Uncivil partners

"People against marriage equality, now Charles complains about the Succession Bill.
Some people are never satisfied Nick."

In the topsy-turvy world of the Prime Minister, it is because he believes in the institution of marriage that he is determined to change the definition to allow same-sex couples to marry even though consummation for the procreation of children, the basis of marriage not only in the biblical sense but in any other, is not possible. At the present time 625,000 signatures have been obtained from people petitioning their support for the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The coalition partnership - it is not a marriage says Dave - is having none of it. No matter that there is no mandate or that many Tory MPs are rebelling against the proposal, the coalition will carry on regardless. Any consequences such as dropping 'mother' and 'father' in favour of 'parent' or, most importantly, the effect on children are thought irrelevant to the campaign. 

Following the publication of more proposals which have not  been properly thought through, this time Nick's baby, Prince Charles has pointed out that simply introducing a Bill to change the law on the line of succession so that male heirs will no longer take priority takes no account of wider issues. The people most affected, the Royal Family, were not consulted about the proposed changes. As a constitutional monarchy they too are expected to do as they are told. The role of the monarch as 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England' again is regarded as a side issue to be resolved if the need arises, ie, if the Church of England still exists and there is any faith left to defend.

What will these unlikely bedfellows get up to next to divert attention away from the economic mess we are in you may wonder? One radical move is hinted at here.

More here.

"The Christian faith is based on trust". What a joke!

"In the church you do have to accept a certain amount of trust. After all, if you can't accept that trust is pretty fundamental in the church, then where are we? The whole base of the Christian faith is based on trust."

- Lord Harries of Pentregarth, former Bishop of Oxford

Since the House of Bishops can no longer be trusted to care for all, the implication in Bishop Harries' remark is that they are no longer Christian. You can listen to his interview here. A strong advocate of blessing civil partnerships in church he was rather coy about discussing the current controversy of gay marriages in church saying, "there is a prior and more important step and that is actually warmly to welcome civil partnerships and offer a blessing for them. That is what I think the church could do and what it should do". 

Bishop Harries continues to push the liberal strategy of change by stealth while denying traditionalists what they were promised, an honoured place in the church. If the bishops want to restore trust in themselves they must show due contrition and make proper provision acceptable to orthodox Christians in their care.

Another promise goes down the pan

The Promise

Adults, Senior Section members and Guides work towards making, or reaffirm, the following Promise:

I promise that I will do my best:

To love my God,

To serve the Queen and my country,

To help other people

and

To keep the Guide Law.

A report in the Telegraph shows that a consultation is under way which could result in the Girl Guides organisation dropping God and Queen from its oath. Previously it was  reported that the organisation was considering dropping God. But is there any point in making a promise in Britain today? The Anglican Church doesn't feel honour bound to retain promises made to orthodox Anglicans so if they are redundant in the church they must be utterly pointless in the “the ultimate feminist organisation”, as the Chief Executive and former Head of the Family Planning Association described the Guides - Feminism is about equal rights, that is, letting girls join the Scouts while keeping the Guides exclusively for girls in the name of equality. 

According to the report, 'the review follows complaints from two families with no religious faith who wanted their children to become Guides but objected to the oath'. So it is back to minorities. Rather than look for an atheist organisation or form their own, they prefer to destroy what is good for their own satisfaction. The church has led the charge with everything from the ordination of women leading to the controversies over gay bishops. Everything is being turned upside down for those who do not conform, except for traditionalists in the church whose wishes are simply ignored. How long before the Affirmations of Faith are dropped from Holy Baptism for the benefit of those who have a problem with the basic tenets of Christianity?

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