Barry's blatantly feminist agenda

Archbishop "Bazzer" isback in the news, this time with his feminist agenda in the guise of equal opportunities for "improving the gender balance on Church committees and in senior posts", ie, women Archdeacons, Deans and, Bishops. "Peggy Pilot" was first parachuted-in to be Archdeacon of Llandaff followed more recently by Dr 'Inclusive' Jones, the first female Dean in the Church in Wales. Much to his chagrin Bazzer lost the vote that would have enabled him to appoint (import?) the first woman bishop in England or Wales. He said at the time that he was "deeply disappointed, especially since it was lost with a very low margin in the house of clergy", conveniently forgetting the words of one of his predecessors that the vote was the work of the Holy Spirit. - Previously it was 'the work of the devil' when the vote to admit women to the priesthood was lost!

For Bazzer the Gospel according to WATCH is his guiding principle:

       "And in the 21st century, in the West, women have more freedom and choice than at any time in our history. There are very few areas of public life that are technically closed to women; we are airline pilots, politicians, astronauts, lawyers, mechanics, builders, football club owners. The only areas of public life still closed to women are those protected by organised religion."

Anyone familiar with secular governance is aware of the practice of stuffing committees with people to obtain the desired result. As the Anglican church becomes increasingly feminised many Parochial Church Councils are already dominated by women (I have no problem with that) but Bazzer's patience is running out. Sooner or, more likely, later he will have to retire into obscurity. Before doing so, "gender balance" is his latest wheeze to achieve his ambition by default, by which time at the present rate of decline there will be hardly anyone left in congregations to support their top-heavy structure anyway.

For the few left who are fed up with the politics of religion and desire a true glimpse of heaven on earth, click here.

Read More

'islam' in the church

All for Jesus me dear, all for Jesus me dear,

this our song shall ever be;

for we have no hope, nor Saviour,

if we have not hope in me!

'Islam' in the church? The notion is not as far fetched as one might think. Submission, or the word 'islam', under the feminist god of political correctness is the goal of GRAS. In their arsenal of disapprovals is another word, 'integrity', which they cannot countenance any more than they can accept that true Christian belief may not accord with their injunctions or those of their related sisterhood WATCH.

What has inspired this outburst? The Church Times has published an article by Ed Thornton, "No promises were broken, says GRAS". The author of theReport has combed through all the relevant legislation to 'show' that no promise was made to those who disagree with them. In a piece of exceptional personal interpretation, the Rev'd Rosalind Rutherford convinces herself that, regardless of any intention of Synod to accommodate Christians who look to a higher Authority for guidance than synodical debate, feminist orthodoxy puts the 'sisterhood' under no obligation to look further than their own self interest. In their 'reading' of the Bible, supporters of women's ordination were able to claim justification for their belief because no objection could be found in the Bible - despite being axiomatic throughout the main body of Christendom and the threat to unity it created. Now this feminist lobby has the gall to suggest that by denying traditionalists acceptable sacramental and pastoral oversight they are doing so in the interests of unity.

We have come thus far by giving-in to their every demand out of Christian charity, allowing women to progress from the biblical Deaconess to Deacon and Priest and now to the threshold of the Episcopacy, albeit in what has become a declining church having put themselves outside the main body of the Universal Church. Another report spotted today shows similar stealth by the gay community in advancing their their objective of having civil partnerships accepted as marriage, an issue that raises more obstacles to church unity.

For traditional Christians, the masalah is summed up in a quote in Rutherford's paper:

"People who never went into a church were really glad that the Church of England had been prepared to say that discrimination is not God’s will." Of course people who "never went into a church" will take the same secular view as church feminists but if "discrimination is against God's will", why do they continue to discriminate against traditionalists?  Answer, they are an obstacle to the feminisation of the church.

Read More

Good motherhood is a step backward...

... according to the French feminist author and philosopher Elizabeth Badinter in reviews of her book Conflict, Women and Mothers. Reports suggest that she and her feminist friend, Sabine Salmon, president of Femmes Solidaire have little time for French schoolgirls who express the desire to stay at home rather than follow a career. "A very worrying indicator" was Mme. Salmon's verdict.

Mme. Badinter rails against the new image of the "ideal Mother" who breast feeds for six months before returning to work, rejects (on ecology grounds) disposable nappies and occasionally lets her baby sleep in her bed.

