Yesterday

Yesterday I met someone who told me about the 'brilliant' news that we had a woman bishop, so I asked them why it was brilliant, but they said they didn't know!

Yesterday I met someone who told me that, 'They'd had it with Church because,' because we had a woman bishop, so I asked them what was so bad, and they said fear too much!

Yesterday I had a conversation with a bunch of people. They thought it was a sermon!

Yesterday I was taken to one side and told how people in their church wanted 'more of the Bible, more about Jesus, more about how to live as a Christian!'

Yesterday I met people who saw past their rights, their wants and themselves to offer a hand to others because that was who they were because of Jesus, the Christ!

Yesterday bread and wine and a young woman who said, 'Yes' whilst those people who passed by outside, thinking they saw 'Church', were confused by what was really 'family'!

Yesterday was a time of joy and tears and remembrance and hope and loss and assurance focused on a piece of wood, a broken body and a healed people.

Yesterday was not the 'foreign country where things were done differently' but an extension of that tomorrow brought to us by one outside of time who chose to confound reason and logic by doing things differently.

And today?

Is it just yesterday reheated?

OR

Something to be served fresh - something that is new every morning?

Today:
Lord, guide my feet to stay upon the path.
Help me to keep my mind from straying and my tongue from tripping others.
Help me to see in those I meet the image of the invisible God made visible.
Help me to not have opinions but assurances.
Make me a mirror for the living God.
Make me a disciple.
A friend.
A priest.

The 'the rising tide'

I have a most interesting conversation with another cleric at a funeral this morning. Interesting, surprising and just a little shocking and sad-making in fact!
Interesting because what I heard was something I'd suspected but not the way they'd put it.
Surprising because they were female and yet saw the recent synod decisions as negative.
Shocking because, well you don't expect that sort of thing on a Monday (do you?).
Sad-making because it seems we are looking at people with an agenda here - and it doesn't seem to have the Bible included (well, not the majority of it anyway)!

Then, to make it more interesting still I return and now (almost 16:00 and time for a brew) find myself challenged by the image below:

This image is something produced by Mark Regnerus (University of Texas, Austin) as he seeks to answer the question, "What exactly do pro-same-sex-marriage Christians think about sex and relationships in general?"  (click here) So let's put all this in the mix and see whether the unfolding conspiracy theory holds water or is just the ramblings of a mad woman and a sociologist and a gullible (below-average) Vicar who is perhaps more than a little convinced by it all!

My colleague (whose name I never did get) told me that she'd realised that the tide was rising, something that had been confirmed by a friend who'd told her that, "Having accepted women bishops the only remaining barrier to see toppled was same-sex!" 

One of the problems for those who consider themselves to hold with an orthodox (or some would say 'traditional') faith has been the situation whereby when the issue of homosexuality and the Church first came up it seems (to me anyway) that just as a line was about to be drawn in the sand some clever type realised that this would potentially cost the CofE money. And so the first fudge was born and we had the situation whereby homosexuality was definitely 'out' on the altar side of the rail and sort of, well you know, but not totally wrong so keep on coming to church and giving!

All that was needed was a straight (no pun intended) 'Yes' or 'No' and the matter would have been sorted one way or the other but it wasn't! Then women get ordained and this marks a step towards a lessening of opinion regarding the dread subject of homosexuality because women are apparently less inclined to be against it! Empirically I did have a female friend who told me that being part of a marginalised group (women) she could never vote against another (homosexuals) and so if this is consistent I guess the view holds some water.

Now I'm told by some that women in the house of bishops will add weight towards accepting homosexuality (struggle with 'same sex sex/marriage 'sss/ssm' as it all seems a little - off!) and that this now sets the signals to green for a move to remove the final obstacle for being a 'totally accepting and inclusive' Church. Seems to me that some regard the words  'permissive' and 'inclusive' to be as interchangeable as 'sex' and 'gender' - which makes them wrong on a couple of counts!

