An Odd Statement on Brexit from the C of E House of Bishops

First, I have to get credit where credit is due.  On its face, the statement on Brexit by the Church of England House of Bishops is commendable.  The result of the Brexit referendum should be respected.  And even Archbishop Welby of all people has called out the Remoaners for their “whingeing”.  And care should be taken in the language used in discussing Brexit.

But the statement has the air of a body that is above the fray when Church of England bishops have been anything but.  Church of England bishops are almost all Remainers, and quite a few merit being dubbed Remoaners.  Further, some of their language towards those who back Brexit has been *cough* uncharitable as Cranmer notes.

You know if I were to give a sermon on the sin of unrighteous anger, I would feel like a pretentious hypocrite if I did not acknowledge during it that I struggle with anger.  So how can the House of Bishops give a statement like this without clearly acknowledging and, yes, apologizing for the very public Remoaning amongst them in the years since the referendum?

Nonetheless, the statement is a pleasant surprise.  Better late than never.

George Bell Group Decries “Disgraceful” Conduct of ++Welby & +Warner

The George Bell Group under the name of its Convenor, Andrew Chandler, has issued a statement calling for the Church of England clearly to declare the late George Bell innocent of accusations of sexual abuse.

I urge reading the statement itself as quoting from it would not do it justice.  I will say that, especially when one considers the English penchant for understatement, the statement is very strongly worded.

Further, Mr. Chandler calls out Archbishop Justin Welby and the current Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, in no uncertain terms.  And their conduct as well as the conduct of others in the George Bell matter is “disgraceful” indeed.

Again, read the statement.

On Justin Welby’s EU “Terrible Error of Judgement” (and ACNA)

Gavin Ashenden has posted a piece dubbing Justin Welby’s statement in praise of the EU a “terrible error of judgement.” I think Bishop Gavin is being nice.  To say as Welby did that the European Union “is the greatest dream realised for human beings since the fall of the Roman Empire” descends into clownish cluelessness.

Nonetheless Ashenden well points out what is even a bigger problem with Welby’s statement:

There is a convention that clergy don’t speak out on political matters where their ‘flock’ or constituency reflect both sides of the argument. It’s a sensible one and has saved many an Archbishop from unnecessary humiliation and risking national disrespect.

Although those who lean to the Left find the temptation too hard to overcome sometimes, ignoring this convention suggests one of three things; that you think you have a hot-line to God, (not impossible but unlikely); that you believe your own personal political judgement is beyond criticism; or that you seriously disrespect your political opponents and their views.

And I may add that said disrespect invites anger and division . . . although in Welby’s case, his statement is so absurd that laughter is more appropriate and more common I suspect.

The bishops and other leadership of the Anglican Church in North America would do well to read and consider.  No, I cannot recall an ACNA bishop going so far as Welby into ill-advised political statements.  But ACNA would do well to be more careful to respect “political opponents and their views” in areas in which ACNA is not of one mind.  We have enough areas of disagreement and difference to navigate as it is.

We can learn a lot from Justin Welby . . . from his “terrible errors of judgement.”

Historians Rebuke Justin Welby’s “Dangerous and Irresponsible” Smear of George Bell

I am very glad to see that six very reputable historians have taken Archbishop Justin Welby to task for his smearing of George Bell.  Please read their entire open letter to Welby, but skipping to their conclusions...:

We state our position bluntly. There is no credible evidence at all that Bishop Bell was a paedophile….  We state this after reviewing all that is known about his character and behaviour over many years….  We note, and emphasize, that there was never so much as a whisper of such an allegation in his lifetime. It is the testing of accusations which shows the integrity of a society, not the making of them. [If you heard wild applause, that may have been me. – Ed.]

There is today no cloud at all over Bishop Bell. Nobody employing credible critical method could think otherwise. Two of us are biographers of former Archbishops of Canterbury and we all acknowledge the many difficulties and pressures which any archbishop must face, not least in a position which Archbishop Lang once called ‘incredible, indefensible and inevitable’. None of us may be considered natural critics of an Archbishop of Canterbury. But we must also draw a firm line. The statement of 15 December 2017 seems to us both irresponsible and dangerous. We therefore urge you, in all sincerity, to repudiate what you have said before more damage is done and thus to restore the esteem in which the high, historic office to which you have been called has been held.

Kudos to these scholars for this excellent statement.

As for Justin Welby, he has become rather isolated in this matter.  His smears reflect more on him than on George Bell.  And that is as it should be.