Feminists have a different thrust in England where, through WATCH (Women and the Church), they are currently busy emasculating the Established Church in the guise of equality (in Wales their Archbishop is doing the job for them) so perhaps girls here will be spared condemnation for using their own free will until that job is complete.

How long before the inconvenience of motherhood is completely avoided by conceiving in a dish and raising children like battery hens leaving 'mothers' free of maternal responsibility?

Read More

Gay “Marriage” (2) – Wahee….!

The Independent reports that the amendment to the Equality Bill, which was tabled as a free vote by gay Muslim peer Waheed Alli, received overwhelming backing in the Lords, including from a number of prominent Anglican bishops. The report continued, “MPs are unlikely to oppose [the Bill] because the vote was so overwhelming in the Lords.”

In a previous Blog I predicted that civil partnership blessings would soon be turned into ‘weddings’. Within days pressure was building up to refer to these ceremonies as such and voices have grown ever stronger following the vote in the Lords. Some may regard that simply as semantics but more worrying from The Times, “Church of England clergy will be sued for discrimination if they refuse to “marry” homosexuals under a proposed law, a bishop has warned. Other religious leaders fear that churches that refuse to bless civil partnerships might be forced to close”.

Such a shame to close churches after all the hard work put in by our American friend with her WATCH campaign, supposedly revitalising the church despite its dwindling numbers. Who will put the next nail in the Church of England's coffin I wonder? But I thought this quote from our Muslim friend took the biscuit, “Religious freedom cannot begin and end with what one religion wants.” – Waheed. I shall have to remember that one.

Read More

Two Faced

I found the ‘Two faces’ in my previous post amusing but being ‘two faced’ is quite a different matter particularly when people describe themselves as Christians. The majority of people in Great Britain think of themselves as Anglicans especially at times of baptism, marriage and burial but few attend church regularly and many of those who do have forgotten the basis of their faith as expressed in the creed of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Disingenuous from the start, supporters of the ordination of women have used stealth to achieve their aims. With the majority of people in the church happy to support women?S ministry there seemed little objection to women being made Deacons rather than Deaconesses especially in an age of political correctness. Not content with that, there soon developed a movement to ordain women to the priesthood using spurious claims of sexism and prejudice which pricked the consciences of the uninformed but fair minded. Hence they gathered support not only from those who, as nominal Christians, had never thought deeply about their faith, but more importantly from agnostics and atheists adding secular, political pressure to the soft under belly of the broad Anglican Church which had traditionally tolerated many kinds of churchmanship.

It wasn?T long before women Deacons were complaining that the only difference between them and Priests was that priests uttered a few words in the Prayer of Consecration and were allowed to administer the blessing. They insisted that their demands for ordination to the priesthood didn?T mean that they wanted to be bishops! Sufficient numbers believed them to gain a slender majority in a body not regarded in the wider church as competent to make such a decision but they entered the sacred ministry. The task of ?Converting? Parishes then followed encouraging those who couldn?T care less about theology and tradition to sing their chorus of ?Oh what a lovely person, she?S doing a splendid job? As though that were all there were to it. One could say the same of Albert Pierrepoint but it has no relevance.

Despite previous assertions they again raised their cries of discrimination because they were excluded from the Episcopate, notwithstanding the doubt about their admission to the priesthood in the first place. Now it seems they are to have what they always aimed for if the Church of England Synod accepts the recommendations of the Revision Committee set up to consider the necessary legislation. Those who oppose the measure on grounds of conscience are to be left with nothing despite being assured of an honoured place in their Church. A worthless ?Hobson?S choice? Code of practice is offered with expressions of hope and desire that orthodox opponents will not leave.

This is duplicity in the extreme. They show themselves to be two-faced ?Christians? Who read from the gospel according to WATCH. For Christ?S sake, Synod must reject the Revision Committee?S proposals and return to His teaching.

Read More

Charity? - Not for WATCH

I shall not repeat what can be read here:

http://www.Christiantoday.Com/article/archbishops.Proposals.On.Women.Bishops.Met.With.Mixed.Feelings/26185.Htm

Of their charity the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have struggled against the tide of liberalism to find a formula that will avoid splitting the church further.

As usual the women of WATCH are having none of it. All that matters to this ultra-feminist pressure class is outright victory for their cause.