The scores on the doors from Prof Regnerus all indicate that those who support same-sex marriage are much more likely to be in favour of a lot of stuff that those Christians who aren't that keen on. Don't think that's a shock. Then again neither is it any surprise that non-Christian homosexuals are supportive of lots of stuff that Christians (of all complexions) aren't - even if they support same-sex marriage or are homosexual themselves. What I like about the man is that he's not screaming about slippery slopes or increasing trends - changing attitudes so same-sex marriage are not necessarily the cause of changes elsewhere. But each is discrete and also influenced, and influential, in the processing and adoption of attitudes.

So we should not demonise either - because that's merely a slippery slope in the other direction, innit?

Neither should we use our straightness, gayness or confusedness as a weapon because to do this reduces us to being nothing more than a pawn rather than the focus of God's amazing love - dunnit?

Seems to me that there's few surprises for me today - just confirmation that that which the Bible appears to consider right behaviour sure ain't popular among those who like to please themselves. No shock there either I guess because the whole point of sin is that it's a popular pastime.

The key is surely to find a via media and to be collaborative rather than combative and yet still maintain that which honours God, keeps the Christian living on the right track and is truly open and inclusive without compromising or becoming permissive - especially not in the mistaken belief that permissive means converts (unless we're looking to make them twice as fit for hell as we are ourselves that is).

What a very funny day indeed!

An inside edge on my week thus far

And we've only just reach Wednesday!

I woke up this morning and my body said, 'Monday!'
My brain said, 'Friday!'
The alarm clock (for the mortals in the house) read, 'Wednesday!'

So I climbed out of bed and got on with it. Paper work done - emails answered and diary filled just that little bit more (now booking into mid-2105 for some stuff). It's been an amazing week - so full that I haven't managed to blog and yet full of stuff that has challenged, blessed and incensed me. Here's just a glimpse of the first two days:

Was surprised to meet a vicar of the female persuasion who confided that she'd be glad when 'that' vote was over and we could get back to, 'Doing what we should be doing rather than getting bound up in all that's been going on over it!' I wasn't surprised that she was was a woman with that view but at the fact she shared it (I barely know her).

Went to meet with someone I was sure would have been all for a 'Yes' vote and found them bemoaning the rift it would cement between Roman Catholicism and the CofE (something I'd not really given much thought to). A fascinating insight into the situation and the thought that, having come from a positive engagement with Francis, Justin might encourage slowing things down to see how Rome (with an apparently professed 2% of paedophile priests in their midst who will have to go) might look towards women's ministry and try to get some coherence. Knew that was never going to happen though!

Had a friend (and colleague) write:
'Women bishops aren't going to be any better (or worse) than male ones. Remember the woman Prime Minister? And the first black President hasn't exactly lived up to all the hype and hope. So, no, I'm not "#excited" or whatever. I'm long past caring on this one. God bless 'em all and I'll just carry on as before i.e. by lying low and staying out of their way. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." But better not to meet the boss at all if you can help it!'

I was surprised by the many (male and female) who were quite ambivalent towards women bishops - although more surprised by the women because I though there was a party line on the topic.

I was happy for those who were happy over it and sad with those who were saddened by it - I don't have an axe to grind either way and since I don't like the world of rights and inequality; or as I said to one lovely lady what might never talk to me again - positive discrimination has the word 'discrimination' and I'm never for that word - you perhaps do because you're the one hoping to be positively discriminated towards. Needs to be thought out that one I reckon. I'd rather see equality on the basis of the inability to differentiate on anything other than calling and ability (and that covers colour, sex, gender and anything else you might like to think of). It should be about righteous and right living - a quick and lively faith and the desire to preach (and live) Christ in and out of season. Anything else is religion (and probably politics).

Met a cleric who has decided to get on and do it all themselves after yet another Sunday came and went and the people who had taken jobs supporting, and in, the service failed to deliver. They made the very valid point that some of those who never do took great pleasure in moaning about stuff being wrong or not done well and the recipient of those moans was, of course, the cleric. So, they thought, 'I'll just do whatever needs to be done and then it'll work and if it doesn't then at least the complaints are rightly mine.'

Bumped into three people who had found themselves at odds with the 'We have to support Israel' brigade because they have the view that 'Palestine needs to be protected from Israel'! Also bumped into two who are trying to defend Israel by pointing to Syria and other places where, 'Even more atrocities are happening!'

