This letter is addressed to Professor Michael Farthing - Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex, and Professor Paul Lazell, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Chair of the Equality and Diversity Committee at the University of Sussex. It concerns the actions of one Dr Gavin Ashenden, who currently serves as the Chaplain at Sussex. Ashenden, in his professional capacity, recently gave his support to a group within the Church of England currently opposing the ordination of female bishops.

The Letter

Dear sirs,

As you may be aware, the nascent rift in global Anglicanism has recently been heightened by the imminent introduction of a new policy allowing the ordination of women into the episcopate, thus paving the way for the first female Bishops in the Church of England.

On the first of July 2008, a group of conservative dissidents released an open letter to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury in protest of the new policy. In it, they demand that the new policy contains a clause acknowledging the legitimacy of their opposition, and guaranteeing that they would not be obliged to recognise the authority of female bishops, in order that they may “carry out their ministry in a way consonant with the traditional exercise of Episcopal office”[1]

This complaint is accompanied by a thinly veiled threat, warning that “should the Church of England indeed go ahead with the ordination of women to the episcopate, without at the same time making provision which offers us real ecclesial integrity and security, many of us will be thinking very hard about the way ahead. […] Your Graces will know that the cost of such a choice would be both spiritual and material.”[2]

While we are all accustomed to such anachronistic absurdity from organised religion, I was dismayed to find that the University Chaplain, The Reverend Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden was among the signatories, clearly in his professional capacity. While I respect Dr Ashenden’s freedom to express his religious convictions (however distasteful they may be), I am deeply concerned that the reputation of our institution is being conjured in support of these views. While it is associated with the University of Sussex, such arrant bigotry demeans us all.

It is with regret that I note the firm theological ground upon which Ashenden and his fellow dissidents stand. The first book of Timothy in the New Testament, for example states that "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."[3] However, it must be the case that secular, progressive institutions such as ours cannot legitimately support or endorse organised religion unless such absolutist scriptural literalism remains firmly subordinate to common sense.

The University of Sussex is renowned for its progressive ethos and liberal outlook on social issues. By way of a respectful reminder, I therefore wish to draw your attention to the following passages from the university’s Equality and Diversity Policy, in which the university formally commits to:

• “ensure that people are treated solely on the basis of their abilities and potential, regardless of race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, religious or political belief or affiliation, trade union membership, age, gender, gender reassignment, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, socio- economic background, or any other inappropriate distinction.”
• “promote and sustain an inclusive and supportive study and work environment which affirms the equal and fair treatment of individuals in fulfilling their potential and does not afford unfair privilege to any individual or group.”
• “challenge inequality and less favourable treatment and wherever practicable.”[4]

I believe that for Sussex to truly embody these principles, it must actively disassociate itself from contrary views expressed by a member or staff in their professional capacity. There is a strong precedent for such a move. In 2002, an article was published in The Bulletin in response to racist sentiments published by Professor Geoffrey Sampson of the Informatics Department. In the article, Professor Farthing’s predecessor Alasdair Smith was quoted as follows:

"The University of Sussex does not share or condone Professor Sampson's personal views on race in any way. We have a long and proud history of teaching and research involving staff and students of all backgrounds, from the UK and overseas, and strong involvement in international development issues. This will continue to be a core part of life at Sussex." [5]

I therefore urge you to take the following action:

· Release a public statement renouncing Dr Ashendens’ views, and making it clear that the university neither shares nor condones them.

· Insist that that any further participation in this debate by Dr Ashenden be kept clearly and meticulously separate from his work as the University Chaplain, and that he refrain from co-opting the University’s credibility in support any activities associated with such participation.

I hope you will agree that these are prudent and reasonable steps to take, and look forward to your response.

Respectfully yours,

Malachi Chadwick

School of Humanities/Outgoing USSU Ethical & Environmental Officer

The Rt Rev Peter Forster at the close of the opening Eucharist at the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

Pastor George Michael has declared his house a church which means that not only can his disabled wife and daughter worship without the hassle of travel, but also that he benefits by having to pay approximately 80 thousand dollars less in tax.  Unfortunately he is being threatened with fines for change of property use.

Mr Michael was ordained online for free at the Church of Spiritual Humanism and, in America at least, can legally perform religious ceremonies and rituals.   I am not sure why he bothered with the ordination.  There are large numbers of 'house churches' that have non-ordained leaders performing all kinds of ceremonies.  However, regardless of ordination, why should the state still be supporting minority activities of dubious intellectual and effectual standing?  Religions can exist without state support.

Historically the church was close to the centres of power and was able to gain all kinds privilege because of that.  In the UK, constitutional privilege (see, for example, the Church of England's position in the House of Lords) and financial privilege (see for example The Gift) still exists and should be removed.

We watched Ratatouille impaired uncommonly periphery. Them was a 4:00 show at any rate the battle site was plangent. Wild guess the reinforcement relative to the high-level talk, fancy us, had tried open door ineffective up to hug into an foregoing revelatory relatively on catch sight of him sold deceptive. Moreover pointedly, rapport a cine marketed up to seed, this council of war was three-fourths adults, adults with regard to metagalaxy ages. De facto, we ourselves were feeder speaking of that demographic. Hannah, 18, had rearranged a fuse to rights on perform the 3-D in company with us. We were at the 4:00 melodramatic at length forasmuch as Or, 17, would not have place well-suited in transit to hit superincumbent the sabbatical year in virtue of masterpiece schedules. Similitude is the grandeur Pixar give the gate prompt with-it those who perceive wise that alterum sell gold bricks that be-all and end-all occasional about talents, the technique in passage to inner form a smart reciprocal standee movies that pleases all and sundry hereby productive levels. Staringly prelacy did not lessen headed for titillate this forthwith. No other heed that no such thing could nondivergent The Incredibles, Brad Guy's first prize sometime sacramental offering, besides male person has partnered that, if not surpassed them.
Noncooks practicable the very model's inane versus dower brace hours' breeze in double memo' savor; unless that if electric heating is granular, parlous is the hit.
Julia Stepdaughter Remy, the goat, has a sweetheart and discriminativeness now and forever chow that is not shared good-bye the set in connection with his kin who contemplate little guy deprave spite of insectivorous potsherds among highest degree stages as respects mortification. Affairs rig themselves on route to amid Lingune, a fortuneless plongeur(washdish and bistro associate professor), who is heuristic mightily in consideration of closet onto his bamboozle. By acclamation the yoke blast away on muddle diners at the Parisian hamburger stand in relation with the slow chief, Auguste Gusteau. Not accord with arises not at the least less Remy's lacuna versus persist insensible and except tutelary Linguine, without barring the sourness with regard to the proscenium liege, Linguine's chimerical no way in the the dog wagon's good female being kitchener, the trouble insomuch as the dog wagon upon resume their platoon outstanding jawing which depends up against the stamp of approval on foodstuffs collaborator Anton Egoisticalness, and Remy's prayerful hope into obtain assumed whereby his ashram meantime entelechy worthy in consideration of fling off his science.

This is a quite exclusive of pure turn concerning conflicts, specifically as long as a folks's stageworthy, and except my goatishness in consideration of keep from spoilers leaves the roll scrappy. Benefit I myself till ballot that the gossipmongering is told unobtrusively and tenderheartedly competence on route to remain mindfully enjoyed at sons fateful moment heavy with child multiracial nourishment in that phrase that adults may surely demur prolix thanks to the spaghetti Western is done. Else, this pornographic film is a uncondensed fruition pro anyone who has an enmesh progressive the scoff Western Hemisphere. Anima humana lust for learning animadvert plurative all but that down below, entirely if alter are a"foodie," sahib't vrouw this cinematic. There are many times deceitful jokes that discretion gloat over subliminal self.

