You are here . on the pale blue dot

Blog notes

'Anonymous' comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be on topic and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.

Friday, 3 March 2017

Three bullets+ for Llandaff

Three of the 'Current Challenges' facing Llandaff. Source Church in Wales 

"At a meeting of the Electoral College of the Church in Wales held from February 21st to 23rd, no candidate nominated received the necessary two-thirds of the votes cast to be declared Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Llandaff.

Under the provisions of the Constitution of the Church in Wales, the right to fill the vacancy has passed to the Bench of Bishops, and the Bishop of Swansea & Brecon, as the Senior Bishop and President of the Electoral College, has determined that there should be a process of consultation before names for possible appointment are considered...." (See Provincial press release: Bishop of Llandaff – appointment process)

The press release has a link to the 'Llandaff Diocesan Profile' and 'Person Specification for Bishop of Llandaff', and a note on the provincial perspective, all here.

LGBT+ people have been busy commenting under a previous entry, Llandaff stalemate with their usual vitriol about lack of inclusion due to homophobia. Their campaign has even reached the floor of the House of Commons (see the Thinking Anglicans site). Former Anglican priest, Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) - AKA Captain Underpants MP - put the Question:

But discretion is not always good in the Church, is it? Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, has been barred from becoming a bishop in the Church in Wales, which I know is separate from the Church of England, because the other bishops have refused to do what they have done in every other case—accept what the members of the local diocese have wanted.

Let us put this into perspective. Historically, some gay people suffered for their sexuality but there are gay people and there a gay people. Most quietly get on with their lives while others constantly agitate for greater acceptance making life difficult even for people in their own community. Society has moved from a position of  intolerance to tolerance and understanding to harassment by LGBT+ organisations making false accusations. This is evident in the Church. They are using the same tactics which resulted in the ordination of women as part of a liberal agenda which was supposed to grow the Church but it has had the opposite effect with a steep decline in Church attendance in England similar to that in Wales.

Thousands of men convicted of offences that once criminalised homosexuality but are no longer on the statute book have been posthumously pardoned under a new law after the successful campaign to pardon Alan Turing. Gay and lesbian people can benefit from civil partnerships but there is no gratitude, just demands for more. The sticking point for the rest of us is the sanctity of marriage which is the union of a man and a woman but opposition to same sex marriage in church is met with cries of Homophobia!

Changing Attitude which campaigns for equality in the selection, training, ordination and appointment of LGBT clergy estimate that about 10% of clergy are LGBT compared with 1.7% of the UK population who identified themselves as LGB in 2015. There is no shortage of LGBT people in congregations yet the third bullet point in the extract from 'Current Challenges' is to increase the representation and inclusion of LGBTI Anglicans. This followed by another bullet point in the text:

"To commit to ensuring a safe space within the Church and within our communities where members of the LGBTI community can be honest and open, respected and 'fully affirmed as equal disciples' (Same Sex Pastoral Letter 2016)."

 Why? LGBT people are not under represented and are very vocal whereas traditional Anglicans  receive no support or encouragement. Could it be that LGBT inclusion was inserted so that an openly gay candidate would fit the profile? It fits the former Archbishop's political agenda following the stitch-up which resulted in the first woman bishop being appointed in the Church in Wales to a diocese she was unsuited for.

The first bullet point includes the statement "Caring for our existing membership is important, but a radically different approach to sharing the Gospel is needed to fulfil the mission of the Church at a time of declining attendance."

That is a lie. The bishop of St Asaph has assumed responsibility for advancing and ministering to LGBT people with the addition of a chaplaincy while care for traditionalists was withdrawn when Bishop David Thomas retired in 2008. One of the challenges (the second bullet point) "To recognise and affirm the wide range of traditions across the diocese" must do just that, affirm and recognise traditionalists, many of whom are cradle Anglicans.

The outcry being orchestrated following the rejection of the Dean of St Albans by the Electoral College is disingenuous. The Church does not discriminate against celibate men in a gay civil partnership. The problem with Dr John's candidature is that he is a focus of disunity. He favours same sex marriage in Church and has twisted scripture to add credence to the LGBT campaign. Also, in the view of many Church members he appears to be yet another pawn in Archbishop Morgan's manipulation of the Church.

The first bullet point stresses that, "Caring for our existing membership is important, but a radically different approach to sharing the Gospel is needed to fulfil the mission of the Church at a time of declining attendance." [My emphasis - Ed.]

