We will all be changed

A further drop in Church of England attendance has been reported.Average Sunday attendance fell from 944,400 in 2009 to 923,700 the following year, continuing the long-term downward trend. Hardly the result one might have expected after the church decided to make itself more relevant to society by becoming ever more secular.

In an unhelpful Blog article for the Guardian on the prospect of women bishops in the CofE, Andrew Brown writes: "The Church of England's fudge on female bishops is breathtaking". He concludes with the comment: "It may be possible to fudge questions about the nature of a communion wafer in this way. But I don't think it will do for a matter of employment law." So the Body of Christ can be fudged but Its administration by the sacred ministry is something that should be determined by employment law! No wonder so many churches are for sale with plenty more to come as attendance dwindles.

The theme of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is 'We will be changed'. From the Churches Together site:

"Change is at the heart of our Christian faith. Saint Paul said that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation, and we are called to live as children in the light.

The theme for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2012 comes to us from the churches in Poland, who have reflected upon their own experience as a nation, and in particular how, as a nation, they have been changed and transformed by the many upheavals of their history, and sustained by their faith.

Change is also at the heart of the ecumenical movement. When we pray for the unity of the church we are praying that the churches that we know and which are so familiar to us will change as they conform more closely to Christ. This is an exciting vision, but also a challenging one. Furthermore, when we pray for this transforming unity we are also praying for change in the world."

The upheavals in the Anglican church may have brought joy to some but for the church it has been a disaster with litigation and arguments about the nature of the priesthood, gay and lesbian ordination and same sex marriage which no doubt is now regarded as acceptable on the grounds that there is 'no theological objection', the Anglican justification for female ordination. These changes have had a wholly negative impact on the church when our aim should be unity with the Roman Catholic church from which we have become separated and the Orthodox Church.

If women in England and Wales are to be ordained bishops because of secular employment laws, then 'we will all be changed'. We will be changed but in the wrong direction, choosing Protestantism rather than the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of our baptism, driving us further than ever from church unity. As Synod members prepare to vote, they should not be influenced by secular employment laws but follow Christ's example and listen to His prayer that we all may be one.

Read More

The plain truth

?I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me?Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father?And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." John 10: 14-16

Two thousand years later, 'Anglican women clergy are to rally in Westminster later at a march supporting plans to introduce women bishops' - BBC News - the culmination, they hope, of their campaign of self interest. Never mind the torment, the acrimony, the divisions; even the evidence. Nothing matters more than achieving the feminist goal of women bishops.

Writing for Ekklesia in favour of the move with customary secular feminist fervour, Savi Hensman makes an excellent case for its rejection. It is so far removed from the voice of Jesus that her plea would be laughable were in not so serious, particularly for women and men who see their church being stolen from them for political ends.

I am the way and the truth and the life.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

Read More

Lifebelt

Picture: DAVE PERRY

Church of England general synod debates female bishops - day three live @17.58.Riazat Butt thanks God she is a Muslim. Here is what she had to say:

"Wow. OK. Well, in true Anglican fashion we are almost back to square one. General synod has voted to allow the House of Bishops to tinker with the legislation but not make substantial changes to it. As one person in the chamber said, it's as if the debate never happened. The traditionalists have this to say:

"We welcome the fact the general synod is open to the possibility of the House of Bishops amending the draft measure, and call upon the house to do so in a way that will provide properly for those unable in conscience to accept the oversight of women bishops. The archbishops' amendment is a long way from our original proposals for provision; what we are saying is that we are willing to work with it, or something like it, for the sake of the unity of the church. We are hugely grateful to Archdeacon Cherry Vann for moving the Manchester motion; she has shown great understanding, courage, conviction and love ? Love for God and for God's people. We give thanks to God for Archdeacon Cherry, and assure the House of Bishops of our prayers as they discern the right way forward for the Church of England."

Initial reaction from the pro-women lobby is that they are happy because they know the bishops can't dramatically change the draft law. They're not going to see a different law, that's over and that's what they wanted to avoid. It's all baffling. Thank God I'm a Muslim."

So not dead yet! Despite the eagerness of supporters of women's ordination to move directly to a vote without amendment amid the usual claims of discrimination, two-tier ministries and second class-bishops, the more charitable struggle on to find a compromise that is in some way acceptable to people who don't interpret 'generous' in the same way as those who advocate a 'take it or leave it' approach. On my hearing there may have been a hint of sarcasm in the suggestion that the Rev Prebendary David Houlding had been thrown a lifebelt but nevertheless that imagery is captured superbly in the picture above. As they consider the next stage, those on both sides of the divide would do well to read the narrative that goes with it here and recall Archbishop Rowan's words in an earlier passionate debate on Recent violence in Nigeria when he referred to the desperate feeling of isolation experienced by persecuted Christians in Nigeria. They are not alone.

Read More

Loser

"Rev Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales at the vote for women bishops."      Photo: WalesOnline

According to media reports today (here) the Church of England’s first woman bishop has been chosen. That must be one in the eye for the Archbishop of Wales. The Church in Wales won the race in the vote for women bishops but Dr Morgan has lost the chance to appoint the first woman bishop in England and Wales.

To recap, the Archbishop expressed delight at the result when Church in Wales voted to accept women bishops adding ominously that "he now hopes the church will have the courage to embrace further change". From the WalesOnline report after the vote:

"This time, the bishops proposed a two-stage process – holding a vote on the principle of women bishops but not appointing any until the constitution was amended to establish provisions for traditionalists. But Archdeacon Peggy Jackson and Canon Jenny Wigley tabled an amendment which opposed this two-stage compromise. Under their proposal, women could be appointed a year after the vote and the bishops would establish a code of practice to ensure that “all members of the Church in Wales” have a “sense of security in their accepted and valued place. When asked if he tried to persuade them not to take this action, Dr Morgan said: “It’s not my job to persuade people to do things which are against their conscience. " [My emphasis - Ed.]

It was suggested that the 2008 rejection of female bishops in the Church in Wales was one of the most disappointing moments in Archbishop Barry Morgan’s time at the helm of the Anglican church. Perhaps that accounts for his vindictiveness towards anyone who disagrees with him by simply excluding them.

Postscript

And the winner is.................................

Source: Getty Images

The Reverend Libby Lane who lists her main interests as being a school governor, encouraging social action initiatives, learning to play the saxophone, supporting Manchester United, reading and doing cryptic crosswords. Par for the course! Reports here and here.

Also said to be in the running for the post were the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, 53, chaplain to the House of Commons and a chaplain to the Queen, the Very Rev Vivienne Faull, 59, Dean of York Minster and the Very Rev Dr Jane Hedges, 58, Dean of Norwich.

One would have thought a mere suffragan post beneath them so a case for discrimination seems unlikely to arise.

