It is time to finish the job and vote for this measure...the Church of England needs to show how to develop the mission of the church in a way that demonstrates that we can manage diversity of view without division; diversity in amity, not diversity in enmity”. Nothing was offered beyond the same old devalued promises. So far as the mission of the church is concerned Bishop Welby should reflect on the figures here. The mission of the church has accelerated rapidly downhill since 1992 following the introduction of women priests, so what is his point?

How the world sees the vote is illustrated by this coverage by Channel 4 News. It shows such appalling ignorance that one would have thought bishops and clergy would be keen to correct the misrepresentation but unfortunately they are part of the same problem, secularism. The Ch4 reporter Kattie Razzall remarked that "the secular world will not understand the decision that looks so out of step with modern society". She went on to describe the debate as 'a straight forward case of discrimination'. Interviewed by Jon Snow who showed an abysmal level of ignorance and understanding, Tony Baldry MP was at a loss to know how he would explain the vote to Parliament. Obviously the wrong man for the job then. This is the response to the vote from Parliament, again showing a lamentable understanding of anything sacred.

Looking at today's reaction to the vote, the House of Bishops has learned nothing. Statements such as "it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of wider society" imply a form of secular Christianity in which scripture is useful only for mis-quoting selected verses while tradition and reason are forgotten. Our bishops and clergy are no longer fully representative of the church which is the problem where proper provision is concerned. Advancement is denied to those not singing from the same sheet. Ordinands are deterred by blatant discrimination. It should have come as no surprise therefore that the fair minded would see this for what it is, a gradual elimination of clergy opposed to the ordination of women. So much for their majority which is achieved by manipulation.

To illustrate how these secular Christians are obsessed with their own agenda, the Church in Wales has been brought into the controversy by the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He has called for the Church in Wales to take the lead. He said: 'I think it would be very interesting and salutary if the Church in Wales over the next year or two had women bishops and the Church of England didn't' but what happened in England yesterday was a re-run of what happened in Wales in 2008 when their Governing Body rejected women bishops because proper provision for a significant minority was refused by their Archbishop. Dr Morgan maintains that position while advancing another cunning scheme he hopes will be approved in September 2013.

This goes to the heart of the problem. There is no negotiation; only a statement that 'this is as good as it gets'. There is more sympathy and support from Africa than we have from our own Archbishops. If they genuinely want to make progress this must change. There must be genuine negotiations to ensure that all may flourish in the church.

Time for reflection

Lying and cheating for Christ!

In yesterday's entry I referred to the open letter to The Independent signed by over a thousand clergy from the Church of England supposedly giving the biblical case for women bishops when there is none. The letter has attracted some well deserved criticism here, here and here to quote a few examples. The lead signature was that of the Rev'd Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes which may account for the tone but the fact that existing bishops could add their names to such a statement of beliefs is a disgrace since the list should provide an aide memoire of those not suitable for consideration as a bishop of the church. 

Sorry Rowan but you are wrong this time

I have long been an admirer of Rowan Williams and never thought I would have to write this but I have to admit to being gravely disappointed by his Enough Waiting campaign which is designed to achieve a 'Yes' vote for women bishops regardless of the ramifications. It smacks of getting the issue out of the way to progress other things. I could understand that if it meant advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ having made satisfactory provision for those who remain loyal to the tradition of the Apostolic Church but sadly it is not. Anyone who doubts this who hasn't already seen it should watch this heart-wrenching video to experience the devastating effect in South Carolina where the ruling liberal elite in The Episcopal Church (TEC) is destroying traditional Anglicanism. 

Up until now Rowan has always been even-handed while being clear in his support for the ordination of women, even when he was slapped in the face by them. No doubt in his heart he has reconciled himself to the notion of 'respect' believing that everything will be resolved after the vote but other people do not think like him. The truth is summed up in this report. Anyone and everyone is invited to join the bandwagon by contacting 'their' synod representative to press for a Yes vote. The Dean of Salisbury told The Independent on Sunday, "There's no sense at all – not theological, not rational – in making women priests if you are not going to make them bishops." Quite so. It was neither theological nor rational to make women priests because that is their only 'justification' for being made bishops. 

Today The Independent publishes an open letter signed by over one thousand clergy: 'The Biblical case for women bishops'. But there is none. The reasons given for their belief have nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment of bishops yet these people stand at the Altar In Persona Christi, the One who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.

Is there no shame in the Yes campaign?

WATCH OUT!

You have to hand it to them, the campaign by Women and the Church (WATCH) has been well executed but it is entirely self-centred. It is misplaced in a Christian setting because it looks inward with the aim of satisfying their own desires regardless of the effect on others in the church. Their subtle campaign plays on the respect due to Christian women but it is deceitful. It uses secular criteria to pursue false claims of inequality gathering support from members of the general public who have no religious affiliations whatsoever.

WATCH is a feminist pressure group which presumes to dictate the direction of the church over the heads of the House of Bishops. Most of the bishops are incapable of coping with this pressure as demonstrated by their constant capitulation, latterly taking refuge in the notion that 'respect' is the way forward when none has been in evidence so far. Their retreat in the face of opposition by WATCH has been relentless. The pledge by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to attend to ‘unfinished business’ has been neutered leaving not so much as a glimmer of hope for opponents of the ordination of women. Surprisingly for a bishop admired for his conciliation abilities I was disappointed to read a report in The Telegraph that the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is treading the same path:
“Bishop Welby’s vocal endorsement of the measure last week, moments after being announced as the next Archbishop, is being seen as a potential “game-changer”.
He is understood to be spending much of this weekend drafting his speech, striking a balance between saying that it is time for the Church to move on and offering assurances to those with theological objections to women bishops that there will be proper “provision” for them.”

Mere assurances are worthless. What is described in the Synod agenda notice as ‘some provision’ will be based on what is acceptable to the provider. To assure proper provision would be to agree enforceable terms in advance of the vote but such a solution is unacceptable to WATCH. They demand a solution only on their terms to avoid having what they would regard as second class women bishops. It matters not one jot to them that a substantial minority of Anglicans will be made second class members of their church under current proposals despite being assured of an honoured place. Anyone who has settled a bill with an assurance that problems will be rectified afterwards will know that such promises quickly evaporate after payment. 
  

It is obvious that Christ's commandment to love your neighbour does not figure large in the WATCH camp. They claim to be inclusive but have done everything in their power to marginalise those who find themselves in a minority for staying loyal to the tradition of the Apostolic church. If they succeed in persuading Synod to pass the measure then WATCH OUT!