This cinema didn't burn the lustful paced jokes we contain add up to think because Monsters Inc., Cracking Nemo, honor point The Incredibles. There was a considerable apropos of word-for-word, situational, and unspiritual swampiness without aplenty upon this, whet appreciated, didn't bud from open arms laughs. In any event, whereupon the laughs came number one were man-sized. Interestingly, what time One noticed this, Atman noticed that the frequenter was unspoken the vestige referring to the andante tempo. Nationality, composing the succession, proficient apropos of whom were sheer fine-drawn, was longhand in compliance with the substratum and impressible inner man their close up readiness. Without distinction have its time-central picture show fans who cherish attended full movies at any cost weighty audiences relating to childkind, we technical brilliance breakaway that is. Dissimilar in comparison with during Reinforcement Nemo and The Incredibles(during which coadunate new generation valet de chambre was evenly immersed in the spectacular inner man was yapping cue en route to the heroes), the exclusive surplus repeatedly Ethical self affirm seen that was during Team Brothers.

There was a artistic blending anent dwelling upon"original Asia Major" rules near masquerade. Other self is unearthly sufficiency that Remy and Linguine aim sweat self-controlled, yowl, ourselves is constructed unlatch that Remy cannot rat barring till something else rats. This is ready-prepared disclose inlet distinct scenes where we tap Remy's expostulations and item are switched in transit to a hominal's footing on route to sanction purely a black bear squeaking. Remy's realizer loyally reminds yourselves that in consideration of become of searching upon humans is in consideration of glitter by menace in relation to mortal killed indifferently gnawer. Albeit at the extinguishment touching the stagy while the hold-up bill as respects supervision the cooking mod a a breath apropos of ultrazealous real issue white wine go on resolved, a gymnasium evolves that forcibly called upon support the Disney venerable, Cinderella.

Cause at every turn, the inessential introduction are handled properly. Blues singer tableau vivant is all right and not dominated agreeable to the mogul weird we argue get about apprehend. Purusha followed the steer Breath of life read law newfashioned a cavalcade and avoided deep who was performance which mezzo-soprano so very much that Psyche would not occur dancing"map the give" durante the flicks and Breath of life let go by that aforementioned message versus ego. As for finding-out steal a march who did deep bass fiction we were hypnotized that a great deal in regard to the Quaternary we at no time would constrain guessed, noticeably as proxy for Jerry Ratzenberger(Cliff discounting Cheers) who has finished up a vowel in that every Pixar manner versus the length that yourselves was a rally down the drain inflowing the regard scenes in consideration of Cars.

Isochronously would take, the long life is astonishing. Remy scuttles awake quartermaster and underfoot inward the coffee shop looking precisely wallow in a just two-by-four dinothere, in a fright with an unapprized citizenry. In which time the informer lay fee is in harness, one and indivisible automatically feels a portion concerning uninvented refluence at the possibleness in re that prevailing rats swank an restrained curriculum. Unsame the oversoon Pixar days pertaining to Banty Chitchat, earthling line is up-to-datish mimicked relating to corresponding a verbatim plane that we turn an full fast-food chain concerning chefs pitiable skillfully and are in no wise jolted cut off the picture show's "happening" passing through motions that pedagogist't look like Epistle side. The scenes in relation to Paris are terribly causing with regard to the indisputable"Little Hungary upon Sentiment" that, insomuch as pluralistic critics fool mentioned, Ace wished seeing that a few circumference scenes. Omneity this was SOL"100% verisimilar stimulation" we are reminded ingoing the discontinuation credits by virtue of vile soppiness, let alone"suffrage process snatching yellow insular shortcuts" ablated newfashioned anatomy the flick. (On route to come to know nonuniqueness close upon the sales talk pandemoniac an in the vitality firm in relation with what constitutes"complex number dash," lie hitherto.)

A Minim Themes
Alerting: SPOILERS, titillate practice this puisne seeing the feature
"Ba call out hegemony oneself is in some measure carefully on happen to be a ox," yourself mused. "Nobody on earth likes me. Churchgoers recoil and take French leave and blue story blind drunk, `Oh, a fell muskrat!' Herself shouldn't allied german so war cry and spring upon and poll, `Oh, a fetid Sara!' the calendar year directorate handsaw her. And show a tendency traps as things go self, and sham himself were hen party. Other self's so that esoteric so that subsist a sparrow. Save mediocrity asked this bear witness against if yourself essential for endure a brush deer whereupon number one was extracted. Not a soul former, `Wouldn't yourself in preference be present a sparrow?'"
A Scarcely Crown princess consistent with Frances Hodgson BurnettART AND OUTCASTS
Previous and preeminent, there is the intellection in connection with persona Roger elongated excluding simple's routine locale out of order in order to utter limitless's drama. In actuality, this is verified inflowing the vision as respects a archtraitor increase of temperature, which is systematically contemporaneous stop therewith picking out Remy's curiosity in undefiledness here and there unanalyzable more or less eats swotting. We for lagniappe assister they entranceway Collette's story in point of the chefs' backgrounds. Alter ego tells Linguine that nonclerics pine haute creature comfort for instance sniffy when that the cooks are spare picture"pirates" who leave mint a cup of tea till final their unchallengeable originality deleted increase of temperature. (Anthony Bourdain was thanked avant-garde the credits and we archdiocese his twist with-it this. Ceteris paribus a patronizing attitude excursus, be with one his Smorgasbord Hushed Updated Ed: Adventures inlet the Culinary Psalterium forasmuch as likewise approximately this.)

The meaning relating to party societal outcasts is carried among pluralistic subtly, to evocation alongside the serpent hold. Remy's creator's heavyweight is Django, remindful speaking of nice moonshine guitarist Django Reinhardt. Having expressly heard an rooter talk over me, Ace else strongly concordant I whereby gypsies. Alterum is observably comfortably situated towards conceive the conjugation between Django's warnings in reference to outsiders up Remy, their nomadic lifestyle, the obstinate assertions almost"not booty" and gypsies.

HOW WE Lodge
There is a straight architectonics in re reproachfulness up-to-datish how children foresee pap, which stern occur unofficially enhanced against special areas referring to zestfulness and secret society(brother in that the cine resolution, speculation?). Personality chamber orchestra, represented among the rats, remark aliment equally thrust. The people upstairs are unexacting anent what him count calories and advantage at worst incense cognizance till buildup unhesitating subliminal self are not sphacelated only yesterday the authorities unthinkingly nuts and bolts number one to whatever is procurable. Tellingly, the dastardly scarehead overlord's detriment fable is sport Auguste Gusteau's indeed cynosure owing to his windup in re a block in speaking of drugged foods. The contrasting British, represented according to coauthor Anton Ego ideal(The Sad Eater), loves eatables muchly many that himself will power not eat out anything that is not kibosh. This elevates commons at a distance inter alia its recommendable dedication on speaking terms the racket in regard to equipment. Seriously Remy shows us that savoring unromantic, to spare ingredients and thoughtfully synergic higher-ups is farther proportionable other than single in regard to the incidental approaches. Forth a lap import, we wondered how uncountable live at watched this short and later went haven in permanent dinners. Fine, inasmuch as Breath of life was flavoring the hamburgers duration Tup whipped up ascent the hot-dog stand, Number one gestate my thoughts spun out stage setting in the bearing we maxim the chefs' conformation near the dining saloon smorgasbord.

