CofE - put the cat out when you close up

Today saw the beginning of the end of the Church of England, in an act of assisted suicide. Today the Church of England moved closer to Islam than to the rest of the Christian community worldwide, and delivered a massive Christmas present to secularism. The Church of England can no longer claim any moral authority. It has made itself a laughing-stock. Despite the overwhelming support of clergy and lay members for women bishops (all but two dioceses in the provinces of Canterbury and York voted overwhelmingly in favour), the House of Laity voted against, and diocesan representatives on General Synod will now have to explain themselves to the diocesan synods that elected them.

Where did the rot start setting in?  With hindsight, that’s an easy one. It started when parishes were asked whether they were in favour of the episcopacy being opened to women. Parishes which had had experience of women clergy were overwhelmingly in favour. A few, which had only ever known the ministry of male clergy, were opposed. In any other circumstances that would have sounded warning signals and questions about methodology. Is a vote from a PCC which had never experienced the ministry of women clergy as valid as a vote from a PCC which had? Did male clergy in these anti parishes allow their PCC to make up their own minds, or was there a bit of gentle nudging?

But the result was what we have today. Enormous efforts have been made over the years to placate what was in reality a small (and possibly ill-informed) minority. Flying bishops were introduced, but that didn’t work. The Church split itself apart grovelling to a few people who preferred their Church to stay in the 1stC AD, when women didn’t have a voice.

Our own Bishop John, Bishop of Burnley, implacably opposed to women clergy, produced a report a few months ago about the future of the Church of England. Declining numbers of stipendiary clergy, closure of churches and merging of parishes, dependence on lay ministry: all the usual sanctimonious guff.  How can the same head hold such violently opposing views, or was he just doing what he was told? His flock are entitled to be told. Heavens above, we’ve managed to incorporate Darwinism into mainstream (as opposed to loony) Christianity despite the diehards and flat-earthers, but it seems we can’t accommodate half of the human population, the ones without penises. It’s against Scripture, see?

A new argument (at least one I hadn’t heard before) was introduced into the debate a few days ago. Apparently God didn’t create the sexes equal, but complementary. Now this is a very dodgy argument indeed, because not only does it wrench theology out of the New Testament and slap it back into Genesis and myth, but it tends to confuse somewhat the ethical – and linguistic – arguments for and against same-sex ‘marriages.’ The Church today lost its way in that argument. Actually it’s far worse than that: the Church lost something else today – the plot.

And today is the first time in my life when I am ashamed to be a member of the church I was brought up in

Police Commissioners? Pure spin

I was one among the 85% or so voters to ignore the much-trumpeted introduction of police commissioners in yesterday's elections. I stayed at home. My main reason for treating the whole unnecessary cock-up with contempt is the abuse of language, the spin, that proponents of this completely nonsensical notion have used in an attempt to have their way. It would be 'more democratic' than present arrangements, they claim. I, for one, would be interested to see what evidence they can produce in support.

Existing police authorities are already made up of elected representatives, with most of them consisting of nine local councillors and eight independent members, at least one of whom should be a magistrate.

How oversight of a police force can be considered  'more democratic' when exercised by one elected person than by nine eludes me, but then 'democracy' is a slippery word that can be given all kinds of spin.

Policy Exchange is a think-tank, one of the bodies supporting the introduction of US-style police commissioners. The quality of its thinking might be suggested by the quality of its language of advocacy in one of today's national newspapers:

Policy Exchange conducted a questionnaire of Chief Constables (half of whom responded) for an upcoming paper, Policing 2020.

In it we asked Chiefs what they thought of the support they received from care homes. Not a single Chief was content with the support they received from them.

One police force had 3,500 missing people in 2009-10, costing them £3.3 million. Over three quarters of this demand came from care homes, with 2.5% of individuals creating 26% of the demand and single care homes being responsible for over 100 missing people reports a year.

Despite the obvious benefits of proactive intervention with the few individuals and care homes that created most of the demand, there was instead an over reliance on the police.

Care homes were calling the police if a child was just 10 minutes late for a meeting and generally negating their responsibilities in loco parentis.

Police and Crime Commissioners should be their police force’s greatest advocate and change this, by using their powerful media and political clout to encourage police partners, wherenecessary, to raise their game.

Clear? If this was part of an essay submitted in an English language exam its author would have been given a fail. Yet this bureaucratic bilge comes from one of the bodies that advises government. It's enough to make you weep, that and the fact that £75m of our money has been wasted on a stupid political stunt.