Another screw in the Anglican coffin

The slow death of the Anglican church looks set to continue. While the role of bishops and priests becomes ever further divorced from traditional religious reality congregations continue to haemorrhage.

Despite earlier pleas for restraint from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, after the Bishop Gene Robinson affair, Canon Mary Glasspool was elected a bishop in Los Angeles while being in an openly long standing lesbian relationship. 'Restraint' is now turning to farce as synodical Christians seek additional ways of bending Christianity to their will rather than the will of the church Universal.

Politically correct these decisions may be, but what is more important, the kingdom of God or personal desire? Christians should not discriminate against lesbian and gay people but that view is becoming one-sided. What consenting adults do in private is their own affair  but those Anglicans who try to remain faithful to the tradition of the Universal church rather than synodical debate are increasingly marginalised.

Christina Rees, introduced by the BBC as "a senior member of the Synod", describes the latest move as "a very controversial issue still in the Church of England". Formerly the leading light in WATCH, Ms Rees was probably the right person to consult about controversy since she and her chums have done their level best to silence those who do not share their parochial view of the Universal church. They have sought to exclude anyone who is not a sympathiser of trendy, worldly desires. It will be interesting to see if they can find it in their hearts to accommodate all in the church, even those who don't share their view of the kingdom of heaven, by voting for appropriate episcopal oversight for traditionalists when/if the opportunity arises.

Read More

The women who oppose female bishops

It is rare to read of opposition to women bishops when the trendy think they have a monopoly on truth. Never mind that they do not understand the argument, substituting secular values to fill the theological vacuum they so readily display.

How refreshing then to read of the stand taken by Emma Forward in a Guardian article yesterday. Emma nails the lie that Women and the Church (WATCH) accurately represent the Anglican tradition. WATCH may represent some women in the church, principally themselves, with their distorted view of Christianity that puts self above everything but they do not represent the many thousands of women who put faith above personal ambition. Predictably Christina Rees takes up her 'mightier than the sword'pen:"The impression I often have of these women is that they are highly intelligent and in positions of authority in their own profession. A lot of them show signs of leadership but it feels wrong to them to have female priests. If they had been formed in a different church tradition they themselves would be ordained or they would be in a position of leadership in their own church."

How condescending. If Ms Rees and her chums had formed a different church rather than invade the Anglican Church to peddle their secular wares before our limp liberal clergy we wouldn't be in the sort ofmess we find ourselves today.

Read More

Ungracious losers

Click HERE to watch while there is still time.

Too late to view but see end note for a good summary.

This morning I was alerted by Anglican Mainstream to the BBC's 'The Big Questions' programme. With only five days left to view I thought I had better tune in. I was shocked. The anger and untruths coming from the losers convinced me more than ever that Jesus knew what He was doing when He appointed only male Apostles. Sitting opposite them were the objects of their anger, those who had secured the vote under the agreed rules. The 'opposition' appeared almost apologetic by comparison but I realise now that what I was witnessing was a living example of the Christian faith revealed in Galatians: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Ruth Gledhill was very keen to emphasise that our failure to play their game will ensure that we will be subject to the law. But the law they speak of is of this world, something that they are unable or unwilling to grasp.

Thank God then for Peter Hitchens who, from a position of neutrality, met force with force and considerable candour in refuting the disingenuous claims of Christina Rees and the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin that every concession has been made to accommodate traditionalists. Ms Rees spoke of 'trust' suggesting that opponents should leave the church if they do not trust their bishops. She quoted Archbishop Rowan Williams to reinforce her point: "When you say to your neighbour I don't trust you, what do you say next to them?" She continued, "Those who are opposed to this, who have completely refused to accept all the arrangements that we have worked painstakingly over years to provide is that if you don't trust us, what are you doing in the church where you do not trust the authorities.....? "

Ms Rees is economical with the truth. Back in July, in defence of the climb down by the bishops over Clause 5(1)c, Archbishop Rowan said: "The bishops had only been trying to help when they tinkered with the draft legislation in May. He remained unconvinced they had got it wrong but they should question why they failed to anticipate the outpouring of anger from senior female clergy and campaigners for female bishops. So the bishops changed their minds not because they had got it wrong but because of the outpouring of anger repeated in this programme and at every stage through the process. The Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin even condemned the arrangements which allowed women to become priests as making them second class. That "fudge" as they called it will no doubt become another arrow in their quiver.

In answer to the question posed by Ms Rees, yes we do trust the authorities. The authority of scripture, reason and tradition all of which put the authority of the Church of England into perspective. Many have already left the church of their birth which, in charity, allowed a minority of liberals to prosper and gain control. Now those who find themselves in a minority within the Church of England are invited to leave. It is increasingly clear that this has been the liberal agenda all along resulting in torn-up promises, deceit and, I can't think of another way of putting, lies. That WATCH have been invited to attend the meeting of the House of Bishops after their climb-down suggests that they enjoy a higher authority in the Church of England but whatever their standing the ungracious losers should meditate on Galatians before they speak.

NOTE

A revealing summary of the programme can be foundHERE.

Read More

It's not a job for Christ's sake!

