WATCH’s call for end to women-bishops provision
From Canon Tim Pike
Madam, — I am the Vicar of St Michael’s, Croydon. This parish covers the centre of the town of which Dr Rosemarie Mallett is the Bishop. It is a traditional Catholic parish under the (excellent) pastoral care of the Bishop of Fulham.
Like many such parishes, we are called to serve in one of the most deprived parts of our country. We are glad to be here. And we are glad, too, to feel encouraged in our ministry by the inclusive ecology of the diocese of Southwark, fostered by the diocesan Bishop and, as far as I can see, appreciated by one and all. Until now, it has felt as if all have an honoured place here. But, it seems, that inclusive ecology is now under threat because Dr Mallett is on the warpath.
You report (News, 4 April) that she is at the forefront of a new campaign to abolish the Five Guiding Principles, which she herself helped to craft, and which seek to enable the mutual flourishing of parishes like ours, who take a traditional view on the ordination of women, and those who have accepted it.
It has worked. This mutual flourishing exists happily in our deanery, for example, which, in terms of churchmanship, is a microcosm of the Church of England. The clergy Chapter is characterised by relationships of friendship and mutual support which could well serve as a model for others.
My clergy colleagues may agree or disagree with me about things. But I don’t think they regard me as a re-embodiment of Andrew Tate; nor do they think of St Michael’s as epitomising an “unequal and iniquitous gendered culture [in] the current Church of England”, though, to judge by your report, Dr Mallett is not convinced about that.
Parishes like ours are not opposed to the ordination of women because they are “paternalistic and patriarchal”, to use her words, although interestingly I can think of many clergy who offer good models of fatherhood in a society when these can be rare. Rather, we are mindful of the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which the Church of England claims to be part.
In 2013, Pope Francis said of the ordination of women, “the Church has spoken and says no. . . that door is closed.” Given the clarity of his utterance, it is no wonder then that significant numbers of devout Anglicans will have heeded his words and taken that position.
These are the people, not sociopaths, but Anglo-Catholics, who will now have to mend their wicked ways, wither on the vine, or just leave, if the Five Guiding Principles are abolished.
On behalf of the clergy and parishes around the country which are loyally Anglican and loyally Catholic, I appeal to readers of this newspaper to reject the divisive calls to end provision for traditionalists in the Church of England.
To diocesan synods asked to consider resolutions to legislate away those traditional Catholics, who have failed to conform to “the culture of the wider society”, I say we are your Christian brothers and sisters. We might be in rough parishes. but we want to stay with you together.
And. although it must be vexing to Dr Mallett that not everybody shares her opinion of who can and cannot be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Order, we and parishes like ours are mindful of Catholic teaching, and we work faithfully and hard. We do not merit the vilification to which she has subjected us.
TIMOTHY PIKE
St Michael’s, Croydon
Poplar Walk
Croydon CR0 1UA
From Mrs Mavis Jacobs
Madam, — It is difficult to comprehend what WATCH will achieve if and when they are successful in driving their opponents from the Church of England.
The many people who have always felt uneasy with the ordination of women but were unable to express their views for a number of reasons are no longer a threat. Some have taken the line of least resistance and have reluctantly and unhappily resigned themselves to the situation; others have moved to worship in “traditional” churches and, sadly, even more have ceased attending church when there has been no alternative traditional church within reach. These people have undoubtedly contributed to the increase in lay-led funerals and marriages.
The Forward in Faith/Society people are entirely different: they are confident in the beliefs held in the inherited doctrine of the universal Church. If deprived, as the Bishop of Dover would like, of clergy, bishops, and buildings, and if they are unable to support themselves, they will seek refuge in the Roman and Orthodox churches.
The gulf between us was made plain at the recent consecration of the Bishop of Richborough. The only bishop to be carrying a crosier, a display of her personal authority, was a woman. One of the women bishops present sat robed with her legs crossed as though she were on a bar stool. Worse was to come; as the faithful moved forward to make their communion, they were confronted by the spectacle of two women bishops, seated behind the altar, having a cozy chat and a giggle.
