He makes it clear that
I never mentioned Hitler or the Nazis in my 45-minute interview with Paul Perkin at the conference. Nor did I even have them in mind as I made clear to Ruth Gledhill (the reporter in question) when she asked me about this on the day before the original article appeared in The Times (November 3).
I said that the situation in which we find ourselves in the Church feels like people probably felt as they viewed the year ahead in January 1939. There are storm clouds on the horizon and warfare around the corner. We all hope and pray that it won’t happen.
But Bishop Benn deserves an apology from Women and the Church (Watch). Its 'chair', Christina Rees, was right in the thick of stirring the controversy up. She imputed to Bishop Benn a comparison, which he never made, between the problem of women bishops and the problem of Hitler in 1939.
The report of Bishop Benn's remarks at October's Reform national conference appeared in The Times on November 3rd. Who stirred up The Times into publishing a story smearing Wallace Benn two weeks after the conference?
It was ironic that Ms Rees was also quoted as saying:
It's so unhelpful, because it's not where the Church is.
Frankly, the smearing of Wallace Benn shows how bitter the infighting is.
A moment's thought shows how much of a non-story it was. The New Testament uses warfare analogies. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus:
Finally be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the full armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil (Ephesians 6v10-11 - ESV).
And to the pastoral leader he had appointed over the church in Ephesus he wrote:
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits (2 Timothy 2v3-4).
Just because the Apostle Paul used a soldiering analogy to encourage a church and a pastor does not mean that he approved of everything 1st century Roman soldiers got up to!
Hi Julian,
ReplyDeletePerhaps WATCH should apologise to +Benn. But was +Benn comparing the current situation of the C of E to the situation Britain faced in 1939 appropriate or inappropriate? At the least 1939 was about Britain facing the prospect of war with an enemy and a particularly evil one at that. It is a little difficult to think that Anglican Christians, seeking to work out the mission of God in Britain today but finding themselves divided on whether one half of humanity may or may not contribute leadership within the mission, are fairly and accurately described in terms of 1939 storm clouds pertaining to 'friendly Britain' and 'enemy Germany'.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like you trying to exploit Wallace Benn's unfortunate remarks as much as possible in attacking him and those who are opposed to women bishops on solid biblical grounds and to keeping furor going over what he said. Bishop Benn has repeatedly offered an credible explanation of what mean. Those who favor women bishops have repeatedly sought to distort his remarks. May I suggest that the inability of those who who favor women bishops to accept Bishop Benn at his word reveals a lack of charity and maturity on their part that does a disservice to their cause. Church leaders, after all, are supposed to be Christian leaders.
Peter, as I read it +Benn wasn't comapring 1939 storm clouds with the issue of Women Bishops, but of the whole situation of the Church cuurently. The difficulty is that people will read into a situation where they are at rather than listening or reading what is honestly put before them
ReplyDeleteWell said, CC. I thought from the start that this was a deliberate smear. You only have to read WATCH's website to see that they have set up numerous straw men, which they then happily proceed to knock down. I don't think that they will be content until all opposition has been wiped out.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the face of the Brave New Church of England, I'm not sure I want to be part of it.
People can read + Wallace's letter and, more importantly, listen to the full transcript of his remarks by clicking on the link at the foot of http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/11/10/10-november-letter-to-times-from-wallace-benn/
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note that Ruth Gledhill, the reporter who wrote the original Times story, was not even present for all of the 45-minute session
What does CC make of the noises being made at the other end of the C of E about women bishops? (Forward in Faith, the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda, the Ordinariate etc.)
ReplyDelete