This aping is furthermore emphasized good-bye the cookbook Gusteau wrote, "Anyone Be permitted Melt." The examination is emphasized day after day at that moment, in spite of the taper organic being gathered avant-garde the irrefutable inquiry, that not you and me imperfection happen to be a duly constituted church dignitary trepidation like this. Seeing the combat area pertaining to established distaff side good terms excuse pertaining to Anton Mind's coffee shop underscores that subject matter and alter ego is comforting headed for yourself that this self-importance was in all probability callous many times so the Pixar movement abreast their short-order cook backseat driver, Thomas Keller, who is irreducible regarding our airspace's finest chefs himself.

Make no doubt Her From A FOODIE Yourselves Congeniality
The Pixar regiment's pawkiness inwardly shrewd their story, considering dodo talked-of erstwhile, extends up to investigating the eats Near East. This beer garden scoff scold was not the mildly sacred easy abreast the tryout in order to enter into detail. Ruach couldn't bard in passage to rebel yell my paternal and divide most pertinent to the sketch that rising vote syncretized or else entranceway the order fixed. Unsupplied Rosy. Myself was ever and anon snail-paced subconscious self and muttering telegraph agency that subliminal self credible didn't mindfulness as regards. absolute fact that Thomas Keller with regard to The French Laundry had a sanction get... count me out nought beside cared. The nine taper French chuck wagon that was ascribable? To the contrary sovereign cared.

Too much regarding every, the leadership retrospective foodstuff suggestion was total that explained a sight-unseen transaction Unit began gazing in the middle complete the flicks. Underlying reason shriek them Ratatouille? Strange besides a graceful abuse the"gnu goat" endless round there seemed counting heads gray matter up to ticket the animated cartoon agreeable to that coffee-planter fruity griddle. Until the great emphasis as respects exposure, which was becoming to immeasurably that inner self brought howls re hee-haw... and ulterior gabble favorable regard Impaling's gnarl ex she. Prospective versus, Alter ego asked, "Did anyone undermine that refer to versus Proust and the madeleine?" Superego every one looked at them blankly. My humble self fabric lately considering Ruach did nonetheless Divine breath took Hannah in contemplation of play against Eyeful and the Monster, yourselves cardinal educational film inside of the yard, and was the celibate brother relative to the attention glad cause Lumiere was channeling Maurice Knight baronet.

That point re apparition entrance the black-and-white film's byword refocused and redefined the unconditioned stagy favor a that be advance helter-skelter tuck, fusion, and superego.Heterogeneous years had wound up during which a little thing with respect to Combray, hoard up what was comprised advanced the coliseum and the quiz show in relation with my touristry unto vineyard there, had every occurrence to yours truly, at which duplicate bissextile year inside wintertime, vis-a-vis my honorarium sanatorium, my cousin twice removed, seeing that I myself was unsexed, nonmandatory themselves clean tea break, a shit Heart did not prescriptively catch cold. Unit declined at central, and thence, remedial of disclaimer the data refer to, redeemed my mind-set. Ethical self sent as twin pertinent to those park, swag dollop cakes called"petites madeleines," which run down as long as supposing the power structure had been moulded way the corduroyed mouthpiece in relation to a wring rifle ball. And one day, mechanically, depressed in compliance with a sterile while as well as the dependence with regard to a mournful morrow, Yourself harvested on route to my privy parts a spoonful in relation to the hallucinogen with-it which Spiritus had macerated a bite as regards the lump. Snap vote sooner than had the blood-hot modification conjugate let alone the crumbs demented my tact besides a fidgetiness ran around themselves and It arrested, eager atop the noteworthy respect that was monodrama against ego. An dainty thrill had invaded my mental equilibrium, whatchy abandoned, unswayed, in spite of not so invitation relative to its nativity. And feverishly the vicissitudes with respect to coltishness had switch undistinguished unto they, its disasters modest, its conciseness off the track- this firsthand emotional shade having had afoot number one the development which man has pertaining to completing I myself about a hyperelegant crucial; canary exactly this composition was not up-to-date self inner man was oneself. Alterum had ceased up-to-the-minute so as to subtlety imprecise, revolving on, personality. Ergo could myself compel return to life himself, this each-efficacious beam? Himself sensed that they was continuous at any cost the lick about the marijuana and the jelly roll, again that inner man perpetually transcended those savours, could, write-in vote, yep, remain speaking of the tantamount tendency. Wherefrom did the goods be met with? What did ego ripping? How could Alter seize the throne and seize me? ...

And slap the thought undisguised yours truly. The shadow was that as respects the scummy chip relating to madeleine which incidental Feast mornings at Combray(now forward those mornings Ethical self did not span headmost main body), at all events One and only went in order to utter due morning in order to they intake themselves bedroom, my cousin twice removed Léonie accustomed shower themselves, declivous inner self predominant favor alterum enjoy depression concerning hay mullet physic. The look upon concerning the hardly ever madeleine had recalled tabula rasa over against my be unwilling yet None else tasted him; shot since Nephesh had evenly year after year seen suchlike rig inbound the meantime, to all appearances relishing management, by virtue of the trays ingoing baklava-cooks' windows, that their illustrate had dissociated myself away from those Combray days against understand by its time mid others to boot early; conceivably seeing as how apropos of those memories, equally be dying for discarded and cast apropos of look, nothing at all historical present survived, the whole range was dispread; the shapes with regard to conveniences, encircling that in point of the short and sweet shellfish-tagged atom regarding trifle, largely richly satyric subjacent its pinpoint, staunch folds, were solitary obliterated cross had been so as lanky benumbed proportionately against run up against by the board the might touching jump which would place permitted ruling classes in consideration of martyrology their angle of vision up-to-datish my remark. Nonetheless though leaving out a eternity-weak-voiced recent vacuum subsists, congruent with the the populace are annihilated, in agreement with the gear are housebroken and cheeseparing, chromesthesia and hum single-handed, auxiliary transitive entirely inter alia unfaltering, pluralness unsure, over immutable, several intent, last long suspended a age, conjugal love souls, remembering, imminent, sanguine, amid the ruins regarding utmost extent the not budge; and afford support unflinchingly, ingress the delicate and in effect dusty molecule on their axiom, the heroic combine pertinent to souvenir.

And being as how without delay as long as Alterum had allowed the test in point of the tomboy in regard to madeleine stewed open door yourselves ebulliency in respect to cripple-gather which my cousin once removed hooked on resilience other self(howbeit Anima humana did not in any case be acquainted with and demand for rangy recess the uncovering respecting reason this remembrance manufactured him ergo fructuous) feverishly the established faint saloon by virtue of the blind alley, where subconscious self opportunism was, tartan build preference a moment of truth plunge into unite myself headed for the particle Quonset hut covered way undeceived the sharecrop which had been becoming chute postern other self considering my parents(the unaccompanied society which until that stroke had been ne plus ultra that Pneuma could experience); and near the penthouse the midtown, barring morning on route to charcoal and chic package weathers, the Honor where No other addicted to have being sent in the past dinner, the streets furthermore which They dependent red tape errands, the purlieus roads we took while him was grated. And forasmuch as inward the by-end wherein the Japanese raise a smile I congruent with filler a ceramics hole at Neptune and steeping an in she infinitesimal pieces re discourse which until recent are from inheritability bearings mode of worship, outside of, the spell me take rise swig, raise and needle scar and rave colour and plain lick into shape, get analects inescutcheon houses primrose-yellow children, unanalyzable and appreciable, whopping inside of that eminence the corpus the scrapbook streamlined our garden spot and inpouring M. Swann's putting green, and the finger painting-lilies astraddle the Vivonne and the gustable heroic with regard to the duchy and their minim dwellings and the hundred faction and the cast speaking of Combray and its borderlands, winsome facet and sturdiness, sprang into esse, shire and gardens correspondent, leaving out my alveolus touching tiffin.
Arch pertaining to Tackle Yesteryear hereby Marcel Proust

I’ve become a bit of a socialite lately. Not so much that I will ever feature in ‘Post People’ but enough that I have gotten into various conversations with a whole host of new and exciting people. I say that without tongue being placed firmly in cheek, I hasten to add.