Now that's some defence - don't deny that the nation is doing wrong but deflect criticism by telling those who criticise to look at someone else because they're worse - how cheap is that? Bet God loves that one ;-)

Apparently those who support Israel have the view that Israel is a spiritual nation and yet all I see is an increasingly secular state whose stated intentions of 'getting them before they get us' using the shoah* as some sort of defence+ denies everything that the God of the Jews calls Israel to be. I'm all for praying for the peace of Jerusalem and Gaza and Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and  . . . .  . but I would like to see Israel be peacemakers as well (and I know the views that it's a small nation surrounded by people who wish to conqueror and destroy - been like that since always - not an excuse!).

Are you busy Vicar?

Had a fantastic time with 50+ young men and women who having donned military uniform got to hear about the spiritual realities of being Green and the Values and Standards that make our Army one of the very best in the world. To see so many people with a quick and ready mind and the enthusiasm of youth take up spiritual themes and be willing to consider, examine and discuss (not always positively) them and the resonances they might bring was a heart-gladdening event indeed.

Had a good meeting to harmonise baptisms around the parish and are moving on to do the same with weddings.

Got excited about the prospect of offering Mission Shaped Introduction and Mission Shaped Ministry across the diocese.

Got even more excited about the 24/7 prayer as it enters its last week of a four week offering (four locations across Tamworth) and at the people who had committed time to find (or rediscover) the joy of praying for more than four minutes during a Sunday service!

Got more excited still about the young woman who is fired by God to 'do something new' for God and is seeking to make this a reality (such joy when people hear and do).

So there we are - a brief insight into the first two days of the week - Praise God or what?

Now I need to go and pray about them all - perhaps some have touched you and challenge you to pray too - hope so :-)

* shoah Hebrew word for desolation, used in favour of the word 'holocaust' which means a burnt offering (often in the context of a sacrifice to gods/God).

+ The defence goes: 'Look what they did to us before - everything we do is defence as per the Bible's command 'Get them before they get you!'

This week - a retrospective (and a plea)

What an amazing week this has been- we've seen people who don't care a hoot about Christ, the Gospel or Church all bundling in to have their say about how the church should operate, most especially in the area of bishops and even more specifically, women bishops.

I have been so very frustrated by the people who have engaged me and berated me for stuff that they don't even have a clue about (and don't care about either if we are honest - they just ride on the bandwagon regardless). There was the idiot MP who said that it was bizarre that, since the CofE had a woman at the very top, there should be any problem with having women bishops! Now I don't know how he copes with national politics but hopefully he fares a little better with that and should therefore keep to the job he was elected to do. Of course, as the honourable gentleman made his points he also felt it necessary to clarify the position, when asked, by saying that of course ('of course', why 'of course') wasn't a Christian and had little real interest in the whole affair!

I had to endure the witterings of some (undoubtedly lovely yet woeful) bloke who asked how he was going to tell his newly minted daughter that she couldn't be 'a fully accepted and functioning woman in the Church'! If I was him I'd have been cuddling her and singing songs because, to be quite frank, the poor mite wouldn't have had a clue what he was going on about anyway. And of course . . .  Once she reached 18 she could legally attend a BAP (the selection thing for clergy) and if accepted could go to college and then be ordained, priested and serve in the church for a few years and then, perhaps, find herself selected for 'advancement' (what being called to be a bishop is) and this would mean that she'd be in her early forties - so the bloke has a bit of time yet.

Another person told me that there were many women whose ministries would have been enhanced and made 'effective' by being made bishop and now this had been lost to them. Now, odd as it seems perhaps, I would like people whose ministries were already effective to be given the wonderfully enhancing job of bishop and if it was moving up that made them effective I doubt I'd be interested anyway (hope that makes sense).

I have had (far too many) people explain how stupid, uncaring and disobedient the laity were to have voted as they did and they have explained how we should listen only to the bishops in future and withdraw the vote from the laity (now that sounds egalitarian, doesn't it?). Other have said that the diocesan lay reps should have voted with their respective diocesan synods rather than take it on themselves to exercise conscience, stupidity or disobedience. This leads me to think that what we need is to get rid of the General Synod and merely take the votes from the diocesan bodies and then, adding the votes from each of the houses into three final sums, take the decision from there.