My hope that the spirit of unity and Godly love would be allowed to settle on the Church of England at Pentecost was short-lived. The response from the former Chair of WATCH to the amendments agreed  by the House of Bishops to the draft Measure concerning the ordination of women as bishops is uncompromising: "Churchgoers in Cambridgeshire could turn up to find the pulpit empty if 'furious' campaigners for female bishops in the Church of England carry out their threats to strike. Christina Rees, a lay preacher in Barley who has been a member of the General Synod, the church’s parliament, for 20 years, told the News there is 'uproar' over last-minute changes to new legislation. ....American-born Ms Rees, who is a leading campaigner for female bishops, told the News many members of the church are threatening to leave in protest and there are loud calls for strike action."

In an earlier outburst the Rev Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, questioned why women should stay in an “abusive institution”: “Do we stay, hoping it will get better? Do we stay, because we feel called by God to be in this marriage? Do we stay, thinking we can continue to try to change it from the inside? Or do we flee to the nearest refuge (let's ignore the fact for now that they rarely exist) — leaving home, family, community, and our dreams behind?" Dr Threlfall-Holmes should have realised that the cost of discipleship is not easy and certainly not one to be defined by secular employment laws.

We have been here before with threats from women clergy to leave unless they get their own way. This vociferous group which campaigns for parity in employment based on false claims of inequality have dictated the direction the Anglican Church for far too long using bully-boy tactics which have nothing to do with religion. Equality of opportunity in the work place is their guiding principle; faith is secondary, if it figures at all. The call now by Christina Rees to use their not inconsiderable feminist muscle to threaten the stability of the church clearly illustrates what the feminist movement has been up to all along. It is time to call their bluff. They do not want to serve, only to be served, accepting no authority but their own. As they have often told those who disagree with them, it's your choice. For Christ's sake and that of His church, take it or leave it.

Read More

Lies damned lies and the new Church of England

As tomorrow's planned Synod vote on women bishops approaches, newspaper reports have been full of claims that the majority of people want to see women in the episcopate. Indeed, readers are frequently told that '42 dioceses out of 44 voted in favour'. But what is unsaid is that not all worshippers will have agreed. Back in 2008, Christina Rees, the then Chair of WATCH,explained that she had a 'different interpretation of the Bible' which enabled her to think that it would be a 'good thing' when women are bishops; also that where there are women bishops it 'works very well' no doubt ignoring what isgoing on in the country of her birth!

Four years later she claims that "this is about the church's attitude to all women", an attitude recentlyexpanded by blaming all women's ills on their exclusion from ordination including "rape, sexual abuse, violence against women and women's political and economic subjugation", a not unfamiliar charge to readers of this blog. On Friday in its editorial the Guardian added its own voice with the claim, 'Church of England: what women don't want', in a typically secular analysis which describes traditional faith as 'anachronistic resistance' in line with WATCH's view of the church as an outdated secular institution.

The truth is that the majority of Christians are happy with the ministry of women but not in the ordained ministry. There may be a current majority of 42 out of 44 Church of England dioceses in favour of changing the Church of England for ever but that takes no account of the many worshippers who, in common with most of Christendom, struggle to uphold the catholic faith of the apostolic church against the onslaught of secularism. Surely they deserve some consideration in a Christian church which assured them an honoured place in the church when proponents of women's ordination were allowed to have their way. But despite the promises made, the odds are now stacked against traditionalists. In a recent vote Telegraph readers were asked:Should the Church of England ordain women bishops? with the first option to vote: 'Yes, the church should treat women and men equally', suggesting that those against the ordination of women do not believe in equality, a complete misrepresentation which equates equality with sameness rather than being complementary which,of necessity, male and female must be.

So from a situation in which a tiny majority allowed women to be ordained  to the priesthood, we have reached the stage in the Church of England in which women ordinands outnumber men in a process which is feminizing the church. Not satisfied with their success proponents are determined to crush all opposition with MPs and peers now joining theirbandwagon - as if they have not caused enough damage to the church already with their attack on the institution of holy matrimony. With charges of institutionalizing discrimination which WATCH says will result in the appointment of 'second class' women bishops, it now seems more than likely that tomorrow's vote will be postponed, a move WATCH and their allies hope will ultimately give their feminist cause outright victory resulting in the appointment of what they deem to be 'first class' women bishops. With such a dishonest campaign how can they be?

Postscript

Here's another gem from the Telegraph this morning:

"...a poll of the general public [my emphasis] showed widespread incomprehension at the Church's entanglement with almost three quarters agreeing that the it was "out of touch" with the general view that women can do any job that a man can do.

The poll by ComRes for the Bible Society also found that almost six out of 10 people view the Church as "sexistdanquot; rather than accepting that the objections were theological."

A woman's ability is not in question. It is not whether a woman can do any job but whether, on theological grounds, she should, something the 'general public' could not be expected to understand since the concept is beyond the wit of many in the Church of England including many of her bishops. (9 July 2012)

Update (pm 9 July 2012)

"The Church of England is to delay a final vote on the consecration of women bishops to allow a late amendment to be reconsidered.

The General Synod voted by 288 votes to 144 to adjourn the debate, after protests from pro-women campaigners.

They object to an amendment to the draft law allowing parishes who do not accept women bishops to request a male bishop who shares their beliefs.

The new vote is likely to happen at a special Synod session in November." - BBC

Let us hope and pray that the bishops will not lose their nerve, maintaining the courage of their convictions against the inevitable onslaught that is to come from pro-women campaigners.

Read More