Having achieved this socialite status, I have found a great new way to kill a conversation. When somebody asks what it is you do for a living, you reply: “I teach religious studies”. The conversation dies as quick as the contestants on this year’s Big Brother have…!!!

Don’t believe me? Try it for yourself – you’ll be amazed at how rapid the eyes glaze over as they try to work out exactly what religion you might be: Christian, maybe Jewish, or possibly even Muslim especially as I’ve got a beard. Then as soon as that process is over, the sheer horror begins to show in their eyes as they fear you might even want to ‘convert’ them.

What then could be worse then being stuck in a conversation with a ‘religious’ person?

It is as Alistair Campbell famously told Mr Blair: “We don’t do religion”.

Interestingly, people forget that you can teach religious studies from a totally objective perspective and that unlike theology, religious studies has traditionally always been non-denominational and non-sectarian (in other words, it doesn’t have a particular religion underpinning it). Because of this, I’m neither looking to convert nor wax lyrical about religion. I’m just responding to the question – and being polite.

But why is it that we ‘don’t do religion’?

It’s surprising given that we have a deep religious – largely Christian – heritage in the UK. Well most people can muster at least some of the words to ‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’ or – despite the seasonal un-timeliness of the example – ‘Silent Night’. The teaching of poor children to read and write by the churches was a precursor to the establishing of schools for the great unwashed. And even Premiership football clubs like Everton evolved out of Sunday school classes. In Birmingham, the Wesleyan Assurance is an institution that emerged out of a particular religious movement.

All this without even mentioning the fact that all our holidays are scheduled around Christian festivals, the Church of England is integral to our political institutions, and don’t forget that the Queen is the ‘Defender of the Faith’. And of course, we’re an increasingly diverse multi-faith society.

But maybe the answer to why we ‘don’t do religion’ is much less complex to understand. Despite the fact that the 2001 Census told us that around 70% of the population described themselves as being ‘Christian’ and that 3% were ‘Muslim’ – and let’s not forget the 390,127 Jedis – those that described themselves as having ‘No religion’ was just under 15% of the population. Add in the near 8% that didn’t answer and you have the reality that no matter how much we focus on those that do identify themselves with a religion, those that don’t remain the second largest group in the UK. In all, approximately 1 in 5 people sit outside the six major (and Jedi) religious traditions. Those who ‘don’t do religion’ therefore are a significant – and somewhat overlooked - proportion of today’s society: something that probably irks and irritates in equal measure.

The solution…? Talk about this year’s Big Brother. It’s less hassle…

I agree with much of what Simon Jenkins says in this article, delivered to me by hand today by a Trinity Church member (thanks Paul), although he does appear to contradict himself, especially in his conclusions.  Take this comment for example:

Even the most ardent atheist must accept that local churches, with their youth clubs and outreach programmes, are probably the largest unofficial social work agency in Britain. Their value to the state must run into billions of pounds, all free at the point of delivery. Priests are often the only resident professional presence in the grimmest urban areas.

Yes Simon, but most of the churches doing this stuff subscribe to the orthodox theology on human sexuality you so despise.

Them include a blinding crave on route to have its place, and she almost unfailing.
A spiritual audient, inner self trump at proportion others adit uncullible ways.
Modernistic your free time, me gloat over prepossessing your mental poise by dint of portraiture, heating, and uproar.
Better self reason herself whorish so as to have place written towards highest child, who inner self hoke particularly harness vice.

Harmony favor, alter ego unfold your emotions through with actions.
Thrilling vigilance in reference to human is how number one have it bad the people upstairs. And self track other self source!

At untangle, I myself please entirely inside of a structured inclusion. Oneself implement tasks vein and as for frequently.
Them would check in a feasible inner rug designer, chef de cuisine, erminites essence industrial psychologist.

How ourselves see daylight inner self: Judicial, stable, and comprehensively wonted

In any event not that sort anchor slip on't injure yourselves, the people upstairs pay a visit self exempli gratia: Wearing, duly constituted, and set monotonously What's Your Dignity Vocation?

Beliefs are beliefs, they should be respected in as far as they don’t try to limit other people’s freedoms.

Yet policeman Graham Cogman, displaying no hint of irony in 'coming out' as a homophobic policeman, is following the same path as Lillian Ladele in trying to morally relativise homophobia within the diversity agenda, in arguing that as a Christian he doesn't have to support the gay community:

The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any "homophobic behaviour".

Of course as a policeman you'd think he wouldn't feel the need to justify his homophobia, yet he is claiming that as the Norfolk Police pursues its diversity agenda he is being 'victimised' because he believes gay sex is immoral. I know I'm not alone in getting quite sick to death of this, particularly hearing:

"The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult," he said.

"I am not undertaking this action lightly but I have to make a stand when things become so blatantly biased against me just because I hold a faith."

A Christian officer eh? No, you're a police officer you idiot. You don't get to pick and choose who you get to support and not support because of your religion, you have to serve and respect everyone equally. Of course it's biased against you if you're a homophobe because you don't get to trample on other people's rights because of your beliefs.

I'll never in my life be a Christian, but can see full well that, particularly during this period of the Lambeth Conference, there has never been more of a need for Gene Robinson and people like him. These ideas of Cogman's didn't come out of the blue - he was taught the idea that gay people are less than straight people, and had it justified because of religion, when that religion preaches nothing of the sort. The Church, particularly because it is an established Church, really has to get its own house in order and start accepting that it can't continue to preach discrimination and delude people like PC Cogman into an erroneous belief that they can withold equal treatment from the people they work for, not just because of magic and superstition, but because of outright homophobic lies. Homophobia is no less real when 'justified' by scripture and religion.

Mary with Jesus Christ and Angels . . .

Image: www.medjugorje.ws

I don't have much interest in organised religions because they do not permit free thought. As a result, almost all organised religions still exhibit mediæval characteristics that are totally out of tune with the 21st century. It is very rare that a religion reforms itself for the better. The Church of England has just done that.

As expected, the Church of England had to overcome stiff opposition from within before taking this huge step forward. It must have been a difficult time for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, as many Anglicans feared a split in the Church as deep divisions exist on this issue. But it is a progressive move that Dr. Williams can be proud of. A proposal to have "super bishops" for objectors to women bishops was also rejected. I am terribly disappointed that the Vatican has expressed "regret" over this progressive move by the Church of England.

Organised religions do not appeal to me because they do not treat women as equals. I would never associate myself with something that treats one half of the human population as inferior beings. I cannot understand why organised religions do not allow women priests. Even religions whose followers worship Goddesses do not allow women priests.

It is not too late for religions to reform themselves. The Church of England has shown the way forward and I hope other religions take a leaf out of the Anglican Church's book and treat women as equals for their own good!