If the bench wished to demonstrate the importance of caring for existing members at a time of declining attendance they would also recognise the importance of members who have struggled to keep the faith in the face of hostility over many years. Even 'the best bishop the Church in Wales never had' was told "There is no place for you in this Church". That must change. The time is now.

With hindsight the ordination of women has benefited career opportunities at the expense of plummeting attendance. Increasing the representation and inclusion of LGBT Anglicans to throw more abuse at loyal members of the Church is not the answer.

The Church in Wales has the opportunity to begin anew. No doubt the bishops will be bombarded by the LGBT brigade to appoint Jeffrey John. They must resist. In order to stop the decline the bench must appoint a bishop from among traditionalist clergy who will restore the mystery and the holiness of the Church.

Postscript [09.03.2017]

I have received news of one consultation in which an Area Dean invited nominations provided the nominee had agreed: "We can confirm that the Assistant Bishop David Wilbourne 'would see it as a great privilege to be Bishop of Llandaff' and therefore is willing to be considered."

Readers may recall that back in 2011 it was David Wilbourne who took the view that the ordination of women would 'rid the world of homophobia, misogyny, brutalisation of women in all situations including those in war zones'. Wrong there.

Asked in a BBC Radio interview before the election process why applicants should not apply, the Bishop of Swansea and Brecon replied that anyone who wanted the job was unlikely to be suitable. That's Wilbourne out then.


  1. Some new comments here.

  2. Ah, now we have it, in the open. The clarion call to go back to the dark ages. If this happens, then it will be a blow against women's ministry, affirming Catholicism and any progressive agenda.
    This, more than anything, is what this stalemate is really about.


  3. How the Church in Wales needed Jeremy Winston and how much he is missed.

    Ecce sacerdos magnus, qui in diebus suis, placuit Deo.

  4. Nice guy and much respected but not a man's man and not what we need really got now. Lovely man but "of an age".

  5. 2nd bullet point: 'to recognise and affirm the wide range of traditions across the diocese ...'
    And read on, for the stab in the back : 'this will involve addressing some entrenched positions...'
    Barry (and the replacement he eventually selects) will pursue a dismissive attitude towards traditional faith and practice.
    At bullet point 3. it is stated 'offering everyone the same loving service and pastoral care...' This has not yet applied to the traditional worshippers holding 'entrenched positions' ,otherwise a replacement for retired Bishop David Thomas would be in place by now! The loving service and pastoral care applies only to the LBGT community. Why is it that the homosexual persons cannot just keep their private lives to themselves,why is there the compulsion within them to constantly shout from the rooftops?

    1. There are no homosexuals constantly shouting from the rooftops in this debate and small wonder given the disgraceful language with which homosexuals are often discussed on this site. Thankfully, the manner in which homosexuality is discussed here is not representative of the majority who go to church, just the entrenched view of a few nutters many off whom call themselves landavian.

    2. It seems that often the line of 'reasoning' we find on this site goes along these lines: we sort of support to a degree (but not quite entirely) that gays should not be on the receiving end of homophobia, but let's be honest, there aren't very many of them (though to hear their screams of pain you would think there are more!!!), but there aren't many - perhaps 1.7 in every 100 and that’s not even quite 1 per member of the congregation (because we all know that that evil Barry's pro-gay leadership of the church means that hardly any congregation has 100 people in it (because he supported those minority gays of course)). But at the end of the day there's only a few of those gays - can't even call them a minority as they hardly exist - they should not be given any more attention and they should shut up and feel themselves lucky that they are no longer imprisoned for the unspeakable things they do and they can now have their civil partnerships (which incidentally we didn't support when they asked for them (in fact we fought against it) but at least now they have CPs so surely they should shut up and feel themselves lucky. Marriage is something they can't have - they are few in number and they have won enough so called rights so they should just shut up now.

      We hate the fact that a minority has secured these rights and these freedoms. We are a minority too- we hate women and despise their equal treatment in the church. We deplore the fact they were ordained priests and that male Bishops have placed their hands on them and ordained them and have tainted the church by so doing. There aren't very many of us around anymore because everybody else seems to think that treating women equally is something that Jesus would have gone along with. We are so marginalised and so denied our right to exists that now we look at LGBT people and project all that hate onto them. There aren't very many of them, and anyway many of them come over as freaks (you only have to watch that Iris video - freaks, all of them). So they can pay the price of the hate that we feel. Yes!!!! We'll scapegoat them for what we are feeling - make them out to be people to be despised and blamed for what we feel and for what has been taken from us. Most people will go along with that won't they - after all, they are freaks, always shouting about their rights to exist and they look odd (they even take their dogs to church (watch that video if you don't believe us)). Yes, that's what we will do - we will scapegoat the gays for what we are going through as a minority faction in the church. There was a time when we pulled all the strings and held the power, but no longer and it's those gays that are to blame. They need to shut up, we need to silence them, and if we could we would like to obliterate them so that there was not even 1.7 in every 100.