Orthodox Anglican Laity Standing Up in Britain

A significant factor in the apostasy and decline of most mainline denominations in the West is that the laity, even orthodox laity, put up with apostasy instead of putting their foot down.  Or when they finally did speak up in numbers, it was too late.

So it gladdens my heart to see British Anglican laity taking action in the aftermath of the recent and already infamous General Synod of the Church of England.

The lay led Parochial Church Counsel (PCC) of St. John, Newland in Hull has publicly called on the Archbishop of York to repent of his role at Synod and has cut off parish donations to the Diocese of York in the indefinite/eternal meantime.  Good!  A necessary first step in combating apostasy and error is to stop funding it.

Laity are also playing a significant role in alternative synods already meeting.  These meetings include Anglican clergy and laity both inside and outside the Church of England.  How churches get involved in these synods is interesting and instructive [Emphasis mine]:

Churches have joined the synod by means of PCCs passing a motion: ‘As a PCC that is determined to uphold the Jerusalem Statement we commit to an Anglican synod of churches whose PCCs have likewise resolved to uphold the Jerusalem Statement. As an Anglican synod we will send representatives to confer, pray and assist PCCs in said synod as needful. We will seek to ensure our mutual support is in deed as well as word, and therefore enthusiastic, missional, financial and prayerful.’

By having churches join the synod via PCC resolutions, we ensure that lay people are fully involved in decisions and leadership. Bitter experience has shown that organisations almost exclusively led by Anglican clergy become talking-shops! Our churches see the Jerusalem Declaration as a valuable rallying point. Some churches have additional doctrinal commitments. In addition to the main synod meetings – attended by all our PCCs, there are occasional Clergy Chapters. These offer fellowship and training to clergy who are happy to sign a statement similar to the PCC motion.

Indeed, laity must make a stand and get involved if denominations and churches are to avoid apostasy and error.  One practical reason is it is easier to a lay person to disobey an errant bishop than it is for clergy.  The pressure on clergy to go along to get along can be great.  One example is a Church of England cleric under pressure from Justin Welby himself had his name withdrawn from a recent letter as reported on Anglican Unscripted #310 (about 2 minutes in).  It is far easier for a layperson than for clergy to tell Justin Welby and his ilk where to go.

So good on the lay leadership of St. John, Newland and on other Anglican laity taking a stand in Britain.  Their efforts aided by the power and grace of God are needed if orthodox Anglicanism is to survive and thrive in the UK.

Athanasius, err, GAFCON Responds to Justin Welby

There is some excellent analysis out there on the current disagreement surrounding the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC).  Lee Gattis’ piece particularly stands out.  Kevin and Gavin are excellent as well.

But perhaps the most brilliant and succinct response comes from the Archbishop of Nigeria Nicholas Okoh, Chairman of GAFCON.  As most readers know, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said and did virtually nothing to discourage the SEC from solemnizing same sex “marriage.”  Instead he let them know they would be welcome at Lambeth 2020 regardless.  Nor did he lift a finger to assist the orthodox remaining in the SEC in spite of their repeated pleas.  But then, when GAFCON did respond to their pleas, Justin got huffy about boundary crossing.

Well, Archbishop Okoh just blew Justin Welby out of the water ever so nicely:

As I write, we are preparing for Trinity Sunday. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is vital. Without it, we cannot speak truly of God in a way that is faithful to the bible. However, in the fourth century the Church was nearly overwhelmed by the Arians. They were the followers of Arius, who claimed that the Son was a created being, not really God.

If the Church had continued to follow Arius, the Christian faith would have been lost. To deny the full divinity of Jesus strikes at the heart of the Christian message that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.  St Athanasius is still remembered as the man who was willing to make a costly stand against this heresy.

I am reminded of Athanasius because we are facing a similar struggle for the integrity of the gospel in our time. On Thursday 8th June, the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) changed its teaching to allow men to be married to men and women to women.  It followed the path already taken by the Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada.

This attempt to redefine marriage is not a secondary issue about which we can agree to disagree and continue to walk together. It means that Jesus was mistaken when he taught that marriage was between a man and a woman and that sex outside of such a marriage is a sin. It is a radical rejection of the authority of Scripture. The Church claims that it can consecrate behaviour that God’s Word clearly teaches to be sinful. According to the Bible, this behaviour, without repentance, separates those who practice it from his kingdom.