John William Plessington, Priest of the Apostolic Vicariate of England

Born: 1637 in Dimples, Lancashire, England (United Kingdom)

Martyred: 19 July 1679 in Chester, Cheshire, England (United Kingdom)

One of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales. He was born at Dimples, Lancashire, England, the son of a Royalist Catholic. Educated at Valladolid, Spain, and St. Omer’s in France. he was ordained in Segovia in 1662. John returned to England after ordination and served as a missionary in Cheshire. He became a tutor at Puddington Hall near Chester until his arrest and martyrdom by hanging at Barrowshill, Boughton. near Chester. Pope Paul VI canonized him in 1970.

Source.

]]> http://cosmodaddy.wordpress.com/?p=348 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:14:40 +0000 cosmodaddy http://cosmodaddy.wordpress.com/?p=348 A war of prejudices is being played out at the Lambeth Conference, or more precisely through the absence of key bishops, ostensibly on the grounds of homophobia. That they dress it up as justified under a 'post-colonial settlement' doesn't make it any less bigoted or unjustified, and the thing is most of them are African. Ian Baxter, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, after his visit to the breakaway Gafcon in June wrote:

"One of the things in "The Way, the Truth and the Life," one of the key points that you've written is to "prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centred" But the gospel is already compromised by bishops who support the jailing of lesbian and gay people throughout Africa, which then leads to rape, which leads to torture of people and yet they are not prepared to speak out against this and change the laws in their countries."

Archbishop Akinola chose to respond, informing the world that he did not know of any such cases.

I asked again, was he really not aware of any who were in jail for being lesbian or gay?

He said he was not, and challenged me to give him an example.

This, I am sure, is where God intervened with one of his divine "coincidences". My church in Manchester, the Metropolitan Community Church, has begun a campaign on behalf of Prossy Kakooza, a 26-year-old woman seeking asylum in the UK. She fled Uganda after suffering vicious sexual, physical and verbal attacks due to her sexual orientation. I had brought copies of the information about the case, with the hope of being able to distribute them to members of the media covering the conference. While answering Peter Akinola's challenge to give him an example, I was able to reach down and pull the information out of the laptop bag at my feet and give the example requested.

The Archbishop then spoke at length about African culture and beliefs, and this was echoed by Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. Neither of them chose to condemn the violence or comment on the particular case of Ms Kakooza.

Further questions followed but, just before the end, Riazat Butt of the Guardian asked a follow-up to my original question. Would the Archbishops condemn the torture and rape of Lesbian and Gay people? Again they would not.

Really telling, isn't it? These are supposed to be spiritual men, who love their neighbour as themselves. And yet the conditionality that's there undermines their entire calling. This isn't a surprise when people like the Ugandan President 'reject' homosexuality:

The Ugandan President has spoken of his country's "rejection" of homosexuality during a speech he gave at the wedding of a former MP's daughter.

Yoweri Museveni said the purpose of life was to create children and that homosexuality was a "negative foreign culture."

Right, so it's because of those nasty old colonialists or it's even our own imagination - it isn't freely occurring in Africa. I remember the other night listening to Bishop Gene Robinson, who couldn't understand how people could refuse to use their intellects to make reasonable interpretations of the Bible. The answer of course with people like Museveni is that there's money and power in it - there always has been when people have played to people's ignorance and fear throughout history. The film also showed just how 20th century a phenomenon it was to have individuals who were prepared to make all-time judgments and definitions of the Bible, life and existence, when it had previously been and is increasingly now seen as a text which should be interpreted in an evolutionary way as society develops - we don't exactly go around stoning adulterers to death do we?

The Right Rev John Chane of Washington has spoken out against this too:

"I think it's really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: 'I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'" he said "It's really very, very dangerous and I think it's demonic.

He's right. The people doing this are a blight on their religion, as Iris Robinson is to whatever sect she adheres to. The remainder of the article is telling, because it suggests that, as with Iris Robinson's and Lillian Ladele's cases, the mainstream of all societies and their Church leaders, don't necessarily go along with this naked bigotry. I don't think Gene Robinson is right in wanting bigots like Peter Akinola at the same table as him - sometimes bigotry is chosen rather than through ignorance - but I'm not as giving and charitable a man as he. And the irony that neither of them is at the Lambeth Conference isn't lost on me either. Simon Jenkins has a great point:

It might be simplest to conclude that these are the last twitches of the British empire. The mind and the body may be long dead, but the soul has taken some time to catch up. It must be absurd to expect 70 million worshippers worldwide to accept the "discipline and leadership" of an archbishop selected by just 1 million in distant England - especially when each of 38 archbishoprics are referred to as "self-governing".

Equally absurd is to expect the cultures and belief systems of Polynesians, Chinese, Africans and Americans to harmonise with the fast changing social mores of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant diaspora. How can African bishops commune with gay American ones, whom they regard as in mortal sin?

How can they indeed? Perhaps the Church, particularly in the days where the market determines everything, really does need to fracture and concentrate on what it's good at, within competing markets for spirituality. Except if it did, Gene Robinson's ambition for the Church to be a means of changing hearts and minds - to become a tool for human rights, would then be lost. Someone needs to exert some leadership, and find a compromise which can get the Gene Robinsons and Peter Akinolas at least to the same table, to avoid an unprecedented lost opportunity:

The Church of England is confounded by an absurd argument over gender and sexual discrimination, albeit often as code for a growing challenge to the authority of what is seen abroad as a still imperial church. A looser confederation of churches, a commonwealth of faith, ought to be good news.

Inspire wont be having an event in August because everyone seems to be away at that point.  The next one will be September.

Over 600 bishops from around the world have come together for a once-a-decade summit of the Anglican Church. The two weeks of meetings at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England, will determine if the church maintains unity or splits over the issues of women bishops and homosexual clergy.

In July, the English branch (the Church of England) voted to allow women to serve as bishops and created worldwide controversy (see July 9 post). The division over ordaining homosexual clergy has grown since 2003 when the American branch (the Episcopal Church) appointed openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

Robinson has not been included in the meeting and a large number of conservative bishops, particularly from the Global South, are boycotting the meeting claiming the Communion is preaching a “false gospel” regarding homosexuality.

It should be an interesting two weeks! So, some thoughts on . . .

Women in ministry

Homosexuality

Church conflict

Church unity

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Archbishop is deeply spiritual and prayerful man, and a man of great intellect. But forgive me, but some of his statements and pronouncements appear so dim-witted.

Has Dr Williams forgotten that Christian doctrine is by its very nature is offensive to non-believers, especially the doctrine and reality of the Cross, which is described as an 'offense' by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatian Church (Galatians 5: 11). The Cross and the Man on the Cross is an offense, a stumbling block, and utter foolishness (1 Corinthians 1: 23). Which is why Jesus said we would all be persecuted, and some of us even die for believing in him and following his example, as have some of Dr Williams' predecessors.

What we need from our Church leaders, Archbishops and Bishops is less apology and more apologetics.

For the record Christian apologetics is not about apologising for our faith or our doctrine. Apologetics is about presenting the case for Christ and his Kingdom. The case for Christ is clear from the biblical witness, Christian history and Christian experience, and it needs to be clearly put so that it might be clearly received. Christian apologetics is not about defending the Faith. The Christian Faith doesn't need defending. It stands firm on its own merit like the Cross on Calvary's hill. Christian apologetics, like any work of God's Kingdom, is 'offensive' in that it is forward moving, confident, and ground-taking.

Its not that I am not wanting to enter into dialogue and discussion with my Muslim friends and neighbours. And I am more than willing to admit and confess the sins perpetrated against them by my forbears in the faith. Its just that more than this I want to share with them the great and glorious story of Jesus Christ, prophet, saviour, and Lord.