Read More

When the circus came to York Minster

It is interesting that the BBC reports before and after the consecration of the Rev Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport appear under the URL "bbc.uk.co/news/uk-politics" for that is what it is, politics. The pre-service clip in the first link is of a TV interview with 'Mrs Lane's friend and curate', the Reverend Georgina Watmore, on the BBC Breakfast show. It stops short of the point when she was asked how they would be celebrating her vicar becoming the first female bishop in the Church of England.

Here was a heaven sent opportunity to say that they would be celebrating the Holy Eucharist, the essential sacrament of the Church, injecting some Christian teaching at the culmination of their 'equality' campaign - a spurious claim if ever there was one. They were going to celebrate with a knees up - rather than knees down. Previously a commentator who had been speaking live from York Minster referred to the thousand or more 'spectators' including a hundred bishops from around the world who wanted to lay hands on the first female bishop to be consecrated in the Church of England. Surely she meant 'congregation' I thought but on reflection she was correct. 'Spectators' summed up the media event. - After all, it's all about equality, stupid!

When the Archbishop of York asked the spectators during the proceedings, "Is it now your will that she should be ordained?", there was one objection on the not unreasonable grounds that innovation was not in the Bible.  The objector was refused permission to speak. Instead Dr Sentamu read out a prepared statement assuring the spectators that the consecration was lawful under the Canon of the Church of England which is "part of the law of the land". Correct. It was legal, the Church of England having enacted it but it was not legitimate in the eyes of the wider Church, hence the objection.

A spokesman for the Church of England said the objector, the Rev Paul Williamson, a priest in charge of St George's Church, Hanworth, West London, had shown himself to be a "lone voice of protest in a sea of voices of affirmation". So he was but he gave an honest response, one which many others could have made had it not been for the agreement which enabled the consecration to take place. It is regrettable therefore that an objector voicing his response according to conscience was portrayed as a clown in the rite of feminist authentication in the same way that other objectors on grounds of conscience have been portrayed in the media.

Everyone who was anyone, or anyone who thought they were anyone in this charade was there. Around 100 bishops 'from around the world' pressed forward to be in front for the laying on of hands while exercising sufficient restraint to avoid the appearance of a Black Friday stampede. I say charade because in the view of the wider Church, Orthodox, Catholic and for most Anglicans the Church has no authority to ordain women. Hence it was a gross parody to answer "I do" to the questions:

• Do you accept the Holy Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?

• Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, will you refute error, and will you hand on entire the faith that is entrusted to you?

• Will you be faithful in ordaining and commissioning ministers of the gospel?

• Will you promote peace and reconciliation in the Church and in the world; and will you strive for the visible unity of Christ's Church?

• Will you accept the discipline of this Church, exercising authority with justice, courtesy and love, and always holding before you the example of Christ?

Nobody thought to question how these questions could be answered in the affirmative with complete integrity having changed the rules, thus putting themselves at odds with the the rest of the Church and creating a serious impediment to Christian unity. But what is that to commentators who appear to know less about Christianity than their understanding of Islam.

Commentators were stressing that women in the Church of England had waited twenty years for this moment as if a prejudiced minority had impeded their legitimacy. They were of course applying secular principles of equality of opportunity in the workplace. Claims that the ordination of women are aboutequality are totally spurious but who cares these days let alone understands? Typical Sunday attendances in the Church of England have halved to just 800,000 in the last 40 years. That is around 1.5% of the population of England, just slightly better than attendance in Wales. Most of those remaining will simply have played follow-my-leader without regard for the consequences while others have left, their faith destroyed.

Friends of Libby Lane may celebrate with a knees-up but it is a hollow victory for the Church of England given the damage the liberal invasion has caused. Writing in the Telegraph their Religious Affairs Editor, John Bingham, poses the question "Female bishops are go: What on earth will the Church row about now?" One has to ask if it really matters any more given the damage to the Church the innovation has caused.

Writing about the consecration of Fr Philip North, a 'traditionalist Anglo-Catholic', next week Bingham commented: For reasons which might charitably be described as obscure at best, there is 'acrimony'  because "the plan is - ironically - to depart from tradition for the central part of Fr North's consecration service". A Religious Affairs Editor who can refer to the Apostolic Succession as 'obscure at best' must surely be in the wrong job unless his main purpose is to denigrate the Anglican Church. If the deliberations of the Church are "tortuous and, to many people, simply incomprehensible" Mr Bingham would have been better employed explaining the genuine held beliefs of traditionalists rather than making a cheap buck out the misery inflicted upon them.

Read More

The witch, the crone, Christina Rees and others

The Rev Crone

Not satisfied with what Women and the Church (WATCH) has done to reduce the Anglican Church in Great Britain to a pale reflection of her former glory, its former Chair and "prominent Church of England campaigner", Christina Rees, will be among the speakers at a conference in Philadelphia later this year of the Catholic movement for women's ordination, Women's Ordination Worldwide. (H/T Ruth Gledhill).

The BBC's Religious affairs correspondent, Caroline Wyatt, recently posed the question: Is the UK still a Christian country? The answer was 'Yes'. But based on analyses by the US Pew Research Center, the conclusions suggest that in the UK, if current trends continue, the proportion of the population identifying themselves as Christians will fall from 64% in 2010 to 45% by 2050, while the proportion of Muslims will rise from 5% to 11%. The proportion of the population claiming no religion in the UK - the "unaffiliated" - will also rise significantly, from 28% to 39%.

One would have thought that alarm bells would be ringing but no, feminism, LGBT and what is absurdly labeled 'equality' is all today. Faith and regular worship have been sidelined.

Ruth Gledhill was reporting on the latest in the Westminster Faith Debates series at London's "liberal flagship church", St James' Piccadilly. Among the guest speakers was the Rev Kate Bottley, described as a 'Gogglebox tv' vicar. She amused her audience by relating a story about how she had told her hairdresser that she was coming to London to take part in the debate on women bishops and the difference they can make. "What's a bishop?" her hairdresser asked. After the vicar explained, the hairdresser said she did not know what the Church of England was either.

If the Rev Kate Bottley's hairdresser, or anyone else wants to know what a real bishop is like, they should watch this video as Bishop Mark Lawrence speaks to his text from Hebrews 12: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith".

But the event wasn't about traditional Christian values. Adam Dinham, the only man on the panel, and who is married to a Muslim man, and who was there as director of the Faiths and Civil Society Unit at Goldsmiths, which sponsored the event, said he had wanted the evening to celebrate and think about the contribution of women as faith leaders in the Anglican community as well as other religions and traditionsdanquot;.

Represented among these religions and traditions were a "leading witch and herbalist" who shared the Church of England platform with the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church, the Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori and Helene Mobius, who heads the prison chaplain ministry of the Pagan Federation who challenged stereotypes of women. She said, Paganism had a "deep reverence" for both the feminine and masculine, not in a partnered but in a "conjoined" sense. This was not to diminish the role of God because without His "fertile seed" the cycle of life could not continue. However, she criticised the debasement of women in society which had seen words such as "crone", which once meant "elder", used as a term to mean something quite different.