WATCH may be able to prioritise the aspirations of a group of women who feel that the Christian world has dealt them a poor hand, and successfully make a case to our uncomprehending secular society, but there is a serious risk of their pressing the self-destruct button of the Church of England.
MAVIS JACOBS
34 St Augustine’s Gate
Norwich NR3 3BE
From Mr Steve Vince
Madam, — As one who accepts neither the “Evangelical” nor the “Catholic” objections to women priests and bishops (I believe the former to be grounded in misinterpretation of scripture, and the latter to have no scriptural ground at all), I am obviously with WATCH on the substantive issue. I would, however, strongly counsel them, in their seeking to end the provision for those who hold theological objections to their (and my) position, to take these objections, and those who hold them, seriously.
It is so easy to assume that everyone who disagrees with us is simply wrong and can therefore be ignored, and in national politics there is all too much of this. In the Christian Church, we can and must do better than that — whatever the issue is, and whichever side we’re on.
STEVE VINCE
13 Selwyn Close
Wolverhampton WV2 4NQ
Police forced entry at Quaker meeting house
From the Revd David Haslam
Madam, — It was quite shocking to read that twenty Metropolitan police officers broke into the Westminster Quaker Meeting House on 27 March (News, 4 April). This is the first time the police have broken into a place of worship since they entered the Church of the Ascension in Hulme, in 1989, to arrest the Sri Lankan anti-deportation activist Viraj Mendis.
Even more astonishing was their behaviour: carrying tasers, grabbing young women, putting them against a wall, and handcuffing them. It will be important to learn of the government response to the Bishop of Manchester’s question in the House of Lords.
Although there is no law against the police breaking into churches without warning, up until now in modern times there has been an acceptance that, without specific evidence that the law is being broken, some conversation should first take place. The idea of Sanctuary has deep roots in Christian tradition and in fact stems from the book of Joshua. Down the centuries, this idea has ebbed and flowed in effectiveness, but surfaced in recent times in the southern United States, where it was used to delay and often prevent the deportation of “illegal” migrant people who were settled, with jobs and families and even paying taxes.
Here in the UK, it was used in the 1980s and early ’90s to delay and — in all cases except that of Mendis — to prevent deportations of individuals and families.
The current laws being enacted that encourage this kind of police action could affect churches discussing the age-old practice of sanctuary, or even — it seems — allowing meetings on their premises debating protest actions that, in their nature, may be disruptive in some form (otherwise little notice would be taken). This is a time when — although Just Stop Oil is ending its more overt forms of protest, and when more than a dozen of its activists remain in prison — many people continue deeply opposed to ongoing fossil-fuel expansion.
Those PCCs who are actively concerned about increasing use of fossil fuels, or potential deportation of asylum-seekers, may be advised to be cautious of what they place on their agendas in the coming months. The continuing development of laws affecting the right to protest demands careful monitoring — and possible protest.
DAVID HASLAM
59 Burford Road
Evesham WR11 3AG
BBC’s translation of Yahūd as ‘Israeli’
From Naomi Gryn
Madam, — Paul Vallely argues that Palestinians interviewed on the BBC use “Yahūd” (“Jew”) as an epithet for “Israeli” because Israeli soldiers are the only Jews that they have ever seen, and that this is not intended as a racial or religious slur.
Given the rapid rise in attacks on Jews around the world by pro-Palestinian activists since the Hamas led attack on Israel in October 2023, it seems evident that the use of “Yahūd” by these interviewees has much in common with the Christian use of “Jew”, as in “the Jews killed Jesus,” enshrined in the letters of Paul. This has echoed down the centuries as justification for countless massacres of Jews, culminating in the Holocaust.