Athanasius consecrated orthodox bishops in dioceses led by Arians because he knew that the apostolic faith itself was at stake. This was the principle guiding the interventions which led to the formation of the Anglican Church in North America in 2009 and it was affirmed by over three hundred bishops in assembly at Gafcon 2013 in Nairobi. It was therefore very appropriate that on the same day that the Scottish Episcopal Church formally turned aside from the historic Christian faith, Gafcon announced that Canon Andy Lines, already an internationally recognised missionary statesman, will be consecrated later this month as a Gafcon missionary bishop for Europe.

Read the rest for yourself and do so at GAFCON.org. Why? A very nice touch was a prominent depiction of Athanasius that accompanied the letter on the GAFCON site.  Really that image alone rebuts Welby’s whinging about boundary crossing very well.  Okoh’s letter, excellent as it is, merely spells out the good example of Athanasius and its application today. I also like the gentle reminder that ACNA itself is the product of boundary crossing.

Speaking of which, I am very pleased that ACNA is taking a prominent role in the Lines consecration.  But more on that at a later time.  I need to get ready for the Reformed Episcopal Church’s General Council.

++York Decries Attacks on Philip North UPDATED

In the aftermath of Bishop Philip North’s decision to withdraw from consideration for the See of Sheffield, the Archbishop of York’s statement stands out.

He is frank, to say the least:

…What has happened to Bishop Philip clearly does not reflect the settlement under which, two and a half years ago, the Church of England joyfully and decisively opened up all orders of ministry to men and women. It also made a commitment to mutual flourishing: that those who ‘on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests, will continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures; and pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of England will be made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contribute to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England.’

There will be continuing debate in the coming days and weeks of lessons to be learned, how that learning might inform and inspire us to act as a Church in our dealings with one another and how, when we disagree, to disagree Christianly, remembering at all times that our identity is in Christ alone.

It is now time – during this season of Lent - that the Church spends time in penitence, repentance and reflection. If we are serious about our commitment to loving one another and to mutual flourishing within the Body of Christ, there must now be time for us all to reflect and recognise in Bishop Philip’s own words ‘The highly individualised nature of the attacks upon me have been hard. If as Christians we cannot relate to each other within the bounds of love, how can we possibly presume to transform a nation in the name of Christ?  I hope though that this conversation can continue in future without it being hung upon the shoulders of one individual.’ I agree with him entirely.

I think this is about as close as an Anglican archbishop gets to being angry in an official statement. 

Although he does not use the term, what ++ York is decrying is the con game of Bait-and-Switch libchurchers play oh so well.  They promise tolerance, space, and “mutual flourishing” to those who disagree with their innovations.  But once they lie to get their way and have enough power, libchurchers throttle the orthodox faithful.  Oh, those mossback orthodox laity are fine as long as they keep the money coming.  But if one of those bigots try to become a diocesan bishop…. 

And, of course, the day will come when traditionalists won’t be able to become any kind of bishop.  Then they won’t be able to become priests.  We’ve seen this sort of thing in the Episcopal Church already.

So far, there is no statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Where’s the “radical inclusion,” Your Grace?

MORE:
Susie Leafe, Director of Reform has issued a brilliant statement that also calls out Bait-and-Switch:

I have lost count of the number of times conservatives have been asked to trust that we can flourish in the Church of England, but without solid evidence that there is an equal future for conservatives in the Church of England (beyond that of dhimmitude) it becomes harder and harder to convince talented young men and women to offer themselves to serve in this denomination or to persuade congregations to continue to finance the work.

And still no statement from Justin Welby.

@JustinWelby Your Grace, your silence on the Philip North withdrawal is getting well nigh deafening. Where's your "radical inclusion" now?

— WannabeAnglican (@WannabeAnglican) March 10, 2017

Justin Welby Acknowledges Concerns About Immigration

Long time readers should sit down before I begin.

.

.

.

Seated?  Good.  I am going to praise the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Nobody has fainted?  Good.

Just so you know, no one has drugged me.  My praise is rational and justified. 

For Justin Welby has acknowledged concerns about immigration as legitimate.  Further, he has said it is “absolutely outrageous” to smear said concerns as racist.

Still further, he said the Church of England will not take a stand on the Brexit Referendum. 

Now, this stand may seem mild to some.  And Iain Duncan Smith certainly has a point that it is overdue. 

But, in the midst of C of E bishops who oft are the Labour Party at prayer and after the vitriol of years and decades toward those who want rational immigration restrictions and want out of the EU, Canterbury’s statement is courageous and needful.

I cannot let pass the contrast with the Vatican, which for decades has been cheerleaders of the EU Beast and remains so.