She explained: "The word crone does not mean wizened old cackling pagan". Instead it referred to a woman who had passed beyond menstruation. It was the "passage of the mother becoming grandmother, no longer able, thankfully, to reproduce." This led to some discussion about whether there should be an authorised liturgy in the Church to mark the menopause.

Given the number of menopausal women clergy that idea must have been received with some impact. Perhaps the honorific, the Rev Crone could be introduced to make the Church of England more relevant to paganism? And why not? There are calls for a service to meet just about every occasion, the most recent being for a service to "celebrate transgender identity like a Baptism" (here). In fact, there seems to be more of an appetite for celebrating the extraordinary than for the straight forward worship of Almighty God, particularly on a Sunday by "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith".

Which brings me back to the Googlebox tv vicar. She is "all for a mid-week church service" so that she can have a "Sunday lie-in" (here). A joke perhaps but many a true word spoken in jest. She added, "I don't think declining church numbers are down to a loss of faith rather increasing pressure on people's time. Perhaps the Church could recognise this." Or, as the Archdeacon of Norwich, Ven Jan McFarlane put it in response to the revelation that Norwich is the most godless city in England: the citizens of Norwich are "doing their churchgoing differently", ie, staying away.

In new Anglicanism the daily Eucharists have been eroded and Sunday Masses cut so busy people are less able to make their Communion compared with the Roman Catholic Church yet these women want to spread their merk of Christianity to do for the Catholic Church what they have done for Anglicanism.

For millennia the Word of God has been received through the Bible. It is being replaced by the opinions of feminists, LGBT pressure groups and any other so-called 'equality' groups obsessed with 'sameness', interpreting Holy Scripture to suit the latest 'equality' cause. Do they not know, or do they convenientlyforget, that "for just as each of us has one body with many members, these members do not all have the same function"?

The Rev Lucy Winkett, Rector of St James', said that it mattered not so much that women were bishops and priests, as "how" they were bishops and priests. The authority held by a woman will be held "differentlydanquot; from that held by a man. How true, but probably not what she meant. If she had been interested in biblical authority, she need only have referred to1Timothy tiga:2. The revisionists long argued that we were all the same but having achieved their aims, women now have to be seen as different.

A fuller report in the Church Times quotes Presiding Bishop Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori as saying that women could offer a "witness to the otherness of God" as could gay bishops, or those who were young, or old, or from BME backgrounds. "White, male, English-speaking bishops with degrees from Oxford or Cambridge are only one sort," she said. "They cannot image the fullness of God."

And there was me thinking that the 'otherness of God' was represented by mystery and holiness.

Perhaps the flavour of the event was best captured by another guest speaker, Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner. She was "applauded for her moving acapella solo of The Lord's My Shepherd, sung with female instead of male pronouns"! That certainly is different.

Here is the panel:

The panel: (back row left to right) Adam Dinham, director of Faith and Civil Society Unit,

Goldsmiths, University of London;  Helene Mobius, Pagan Federation prison ministry manager;

 Saleha Islam, director of the Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre; Ms Winkett; Dr Schori; Hilary Cotton,

chair of WATCH; Professor Linda Woodhead, director of the Westminster Faith Debates;

 (front row left to right) the Dean of the Diocese of Kootenay, British Colombia, Nissa Basbaum;

 Mrs Bottley; Bharti Tailor, executive director of the Hindu Forum of Europe; Laura Janner-Klausner,

senior rabbi to the Movement for Reform Judaism.                           Source: Church Times

Read More

Just up his street

An announcement has appeared on the Church in Wales web site that Bazzer of Neath has now picked a girl from Neath to be the new Dean of Llandaff. - That must be another morale booster for Church in Wales clergy. An imported Ass Bishop and an imported lady Archdeacon although it has to be said that 'Peggy pilot' puts the Ass Bishop in the shade, not that that would be difficult according to local sources. So two out of three senior appointments to the ladies in Bazzer's campaign to feminise the Church in Wales along with the Church of England.

At least the new Dean was born in Wales but like Dr Morgan's other senior appointments recently, she has performed her ministry in England. Any suspicion that the Archbishop has simply picked a local girl is quickly dispelled after reading her blog where she writes about The Woman Bishops Debate. Based on a rudimentary knowledge of psychology she has decided that the tradition of the church is wrong and that solemn promises made to ensure that she was able to be ordained were made in error! The misrepresentation is on a scale that assured her of the favour of her new Archbishop. In his response to the outcome of the Women Bishops debate Dr Morgan had the gaul to use the motto of Credo Cymru ('Forward in Faith' in Wales), "Keep the Faith", in another simplistic piece in which he compares the holy priesthood of the one who stands at the Altar with a school teacher. For orthodox Anglicans such comments belittle our creedal catholic faith for purely political ends.

Today we celebrate the feast of Christ the King, the One who senior clergy, bishops included, would see dethroned in the cause of secularism. That will not happen because those who think in such terms are but a tiny minority in the universal church however much they like to brag about their brand of secular Anglicanism.

Today is also Stir-up Sunday. How very true.

Read More

They have only themselves to blame

Just one small wafer Ms Creosote?

As every Sunday school pupil knows, greed is one of the seven deadly sins. When Rowan Williams was humiliated by Women and the Church (WATCH) in July I sensed that the tide was about to turn. Every concession had been a step too far for WATCH. From 'a divided church' to 'demeaning women' then 'second class bishops', any excuse has been used to squeeze the opposition further. Listening to yesterday's debate it was clear that those in favour of women bishops wanted more than just that. Those opposed to the measure had no place in the church despite so-called assurances and solemn promises. Had they not been so greedy WATCH could already have achieved their goal and Archbishop Rowan could have retired a happy man. As one speaker put it, he would have voted in favour at every previous compromise but what was now on offer was not good enough. That summed up the mood. Enough was enough, so they lost.

Contrary to the hysterical headlines in the press, it was NOT a vote against women bishops. It was a vote against a lack of charity towards a substantial minority whose faith means more to them than their bishops and clergy realise. Going back to 1992, there were jubilant scenes among supporters of the ordination of women priests. That was passed by just two votes. Yesterday's vote dwarfed that margin by 200% a substantial majority! One could well argue that if the Holy Spirit was in favour of women priests, a popular cry, then the Holy Spirit must be categorically opposed to women bishops. But as we know, there is no logic in the ordination of women campaign, just prejudice. There is an honest assessment of the vote by a female trainee chaplain here. Without retracing ground covered this comment was very interesting: 'One argument kept ringing true: the claim that the pro-women campaigners were too quick to try and make the church like the world. Uncomfortably, I had to agree. Too many of those in favour of women bishops just sounded too… well… worldly'.