This is surely a much more cost-effective solution to church management in the future and makes life in the future much more simple and effective (and perhaps we'd get diocesan synod rep's who were really engaged and effective in return?

Others have told me that the decision should be overturned and that we should do 'whatever it takes to bring it back' and overturn the decision. Actually I have to disagree with that thought for we engaged in a democratic process and we got a decision. Now it wasn't what I expected and wasn't what many wanted either but the reality is that we have it. To engage in scheming and cunning plans to get what we want to happen when it hasn't (by democratic and established means) is to look shallow and somewhat tawdry I fear!

So here's my summation of what has happened (and it will be my last word on it for some time I hope):

There are three groups of people - those who want women bishops, those who don't want women bishops and those who don't care (and there are a great many of them) as long as they can be left in peace to preach the Gospel, reach the lost, pastor the broken and love the unloveable. What I would like to see is a solution that  respects the position of those who have difficulty with the consecration of women without weakening the position of the women and one that doesn't get in the way of the real ministry of the Church - which has nothing to do with making bishops (women or men) but winning souls.

If, as it should be (and probably would be if it weren't such a 'must have' issue for some), this issue does not return until a new General Synod is convened (which means five years before we get to the same place again) the I for one will not be that troubled. Now this isn't anything 'anti-women' (for I have never been 'anti-women'') but is merely a plea for some rational and balanced response. It were any other issue, or better still something unpopular, and the cry to speed things up or make things happen to make this cause happen then people would be up in arms. Let us transfer into it something that we don't agree with and see whether we'd applaud cutting corners, clever measures or whatever. (I'm guessing not!).

Wanting to have the good opinion of the world and to endlessly go on about equality and living up to the standards of the world in which we find ourself is a totally confused state of mind (and reality). The reason for these words is the fact that just the world that we are called to serve has few standards and to work (tirelessly in some places) to make ourselves look, feel and act like it is to dismiss the calling we have to be Church and to render the Church weak, ineffective and impotent!

If we want to be popular then that's great. If we think that 'being popular' means that we cease to be different and put off the Gospel message for something that merely endorses the world and its values, standards and behaviour then what we really want is a different sort of Church altogether - it's call APOSTATE Church!

I wonder if God has not been gracious in the decision this week (as painful as it is for some) as it provides time for us to work out ways in which we might all coexist as one body and also give us the time to set aside all the distraction from the Gospel calling we have (and it is a distraction) to actually preach the Gospel and serve those whom we are called to serve.

And whilst I sympathise with those who were broken by Tuesday's decision (was it really only that short a while since it happened?) I also feel for those who are opposed to the consecration (and ordination too perhaps) of women who now find themselves hiding lest they be asked which side they support. As one told me, "I'm just keeping out of the way because anything else is an invitation to being abused!" Are we really that shallow?

So - we have dissipated so much time on this subject. Time which General Synod, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Theological Student, Laity and others (are there any others) could have perhaps used to build the kingdom rather than berate, abuse and present Church as a divided, divisive and spiteful place.

I leave this subject with something Jesus would like us all to know (John 17: 21):

"I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one- as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me."

No one can take joy from this week's goings on in General Synod - especially not the God we serve, three in one; Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Pax

Sad end to Rowan's reign?

Listening to a 'phone in' on the way back from a meeting today and some ditz was on the air wittering on about how Rowan was leaving the Archbishop of Canterbury's post as a 'failure'! The reason for this label was  down to the fact that he (personally and single-handed I assume) had failed to get the measure for the consecration of women passed! She went on to say that for him to have been 'successful' he would have needed to 'have gone out with something notable achieved!

Well insofar as 'going out with something notable'  I don't think there could have been anything more 'notable' than the media frenzy caused by yesterday's amazing General Synod! But apparently the vote negates completely not only Rowan as he leaves but shoots Justin down before he's even got in too!  (The reason being that Rowan has failed to deliver and the new man, condemned before he even starts, failed to win over 'his' church either - I can think of a word but I'm not allowed to use it!)