Not a Good Week for the Church of England

This has not been a good week for the Church of England.  But there is at least one bright spot – some evangelicals are speaking up and clearly.

-----

JOINT PRESS RELEASE from Reform and Oxford Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship

Evangelicals call for the Church of England to uphold the gospel of Jesus Christ

This week began with Katherine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) of the USA preaching in Westminster Abbey, it will end, we are told with Canon Michael Smith of York Minster blessing the York Gay Pride March. In between we have seen the Bishop of Buckingham describe doctrine that he swore to teach and pass on as ‘lousy’.

Nowhere in any of this has there been the clear message of the Gospel that despite our rejection of his ways we are all loved by God and can find forgiveness through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not surprising then, that the majority of the world’s Anglicans now look to the Primates of Global Anglican Future Conference GAFCON for leadership – the only question is whether after weeks like this one, those in the Church of England who wish to proclaim this Gospel will be forced to follow the same path.

“Christianity is based on revealed doctrine, enabling individuals to live rightly before a Holy God as followers of Jesus Christ. He tells us how to live in all areas of life, including in areas of sexual behaviour. No denomination is at liberty to invent its own doctrine or to sacrifice revealed doctrine on the altars of contemporary fashion. We cannot be authentically Christian whilst simultaneously rejecting the teaching of the one we claim to follow.” Rev Simon Austen – Rector of St Leonard’s Church, Exeter Diocese

“York Minster’s leading the way in the Gay Pride march is symbolic of what the Church of England’s leadership is doing generally on this issue – leading people away from the clear teaching of the Bible and the Gospel. It exposes the sham of the consultation process for what it is – a means by which the church can validate homosexual activity. One would hope that the Archbishop of York would do his duty and speak clearly, upholding the Bible’s position.” Rev Melvin Tinker, St John’s Church, Newland, York Diocese

“I am deeply disappointed that Alan Wilson persists in undermining the teaching of the Church by his overt support of those who have gone against the clear rules governing clergy discipline. Describing the Church’s teaching and doctrine as “lousy” is quite breathtakingly arrogant and not language that one would expect from a senior leader in the Church. Were I in secular employment and so at odds with the leadership and core values of the company that employed me, I would resign forthwith as a matter of conscience.” Rev Will Pearson-­‐Gee -­‐ Rector of Buckingham, Oxford Diocese

“The Bishop of Buckingham courts publicity for his revisionist agenda and gets it. He has sadly become a figure of disunity in the Oxford Diocese and a cause of grief to many faithful Anglican Christians. The version of marriage he espouses is incompatible with Biblical Christianity.” Rev Will Stileman – Vicar of St Mary’s Church, Maidenhead and Chair of the Oxford Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship

“Sooner or later everyone in the Church of England will have to decide whether they have confidence in what God says about marriage and human sexuality in the Scriptures. If we are not willing to trust what God says is good for us and for our society then we lose the claim to be authentically Christian. And in the course of time God will make it plain that our claims to be Christian are hollow. Jeremiah 7:28 speaks of truth perishing and being cut off from the lips of God’s people, and the prophet is clear about the disastrous consequences of that”. Rev Mark Burkill –Vicar of Christ Church, Leyton, Chelmsford Diocese

“The Bishop of Buckingham is a runaway train, and has lost the confidence of many of the clergy in the Diocese of Oxford who would have him nowhere near their churches. There is now a crisis of leadership in Oxford Diocese, shown in the fact that the Diocese was unable to appoint a Diocesan Bishop who can work with Buckingham. The Bishop of Buckingham thinks he can make up doctrine on the hoof to suit his own revisionist agenda. That is not how the Church of England does things”. Rev James Paice, Vicar of St Luke’s Wimbledon Park, Southwark Diocese

-----

That the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have chimed “Me, too!” on Climate Change does not make the week any better.

Justin Welby and Lambeth 2018

Earlier this week came news that Lambeth 2018, the decadal meeting of Anglican Communion bishops, has been postponed indefinitely or cancelled.

I think Justin Welby is doing the right thing to not insist on having Lambeth 2018 on schedule.  To have a repeat of Lambeth 2008, a big useless indaba session rightly boycotted by over 200 bishops, would be an expensive exercise in pointlessness that would confirm the divisions in the Anglican Communion.

Perhaps it would be better if he proceeded with Lambeth while not inviting a number of apostates, particularly the consecrators of Gene Robinson.  But if he were that hardline (as I am), he would not have been made Archbishop of Canterbury, now would he.