It's time to put Christianity back at the heart of the Church of England.

Read More

Let These People Go

From The Guardian looking forward to the forthcoming Synod debate on women bishops and the Archbishops’ desperate last hope amendment to maintain some integrity for the church:

?Sally Barnes, from Women and the Church [WATCH], said: "If you institutionalise this kind of discrimination, it creates more problems. The issues of division will not be healing. If this goes down, Christian women who want women bishops have said, 'We're waiting for it to happen, we're so sick of the opposition. We will just leave.'"

Well go and good riddance. The people in WATCH have already been given too much rope. They are wrecking the Anglican Church with their duplicity claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it suits them and the work of the devil when things do not go according to their selfish plan. They claim discrimination where none exists. They are blatant feminists caring not one jot for the faith of true believers in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

For those who have been converted to acceptance of the ordination of women to the priesthood, life is so much easier. They have bitten the apple but why make life so difficult for the rest of us who remained true to the tradition of our church? Saturday’s Observer Magazine (04.07.10) carries an article “Is the Church Still Sexist?” which says it all. Still sexist? Joanna Jepson pictured below is quoted as saying “Whether I am called to be a bishop or not, the impact is personal, for all of us, because this corporate injustice is being challenged.” [My italics]

“I know I can do the job that is best suited to who I am” was the quote from a young curate while Lucy Winkett, who to her credit has not hidden her feminist goals, complains of what “in any other area of public life would be called discrimination.” She dismisses “the number of people who really can’t accept this [the ordination of women] [as] extremely small.” Rather like the early church? Forward in Faith and Reform are brushed aside as a small proportion of the ‘regular worshipping community of 1.7million (who attend at least once a month), the majority of whom – 65% - is female.”

This huge majority, a small minority in the Christian church as a whole, may be regular (I would say occasional) but it distorts the fact that the more frequent faithful few worshippers are more likely to have a deeper faith which is being pushed aside by forces content to see them fall by the wayside. How can this be? WATCH has nothing to do with faith. It is an ultra-feminist entrist organisation dressed in clerical clothing. I have no objection to feminism or to feminists but I do object to the deceit and duplicity WATCH use when they falsely claim discrimination to achieve their aim which is parity in the church as though it were a business corporation. They have already formed a woman bishop?S queue as they worm their way through the sah complexities and vote fixing in Synod as though they were engaged in some sort of corporate power struggle.

These women say they ?Will just leave? If they don?T get their own way. So what does this say about their faith and loyalty to the Anglican church if they can just up sticks and leave in a fit of pique while many devout Anglicans are so desperate to stay in their cradle church they are grateful for almost any fudge that can be put together? For far too long these WATCH feminists have been telling us to leave if we don?T like what they are about. Enough is enough. The church should embrace feminists but not destructive feminism before faith. It?S time to let them go and set up their own church, not destroy ours.

Postscript

With acknowledgments to Fr Ed's St Barnabas Blog this link is recommended viewing. I couldn't agree more.

Read More

A pox on them all

That was the message received from WATCH and their allies after yesterday?S Synod vote. Those in favour of the ordination of women succeeded in denying those who disagree with them an honoured place in their New Anglican church simply brushing them aside with false accusations of discrimination against women. Their spokesperson Ms Rees with her usual charm hailed the result as ?Wonderful news?. So wonderful that it will exclude people from their church simply for keeping the historic Apostolic faith.

Of course they argue that ?Traditionalists? Are not being excluded while they legislate to make their position untenable with a ludicrous code of practice designed to ensure that women bishops would not be seen as 'second class bishops'. Demonstrably they must be if that is their idea of pastoral care. It cannot be discrimination to oppose something that is regarded as illegal by the vast majority of Christians.

I have long believed and trusted that Archbishop Rowan would see us through this mess but he is so wedded to women?S rights that he is in danger of losing sight of the rest of his flock. Like Forward in Faith he uses the ways of gentleness to persuade but there is no persuading those who see only their own selfish ends. The time for gentleness is over. Strong action and leadership is essential. For the results of the meek look to Wales where Credo Cymru has become impotent in the face of those who seek only to satisfy the insatiable demands of a few frustrated women. Traditionalists have been left with nothing but a self-satisfied Bench bent on doing the latest trendy thing to keep themselves ?Relevant to society?. In the process they have become wholly irrelevant to 99% of the population.