Antisemitism is enshrined in Hamas’s 1988 charter, which includes many hostile references to Jews such as the hadith: “The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”
Hamas’s revised charter of 2017 tones this down, focusing instead on the delegitimisation of Israel, but, given the treatment of Jews in Arab lands, more than 850,000 of whom were expelled after Israel’s declaration of independence, there is little confusion about its intention.
Mr Vallely is concerned that the correct translation of “Yahūd” might exacerbate Jew-hatred: the lies and distortions in the media about this conflict have been shameful, and if a broadcaster attempts to pervert translations in its subtitles, this is a dreadful disservice to its viewers.
NAOMI GRYN
4 Netherleigh Close
Hornsey Lane
London N6 5LL
Inaccuracies in debate on minster communities
From the Diocesan Secretary of Leicester
Madam, — It is disappointing to see your correspondents (Letters, 4 April) once again using wrong information in relation to minister communities in the diocese of Leicester. While there is a range of views about the proposals, there are many people living and worshipping in the diocese who see them as far from “failed”, but, rather, as missionally positive, besides offering a pragmatic response to the challenges that we, in common with most parts of the Church of England, are facing.
It simply is not true that our conference centre has cost “millions of pounds” or that our cathedral is “inconveniently located”. Nor is our head-office staff “bloated”. The conference centre generates an income for the diocese, besides providing a place of Christian hospitality and witness; the cathedral is in the centre of the city that, in turn, is in the centre of the diocese; our head-count (excluding the staff who service the income-generating activities) is similar to other comparable dioceses.
The diocesan team and its leadership are committed to working in partnership with our parishes to discern God’s future for the Church in Leicester and Leicestershire. We see many encouraging signs of lay people and clergy discovering new strength, energy, and vision. We know that change is difficult, and sometimes we will not all agree on the way forward — but please can we have a grown-up conversation about it, based on the facts.
JONATHAN KERRY
St Martins House
Peacock Lane
Leicester LE1 5PZ
‘Radical’ welcome
From Canon Jonathan Lawson
Madam, — The Dean and Chapter of Newcastle Cathedral has recently withdrawn their invitation to the Archbishop of York to speak in the Cathedral as part of his Faith in the North initiative (News, 4 April). Newcastle Cathedral promotes that it offers a “radical welcome”, but clearly that does not apply to all, not least the Primate of this Province.
JONATHAN LAWSON
St Gabriel’s Vicarage
9 Holderness Road
Newcastle upon Tyne NE6 5RH
Welby and forgiveness
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Madam, — In your coverage of the Rt Revd Justin Welby’s recent interview with the BBC, you report that he maintained that he “did not have a clue” about John Smyth’s abuse until 2013 (News, 4 April).
Yet, the review by Keith Makin concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, it was “unlikely that Justin Welby would have had no knowledge of the concerns regarding John Smyth in the 1980s in the UK” (News, 15 November).
You also report the response of a survivor, Graham, who says of Bishop Welby: “He continues to blank us and refuses to tell us the truth”.
As the highly respected Archbishop Tutu said in his opening address to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “To be able to forgive, one needs to know whom one is forgiving and why. That is why the truth is so central to this whole exercise.”
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
Reclaiming VAT
From Anne Willis
Madam, — The new limits on VAT for places of worship are, indeed, a terrible blow for those who have begun projects and are faced with a shortfall.
But there was a time when VAT could not be reclaimed. I helped to run a bell-restoration project for the Millennium, and I remember sitting on the stairs looking at a grant cheque for £5000 and thinking “We have enough to pay the VAT.”
May I suggest that those who had projects in hand when the new rules were imposed lobby the Government for at least some return at the old rate.
The rest of us will just have to accept the burden, and remember that those who need to repair and care for their listed homes have never been able to reclaim VAT on the work.
ANNE WILLIS
15 Sandy Leaze
Bradford on Avon
Wiltshire BA15 1LX