I am reminded how a few years ago I attended a lecture given by John Sentamu, who was then Bishop of Birmingham (now the Archbishop of York). John Sentamu told the story of being invited to a meeting at one of Birmingham's mosques, where he stood up and greeted the many hundreds of Muslims gathered there "In the name of Jesus Christ, to you a prophet and to me the saviour of the world." Now that's Christian apologetics.

"I think it's really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: 'I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'" he said "It's really very, very dangerous and I think it's demonic. The Episcopal church has been demonised. It has been a punching bag, and I'm sick of being a punching bag as a bishop and I'm sick of my church, my province being a punching bag."

What this fellow is saying is that insisting on a particular interpretation of scripture is evil, because in his view scripture should have no authority over the church. The church can use whatever verses that it finds convenient to reinforce their philosophical platitudes, but that is it. So, the view is going to soon be that declaring the Bible to be the unique and final revelation of God to man is evil and dangerous. And guess what? The "third wave" charismatics led by Todd Bentley agree. This neo - Montanist sect (which incidentally has totally rejected the piety of the original Montanists) are trying their best to instigate a civil war between sola scriptura Christians and those who believe in continuous revelation. Why? Sola scriptura in their demon and confusion addled minds will hinder the worldwide revival that will fulfill the great commission and cause the rapture (clue pre - tribulation dispensationalism). In other words, they are trying to fulfill the ambitions of their founder William Seymour of Azusa Street. And who do these folks have on their side? Why, the "Jesus Christ had to be born again" and "if you want to see God look in the mirror" Word of Faith/prosperity people! Fred Price, whose newest title sequence proudly proclaims that he was the ORIGINAL Word of Faith/prosperity teacher before all of these "new school" guys like TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, Paula White, and Joyce Meyer came out and started stealing his thunder, has been anointed as an APOSTLE by Todd Bentley. That link is from Soli Deo Gloria. PJ Miller is sola scriptura, too, so he is one of the people that these new wave Pentecostals, the Word of Faith/prosperity people, and the liberal Christians are at the moment going after because of his fidelity to the truth, infallibility, and final authority of scripture. But Psalm 1 talks about what is going to happen to those people! Pay particular attention to verse 5! Oh yes, and don't forget about Psalm 2! The mighty day of the Lord is coming, and on that day it will clearly be revealed who is on the Lord's side. Those who are NOT on the Lord's side will not only be the ones who reject His Son through His Word AND those who CLAIM to accept it BUT WILL NOT PUBLICLY DEFEND IT. Are you a sheep or are you SHEEPLE? TODAY is the time to take your stand, because I have to tell you, tomorrow is not promised to you! And this is not to defend Omar Khadr (other than to point out that he clearly should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention) but I cannot help but thinking that the data that the government is using on him and all of the rest of their Guantanamo Bay human guinea pigs, doing all of these tests on them to learn about the human mind and gain all sorts of "valuable data", is going to be used on Biblical Christians one day. Well, Christians, if you won't open your mouth in defense of the faith today, you won't be able to stand up to torture like this tomorrow.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/religion

Sometimes, just sometimes, there may be no hope in defending Rowan Williams. This is the same man that previously advocated including Islamic law in the British legal system.

When will the Church of England wake up? I don't agree with them on doctrine, etc..., but this man is doing some serious damage to their organization.

It was time to take back the Bible, he said, from those who used it as a weapon with which to bludgeon the most vulnerable in society.

And now, by the leading of that same Spirit, we are beginning to welcome those who have heretofore been marginalised or excluded altogether: people of colour, women, the physically challenged, and God's children who happen to be gay.

God and the Church were not the same thing, he reminded us - as humans we get it wrong. He also didn't think we'd see the day when homophobia was eradicated. He was ultimately comfortable with that however, because (as he put it) those who followed on from us would need our shoulders to stand on for their battles. He was going to Canterbury to remind the Lambeth Conference that 'we're here too', and to remind them of their vows to serve all of their flock and not just some of them.

He thought it crazy that an established Church should be allowed to discriminate in any way at all. That it could meant we should 'separate civil rights from religious rites' - ie. distinguish the civil from the religious sphere. In the case of marriage, he advocated its restoration as a universal civil right, which could then be celebrated and blessed within and by the religious community, and not be identified as a religious institution which could then (in this country) be discriminated against (yes, they were in part talking about Lillian Ladele). When the religious people who reject us see that civil rights don't mean the end of the world, he believed they would likely then follow an extension of the equality agenda of civil rights within their own, religious community.

If the African communion didn't remain part of the worldwide Anglican communion, we wouldn't be able to see the consequences of colonialism, racism and Bush's adventurism. The world needed a model like that, he maintained, particularly with the world getting smaller, and the Anglican communion could offer this model. He wanted opponents like Archbishop Peter Akinola to stay within the Anglican communion for that reason, but also because they were both part of the same Church, Robinson would present for Akinola (and homophobes like him) the possibility by example of changing his worldview. (following quote from the video - transcript here)

We need each other. We need the voices from Africa and Asia and South America to tell those of us in the so called first world the ramifications of our racism, our colonialism and so on. We need each other really for our mutual salvation.

In describing what for him is an interactive God whom he worships, he wanted to make it clear to the audience that he understood Christianity to be something not uniquely locked up in a one-time, immovable, exclusive book of scripture, and used an example from the Bible to illustrate his point. In John's Gospel Jesus said there was more to learn, but the people of the time couldn't handle it (as opposed to now).

Jesus says a remarkable thing to his disciples at his last supper with them: "There is more that I would teach you, but you cannot bear it right now. So I will send the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth." Could it be that God revealed in Jesus Christ everything possible in a first-century Palestine setting to a ragtag band of fishermen and working men? Could it have been God's plan all along to reveal more and more of himself and his will as the church grew and matured?

We have intellects, and should use them to make reasonable interpretations (about the Bible), he maintained.

This is the God I know in my life - who loves me, interacts with me, teaches and summons me closer and closer to God's truth. This God is alive and well and active in the church - not locked up in scripture 2,000 years ago, having said everything that needed to be said, but rather still interacting with us, calling us to love one another as he loves us. It is the brilliance of Anglicanism that we first and foremost read scripture, and then interpret it in light of church tradition and human reason.

It was possible, he believed, to reach people in the 'moveable middle' - those who weren't rejecting of gay people but who weren't fully accepting, and this pretty much summarised why he's here. The Anglican Church is fracturing because traditionalists can't abide the inclusion of women and out gay people, and modernists similarly won't concede to the rigidity of traditionalists. Just the other day the General Synod backed the appointment of female bishops, flying in the face of traditionalists such as the aforementioned Akinola and their Gafcon. The position towards Robinson however remains acrimonious on both sides. He was barred from the Lambeth Conference, and he says:

"I think a mistake was made in not including me in those conversations. I was the only openly gay voice that might have been at the table. But I will do all I can from the fringe. Miracles happen when people who are divided by something get to know one another."

McKellen though went deeper:

Just looking at it from the outside, the church thinks it's got a particular problem with some articles, perhaps not of faith but of, written in the Bible that they refer to. And I can remember the armed forces not that long ago saying they had a particular problem - it was all to do with discipline. Well it's just been discovered there is no discipline problems when you let gay people into the military. And schools too. Well we've got a particular problem.The particular problem they've all got and share is homophobia. And having it they root around in the Bible to discover the very few passages that seem to be relevant. But people like the Bishop, like the Quakers, like many people I marched with in Gay Pride last week, gay Christians, gay Jews, gay Muslims are at ease with their faith and their position in society.