Writing in the Telegraph, Tim Stanley made a similar point: 'In the 21st century, what is the purpose of the village church? For much of the establishment of the Church of England, the answer seems to be “relevance” – they must earn their status in society by reflecting society's diversity of background and opinion. The great irony is that they want to make relevant something that is actually devalued by the attempt to make it relevant. God doesn’t do “relevance.” He just is – and, for most religious consumers, that’s what makes him so appealing'. Precisely!

In what I thought was a disappointing contribution to the debate after all the previous hype, the Bishop of Durham, Justin Welby, said: “It is time to finish the job and vote for this measure...the Church of England needs to show how to develop the mission of the church in a way that demonstrates that we can manage diversity of view without division; diversity in amity, not diversity in enmity”. Nothing was offered beyond the same old devalued promises. So far as the mission of the church is concerned Bishop Welby should reflect on the figures here. The mission of the church has accelerated rapidly downhill since 1992 following the introduction of women priests, so what is his point?

How the world sees the vote is illustrated by this coverage by Channel 4 News. It shows such appalling ignorance that one would have thought bishops and clergy would be keen to correct the misrepresentation but unfortunately they are part of the same problem, secularism. The Ch4 reporter Kattie Razzall remarked that "the secular world will not understand the decision that looks so out of step with modern society". She went on to describe the debate as 'a straight forward case of discrimination'. Interviewed by Jon Snow who showed an abysmal level of ignorance and understanding, Tony Baldry MP was at a loss to know how he would explain the vote to Parliament. Obviously the wrong man for the job then. This is the response to the vote from Parliament, again showing a lamentable understanding of anything sacred.

Looking at today's reaction to the vote, the House of Bishops has learned nothing. Statements such as "it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of wider society" imply a form of secular Christianity in which scripture is useful only for mis-quoting selected verses while tradition and reason are forgotten. Our bishops and clergy are no longer fully representative of the church which is the problem where proper provision is concerned. Advancement is denied to those not singing from the same sheet. Ordinands are deterred by blatant discrimination. It should have come as no surprise therefore that the fair minded would see this for what it is, a gradual elimination of clergy opposed to the ordination of women. So much for their majority which is achieved by manipulation.

To illustrate how these secular Christians are obsessed with their own agenda, the Church in Wales has been brought into the controversy by the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He has called for the Church in Wales to take the lead. He said: 'I think it would be very interesting and salutary if the Church in Wales over the next year or two had women bishops and the Church of England didn't' but what happened in England yesterday was a re-run of what happened in Wales in 2008 when their Governing Body rejected women bishops because proper provision for a significant minority was refused by their Archbishop. Dr Morgan maintains that position while advancing another cunning scheme he hopes will be approved in September 2013.

This goes to the heart of the problem. There is no negotiation; only a statement that 'this is as good as it gets'. There is more sympathy and support from Africa than we have from our own Archbishops. If they genuinely want to make progress this must change. There must be genuine negotiations to ensure that all may flourish in the church.

Read More

Blind guides

Members of two Houses, Bishops and Commons, have been singing to the same tune over what they see as the wrong vote in an agreed democratic process of Synod. The lyrics hark to a narrow world of their own making but these are the very people who should have a sense of proportion, impartiality and care for all. None of these has been in evidence. Just a one sided chant based on misguided concepts of making mother church 'intelligible to our wider society'. Rowan Williams was correct when he said 'it seems as if we are wilfully blind' but mistakenly he was referring to the 'trends and priorities of society', not to the House of Bishops or to Parliament.

It is disgraceful that there should have been such wilful misrepresentation of the orthodox position but it is time to move on. There has to be a solution that first of all is consonant with the faith of the Apostolic church however quaint that appears to modern society. Secondly we recognize that the Church of England has taken a different view from the Universal Church and that the majority of Anglicans in England are content to see women at the Altar and, therefore, for them to be bishops. If Women and the Church (WATCH) had not erected so many barriers to agreement they would have already achieved that objective but we must start afresh.

WATCH must give ground. Talk of removing 'concessions' is ludicrous. Also, talk of a 'divided church' and a 'Church within a Church' must be forgotten. That is where we are. The Anglican Church is divided throughout the Communion and, more importantly we are divided from the rest of the Catholic church. The creation of a Third Province covering both England and Wales would enable us all to live together in a spirit of unity and Godly love, to prosper or to fail according to conscience, giving greater hope for the survival of the Anglican Church in England and Wales in one form or another if not both without any grounds for regarding some bishops as 'second-class' bishops, something that Parliament says it will not tolerate. This solution would give the Holy Spirit a chance to work God's grace without wilful impediment. If a solution on these lines is not acceptable it will confirm that both Houses representing the Establishment are hellbent on turning the Church of England into a form of secularism.

Postscript

A compromise suggested here.

Read More

Not a good start for the new Dean of Llandaff

Unfortunately for readers of my previous entry, the oddly titled 'Inevitably' post under The Women Bishops Debate link, mysteriously disappeared - see here. Fortunately I have a copy (below) so readers can make of it what they will. [Note - the post has reappeared as mysteriously as it disappeared so I have removed the reprint but will keep a copy - just in case!]

It is intriguing how posts come and go in the secular integrity. In this context the women's lib movement has a strong affinity with Islam where one awkward verse is abrogated by another so peace will reign when we all abide by the rules of the oppressor.

The soon to be Mr(s) Dean concluded her entry thus: The Second Estates Church Commissioner has given purposeful leadership which showed itself in the open debate in the House of Commons yesterday. We should listen to Parliament. They may yet help us salvage something from this and reform the governance of the church so that it is better fit for purpose. If I may paraphrase Mrs Thatcher: You listen to Parliament if you want to; this integrity is not for turning.Watch this space for my thoughts on the performance of the Second Estates Church Commissioner.

Lest it be thought we cannot agree on anything, I commend the Venerable Janet Henderson for remarks in an earlier p ost: "We all make mistakes and act from mixed motives that are sometimes a great deal less pure than we would like to admit. Most of us find it very difficult to walk a balanced line between justice and compassion, loyalty to tradition and response to new developments. The art of being church is to live repentantly and graciously with those with whom we disagree". Also: "The Holy Spirit is able to work through the church's honest debate and interaction, through its members' pain and frustration and to bring to resonance the voice of the voiceless. Listening requires full attention and the ability to put aside our own ideas while we listen". Having lost the vote that becomes: "The debate on Tuesday was no more than the logical conclusion to the fact that we have spent 20 years encouraging people not to change their position on this issue, not to listen to each other, and not to work together, but to feel safe in which ever set of beliefs they hold".

Do I detect an abrogation?

Read More

Women in distress: An apology

"I don't have a latrine. Sometimes I go to the bush.