      You see it makes us feel better about ourselves when we have someone to blame like this. It's a sad thing to do but it's what humans have been doing since the beginning of time. It's what motivated Hitler, it's what leads to genocide and it's ultimately what put Jesus on the Cross.

    3. Two Penny, I agree and disagree with you. I do think many have a valid point on this site when they express a feeling of persecution and bullying for holding to their faith beliefs which they are undeniably right in saying are the traditional views of the church since antiquity.

      However, I do accept that some allow their rhetoric to step over the mark and are ungracious and insulting to both homosexuals and church leaders who support that position.

      You too, if you look at your reply might reflect on what you wrote to describe the disaffected who contribute to this site. They are hurting and badly so just as gay people have articulated their hurt.

      The problem is that people have entrenched on both sides because we have to accept that they genuinely and in all conscience believe their position to be correct. Dialogue is important and traditionalists are feeling they are being shown the door when it comes to debate when the Feminist and LGBTQ+ supporters have a privileged place at the table.

    4. Metaphorically speaking homosexuals and their supporters are constantly 'shouting from the rooftops', otherwise how might we know how this allegedly small percentage of individuals have so much to complain about. They are even proud to have atheist Peter Tatchell on board for support.
      What is so nauseatingly worrying is the support the Bishop of S.Asaph and his appointment of a LBGTetc chaplain -Sarah Hildreth-Osborne. Why is there so much unfairness? Why do we not have a Bishop (and Chaplain) for the Anglo-Catholics of the CiW? Are not traditional Christians just as important as 1.7% of the population with psychological problems. For the Anglo-Catholics it is a matter of firm belief and adherence to Faith and Tradition : to lose sight of these things creates confusion in the church ,and undoubtedly this has happened.
      We need a Bishop who believes in the devil and who will recognise his works. We need a Bishop with compassion and understanding but not a Bishop who actively promotes homosexual lifestyle as an acceptable norm .
      There are many who desire to grow spiritually in a church community with family values and focusing our eyes on the Holy Family as our pattern. You see what I mean by saying that this issue of inclusivity creates confusion in our whole understanding of Christianity. The laissez -faire teaching is far removed from Christianity.

    5. Scapegoating, your comment is a grotesque distortion and factually inaccurate. For example in 2010 I blogged "The introduction of civil partnerships righted a serious wrong"

      You appear to conclude that gays are Christ like and anyone who does not agree with them are akin to Hitler and the Jews who called for Christ to be crucified, an odd juxtaposition if I may say so. If you really believe that you are in need of our prayers.

    6. Ancient Briton, in the early days you were against Civil Partnerships but have since taken the line "well let them have that, they can't have marriage, so no harm them having something less" and like other anti-gay christians you now pretend that you would have been out on the streets positively campaigning for civil partnerships for gay people - you wouldn't, and you didn't and it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

      As for "grotesque distortion" I find your blog to be full of grotesque and exaggerated references to homosexuality which attracts affirming comments from simple soul as above - the 1.7 with "psychological problems" - is that how you also see gay people?

      If you read Simple Soul's response to my comment about scapegoating, you will see that if there is grotesque distortion going on that it's exactly what she and you do - you scapegoat a minority and vilify them for a presumed 'lifestyle' that you know nothing about. What 'lifestyle'? Ah, the lifestyle that causes two people in love to go to church and, when the preacher mentions love, they look at each other and smile - and for that they are vilified as "self obsessed freaks".

      So yes I do agree that the kind of sentiment you express here is no different to that expressed by Hitler and is of the same hate that crucified christ to the cross. I am not saying gays are Christ but I believe that "in as much as you did it to the least you did it to me" and what you CONSISTENTLY do on this website is vilify and demean homosexuals - you do it in nearly every blog you put up here. You trace everything back to gay people - they are to blame; somehow all the ills of society can be heaped upon the homosexual. That's what you do, that's what you stand for and that's the hate-driven agenda that drives almost everything you put up here.