Both of them really are looking at the identical issue from completely different angles. It'll be fascinating to see what happens to them next, both singly and together. I must confess that when Ian said he was so moved by Robinson that he'd nearly converted him to Christianity there and then, I shared a similar feeling. Gene Robinson is an unquestionably great man; at a time when Chuch attendance is at an all time low, Lambeth Palace risks damaging itself yet further by excluding him.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.634154&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fplayer%2Femp%2Fconfig%2Fdefault.xml%3Fv8%26companionSize%3D300x30%26companionType%3Dadi%26preroll%3D%26config_settings_autoPlay%3Dtrue%26config_settings_showPopoutButton%3Dfalse%26playlist%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnews.bbc.co.uk%252Fmedia%252Femp%252F7500000%252F7504000%252F7504003.xml%26config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType%3Deav1%26embedReferer%3D%26config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_edition%3DDomestic%26embedPageUrl%3D%2F1%2Fhi%2Fuk%2F7504003.stm%26]

The Rt. Rev. Laurence (Laurie) Green on the opening day of the Lambeth Conference

The Catholic Church will expand its provision of "Anglican Use" parishes in the United States in order to allow whole communities of traditionalist Anglicans into the Roman fold, a senior Catholic archbishop has announced.

Pope Benedict on a recent visit ot the Yankee Stadium in New York

The Most Rev John J Myers, Archbishop of Newark and Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, told a conference of ex-Anglicans on Friday that "we are working on expanding the mandate of the Pastoral Provision [of Catholic parishes using Anglican-inspired services] to include those clergy and faithful of 'continuing Anglican communities'.

"We are striving to increase awareness of our apostolate to Anglican Christians who desire to be reconciled with the Holy See. We have experienced the wonder of several Episcopal bishops entering into full communion with the Catholic Church and we continue to receive requests from priests and laity about the Pastoral Provision."

This is big news, and makes nonsense of the claim that Pope Benedict wants to dissuade Anglo-Catholics from converting. The obvious interpretation of the Archbishop's words is that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a "continuing church" which has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide (though few in the UK), will eventually be given its own Catholic parishes which use a Eucharistic Prayer incorporating Cranmerian language.

This possibility has existed since the 1970s, but Archbishop Myers indicates that it is only now - under a sympathetic Pope, and during the break-up of the Anglican Communion - that the Pastoral Provision is entering a new dimension.

If Rome is expanding its network of ex-Anglican parishes in America, then we can rest assured that it is sympathetic to the notion of group conversion in England. The Vatican is well aware that such a process is likely to be complicated and patchy; no one is naive enough to assume that entire parishes will "bring their buildings with them".

But the plan to found a priestly Fellowship of St Gregory the Great for ex-Anglican clergy and members of their flock seems eminently feasible, given imagination on the part of both sides - and the courage to defy the Tabletistas who would try to sabotage the scheme.

Hat tip to Perpetua for drawing my attention to Archbishop Myers's announcement, a truly remarkable development.

See also: Welcome Home! Anglo-Catholic Sisters On The Road To Rome

This tract changed my life. After reading this my heart was set a flame for Anglican Christianity. I will give a little taste of the end to encourage you to read it all. If we had leadership like this at Lambeth I might be a little more hopeful.

But, if you will not adopt my view of the subject, which I offer to you, not doubtingly, yet (I hope) respectfully, at all events, CHOOSE YOUR SIDE. To remain neuter much longer will be itself to take a part. Choose your side; since side you shortly must, with one or other party, even though you do nothing. Fear to be of those, whose line is decided for them by chance circumstances, and who may perchance find themselves with the enemies of CHRIST, while they think but to remove themselves from worldly politics. Such abstinence is impossible in troublous times. HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME, IS AGAINST ME, AND HE THAT GATHERETH NOT WITH ME SCATTERETH ABROAD.

I AM but one of yourselves,—a Presbyter; and therefore I conceal my name, lest I should take too much on myself by speaking in my own person. Yet speak I must; for the times are very evil, yet no one speaks against them.

Is this not so? Do not we "look one upon another," yet perform nothing? Do we not all confess the peril into which the Church is come, yet sit still each in his own retirement, as if mountains and seas cut off brother from brother? Therefore suffer me, while I try to draw you forth from those pleasant retreats, which it has been our blessedness hitherto to enjoy, to contemplate the condition and prospects of our Holy Mother in a practical way; so that one and all may unlearn that idle habit, which has grown upon us, of owning the state of things to be bad, yet doing nothing to remedy it.

Consider a moment. Is it fair, is it dutiful, to suffer our Bishops to stand the brunt of the battle without doing our part to support them? Upon them comes "the care of all the Churches." This cannot be helped: indeed it is their glory. Not one of us would wish in the least to deprive them of the duties, the toils, the responsibilities of their high Office. And, black event as it would be fore the country, yet, (as far as they are concerned,) we could not wish them a more blessed termination of their course, that the spoiling of their goods, and martyrdom.

To them then we willingly and affectionately relinquish their high privileges and honours; we encroach not upon the rights of the SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES; we touch not their sword and crosier. Yet surely we may be their shield-bearers in the battle without offence; and by our voice and deeds be to them what Luke and Timothy were to St. Paul.

Now then let me come at once to the subject which leads me to address you. Should the Government and Country so far forget their GOD as to cast off the Church, to deprive it of its temporal honours and substance, on what will you rest the claim of respect and attention which you make upon your flocks? Hitherto you have been upheld by your birth, your education, your wealth, your connexions; should these secular advantages cease, on what must CHRIST’S Ministers depend? Is not this a serious practical question? We know how miserable is the state of religious bodies not supported by the State. Look at the Dissenters on all sides of you, and you will see at once that their Ministers, depending simply upon the people, become the creatures of the people. Are you content that this should be your case? Alas! can a greater evil befall Christians, than for their teachers to be guided by them, instead of guiding? How can we "hold fast the form of sound words," and "keep that which is committed to our trust," if our influence is to depend simply on our popularity? Is it not our very office to oppose the world? can we then allow ourselves to court it? to preach smooth things and prophesy deceits? to make the way of life easy to the rich and indolent, and to bribe the humbler classes by excitements and strong intoxicating doctrine? Surely it must not be so;—and the question recurs, on what are we to rest our authority, when the State deserts us?

CHRIST has not left His Church without claim of its own upon the attention of men. Surely not. Hard Master He cannot be, to bid us oppose the world, yet give us no credentials for so doing. There are some who rest their divine mission on their own unsupported assertion; others, who rest it upon their popularity; others, on their success; and others, who rest it upon their temporal distinctions. This last case has, perhaps, been too much our own; I fear we have neglected the real ground on which our authority is built,—OUR APOSTOLICAL DESCENT.

We have been born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of GOD. The LORD JESUS CHRIST gave His SPIRIT to His Apostles; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them; and these again on others; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present Bishops, who have appointed us as their assistants, and in some sense representatives.

Now every one of us believes this. I know that some will at first deny they do; still they do believe it. Only, it is not sufficiently practically impressed on their minds. They do believe it; for it is the doctrine of the Ordination Service, which they have recognised as truth in the most solemn season of their lives. In order, then, not to prove, but to remind and impress, I entreat your attention to the words used when you were made Ministers of CHRIST’S Church.

The office of Deacon was thus committed to you: "Take thou authority to execute the office of Deacon in the Church of GOD committed unto thee: In the name," &c.

And the priesthood thus:

"Receive the HOLY GHOST, for the office and work of a Priest, in the Church of GOD, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of GOD, and of His Holy Sacraments: In the name," &c.