It's quite far and there have been a lot of people going.

Sometimes I feel ashamed and go back without defecating.

Sometimes I wait until dark so no one can see me.

To reach the bush, first there is a bridge.

Sometimes people fall off the bridge and then they die.

At night it is very dangerous. A woman I know has been raped."

Monday, 19 November 2012 was World Toilet Day. Like many others I was too concerned about Mother Church and what the future might hold for around one third of Anglicans in the Church of England who feel that they are being squeezed out so the email I received from Water Aid sank further down my in-try. It made this plea: "1 in 3 women worldwide risk shame, disease, harassment and even attack because they have nowhere safe to go to the toilet. That's 1.25 billion women – daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers. In April, the UK Government pledged to double the number of people they would reach with water and sanitation to 60 million by 2015. Now is the time to turn that promise into action and every voice adds pressure, so please add yours today."

As the Church of England Synod counted up votes on the women bishops measure, both sides praying that the Holy Spirit would shine upon them, one third of the women in the world were praying for rudimentary sanitation. It is hard not to feel ashamed that an unnecessary controversy deflected attention form the genuine need and suffering of one third of all women. They cannot be dismissed as a small minority. If you have not already done so, please sign-up to Water Aid and help the 1.25 billion women who are in desperate need of our vote.

Read More

The Church of England: A new Sect

"The Church of England's decision to reject the introduction of

women bishops makes it look like 'a sect'." - Sir Tony Baldry

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, displays an unusual understanding of the word sect which in Christian terms means a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. In our case that means the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which Parliament, the House of Bishops and a majority of clergy in Synod choose to ignore for purely political purposes.

Much has been made of the Commissioner's buffoonery in sporting a male-only, club tie while he was berating orthodox Christians for being sexist. What he had to say about sects was equally ridiculous. It is the rejection of Christian orthodoxy that will turn the Church of England into a Protestant sect, not the other way around. As mentioned in my previous entry, the new Dean of Llandaff wrote that "We should listen to Parliament". Why? MPs have demonstrated that they have no understanding of the issues involved. Every member I heard made false accusations on the lines of that peddled in the press by 'over one thousand clergy' when they suggested that orthodox Anglicans believe women are inferior to men. What utter nonsense and from senior clergy!

Comments made in Parliament showed an abysmal ignorance of the theology involved. This offering from David Winnick was typical: I am not involved with the Church of England and I am a lifelong non-believer, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire for the stance he has taken, that it is simply impossible to understand how on earth it can be argued that if women are considered appropriate to be deacons and priests, as they have been in the last 20 years, they are not worthy to be bishops. It is simply impossible to understand that. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that, for many of us, this opposition to women bishops bears comparison with the opposition 100 years ago to women having the right to vote and to sit in the House of Commons? It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics—that I find contemptible.

It is contemptible that an Honourable Member is allowed to get away with such statements such as "they are not [considered] worthy to be bishops" and "It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics" when nothing of the sort has been suggested. That is not the position of the church but it remains unchallenged because clergy and bishops in general hold their positions not for their belief in orthodox Christianity but in the church being relevant to society. Typical of the bishops' response came from the Bishop of Sheffield who told the BBC that 'he hoped the news would not affect congregation numbers' when the most vocal don't attend church anyway. He should wake up to the fact, as one historian put it, 'God doesn't do relevance'. What has affected congregation numbers is the use of half-truths and even lies to promote a liberal agenda at variance with Christian teaching.

There are far too many women who experience real suffering and desperately need our help instead of squabbling over imaginary injustices. Although illegal in the UK Female Genital Mutilation goes on because of "respect" and "cultural sensitivity" which makes detection in the UK almost impossible. Also, gender inequality is one of the main reasons for early and forced marriage: women and girls often occupy a lower status in societies as a result of social and cultural traditions, attitudes, beliefs that deny them their rights and stifle their ability to play an equal role in their homes and communities. Young girls are forced into marriage as child brides. It is ironic that immense suffering is allowed to continue out of respect for other cultures while a lack of respect for our own culture sees Christian orthodoxy overturned and genuine believers marginalised.

Women and men who complain about the supposed pain and suffering of women because they are not yet able to be bishops in the Church of England should focuson the real pain experienced by women and even girls in this country and far beyond. If they had had any thought for others they would already have secured the vote they crave for. All that is needed now is to allow orthodox Anglicans to practice their faith as it has been received. If they would only do that they could direct their considerable talents into helping to ease real suffering among women.That is the challenge. As Christians they should have the humility to accept it.

Read More

Is this really what we want for the Church of England?

"The way Finns feel about the Church is changing faster than ever, as is the Church’s position in the community. A generation ago, 90 percent of the Finnish population held membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, whereas now the number has shrunk to about 78 percent and is falling by about one percentage point annually. Ties between Church and State have also decreased... .While the role of the Church as an institution has weakened, its social role has grown. This becomes apparent in the reinforcement and expansion of diaconical work. For instance, the Church represents one of the most important providers of family counselling, and plays a central role in professional crisis work." - The 'down-to-earth' Finnish Church.

It may be Finnish but is it British? Their 'diaconical work' is most laudable but it is neither necessary nor desirable to turn the Holy Priesthood into an organisation for social workers in vestments. Surely the highest calling of every woman is superior to that of man in motherhood and the nurture of our children but in the women's movement Mary's role in the incarnation is made to appear insignificant compared to the weight given to the example of  Mary Magdalene who is constantly extolled as 'the Apostle to the Apostles' because of her messengerial role having witnessed the Resurrection before conveying the message to the Apostles who were specifically appointed by Christ rather than inferred to bolster a case for lack of evidence.

There is nothing motherly about the campaign for women bishops. The vindictive statement by WATCH in their call for a single clause measure for women bishops totally misrepresents the position of orthodox Anglicans: "Women clergy and supporters of their ministry have had enough of the wasteful wrangling over women bishops. Years have been spent in trying to make legal provision that would satisfy those opposed...." I would be the first to apologise if I misinterpret their allegations but it is difficult to see how the oppressed could be satisfied with the terms of the oppressor simply on the oppressors' say so. I wasn't present at any of the discussions but the Bishop of Ebbsfleet was. His more credible account of 'The General Synod Vote on Women Bishops' is given on the See of Ebbsfleet web site here.

Orthodox Anglicans have endured many false charges of misogyny, even when the vote in the House of Laity was lost with a large tally of women's votes. As an example of the many women in the church who simply suffer in silence, my wife was deeply hurt and bitterly disappointed on being abandoned by Abp Rowan when he gave his response to the vote. It is difficult to understand why he recognised hurt only in the strident women of WATCH. On reading Bp Jonathan Baker's account Mrs Briton's comment was, "Why couldn't Rowan have said that?" before adding "+Jonathan has been far too charitable to the women of WATCH." - Apparently one has to be a woman to understand women.

