++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

About the Consecration of Libby Lane - and of Philip North

I have said very little about the consecration of Libby Lane as the first woman bishop of the Church of England.  Unlike Paul Williamson, I am just not that worked up about it.  I can certainly think of any number of male bishops who are far more objectionable.

But seeing I am from the fire-breathing, gun-carrying Texas Anglican wing of the Holy Catholic Church, I suppose a few might want to know of my views so . . .

It may surprise that I do not personally find women bishops a communion breaker.  But I understand those who do.  I, too, consider breaking 2000 years of church tradition problematic at best.  Without going into details, I would prefer not to have women bishops over me, although I would much prefer an orthodox woman to an apostate man.

But that is part of the problem.  There may be robustly orthodox women bishops out there somewhere, but I cannot recall a one.  I can, however, recall any number of apostate women “bishops” who have done great harm to the church. (I should add here that Libby Lane seems more sensible than these.)  And that experience nudges me to think there is more to the church tradition of a male priesthood and episcopate than most give it credit for.  Perhaps women who lack compunction about this aspect of church tradition tend to be prone to disregard the rest of Tradition as well.  Perhaps such departure from apostolic tradition displeases the Lord and forfeits his blessing more than we think.  I do not presume to know, but I look upon recent church history and tremble.

But my biggest concern is how long will there be a place in the Church of England for those traditionalists and conservative evangelicals who wish to hold on more tightly to tradition, who object to women priests and bishops?  I am afraid not long at all.  I suspect the prevailing attitude is “We will tolerate those misogynist bigots out of our wonderful tolerant niceness . . . for now.”  This seems typical:

What, though, should we make of the consecration that will follow a week later, of a man who will not be touched by any hands that have treated a woman as if she were a real bishop. This seems an extraordinary concession towards a view of women, and of authority, that the vast majority of churchgoers regard as immoral and unchristian. Is it the chivalrous treatment of a defeated enemy, or a concession to the misogynist bigotry that has done so much to disfigure Christianity? Mr. [Philip] North may not have been responsible for these arrangements. An important point is that he is clearly going to make a good bishop, whatever his views on women. He has spent most of his career working among poor people in unfashionable places. If men of his views are to be promoted at all – as both archbishops have promised they will be – then he is clearly a well-qualified example, and may be almost as good at the job as many of the women who will follow Libby Lane. In the generous and joyful spirit that should attend her consecration, we will welcome his, as well. But mostly hers.

Methinks there will not be many more bishops like Philip North.  And that is what bothers me greatly.

Gavin Ashenden on the Philip North Affair

Studies and other responsibilities continue to restrain my blogging.  But I must direct your attention to two excellent posts on the Philip North withdrawal and its aftermath from Rev. Dr. Gavin Ashenden, former Chaplain to the Queen.  The Ashes of Cranmer has graciously hosted both posts here and here.

A segment from the second post stands out.  I will excerpt it and run:

The three-card trick that Professor Percy [The Dean of Christ Church Oxford who led the attack on North] and his cultural fellow-travellers play is to refuse to exclude anyone except those who don’t agree with them. You only get to be included in the equality stakes once you have accepted their moral and political presuppositions. So, of course, they do actually discriminate between anyone who shares their basic world view and those who don’t.

They pretend they are relativists by claiming that all views are equally legitimate, but become absolutists if you challenge their relativism. In other words, their ideas of equality and relativism are actually practised by placing their value above those who disagree with them, and discriminating against anyone who has the audacity and moral turpitude to dissent.

Meanwhile, they claim the higher moral ground by pretending to be something that they are not – outlawing discrimination while practising it.

This is, of course, hypocrisy – that is, saying one thing while doing another.

What happens when the hypocrisy is challenged, as with the attempt to include a bishop who embodies an older more traditional view in an inclusive non-discriminatory Church?

Well, we just saw what happens, haven’t we?

And, yes, Justin Welby is still silent about it.

The Diocese of Sheffield – Traditionalists Need Not Apply

I make a point to calm down when genuinely angry before posting.  So you should have seen the first draft of this post.   The main change I make now is I do not invite certain people and jurisdictions to suffer perdition.