Ironically the Eucharist reading yesterday was from 1 Corinthians 3. One verse in particular stood out, “There can be no other foundation beyond that which is already laid; I mean Jesus Christ himself.” Today, thanks to Fr Michael’s Let Nothing You Dismay blog, I read:

"Robert Key, the General Synod member and former Conservative MP, speaks exclusively to The Times about women bishops and why he believes strongly that any legislation that makes women 'less than' men or that attempts to guarantee the Church of England exemption from the 2010 Equality Act should not and probably will not get through Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee, or the Lords and Commonsdanquot;

Is that what the church has come to? Unable to win the argument based on scripture and tradition they use untruths repeating them often enough so that people believe them. Jesus Christ, the foundation of our faith, did not shy away from righting injustice. Neither must we. Despite the cries of the Anglo Papists that the battle is done it must continue to ensure that faith prevails over feminism for those for whom the Anglican church is their natural home.

Read More

Spot the Difference?

YES YES NO

?Woman and the Church? (WATCH) constantly claim discrimination but that deception is part of their feminist propaganda campaign.

Contrary to what supporters would have us believe, opponents of the ordination of women are not misogynists. Many devout women and men are against the innovation but that is not to discriminate. To non-believers it may appear to be the case but that is of the the supporters own making. Having inched their way through the process to allow women first to become Deacons then Priests, they now claim that is discriminatory not to allow women to progress to become bishops (as though they have an automatic right to that office). The process has shown it was a grave error to have given in to what can now be seen as deceitful claims from the outset.

Many women and men are dismayed that a woman would want a job such as an armed policewoman or soldier that may entail taking life rather than giving it but if that is their choice, so be it. The same for business and politics but religion is neither, though it has been treated as such by WATCH and is regarded as such by the vast majority of people who are non-believers, even atheists. That is the clever thing about the WATCH campaign; they push their secular views on people who have only secular values and understanding. These people judge accordingly and join in the cry of ?Discrimination!? We have now reached the stage where genuine believers are likely to be pushed out of their cradle church, the Church of England, if WATCH have anything to do with it.

While the Archbishops of Canterbury and York make a belated attempt to make provision for those who, in conscience, cannot accept the ordination of women, Sally Barnes of WATCH claims that is a way to ?Institutionalise this kind of discrimination? (see previous post). Balderdash! They just don?T get it. This is faith, not politics or business. In common with the wider Christian church the faithful few still believe that the traditional pattern of ministry Christ established through his Apostles is not something to be changed by committee merely to suit the times or the whims of converts to Anglicanism.

These women and their male supporters have demonstrated by their behaviour that the innovation is wrong. Those who did not support it were promised an honoured place in the church as loyal Anglicans but every move since has been to deny that and squeeze them out with constant accusations of discrimination. There is discrimination. It is against ?Traditionalists? Who refuse to bend the knee to liberalism in the church. They want ?Traditionalists? Out. Synod should see these people for what they are, deceivers unworthy of the office they claim is their right and vote accordingly.

Postscript

So the vote has been taken. The advice of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the wishes of the Houses of Bishops and Laity have been rejected by the House of Clergy. It's a woman's world in the church, a sort of Mothers Union with ritual.

Read More

Slap for Rowan

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was slapped in the face yesterday by the very people he has done most to help, today's clergy.

True to form, women from 'Women and the Church' (WATCH) were yelling discrimination because the Archbishop dared to show Christian charity towards their brothers and sisters in Christ who do not share the secular values peddled by their organization. Of all people, Rowan Williams has done more than anyone to further the cause of women in the church. The last thing he would do would be to undermine the authority he has sought for them. Yet when he and the Archbishop of York pleaded for tolerance they slapped him in the face claiming that concern for others would make female bishops second group. The concession was hardly earth-shattering, merely that 'traditionalists' should, as promised, be accorded an honoured place in their church.

I am reminded of the woman who, when the measure to allow the ordination of women to the priesthood went through commented, we are in control now and will make these people suffer as we have suffered. Says much for their idea of Christianity. Synod should know what to do next.