Theoretically there is a danger in the strategy of WATCH but no doubt they have either made the necessary calculations or are confident in their ability to manipulate the authority of the church. If the current injustice to a significant minority is made worse, more people may be encouraged to vote against the new measure but like a second-rate trade union, having failed to stuff Synod with sufficient support to assure victory, the call now is to change the rules to give them that assurance. There has already been a no confidence vote in the Diocese of Bristol and a hypocritical call by the Chair of the House of Clergy to oust the Chair of the House of Laity.

The final absurdity in this process is the claim that we have to be responsive to the priorities of secular society. As if he had become WATCH's trumpet Abp Rowan commented after the vote: The Church of England has "a lot of explaining to do" to the church and to wider society after its rejection of legislation ... In a strongly worded speech to the General Synod [he] warned that the failure of the vote in the house of laity on Tuesday had made the church's governing body appear "wilfully blind" to the priorities of secular society. "We have – to put it very bluntly – a lot of explaining to do," he said. "Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday … the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society."

It would have been understandable if these comments had come from WATCH but coming from a world-renowned theologian they are incredible. If the early church had been guided by the trends and priorities of wider society at the time there would be no church for them to meddle with.

Read More

Vindictive, conniving, manipulative - Is this the Church of England?

Unlike women in religiouscommunities who put God and mankind before self, Women and the Church (WATCH) exists only to serve themselves. The fury exhibited after losing the vote in a Synod specially convened at considerable expense for the purpose of reaching a conclusion under agreed procedures is extraordinary. Their performance is matched only by the high priestess of schism who is busy tearing apart The Episcopal Church  in the United States of America.

WATCH gambled recklessly, constantly raising the stakes until they lost. Having done so they cry foul and blame everyone but themselves. It was a calculated gamble. They were expected to win with the support of bishops and clergy and assumed they could manipulate the laity in the same way but they have more about then when it comes to keeping the faith. Having gambled and lost, WATCH are deperate to throw the dice again but this time loaded in their favour. It comes as no surprise that they want a single clause measure which makes no provision for dissenters, the sort of vindictiveness we have come to expect from an organisation that claims to be doing one thing but does another.

In a recent TV programme Christina Rees referred to "those who are opposed to this [measure], who have completely refused to accept all the arrangements that we have worked painstakingly over years to provide" with no hint of responsibility for the fact that WATCH have scuppered every attempt to reach agreement unless it is on their terms.

The bishops have given every reason to believe that they are conniving with WATCH. A statement on 28 November after the Archbishops' Council read as follows:

"As part of their reflections, many council members commented on the deep degree of sadness and shock that they had felt as a result of the vote and also of the need to affirm all women serving the church - both lay and ordained - in their ministries. In its discussions the Council decided that a process to admit women to the episcopate needed to be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod in July 2013. There was agreement that the Church of England had to resolve this matter through its own processes as a matter of urgency".

One wonders what the council members had in mind when they commented "of the need to affirm all women serving the church - both lay and ordained". Does that include the women, almost half of those in the House of Laity who voted against the measure? They have already been condemned for being out of step not only with with the diocesan synods but with wider society as if secularism guides our faith. If everyone was supposed to vote in accordance with the wishes of WATCH, the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, what was the point of debating the measure all day or, indeed, even of holding a special Synod? This is an abysmal example the Church of England has set for society. If we all rejected established procedures when we don't like the result there would be total anarchy.

It beggars belief that WATCH claim to have done everything in their power to accommodate others when they have vetoed every concession that has been suggested. Let us be clear about this. There is one word for saying one thing but doing another. That word isHypocrisy which is condemned throughout Matthew 23. Further manipulation must be expected but it must be countered. We belong to Christ's church not to a women's church as asserted by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In the TV programme mentioned above orthodox Christians were referred to as being toxic. The bishops who serve them by exercising our credal belief in the Apostolic Church were described as 'Flying Bigots' by the Rev George Pitcher who is a former public affairs advisor to the Archbishop of Canterbury no less. The Archbishop was correct when, speaking after the vote, he said:“We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,” but he added, “Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do, we have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society."

It is clear that Archbishop Rowan was admonishing worshippers in the Church of England whoacted out of conscience because Synod had reneged on a pledge. Some of those in favour of women bishops but who voted against the measure have explained their reason: “Our vote against stemmed from the Measure’s failure to honour the inclusiveness which we believe fundamental to the future of Anglicanism. The Church of England needs all the voices it currently has, and to hear them all. Unity has never been unanimity.”

The Church of England has lost a very large measure of credibility. She has broken a solemn promise of care for all and has become vindictive, conniving and manipulative. Is a Church of England with women bishops to be a Church without honour?

Many in our constituency had faith that Rowan would not abandon us. That is now wearing very thin.  If he too keeps the faith, this could still be his finest hour.

Read More

The test of faith

Upon this rock I will build my church

'But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'. In my book you either believe that or you don't. If you believe it, talk about Jesus being a man of His time is just rubbish churned out to persuade the gullible that the ordination of women is something to be decided by popular vote, including the votes of unbelievers.

Ten years ago between a quarter and a half of Church of England clergy surveyed did not believe in thevirgin birth and a third doubted or disbelieved in the physical Resurrection. Given those figures it not surprising that many clergy regard Jesus simply as a man of his time. So what are they doing in the church? The answer appears to be that they are carving out careers for themselves at the expense of those who believe that the Son of the living God must be the man of all time.

The revisionists are doing such a good job at pushing their secular values that in the first test of public opinion after the synod vote on the measure for women bishops, 76% of adults said that the Church is out of touch with society. Today's Telegraph has some uncomfortable reading in showing that the number of Christians has fallen by 4 million in the ten years 2001 to 2011 while the number of Muslims has risen significantly from 1.5m to 2.7m.

After the women bishops measure was lost all manner of statistics were bandied about to illustrate that a minority had defied the mind of Synod. Less comfortable reading will be the statistics which show that "the overwhelming majority, 82.3%, believe that those opposed to the ordination of women are faithful Anglicans who should not be forced out of the Church of England". A similar situation exists in the Church in Wales.

There have been suggestions that the Church of England follows the example of the Church in Wales with a twin approach to solving the problem, see here, here and here. So here is the challenge. If the movers of the ordination of women are sincere in their belief and are genuine in their desire to make concessions to achieve their objective, why not show their sincerity by adopting the Church in Wales initiative but reversing the two clauses to ensure that faithful Anglicans are not forced out of the church but are enabled to prosper in common with the overwhelming majority of the wider church?