I am beyond disgusted with the Church of England after hearing the sad news that the good Rt. Rev. Philip North is withdrawing under pressure from consideration for the bishopric of the Diocese of Sheffield.

Rev. North is an excellent priest well thought of by a wide spectrum of Anglicans.  Without divulging private communications, I know of UK Anglicans of decidedly more liberal bent than this blogger who are very upset today.

North’s crime?  Although making very clear his willingness to respect and fully work with women clergy, he had a traditional viewpoint on that question.  For that, the “Modern Church” and feminazi crowd among others blackballed him.  And that although a number of women clergy supported him.

The Dean of Christ Church Oxford led the charge against him.  But now he’s written a letter to Rev. North. How nice.

I’ve let the Dean know what I think of that.

@MartynPercy If +Phillip didn't tell you to go to hell, he's a better man than I am. I hope you're pleased with yourself, you prat.

— WannabeAnglican (@WannabeAnglican) March 9, 2017

Christ Church is a place in which I heard Hiroshima equated with Auschwitz in a Remembrance Sunday sermon.  But its Dean has scruples and lectures about a traditionalist becoming a diocesan bishop.  Even Satan doesn’t deserve to put with a prat like that.

Looking beyond a good man done wrong by villains, the Church of England is more and more becoming a jurisdiction in which traditionalists need not apply.  That became that much more clear today.  Those libchurchers cheerleading that should be made aware that this situation makes a church split more likely and more massive.  But perhaps they would secretly like that.  For all their talk through the years of “inclusion,” they actually hate real inclusion.

They should also be aware that two can play this game.  Traditionalists have done their reasonable best to go along to get along.  The reasons to continue so doing have just become fewer.

What Should Have Happened at General Synod

The focus of the past Church of England General Synod, and of coverage of it, was sex and gender issues.  And as deplorable as the measures passed in those areas are, what is more deplorable is what General Synod did not do.  To me at least, the silence is deafening.

General Synod, to my knowledge*, spent not one minute addressing the Philip North affair.  The Synod, along with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, bent over backwards to make gays and transgenders welcomed and affirmed.  Sentamu was particularly loquacious in that regard.  But where was the welcome affirming inclusion for traditional Christians?

The North debacle sent the strong message that when it comes to diocesan bishoprics, traditionalists need not apply.  Oh, traditionalists are welcome . . . to stay in their ghettos.  But forget about moving on up.

There was perhaps not a more urgent matter for General Synod but to counteract that message, to make clear that what happened to North should not have happened and will not happen in the future.  A censure of the Dean of Christ Church Oxford would have been appropriate, too, but I am really dreaming there.

But instead, nothing.

People can put up with a lot if they know they are welcomed and appreciated.  But if given the opposite message, if treated like third class citizens, most people will eventually walk away.  The Church of England should not be surprised if traditionalists of both Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical stripes soon walk away in greater numbers.  And the Church of England and General Synod will only have itself to blame.

*I’ve searched and searched for any mention of the North affair at General Synod and have found none.  If I missed something, feel free to let me know in the comments.

Gavin Ashenden Consecrated as Missionary Bishop to UK

Briefly, I am very pleased to hear this.  I’ve become quite a fan of Rev. Ashenden.  For one thing, he has a remarkable talent for being both soft-spoken and straight-speaking at the same time.  Watch him on Anglican Unscripted or watch his own YouTube videos to get a taste of that.

The Christian Episcopal Church is definitely punching above their weight to bring Ashenden on!

And, in case any wonder, I think working both inside and outside the Church of England is appropriate now.  There is still some excellent ministry going on in the CofE.  But the Philip North affair revealed the Church of England cannot be trusted to provide faithful traditionalist bishops like North and Gavin Ashenden.  And being an orthodox Anglican without those is problematic indeed.

Unpleasant History the ACNA Holy Orders Task Force Left Out

I have followed Archbishop Foley Beach’s admonition to read all of the Holy Orders Task Force report before commenting.  In full disclosure, I skimmed a bit, but I did work through the whole thing.  So now I have my Commenting License.

To me what most stands out about the report is that it contains one long history lesson.  But what stands out almost as much and is more important is what history is neglected in the report. 

