The Three Wise Persons

After a brief interlude, back to the story of the Three Wise Persons travelling from the East to the land of His Darkness to find a re-birthsolution to the mess created in the Church in Wales now that religion has given way to gender politics and relitivism. First, apologies to the last member of the panel appointed, Professor Patricia Peattie, former Chair of the Episcopal Church in Scotland’s Standing Committee. Try as I may I can't find a picture of her - unlike the Chairman, the Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford of whom, unsurprisingly, there are numerous pictures. What the other panel member, Professor Charles Handy, former professor at the London Business School, will make of the overblown management of the now tiny Church in Wales is anyone's guess but as they set out on their journey, "Bazzer" is sure to have let it be known that he doesn't like to hear anything unkind said about him, ie, views opposed to his own. Given "Bazzer's" feminist outlook and need for parity it is strange that female representation is in a minority unless that is something he wishes to emphasise.

Had I not been delayed in putting together this post by Archbishop Rowan Williams' briefing on 'humanising of the ordained ministry' I would have missed an interesting point. Yesterday the Blog Let Nothing You Dismay carried an item about the conversion to Roman Catholicism three years ago (in 2008) of an Anglican priest, Una Kroll. Other ancients who have suffered the whole painful crusade of the Movement for the Ordination of Women (MOW) may remember her cry ‘we asked you for bread and you gave us a stone’. Looking through the Church in Wales web site there is a link where people can find out more about the Anglican Communion Covenant. Among the contributions is this intriguing entry:

"Una Kroll - 07/04/2011

I am a priest in the Church of Wales. Ordained in 1997. I do not want to see the Covenant come into force as it is not Anglican to punish peopple for holding to their conscience. The Instruments of Communion already in existence offer us all a chance of freely accepting Communion with those who dissent from our own preferential opinions and is a profound expression of Anglicanism. Una Krol."

Unless the Catholic Herald story referred to on LNYD is a complete hoax how can this be explained? Only last year an article appeared in the Guardian in which Kroll referred to "the Act of Synod [which] introduced structural discrimination against women", the same distortedcry we hear from her feminist friends in WATCH and GRAS.

In open meetings in each diocese the Panel will be asking five questions, the first of which is, "What aspect of your diocese and the Church in Wales, do you feel most positive about?" For many in Wales, particularly those not finding favour with their Archbishop the answer has to be 'nothing'. I would be interested to know if Una Kroll turns up to offer them anything from her wide experience but if they are really wise, the Panel will make an excuse and leave by another route.

Read More

The right to wear the cross

A belated post after my memory was jogged on seeing this article repeated in the Catholic Herald. See previous posts here and here.

"In a Telegraph report of 28 April, David Barrett relates that Michael Nazir Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, has written to the European Court of Human Rights in support of Christians who are claiming that they have suffered discrimination at work because they have been banned from wearing a cross. In his submission, Bishop Nazir Ali writes: ?We have reached a stage where Christians in the United Kingdom risk their employment if they wear a cross. However, the United Kingdom courts have permitted the wearing of a Sikh bangle, the Islamic headscarf and even a corncrow haircut.?

The Government plans to argue at the same Court that employers have the right to ban the wearing of the cross because it is not a requirement of the Christian faith. Archbishop Rowan Williams, in what seems an embarrassing own goal, appeared to support (or at least not protest against) the Government?S position, by stating at a church service in Rome in March that the wearing of a cross had become something ?Which religious people make or hang on to? As a substitute for true faith. I disagree with him. ?Religious people?, those who publicly profess their Christian faith, wear a cross as a sign of this faith (and who is he to judge their motives anyway?) It is non-religious people ? Often celebrities ? Who affect a cross simply as decoration or jewellery, but the Archbishop didn?T say this.

He should have said what was left to retired Anglican Bishop Nazir Ali to say: Christian employees should have the right to express their faith by wearing a cross. The Bishop went on to state, ?Any policy that regards the cross as just an item of jewellery is deeply disturbing? It is disrespectful and insulting to practising Christians?The cross is ubiquitous in Christian devotion from the earliest times? The cross is the most easily recognisable Christian symbol in architecture, church furnishing and the dress of the clergy.? He added: ?I am aware that many Christians wear the cross and would be distressed to be required to remove it.?

Bishop Nazir Ali echoes what Cardinal Keith O?Brien said in his Easter Sunday homily when he urged Christians to ?Wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ on their garments each and every day of their lives?, adding, ?I know many of you do wear such a cross of Christ, not in any ostentatious way, not in a way that might harm you at your work or recreation, but a simple indication that you value the role of Jesus Christ in the history of the world, that you are trying to love by Christ?S standards in your own daily life.?

I was once given a pair of black earrings in the shape of crosses. I have never worn them. They couldn?T be seen as anything but items of jewellery; very different from the little silver Celtic cross, given to me by my mother, which I have worn round my neck for years. Perhaps it is time for parish priests to follow the example of Bishop Nazir Ali and Cardinal O?Brien, and preach about the importance of wearing a cross as a symbol of faith ? And not as a style accessory.

The Church doesn?T make a ?Rule? About wearing a cross, rightly giving people the liberty to choose. But reverence for the cross and what it symbolises concerning the price of our redemption is ?A requirement of the Christian faith?. If Christian employees choose to wear one, the Government should recognise this as an expression of deeply held beliefs ? Beliefs that have shaped the history, laws and culture of this country."

Read More