As it stands,"The second Bill would refer to the Canon enabling women to be ordained as bishops. We have purposely suggested that the scheme of pastoral provision be included – presumably as a schedule – in a second Bill in order to give as much confidence as possible to those for whom it provides that their genuinely held views are being taken seriously and that the church is being faithful to its declared intent in 1996". Currently that is meaningless to those for whom it is intended because it has been made plain that provision will be determined by the Bench of Bishops, a situation that has existed since the first (and only) Provincial Assistant Bishop retired in 2008.

If the bishops are serious in their promise 'to give as much confidence as possible'to faithful Anglicansopposed to the ordination of women, such a strategy will test their sincerity. Failure to meet the challenge will lead not only to a weakening of the position of the Anglican Church but to another massive drop in the number of Christians in the 2021 census.

Read More

Homophopic, bigoted and racist - that's me, allegedly!

I like to think of myself as a tolerant sort of chap who will listen to an argument and come to a conclusion, just as I would expect others to do, based not on propaganda but on relevant facts. I must be showing my age because different criteria are demanded today, basically just following the crowd by deferring to political correctness. Sorry but that's not for me.

The discussion on the last session of Question Time (QT) in 2012 left me in no doubt that tolerance can back-fire badly. In times past the sexual orientation of people was not important, you liked them or you didn't. People did not go around shouting I am gay, I am a lesbian, etc. They were more important as people, as human beings. Now it seems that sexuality is all. A comment was made on QT that the number of same sex couples living in partnership was a small fraction of one per cent of the population. I read another report which placed Newport in Gwent with the highest percentage of same sex partnerships at just 0.4%. So why all the fuss?  I welcomed the legislation on civil partnerships and believe that what consenting adults do in private (hetero and homo) is between them and God if they are believers, but our failure not only to recognise but to applaud different life-styles is now portrayed as unforgivable for not supporting so-called equality.

One of the QT panel, the Shadow Home Office Minister, while admitting to being an Anglican strenuously claimed that love was all important so people who love one another must be allowed to marry each other. On that basis if we are obedient to Christ's command to love one another, we should all be able to marry each other! Taking things out of context typifies the problem with the Church of England in its obsession with sex and secular notions of equality which, applied in the context of faith, have torn Anglicanism apart, first in demanding that a woman's place is at the Altar but now that they have to be bishops as if they are unable to perform their ministry in any other way, contrary to the example of the vast majority of women in the church.

So, because I believe that marriage is a holy estate between a man and a woman I am labelled homophobic not only by panel members but enthusiastically endorsed by the audience when it was clear that all but a couple of speakers from the floor showed an abysmal ignorance of the subject they were discussing. Likewise I am labeled a bigot for believing that the priesthood whose orders flow from the Holy Catholic Church is not something to be changed unilaterally by gathering votes from non-believers to influence Synod. On immigration, any consideration of the impact on housing, schools, transport, education, health, etc, without any preconceived idea let alone the impact on social cohesion is regarded as racism so there can be no discussion without a charge of being racist.

I tried Googling on this phenomenon. It produced the rainbow flag, above. Read what inspired it here. What a sad nation we have become, aided and abetted by the Church of England. I sometimes wonder if God wills her demise. Anyone for the Queen James Bible? And there's more.

Thank God then for the Bishop of Portsmouth who demolished any idea of a case for same sex marriage with all the relevant facts in a letter to the Prime Minister. Read it HERE.

Read More

Echoes

Back in January I wrote about the late Fr Jeremy Winston, Dean of Monmouth, whose tragic death just over a year ago robbed the Church in Wales of one of her brightest stars yet he had been told: "there is no place for you in this church". Today comes news of another tragic story, the loss of what promised to be an outstanding ministry in the episcopate, the withdrawal of Fr Philip North from the post of Bishop of Whitby. The reason? Because of an all consuming desire to see women in purple at any cost. So insidious has this desire become that even the Archbishop of Canterbury, long thought of as a friend of the faithful, appears to havesuccumbed to this lust for woman power which, sadly, is how they now see the episcopate.

In a November entry I suggested that the Church of England seemed destined to follow the path of the Church in Wales if promises of a secure place in the church for traditionalists were not honoured. They were not; the vote was lost. The latest episode in the shameful treatment of Fr North should act as a salutary warning that lust, like greed and anger is another deadly sin committed in the name of so-called equality and without a great deal of contrition is likely to see another defeat.

If women insist on being robed in purple they first need to understand the basics of what they have entered into, as do their supporters.

Read More

Faith, hope and charity?

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;but the greatest of these is charity". Perhaps some of the most familiar words in the Bible and it seems, the most readily forgotten. Compare these words with those used in the statement by the House of Bishops: The House recognised and felt the profound and widespread sense of anger, grief and disappointment experienced by so many in the Church of England and beyond. 'Beyond' could well refer to the Episcopal Church of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori who shows a complete lack of charity towards those who disagree with herhere, here, here and here. I could go on but for the latest read Anglican Ink here.

If ever there were a need to heed warning signs! But the fractured liberal wings of the Anglican Communion are so obsessed with (some) women in the church and sexual equality that they flap around ignoring the wider spiritual direction of the universal church and risk ending up in a protestant Cul-de-sac completely separated from the Catholic church of East and West of our creed.

Unrepresentative liberal bishops constantly use selective figures to justify their actions while ignoring the reality of the position in which they find themselves having become slaves of WATCH. I was particularly interested to read the statement put out by Reform in response to the announcement about the working group on women bishops:Prebendary Rod Thomas said he was ‘nonplussed' as to why the membership of the working group does not contain anybody who shares our convictions about male headship – despite the fact that this was a key concern underlying the vote on 20th November.

This comes hot on the heels of an excellent article here about the Church failing to respect its minority voices. But I would add a note of caution to a suggestion repeated in the article: One of the ways forward might be to look at what the Church in Wales is trying to achieve in having separate arrangements for both matters and not having one without the other. Read the reality of the position in Waleshere.

The working group must recognise that the 'majority' view regarding the ordination of women is a minority view in the wider church beyond the Church of England. Within the C of E a significant minority opposed to the ordination of women on theological grounds are also loyal members of the Church of England and in all charity deserve the right to test their resolve in arrangements designed to suit their needs. Anything else is not only unethical, it is unscriptural.

Postscript

Typical of the double standards employed by liberal bishops, the Archbishop of Wales says he does not want a ban on gay marriages in the Church in Wales. He said: "I am not sure we want that kind of protection which makes us out to be very unwelcoming and homophobic". It is not homophobic to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman but his attitude to the 'traditionalist' minority within his own church is already very unwelcoming. Dr Morgan added:"It is not that I am advocating that the Church in Wales is right to perform gay marriages but that decision needs to be made by the Church in Wales, it’s not for the State to decide for us." As with his proposalsfor woman bishops, my guess based on previous form is that he wants to make same-sex marriage legal and sweep up the opposition afterwards.