Let's step back from all the stupid comments that seek to vilify people for voting as their conscience demanded or demand that in future clergy and bishops make the decisions (as long of course they are the decisions they want!) or seek to find legal means or loopholes or whatever it takes to get the decision they desire make reality and look at Rowan and his time in office.

For as long as I can remember, the various blokes what have done the +Cantuar job have never been as intelligent as the outgoing incumbent. Suffice to say that the man is brilliant at som many levels and in so many ways and his theological mind is Premier League calibre.

When he took the job in 2002 there weren't many of us expecting to find the remarkably intact Anglican Communion (whatever that really is) or Church of England that we still have today. I assumed that Carey had passed over a ticking bomb to Rowan but he has managed to get out without the explosion that we assumed would come and pass the box on to JW! This has taken the amazingly gentle and humble man that RW is (RW, JW is a pattern emerging?).

I haven't always been a fan of RW but have always been in thrall of his ability to seek the right direction in the journeying of our denomination and have been humbled by his humility.

A failure? No on your nellie!

The man has run a good race and has been a good, if perhaps a little too quiet on some of the important issues, leader and spiritual example to the nation. I, for one, pray that the next phase of his life will be blessed and profitable for him and his family and for the Church as a whole.

He leaves bloodied, disappointed but unbroken and most certainly not a failure - may God bless him.

Pax

The ship isn't sinking!

So the measure to consecrate women was lost and instead of the high church and reform types throwing toys out of the pram it seems we have a different bunch doing so!

And the comments about leaving or not exploring ordination and making puerile comments about how they can tell infant daughters that they can be 'fully enabled' members of the Church are all rather hollow and sad I fear.

I have to be honest and say that I thought that the measure would be carried and am more than a little surprised but all it does is give us five to seven years (apparently) to concentrate on other things and undoubtedly by then the measure will pass and those who seek pointy hats will just be that little more experienced.

In the meanwhile what the Church of England needs to do is concentrate on evangelism and Bible stuff rather than navel-gaze and witter on about 'equality' and how the laity are out of touch with the church. In case people have forgotten, the laity ARE the Church and perhaps the issue is that the houses of those collared types are the ones who should have made better cases and communicated (and provided for those who were against women in the episcopacy) better.

This merely a bit of a shock (and I know I'm not a woman but that doesn't diminish my view) and a cause to reflect, pray and care for those who have been wounded - not call others to arms and attack the perceived enemy. Especially as many of those who voted against the measure appear to have been women too.

Nothing, not height nor depth nor power nor principality, nothing in heaven or below the eart; nothing future, present or past can separate us from the love of God.

So how's about we share it?

Church - Reasons to be fearful (Part one)

It seems to me that 'the Church' is an entity that swings from media frenzy to

In case you have missed it, the Church of England's 'General Synod' will apparently be voting on women bishops today.

There are three voting groups: bishops, clergy and laity and, apparently it is a done deal in the first two! Only the house of the laity (the 'ordinary' members) are uncertain when it comes to the vote and it is them who will carry the day for one of the two camps.

A quick sound bite very early this morning (or was it extremely late last night?) from a woman who will be voting today went like this:

"It is all about equality and the church has been poorer because it has not embraced the same degree of equality that has seen this nation governed by a woman. "

Another voice put forward the idea that,

"The church is bending over backwards to try and please everyone and the cry (from those who want women bishops) is for the church to draw a line and make the 'right' decision regardless of the response of those who oppose it!"

Interestingly, this is the same cry from those who wish to change the church's attitude to sexual issues too and this (for me) is the source of more concern than the actual issue/s themselves. Make the changes that give me what I want and those who oppose are mysogynists, homophobes (and any other ad hominem I can think of ) and by virtue of that should be forced out!

Since when has the message of the Gospel been: Capitulate or Clear Off?

Now I have to be honest and say that having read quite widely and discussed the issue with those for, against and confused I don't really see what the problem is and am neither convinced by many of the arguments for nor drawn in by those who oppose.