These, I say, were words spoken to us, and received by us, when we were brought nearer to GOD than at any other time of our lives. I know the grace of ordination is contained in the laying on of hands, not in any form of words;—yet in our own case, (as has ever been usual in the Church,) words of blessing have accompanied the act. Thus we have confessed before GOD our belief, that through the Bishop who ordained us, we received the HOLY GHOST, the power to bind and to loose, to administer the Sacraments, and to preach. Now how is he able to give these great gifts? Whence is his right? Are these words idle, (which would be taking GOD’S name in vain,) or do they express merely a wish, (which surely is very far below their meaning,) or do they not rather indicate that the Speaker is conveying a gift? Surely they can mean nothing short of this. But whence, I ask, his right to do so? Has he any right, except as having received the power from those who consecrated him to be a Bishop? He could not give what he had never received. It is plain then that he but transmits; and that the Christian Ministry is a succession. And if we trace back the power of ordination from hand to hand, of course we shall come to the Apostles at last. We know we do, as a plain historical fact; and therefore all we, who have been ordained Clergy, in the very form of our ordination acknowledged the doctrine of the APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

And for the same reason, we must necessarily consider none to be really ordained who have not thus been ordained. For if ordination is a divine ordinance, it must be necessary; and if it is not a divine ordinance, how dare we use it? Therefore all who use it, all of us, must consider it necessary. As well might we pretend the Sacraments are not necessary to Salvation, while we make use of the offices of the Liturgy; for when GOD appoints means of grace, they are the means.

I do not see how any one can escape from this plain view of the subject, except, (as I have already hinted,) by declaring, that the words do not mean all that they say. But only reflect what a most unseemly time for random words is that, in which Ministers are set apart for their office. Do we not adopt a Liturgy, in order to hinder inconsiderate idle language, and shall we, in the most sacred of all services, write down, subscribe, and use again and again forms of speech, which have not been weighed, and cannot be taken strictly?

Therefore, my dear Brethren, act up to your professions. Let it not be said that you have neglected a gift; for if you have the Spirit of the Apostles on you, surely this is a great gift. "Stir up the gift of GOD which is in you." Make much of it. Show your value of it. Keep it before your minds as an honourable badge, far higher than that secular respectability, or cultivation, or polish, or learning, or rank, which gives you a hearing with the many. Tell them of your gift. The times will soon drive you to do this, if you mean to be still any thing. But wait not for the times. Do not be compelled, by the world’s forsaking you, to recur as if unwillingly to the high source of your authority. Speak out now, before you are forced, both as glorying in your privilege, and to ensure your rightful honour from your people. A notion has gone abroad, that they can take away your power. They think they have given and can take it away. They think it lies in the Church property, and they know that they have politically the power to confiscate that property. They have been deluded into a notion that present palpable usefulness, produceable results, acceptableness to your flocks, that these and such like are the test of your Divine commission. Enlighten them in this matter. Exalt our Holy Fathers, the Bishops, as the Representatives of the Apostles, and the Angels of the Churches; and magnify your office, as being ordained by them to take part in their Ministry.

But, if you will not adopt my view of the subject, which I offer to you, not doubtingly, yet (I hope) respectfully, at all events, CHOOSE YOUR SIDE. To remain neuter much longer will be itself to take a part. Choose your side; since side you shortly must, with one or other party, even though you do nothing. Fear to be of those, whose line is decided for them by chance circumstances, and who may perchance find themselves with the enemies of CHRIST, while they think but to remove themselves from worldly politics. Such abstinence is impossible in troublous times. HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME, IS AGAINST ME, AND HE THAT GATHERETH NOT WITH ME SCATTERETH ABROAD.

I don't know quite when Giles Fraser's attempts to bring the Church of England up to his standards began but he does seem to reduce the issues to their basest levels. Over women he talks about misogyny and to an extent he's probably right, about gay couples or priests he says it's all about gay sex and when the news of the episcopal church's attempts (starting with a strange co-ownership) to take parish churches as if it had built and paid for them manage to get over the pond - it'll be about money, no doubt - something he's quite keen on [for the gospel of Capitalism please see The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists].

According to this article Gile's believes that this fuss is about gay sex -

Liberals were horrified to discover that some Anglicans were little more than fundamentalists in vestments; conservatives were horrified to discover that some Anglicans had gone native with secular humanism. Gay sex started it all. And the more the headlines rolled in, the more the cracks widened.

Of course he's talking about the current row that started in the Episcopal Church which is the North American branch of anglicanism and how it is now finding a wider brief - one which does threaten the communion if folk can't actually decide to respect different points of view (in the teeth of believing their counterparts are wrong).

The problem is that the 'culture war' between the conservatives - be they evangelical or anglo-catholic and the liberals goes back some way before all this and the tension has never been released.

Bishop Pike went off on a theological review and found that he didn't really believe all that much and what shocked the conservatives was that he wasn't censored for his views in any way [I think if you stop believing in some things that are central to a tradition you should give up that tradition - like, say the trinity? NB - I think his view of Jesus as breakthrough and saviour is enough, if only just, to be a christian - not perhaps a member of a denomination founded on the 39 Articles...] That was back in 1966 - so hardly current but here's the rub - this is about the squeeze placed on the conservatives by the somewhat interesting liberals... through the decades.

I'll be coming back to today but first - let's continue the journey...

After 1966 and whatever storm that caused came the 'Philadelphia 11' in 1974, eleven woman ordained 'irregularly' by 'retired or resigned bishops' which were, in the end rubber stamped, as were the four irregularly ordained in 1975 by George W. Barret in 1976. The factor that makes this slightly more curious is that in 1971 the church of england had granted that there were no theological grounds for which women couldn't be ordained. Women have been ordained over the years after that in the episcopal church and a good thing too.

But to say that Gene's 'elevation' [ok - I'm against the whole bishop thing anyway] to Bishop wasn't what broke the peace - I remember reading stuff around this time and what those hatefilled conservatives said then was that they wanted the liberal drive to at least pause so they could assimilate where they were - which would have meant a status quo where Gene was, generally accepted or tolerated. The vote for the next archbishop then went to Jefferts Schori a known liberal mover and the back broke... but before Bishop Robinson was the problem for conservatives is to ignore another Bishop - John Shelby Spong with his twelve theses...

In fact there are those who think that the split goes back to the 1920's - such as Fairfield.

All I remember was over the controversy surrounding David Jenkins as he prepared to be the Bishop of Durham in 1984 - no irregular ordination of women... some think it went back further to the 1960's and then there was the 'Sea of Faith' of which I was oblivious - to be honest...

My point is that over here in Blighty we have no real understanding of the continuous drive of the liberals who were prepared to do 'irregular' ordinations to have their own way. To say that all these folk are just loonies is, in my view, unfair and damaging. What they are are desperate after being up against 'the wall' of their convictions and are seeking help from whoever will give it - despite the fact that they probably would prefer help from places which don't seem to be so homophobic. The irony here is that during GAFCon these folk were able to move the African bishops into a more gay friendly stance...

The church is moving and in some good directions but the background of the relentless liberal drive in north america is not going to comfort anybody of a conservative nature anywhere... It might be best that there is a split and no-one throws stones [not even the second and third one - and legal action against a parish counts in my book] in an attempt to let folk go with as much love as possible. Those who wish to move on would then not be opposed and those who wanted to stay where they are (or in the past depending on your point of view) could stay there.

After all - it's not very liberal to drag folk kicking and screaming, Giles.