Read More

Flushed away

Http://www.Telegraph.Co.Uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7890673/Middle-Eastern-style-squat-lavatories-fitted-in-Rochdale-shopping-centre.Html

You can have almost anything you want in Great Britain today other than traditional orthodox Anglicanism. Since WATCH squatted in the church everything has gone down the pan.

Read More

Lies, damned lies and statistics

The Church Times today (23 July 2010) is carrying an article showing that “a poll by YouGov, which was not commissioned by any external organisation, found that 63 per cent of those questioned agreed that the Church of England should appoint women bishops, while ten per cent objected to the move. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) said they had no opinion either way, and three per cent did not know what they thought.”

In response to their own ‘survey’ the Church Times found that Synod did the right thing for traditionalists in the women bishops' votes. These figures will now be bandied around by the supporters of women’s ordination as justification for their stand, ignoring the fact that the historic faith shared by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world cannot be changed by committee simply to satisfy feminist whims.

Accepting that the YouGov survey was a representative sample, what did the sample really represent? It represents the views of people with scant, if any, knowledge of the real issues. The organisation Women and the Church (WATCH) have skillfully manipulated public opinion, including many church-goers, into believing that it is simply a matter of women?S rights. Having achieved their aim in principle, they sought to put the measure into practice while claiming that adequate provision will be made for those worshippers who, in common with most of Christendom, believe the innovation to be illegal, breaking our bond with the wider Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The proposed voluntary code of practice is another skillful device which, to those looking at the issue from the women's rights perspective, obscures the real issue that it cannot be acceptable to those who, in conscience, believe that what is being done is not the will of God but of man, or, in this case, of woman with the support of many men who have been hoodwinked into supporting the measure under false pretences.

In another YouGov poll, 67 per cent of people agreed that the burqa should be banned in Britain. Along with the Immigration Minister, many oppose such a ban on the grounds that we are a tolerant society and Muslims should be allowed freedom of expression. It has been admitted that for security reasons there are circumstances where the face would have to be uncovered leaving one to wonder if the only time it would be permitted in public would be on the public highway where it could conceal anyone or anything. As witnessed on Question Time last night, strong passions are aroused in such discussions, similar to those aroused over the possible restoration of the death penalty in 1998. In that debate, 99 per cent of those questioned said that the death penalty should be re-introduced according to “a staggering 99 per cent of the 95,000 [Sun] readers who responded to our You The Jury poll”. You can get almost any answer you want if you ask the ‘right’ question of the ‘right’ people.

So what of our so called ?Tolerant? Society when the very thing we pride ourselves on is used against us? Our cherished values are being undermined under the banner of political correctness but we deceive ourselves at our peril. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed in their attempt to provide a crumb of comfort for traditional orthodox Anglicans in their battle for survival. As one female activist shouted from the gallery on an earlier occasion, ?We asked you for bread but you gave us a stone!? Short memories!

The intolerance of Islam towards Christians in Islamic countries is being echoed by intolerance of ?Christians? Towards traditional Anglicans. So much so that Dr John Sentamu the Archbishop of York had to remind Synod members to behave like Christians. Tolerant Britain?

Read More

All roads lead to Rome – except the Anglican one!

‘United we stand, divided we fall’ could never be more apt. Anyone involved in the Synodical process should remember that.

Some Anglo-Catholics are already in the lifeboats hoping for a safe arrival in their promised land but while details are awaited, squabbling has broken out between different factions. Apart from being unchristian further fractures could have serious repercussions with secular indifference and the threat to religious freedom posed by the spread of Islam.

Before the Synod vote to allow women to enter the Episcopate, many women protested that failure to grant the demands of WATCH would lead to a mass exodus to other churches. What price loyalty? Their secular regard for equal opportunities clearly means much more to them than sacramental assurance.

It must now be clear to everyone but the blinkered that the wider Catholic and Eastern churches regard the Church of England as in error. The ambitions of a few frustrated women who have ignored Christ’s prayer that we all may be one have put self above church wrecking the possibility of unity which Christianity yearns for, aided by the Church of England hierarchy.

What price unity?

Read More

For your prayers...

With elections to Synod getting under-way, we need to hold candidates and electors in our prayers. This is the last chance to right the wrongs of the last Synod and undo the shameful treatment of loyal, orthodox Anglicans. So appalled were our Archbishops at the mistreatment of 'traditionalists' that they put their authority on the line by putting down an amendment that was rejected by the very people the church has done most to help; a sign of things to come unless the secular feminist band-wagon is stopped before it is too late. Many former members must be saddened to have played the feminist tune orchestrated by the bitter women of WATCH who are unable or unwilling to discern Christ's example.