Jesus taught you shall know a tree by its fruit.  A fair corollary is that a tree will grow and produce fruit in line with its roots.   By those standards, women’s ordination, at least in the West and U. S., is problematic.

The roots of women’s ordination in the United States for the most part implanted in mainline denominations now wracked by apostasy.  Perhaps the problem was more to do with the soil than with the roots, but continuing… The roots of women’s ordination in the Anglican Church in North America are, for the most part, in The Episcopal Church of the 1970’s – not the best background.  (Yes, not every ACNA diocese that ordains women has its roots in The Episcopal Church.  Hence I said “for the most part.”)  In large part, WO was baggage carried into ACNA from The Episcopal Church.

As for its fruit, women’s ordination in the West has gone hand in hand with apostasy and preaching “another gospel,” the social gospel.  Now I grant that the argument could be made that connecting WO with apostasy is a post hoc argument.  In the Global South and in ACNA, there are orthodox jurisdictions that ordain women.   But I do have to say that I have noticed, to my alarm, social gospel tendencies from ACNA dioceses that ordain women.

But accurate or mistaken, there is the perception among many Anglicans, including this one, that the fruit of women’s ordination has been tried and wanting.  The theologies of the first women bishops in the Church of England are examples of that.  The marginalization of those who oppose or do not fully recognize women’s orders in the Church of England (See the Philip North affair.) and in The Episcopal Church is another.

Yet the Task Force report barely addressed this concern about the roots and fruit of women’s ordination. I do not know why, do not have any privy information, and do not think speculating why would be edifying.  I do know and concede that addressing the recent roots and fruit of women’s ordination in the West is not at all easy to do in a tactful manner that does not inflame divisions.  Heck, I am trying hard here to be polite, but it would not surprise me if this post upsets some people.

Nonetheless, this concern should have been fully addressed in the report.  The report went through a lot of history.  But unpleasant aspects of the history of women’s ordination in the West were not sufficiently addressed.  If ACNA will continue ordaining women to the priesthood, then we should be told why that is not rooted in The Episcopal Church of the 1970’s, or that such roots are not a besetting problem.  And we should be told why ACNA will not go down the primrose path of apostasy and the social gospel as have other Western jurisdictions that ordain women.  Going down the path of women’s ordination while assuming it will have entirely different results would be a dangerous assumption indeed.

Fr. Hunwicke’s Unboring Take on the Boring Subject of Women’s Ordination

The Venerable Fr. John Hunwicke, like many, is bored beyond tears and then some by the subject of Women’s Ordination.  But with rumblings of a push within the Church of Rome for WO, he has reluctantly but colorfully provided the service of what may be in store as only he can.  His observations from long experience certainly apply to other jurisdictions that may have to deal with the issue.  Some highlights:

(3) …if you with strategic good sense start off instead with deacons [as was the case in the Church of England and elsewhere], you can get the laity used to seeing vested females buzzing around the Sanctuary and having "The Reverend" attached to their names. And such ladies will not be as divisive as women priests because the validity of no Sacrament depends upon the diaconate. Then you can move on to women priests, starting off by placing them carefully in churches where they will be 'pastorally acceptable'. Only when you have successfully completed that phase will you move in for the final kill. You see how the trick is worked. Rather Bergoglian, really, in its 'gradualism'. But it is a fundamentally dishonest trick. Crooks, the lot of them!

(4) It will be suggested that those opposing WO are people who "'have problems" with female sexuality or just with women anyway. I remember actually once being told that I must have a phobia of menstrual blood. Quite a conversation-stopper ... 

I can imagine it was.  But Fr. Hunwicke advises to get used to it:

In other words, if you choose to fight this battle within the Catholic Church, you will need to be ready to have some immensely vile personal attacks made upon you. Our opponents, generally speaking, possess neither decency nor shame. Feminists of either sex are rarely Gentlemen! You will need a very thick skin.

He said it.  I didn’t. . . .   But he could have gone further actually.   In addition to being bored to death, those who do not recognize women’s ordination will be not only be vilified, but risk being ghettoized.  See the Philip North affair.

By his own admission, Fr. Hunwicke’s post is practical, not theological.  But it is the practical, namely seeing women’s ordination in practice, that has turned me from a tolerant agnostic on the question into a wary opponent.