Respect!

So the bishops have capitulated. What little comfort was left for traditionalists in the Church of England opposed on theological grounds to the ordination of women has been watered down to one word: Respect. Archbishop Rowan says ‘Respect’ means taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think, who they are. It means trying to find a settlement that allows them to recognise in whatever emerges that their views have been taken seriously. Archbishop Rowan may very well think that but few have the capacity of His Grace for treating their opponents with the same respect. Across the border in the Church in Wales even their Archbishop has difficulty in showing respect for those he disagrees with and far from 'taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think', he obstinately refuses even to appoint a replacement Provincial Assistant Bishop preferring to tell traditionalists what they must accept while, tomorrow, making another bid to allow women to be ordained into the episcopate on his own terms in his vanishing church.

Consider also the attitude already displayed in England by proponents of the ordination of women in the Church and in Parliament - "No promises were broken, says GRAS" and "Essentially everyone knew that when you had the ordination of women as priests that this would lead to the ordination of women bishops after a decent length of pause. Some would say it has now been an indecent length of pause" said Peter Bottomley. Where is there any evidence of respect? When the House of Bishops proposed an amendment to the legislation which would have "strengthened somewhat the provision for the minority, in the hope that this would allow people in the minority to feel that their position was respected, that they were allowed to flourish, and that they were welcome in the Church of England" Women and the Church (WATCH) found it "deeply offensive " claiming that the vision of women as bishops, and the dignity and security of the position of women when they were ordained as bishops would be undermined.

So what is in a word? Personally I find it offensive to be branded as one of those "whose consciences gave them difficulties with the idea of women as bishops, and would find it difficult to receive their ministry." I would have no difficulty with the concept of women bishops or of receiving their ministry if it were simply a matter of debate or if it were accepted throughout the Church Catholic but it cannot be for the simple reason that in conscience we remain faithful to Christ's example rather than synodical persuasion. Whatever arguments are advanced in support of the ordination of women they can only be opinions not supported by historical fact. They condemn Jesus as a failure for being a captive of His time in not appointing women Apostles but in an age when there were numerous priestesses, Christ showed us a new way which honoured men and women equally, different but complementary. What is difficult about that?

Read More

Sacred cow

Feminism: the sacred cow of the modern Anglican Church

Forget the golden calf -

"We Christians must face it: The Bible is hugely misogynistic" so stop 'reading it like 'a car manual' and 'reconcile the Bible with the present day'. So says Jemima Thackray (a chaplain in Winchester) in the Telegraph (here).

Holy cow! How many Christians have been labouring under a misapprehension for the best part of two millennia, not to mention all those poor Jews, misguided for thousands of years before that. Although prior to Jemima's intervention there is a rather good example of how to interpret the law in Christ's seven woes which denounced the false religion of the Scribes and Pharisees as "utterly abhorrentdanquot; to God and worthy of severe condemnation (read here).

Commenting on the General Synod vote to fast-track the legislative process which would allow women to be appointed as bishops, Jemima says "the proceedings started rather awkwardly when the Bible passage, which happened to be that day’s lectionary reading, conveyed a message that was utterly at odds with the goal of elevating women to leadership roles within the church.[My emphasis - Ed.] It went something like this:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)".

In the suppression of that passage of scripture the message has added weight. Had a passage been to their advantage it would have been claimed as the work of the Holy Spirit but at Synod the Holy Spirit has to have the approval of the sacred cow of feminism to speak. - If it doesn't suit, just drop it. The Telegraph is running a poll with Jemima's article asking: "Do you believe religious texts should be taken literally?" At the time of writing over 54% responded "No, they need to be read in the context of their time."

Faith it seems is becoming irrelevant but as Christians this should be the basis of our belief. If religion has to be supported the spirit of the age there is no faith so the Bible gets discreditied or ignored. Of course many biblical stories illustrate a point as in the parables but where does this stop? Did Christ die on the cross and rise again or was it merely a 'conjuring trick with bones'. Academics who spend their lives pondering minutiae should be more guarded in their condemnation of those with a simple faith. We are the body of Christ, all Christians, including those who are being marginalised for remaining faithful to the Apostolic Church

It is understandable that feminists would prefer to ignore the facts. Otherwise they would have to accept that the world was full of priestesses at the time of Christ but "the astonishing thing was actually that they were absent from the community of Jesus Christ, a fact that in turn is a point of continuity with the faith of Israel" ( Light of the World ).

Read More