For some orthodox Anglicans it is already too late and they eagerly look forward to the promised land of the Ordinariate. For others it is too difficult or, perhaps through unfortunate circumstances, not an option. For these, and simply for the integrity of the Church of England, provision must be made as promised. Much has made of the role of the Holy Spirit when it suits advocates of the ordination of women. If God helps those who help themselves, some have helped themselves to the detriment of others, contrary to the principles of what they are supposed to stand for.

So now is the time for action. Anyone involved in the Synodical process, must make sure that the 'traditionalist' cause is not lost to the enduring shame on the Church of England.

Read More

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 shape of things to come, God help us.

Having discerned the will of God, theWATCH glee club has now discerned the will of the 'ordinary person' in the Church according to a BBC report. If they they prove to be correct, the end of the Anglican Church will come a step closer looking at theexperience [do read the comments - Ed] of the US Episcopal Church and the record of their women bishops.

The measure of their concern for those who do not share their politically correct view of what God should do for them is summed up by their persistent accusations of misogyny against (extraordinary?) men and women whose faith is guided by Christ's example rather than theirs and, that if they do not have everything their own way, they would be 'second-group bishops'.

The US experience is horrendous and is guiding what happens here judging by the attitude of the new church militant. God help us if this is what is in store for us.

Read More

Godless Guides?

The Queen and Princess Margaret.

Picture: Associated Newspapers / Daily Mail /Rex Features

"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 story in the Telegraph just about sums up the absurdity of life in Britain today especially for Christians. Because a girl "felt unable to take part in her Brownies enrolment in north Somerset due to the religious content of the Promise" the Girl Guides Association is reported to be considering reviewing the wording of its affirmation for new members, to remove religious references. What next? Immigrants and secularists objecting to Her Majesty the Queen being "Defender of the Faith"?

Baden-Powell must be turning in his grave. The Guide Promise has already been amended from 'To do my duty to God' to 'To love my God', in order to accommodate different faiths leaving secularists free to have a stab at changing the foundation of Guiding again but oddly, not Scouting which retains the original Promise. Give them time! The Scouts are now a mix of boy scouts and girl scouts although the Girl Guides remain exclusively sexist reflecting what has happened in the rest of society. Thanks to that enemy of democracy, political correctness, we no longer have the heroine, actress, headmaster or chairman but curiously we still have theBaroness.

For many in today's eunuch led liberal church, belief in the one true God has become an optional extra butbelief in one God means just that. As Christians we should be above the political correctness that implies the legitimacy of other faiths. People may believe what they want in a free country but tolerance has been perverted to allow our Christian heritage to be eroded by do-gooders who have nothing to offer other than a suffocating desire to impose their bland sterility on Christians. Much of this is a consequence of  the feminist campaign for the ordination of women which has resulted in the spiritual decline of the Episcopal Church in America and continues to emasculate the Church of England asWATCH and GRAS demand their own way here.

"On my honour , I promise that I will do my best

To do my duty to God and to the Queen,

To help other people

And to keep the Scout Law"

Scouts of my generation felt 'honour' bound to keep their 'promise', two words that the new breed of Anglicans in the churches of England and Wales have consigned to the PC dustbin only to be replaced by deception.

Read More

Mean-minded gender politics v. traditional Anglican faith

Readers may have observed that I find it difficult to be 'slow to anger' where the Anglican church is concerned today. What makes me particularly angry is the complete absence of compassion for men and women in the church who, in common with the majority of Christians, simply want to practice their religion in accordance with tradition, something that should be a human right. I have witnessed and valued women's ministry for its dedication in many areas of church life but much has now changed setting one against another. I didn't see the need for Deaconesses to become Deacons any more than actresses needed to became actors or heroines to became heroes but whereas actors and heroes of either sex were equal in pursuit of their ambitions, so called equality in the church meant something different, a change in our understanding of the priesthood using faith as a vehicle for gender politics.