Read More

Another politician in clerical clothing

In the latest helping of the views of the Archbishop of Wales in WalesOnline we have Organ Donations, Devolution, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Women's Rights, Demographics and the Welsh language. Unlike Her Majesty the Queen who broadcast a simple Christian message in her Christmas Day broadcast [see previous entry], here is another cleric who finds it much easier to preach politics from the privilege of the pulpit than to offer himself for election. The closest Dr Morgan gets to God is when he talks of the decline of the church, again abdicating any sense of responsibility with the words: “At the end of the day, the church is not the clergy and the church is certainly not bishops. The church is the whole people of God.” - If that is the case, why does he insist on ploughing his own furrow contrary to the direction of the universal Apostolic church to which he professes allegiance every time he recites the Creed?

Apart from the dwindling few he has gathered around him, the 'whole people of God' as he sees them couldn't care less for the views of the Archbishop according to the results of the 2011 census which showed his diocese of Llandaff as home to areas in the UK with the highest rates reporting no religion. Caerphilly takes the lead on his patch:Some local authorities in Wales also reported some of the highest levels of no religion. Caerphilly had the largest percentage point increase since 2001 of 16.7 to 41.0 per cent . Blaenau Gwent, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Torfaen also saw large increases of no religion with 16.0, 15.5 and 15.4 percentage points respectively.

I hear on the grapevine that managing thedecline of the Church in Wales has already run into trouble with problems implementing the 'Harries' Review. Despite a great deal of time and effort looking at clustering parishes this is now regarded as a non-starter. Also, as if to kick a man when he is down, Dr Morgan's cherished plan of making the Diocese of Llandaff the Archiepiscopal see will not take place in the foreseeable future. Added to which parsonages will not be sold off as recommended and the Archbishop has admitted that he has no power to close buildings so churches will continue to be used until they fall intodisrepair for lack of funds and, presumably, become unusable on grounds of safety. None of this really matters to the bishops because all seven of them keep their jobs (I use the term advisedly) regardless of further decline below the 1% of the 'whole people of God' they care for in Wales, allegedly. This strategy also keeps all the bums on the bench so that when women bishops take over they will have somewhere to sit while wondering where all the people have gone. As senior appointments now go to outsiders, they could of course spend their time learning Welsh so they can talk among themselves in their 'home' language since a vast amount of money has been spent on translations for Welsh speakers, now down to19% of the population and a tiny fraction of churchgoers practically all of whom no doubt would be bilingual.

Dr Morgan is very keen on supporting (some) minorities. He was particularly miffed at not being consulted over plans to exempt the Church in Wales from David Cameron's same-sex marriage proposals claiming that it would make the Church in Wales appear homophobic. What an appalling claim for an educated man to make, even worse by a cleric and more so by a bishop. It is not homophobic to believe that marriage is a life-long union between one man and one woman. But this is just another smokescreen. It is an attempt to conceal Dr Morgan's main aim which is to enhance his liberal credentials at any cost in the same way that he proposes a sleight of hand to allow the admission of women to the episcopate by making supposed provision for those opposed when he has already indicated that there will be no provision other than on his terms. If he were to offer himself for election, who would vote for such duplicity?

Read More

House of Laity has confidence in Dr Giddings

One would think that Dr Philip Giddings, Chair of the House of Laity, had been guilty of some heinous crime but in fact he has been pilloried simply for speaking the truth, something with which the House of Shame Bishops have shown themselves to be decidedly economical. The motion of no  confidence moved by lay Canon Stephen Barney was suitablyrejected by a substantial majority which, using the criteria of the accusers, means that members of the House of Bishops must examine their consciences very carefully.

For readers wondering what Dr Giddings may have said to incur the wrath of the women bishops movement I have copied below an unedited transcript of Dr Giddings’s speech made during the debate on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708D) at the November 2012 group of sessions of the General Synod. Note particularly the paragraph in bold type [my emphasis]. Had there been no generosity of spirit when Synod accepted the women priests measure there would be no women priests demanding to be bishops but having achieved their aim their promise was rescinded showing a complete absence of Christian charity. As if that were not shame enough, it took the courage of a layman to prick the conscience of Synod because the bishops took as their guide yet another erroneous passage from the Bible and washed their hands of it.

Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I want first, as Chair of the House of Laity, to welcome Bishop Justin as Archbishop-elect and express my very great appreciation for the speech he has just made. Sadly, although I agree with almost everything that he said, I cannot agree with his conclusion.

As Chair of the House of Laity, it is part of my role to ensure that the views of the whole House are heard, particularly on final approval business. Synod already knows that a substantial majority of the House and of laypeople generally are in favour of women bishops and of this draft Measure. Many speeches today are making that point. Therefore, I want to focus on a significant minority of laypeople who are opposed in principle to women bishops and to the content of the Measure before us.

Essentially, I wish to say that it is unwise to go ahead with a Measure dealing with fundamental matters of ministry and doctrine with a significant minority of our Church unable to accept its provisions. I do believe that we can find a better way.

On 7 February this year in Westminster Abbey, representatives of the Church of England and the URC took part in a service of penitence and reconciliation to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of non-conforming ministers in 1662. In November 2003, this Synod endorsed the covenant for unity with the Methodist Church in ‘a spirit of penitence for…our past divisions, believing that we have been impoverished through our separation and that our witness to the gospel has been weakened accordingly’.

Surely we do not want to make the same mistakes again? Can we not find a better way of taking this historic step of allowing the consecration of women as bishops without unchurching those who cannot in conscience accept it?

Last week I received a letter from a former distinguished lay member of this Synod who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministration of women bishops. He says, ‘All I ask for is a place in that one CofE where I can continue and flourish with integrity and mutual respect, but it is precisely that which this proposed legislation denies me’. I do not agree with his views on sacramental ministry but I do not see why our disagreement requires that one or other of us has no future in the Church of England.

In 1992 I voted in favour of ordaining women to the priesthood but knowing it was unacceptable to many of my fellow Evangelicals because of their understanding of the biblical teaching on headship. I voted for that legislation because it was designed to ensure that those who could not in conscience accept it could remain with us. Today’s legislative package will not achieve that.

Do we really believe that such diversity of opinion no longer exists? Legislation does not remove diversity of opinion. It is diversity. It is not prejudice. It is not simply refusal to accept change. It is solidly theologically based judgement. That is not my view; that was recognized fully in the Rochester report. We may disagree with the dissenting minority but does that mean we have to exclude them from a future in this Church?

Those who have worked for reconciliation in various areas of life know that you cannot achieve a solution unless all parties agree to and own it. That is the missing piece in this legislative package. Those for whom the provision is intended do not own it.

We have been told that we have debated these matters long enough. Long enough perhaps for those who are in the majority and can impose their will, but not long enough to gain the consent of those who are opposed and whose consent is essential if we are to remain a united and growing Church committed to mission. We should not be in this position. We can and should find a better way.

Read More