No, the one to blame is his predecessor, Rowan Williams.  For years, while pretending to be even-handed, he strung along the orthodox then sided with apostates when he had to make an actual decision.  He even undermined the Primates Meetings to do so.  Here’s a post from 2007 to give a flavor of that.

Then when he issued his invitations for Lambeth 2008, although he did not invite Gene Robinson himself, he invited all his consecrators, and thereby invited the boycott that followed.  Once again he chose the apostates over the orthodox.  In addition, he infamously structured Lambeth with indaba so that no real decisions could be made, further protecting apostasy. 

In effect, when presented with the unavoidable choice between a robustly orthodox but slightly smaller communion and a weak, muddled, and much smaller communion, Rowan Williams chose the latter.  Brilliant.

And the Anglican Communion has not recovered from that – and perhaps never will.

So, yes, I think Justin Welby should be more hardline against apostasy and for a robustly orthodox Anglican Communion.  But I cannot blame him for the current divisions.  And he deserves credit for not pretending “All is well,” for not going forward with Lambeth 2018.

----

Housekeeping: Thanks to a kind reader for correcting my brain typo.  It's Gene Robinson (not Robertson, gah!).  Now corrected.

Justin Welby Did See and Authorize Statement Praising Schori

I have not posted about it here, but many of my informed readers are aware that a statement was issued under Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s name praising TEC Presiding “Bishop” Katharine Schori for her “compassion” and putting her forth as a role model no less.

The statement was so divorced from the reality of her ravenous persecution of the faithful that some suggested said statement was issued by Lambeth bureaucrats without the explicit approval of Welby.

But Lambeth has since shot down that theory.  Peter Ould has passed on that they were “incredibly quick to tell me that ++Justin had seen and authorised the statement.”

And it is an outrageous and offensive statement so to praise such an apostate willful persecutor of the faithful as a compassionate role model.  I most certainly am outraged.

Long time readers know I was no fan of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury.  But Justin Welby may use up my last straw faster than Dr. Williams.  (And, for the record, Rowan used up my straw in September 2007.)

BREAKING!!: I don’t know what to think

Yes, I know that headline is shocking to readers.  But I am so not opinionated, don’tcha know.  So sometimes I just don’t know what to think about a matter.

And the appointment of Tory Baucum as a Canterbury Preacher is one such matter.  This appointment makes quite a statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing that Baucum is an ACNA priest.  But he is also the ACNA priest that rather infamously practiced “reconciliation” with the TEC “Bishop” of Virginia.  So is Archbishop Welby saying ACNA had best do likewise if it wants recognition from Canterbury?

And I have ACNA friends I highly respect with sharply divergent views of this appointment.

But it is significant so I thought it worth noting . . . even if I do not know what otherwise to think of it.

The statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury may be found here.  And here is the statement from ACNA.

And a hat tip to Stand Firm, where some of these divergent opinions may be found.

Synod: The Naiveté of Justin Welby

I fear that, at the current Synod of the Church of England, we have already seen how Justin Welby will operate as the next Archbishop of Canterbury – to assume, with a smile, grace and good will among everyone and then to look the other way as heretics and apostates persecute the orthodox.

Yes, perhaps I am jumping the gun.  And I do sincerely hope I am mistaken.  But at Synod his reasoning behind supporting women bishops is naïve at best.  He seems to think it unnecessary to have robust legal protection of traditionalists because the rest of the Church of England will surely respect their consciences anyway:

"This approach that we have before us today is I believe, after much discussion with many people, as good as we can get. . . our will and intention are far more important than the rules.

"I am personally deeply committed, and believe that fellow bishops are also, to ensuring, as far as I am able, that what we promise today and later in the Code of Practice is carried out faithfully in Spirit as well as in letter."

CofE feminists have already demonstrated that they care not a whit for the consciences of those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.  If Justin Welby really thinks that feminist bishops can be trusted to respect and guard the consciences of traditionalists, his naiveté will surely enable persecution of the faithful sooner or later.

Again, I hope I am proven wrong.  We shall see.

About the New Archbishop of Canterbury

I suppose I should edify and/or amuse my readers and have something witty or profound to say about the new Archbishop of Canterbury.  But I just don’t.  For Justin Welby has done nothing to either encourage or alarm me.  So my attitude is more or less wait and see.

Now maybe that is because I have not been paying much attention.  Or maybe it is because the Crown Commission was so deadlocked that an inoffensive pick was inevitable.

Nonetheless, I most certainly do pray God’s blessings and guidance upon him.  Given the current state of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion, he’s going to need them.