Women deacons became priests on the dubious pretext that there was no biblical objection and the assertion that there was little difference between deacon and priest other than the utterance of a few words (such regard for the sacred ministry!). Now it is the 'stained glass ceiling' that has to be shattered in the guise of equality. Such is the success of this secular based campaign that even some opponents of the ordination of women express sympathy for their position, one which has been manipulated to appear one of prejudice. If they succeed in their goal the next step will be parity which is the aim of Women and the Church (WATCH). Only when we have a woman Archbishop will cries of injustice be allowed to fade.

The appointment of women bishops shatters the tradition of the Universal Church of which Anglicanism has been part. In England, 2012 sees the culmination of a process ofdeception and lies using false promises to achieve this objective. In Wales their Archbishop is determined to reintroduce the measure in 2012, ignoring the earlier defeat on the basis that the Holy Spirit is only at work when the Archbishop finds the result favourable. Out of spite he went on to deny traditionalists acceptable pastoral and sacramental care by imposing oversight by a bench of bishops none of whom shows any sympathy towards traditionalists. The Church of England has been more tolerant inconsecrating replacement PEVs but what of the future given the intransigence of members of Synod, particularly the hard edged women of WATCH and GRAS?

I have to accept that not everyone shares a traditional understanding of the sacred ministry but I cannot understand why, as Christians, new Anglicans would want to deny traditionalists the opportunity to continue to practise their religion as they have done well before many of the new breed of Anglicans entered the church. While some traditionalists may be able to look to the Ordinariate or possibly to the Western Rite of Orthodoxy many will find themselves in the wilderness as their own church adopts a take it or leave it approach, carefully crafted to offer only something known to be unacceptable on the basis that anything else would imply that women would be seen as second group bishops. I was particularly saddened over Christmas to receive a card from a very devout lady with a message that she had had enough and given up going to church. Like many disenchanted souls before her, she had been receiving the sacrament regularly before many of the new breed of Anglicans were born. Does people's faith count for nothing in the gender politics that now obsess our church?

In my previous entry I again highlighted the plight of traditionalist Anglicans in the Episcopal church of the United States and the road to ruin the liberalised Episcopal church there has embarked upon. There is another report here which well illustrates what happens when liberalism replaces the traditional faith of the church. Our once tolerant, broad church should look again to the faith of the Universal church and end its obsession with gender politics while there is still Anglican church in which to hold the office of bishop.

Read More

Steps

After man first set foot on the moon, mankind was left with the historic statement, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". Everyone understood that the statement was not intended to exclude women but to encompass all humanity in the technological advancement of mankind which has seen men and women astronauts venture into space, part of a sequence of small steps that led to Kennedy's vision of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth".

Around the same time people in the Anglican church were taking what were represented as small steps, not towards a giant leap for mankind, Christ did that, but in what now can be seen clearly as a secular policy in furtherance of gender politics in the church, a process which is about to destroy the faith of many Christians in the name of feminism, one which already has done for many. In my previous Blog entry I referred to a Guardian article by Andrew Brown. One paragraph continues to rankle:

   "... there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don't want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears." [My emphasis.]

What was initially regarded as an honourable position in the Anglican Church, a church which assured traditionalists that they would continue to have a place, has been turned into one of having to suffer accusations of misogyny, prejudice, discrimination and, now, a"a belief that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears". How crass. God made man and woman in his own image, not hermaphrodites but both male and female, equal, neither superior nor inferior but with different roles in creation. Perhaps Mr Brown doesn't realise that both men and women, male and female, are equally opposed to the ordination of women priests and bishops, woman more vehemently in my experience but more prone to suffer in silence as they do not possess the strident streak exhibited by those who presume to speak for them as implied by the incorrectly namedWATCH - Women and the Church. Women's authority does not depend on being a priest or a bishop. In Britain women are rightly employed at all levels in society, but 'authority' in the Anglican Church has become a banner used by people who have sold their souls to secularism in direct contradiction to Christ's example in choosing male Apostles, a tradition handed down in His Apostolic Church from a time when pagan priestesses were common.

The 'small' steps that turned deaconesses into deacons thus permitting their ordination as priests have now become that giant leap for the Church of England with the proposals before Synod to ordain women as successors to the Apostles in defiance of the wider Catholic and Orthodox Churches with whom we share our creed. To brand men and women  who oppose this innovation and whose only desire is to keep the Apostolic faith as 'undermining women's authority' is as absurd as it is offensive.

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