I struggle with those who would deny the right for people to believe, as the church has for many centuries, and relate to certain theological understanding of ministry and therefore, by this denial, remove any potential for a coexistence by offering 'alternative oversight'.

I struggle with those who seem to forget that Church is about Bible, not current social conventions or practice.

I struggle with those who would seek to restrict, or deny, anyone the right to practice and engage in any 'calling' from God on personal preference and wrong attitude.

I am sorry but anyone who wants us to 'do' women bishops because it is 'good PR' is stupid in the extreme. Those who want us to be 'popular' should realise that this isn't really what is on offer. There are two real potential outcomes:

1. Some in the world, seeing a decision they dislike will vilify the Church, just as they did before, and will continue to do by means of the next issue, and the many more behind - because they will only oppose it until it no longer exists as a force to oppose their own selfish aims and lifestyles!

2. A response that parallels the views and standards of the world in terms of 'equality' will not advance the reputation, ministry or evangelistic opportunities. In fact it will result in there being one less issue to engage over and oppose. In the end what will be left is a passive ignoring of a passive and impotent body.

So how do I want the vote to go today?

With an eye to Biblical authority and and ear to the voice of God and in step with His heartbeat; lovingly seeking to find a way by which all can coexist with justice, humility and love at the fore.

With a view to maintaining the Church of England as a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, orthodox Christian church and with regard to the attitudes, traditions and needs of the worldwide communion too.

This is not a 'being right' issue - it is a being righteous issue.

Pax

Mysoginists - "No room for them!"

With these words an angry lady flounced (and it was a most excellent flounce too!) away from the person she'd been engaged in conversation with and vanished from sight. It was a gradual vanish not one of those 'Poof! She's disappeared' vanishes like we get each year when we visit the pantomime. Although, that said it was a sort of pantomime that led up to the conversation she had I giess - we call it General Synod and the Beanstalk.

So there they were, our two combatants. One was an irate lady cleric and the other a frustrated Anglo-Catholic sort. One had been in the vicaring business for a fairly short time whilst the other was telling how they'd been doing the stuff for over twenty years. The former wanted women bishops (although I have to say she wanted it for someone else because on today's showing she'd be better off seeking a job as a lollipop lady (and I would definitely stop because she was frightening!). The latter wanted to have the right to believe as he'd been taught and believed when he was ordained and wish to continued to believe now.

"There's no room for people with your views," said she. "But there should and should be, "said he. There it was a stalemate. One believing they could continue to believe as they had been taught in the pews, in theological college and throughout his ministry and the other remained adamant that there was only one path.

I was saddened to see it and, not knowing either or them or ever likely to see them again, I was left more than just a little saddened. I know the arguments but where there is a theological understanding and where the teaching has drawn upon and supported this for such a long time; and where the issue is such a painful one for the other side, I can but wish to remove myself from the debate. I neither engaged in the conversation nor offered any support for either side but felt myself resolving that anything that brought such cruelty and vitriol just had to be more than a little wrong.

So. If you want to know whose side I find myself occupying I gave to say 'neither'. I Have come to a place where today's public demonstration of the passage, "See how these Christians loathe one another'," leaves me cold and withdrawn about the whole issue. We speak of us as a via media and seek to accept all - unless they are opposed to women as priests, bishops or whatever on theological grounds (and surely this, along with tradition' is the only condition that we should be caring and catering for?

It is all very sad.

Into the Ordinary . .

I was taken to task recently by one of the priests who had been hinted at as being about to swim the Tiber by the RC bishop of Brentwood (Rt Rev Thomas McMahon). Using the good old standby of 'assume makes an ass of u and me" I was told by this 'priest' that I as a 'minister' should be in possession of all the facts before I published them on my 'opinionated blog' (hooray, I have another label for my collection) and that I didn't know the half of it.

Well of course I don't and I can understand that to be pointed out as one who had been in talks or had been assumed to have been one of those embarking on swimming lessons by +Brentwood must have been rather frustrating and perhaps a little too revealing. That said, when speaking of the bishop's revelations, the 'priest' in question did say in a newspaper article that the bishop's announcement was 'premature' which presumes that, like pregnancy, it is a reality that was there before its time! So it was appear that the act is either set, or has been talked about, but the time was not then. Perhaps he hadn't spoken to his bishop (Anglican) about it before the naughty brentwood went off and fired the starting pistol and so was caught perhaps a little infragrente dilecto!

Anyway, from one Priest to another I do wish him well if he does swim and if he decides not to, making +Brentwood's assumptionsg wrong, to enjoy his presence helping us maintain the catholicity of the Church of England and work the Gospel to those around us.

Still, with no assumptions at all I read today of those who had indeed swum and turn my attention to the parish of St John the Baptist, Sevenoaks, who are sending forty members and two clergy off to Rome.

The first person to be quoted is a lady who makes some interesting comments about the general direction the CofE is taking and says "I abhor abortion and euthanasia, I'm pro-life and I think the Anglican church can be very wishy-washy about this.". Many of those engaged in the pro-life ministry are Anglicans and it is a fallacy to assume that the CofE is not generally pro-life so if this was the reason to leave I'd say it was on a wrong assumption. But, (always a but isn't there?) speaking of her church she says, "When I came to St John's I thought, 'This is for me,' says Mrs Vaughan. "I love the solemnity, the ritual, the theatricality - but that was leading me on to be prayerful." I can't fault her for swimming if this is what she's after, she will find lots of that and she's going as a crowd which makes the transition better. I would query the prayerfulness, for it seems that bible knowledge, prayer and other aspects don't feature as high on the agenda of many of the high-church types I know. It's ritual and the theatre that is church that is the key focus (and that come from me who is apparently a bit of a 'closet tat queen'!!).

The parish priest says that the problems with the church are deeper than the issue of women priests and syas that, "Under the bondage of the whims of the General Synod, the Church of England is diluting the Gospel of Christ and espousing the spirit of this passing age." These are thoughts that many, regardless of churchmanship will echo and support.

From passing conversations I think that his views on the ordinariate not being an 'elite' are correct and hope it it not so, but think they will find themselves in a situation that will make them an oddity if not the ghetto many fear.

A third voice says that "Changes he finds unacceptable are gathering pace in the Anglican church. The slippery slope is getting steeper and steeper all the time... I think it's a process which is far too developed now to stop its momentum." Now I would again plead that those who have problems make a stand and use their voices and their knees rather than go.

The man is obviously balanced and as he speaks of those who endorse the changes he cannot, says, "One retains warmth of feeling towards fellow Christians but I can't escape the conclusion that in those respects, they are mistaken. I don't think that's a reason for enmity, though."

But I think he sums up the position for many who have left (or are considering it), especially when there are a few from one congregation: "It's far more comfortable doing this in a group." But he sees what I feel will be the reality for the ordinariate when he says that the time will come when it says, "Maybe we are reaching the end of our useful life and we should just dissolve into the Roman Church."

And again, there is a healthy dose of realism in that, "We go there retaining elements of Anglicanism but... you do risk being a sort of rump group, sustaining itself for the sake of sustaining itself."

So there you have it, some balance and some indication from those who have acted as they feel led and swum. Those of us who are remaining do so with sadness at their leaving (well, for the most part) and pray that they will find that which they seek.

My sadness came when I read the account of the curate who has decided to join the ordinariate and to be celibate. My sadness is not that he is going but that he has chosen not to take up ministry as a full and proper Catholic priest but stay with the ordinariate. If Rome is his true home then why, I wonder, does he choose not to fully embrace it? Obviously many of those considering (or going) are married and so can through the ordinariate have their marital rights and the comfort of a Catholic home, but for those who are unmarried it still seems to me to be an odd move.

The final word goes to one of the parishioners who has chosen to remain Anglican:

On the Ordinariate: "A common response is that this is too soon, because we're half-way through a legislative process, the end of which we do not know."

On women bishops (and inadequate f[provision for those who oppose the move): "All hell will be let loose. Some opponents will join the Roman Catholics direct, not bothering with the Ordinariate!"

Of those who have left: "For them it is the right decision. It should be respected. They should be congratulated on their decision and I wish them all the best in the next stage of their pilgrimage."

Amen to that.