      I believe this wholeheartedly because that is what I read here time and time again and I call it out because I genuinely believe that it is you who need to be prayed for - I believe you and your like need to be delivered from your systemic sinfulness and hatred of homosexuals. You really do. Of course I need to be prayed for too - of course I do - and thank you for offering to do so. I am certainly praying for you.

    7. Well,AB you have a better analytical ability than many ; I cannot follow the bulk of the argument from Scapegoat.
      I'm not even sure on which shoulder sits the chip?
      If it is correct that 1.7% of the population are homosexual,then 98.3% are not. Then it is reasonable to conclude that 1.7% follow a not normal lifestyle, The protestations from the minority distract the Church from its mission, and it is inappropriate that we might potentially elect a Bishop who actively promotes the minority as normal. We as a family do not seek teaching which distracts from normal family upbringing and normal family life. I am not in the market for accepting homosexuality as an acceptable Christian principle.

    8. Simple, I notice you do this all the time - you throw out your hatred and then when someone challenges what you are saying you hide behind a feigned air simplicity "I cannot follow the bulk of the argument". You can follow it well enough, it's just that you cannot accept your hate-driven protestations. You can suggest I have this or that chip on my shoulder, you can dismiss what I am saying, but Christ sees through all of that and sees your white-washed tomb of traditional simplicity for what it truly is: your words and sentiment are evil and are a total privation of decency and goodness. By the nature of privation, you take your views to be wholly good. Tragic.

    9. Scapegoat please be more respectful to other commentators and please do not make false accusations to score points. We are all entitled to our opinions.

      You wrote @14.24 "in the early days you were against Civil Partnerships but have since taken the line "well let them have that, they can't have marriage, so no harm them having something less" and like other anti-gay christians you now pretend that you would have been out on the streets positively campaigning for civil partnerships for gay people - you wouldn't, and you didn't and it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise."

      That is untrue. I wrote "The introduction of civil partnerships righted a serious wrong" in February 2010 when I started this Blog. The Civil Partnership Act became effective from 5 December 2005. Where is the evidence for your assertion?

    10. What were your views towards civil partnerships on the 4th December 2005 and did you actively support the legalisation of same sex partnerships. Prior to 5th December 2005 were you heard saying things like "I am glad Civil Partnerships are coming into force tomorrow as they right a serious wrong", "I am thrilled that same sex couples will now have some kind of status in law"? Or did you, like so many others, express negative views towards civil partnerships but have since come to the view, "well, at least it's not marriage - why can't these gays just put up with civil partnership - we gave that to them, what more do they want!!!!".

      I know the answers to these questions as I have read your blog since 2010. If there is anything false, it's you now trying to come across as moderate and accommodating in your views. The evidence speaks for itself - this site is hateful of homosexuals and scapegoats them day after day.

    11. What would Jesus say?4 March 2017 at 17:43

      Scapegoat you are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs.
      So is everyone else.
      Put your faith in the likes of Barry Morgan, Phillip Masson and Jeffrey John if you will.
      But as the open-minded even-handed liberal Christian you claim to be you will have no objection to others choosing to place their faith in St. Peter (see 2:4-10).

    12. I put my faith in Christ alone.

    13. What would Jesus say?5 March 2017 at 08:27

      Bravo Scapegoat, so you should and indeed that is the correct response.
      That being so, having established your confidence in “Christ alone” you will agree that Christ’s teaching to
      "Pray then like this:
      'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'" (Matthew 6:9–13)
      "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.'"
      (Luke 11:2-4)
      is unambiguous and not open to misinterpretation or re-interpretation.
      It is often described as "truly the summary of the whole gospel."
      All this being indisputably the case you will also agree that seeking to alter your Lord’s prayer to “Our Mother in heaven...” is distorting your Christ’s teaching.
      Equally, you will also agree that referring to “Our Father in heaven” as “O Duchess, my butchness” is also distorting your Christ’s teaching.
      Therefore, you will have no difficulty in pointing out the error of their ways publicly (on this blog) to those who seek to do so.

    14. I would love it if I were able to pray the Lord's Prayer in the original Aramaic - Our Father is itself an interpretation, we would all be better to pray "Our Daddy" if we wanted to capture the true intimacy of Jesus' words. So as for Duchess/Butchness/Mother, I would be inclined to accept whatever language enabled a person to articulate the sheer intimacy of their relationship with God - it's the intimacy of the relationship that matters most, the language itself is merely a vehicle. Focus on the intimacy of your relationship with God and you'll be fine.

      Is your relationship with God intimate? That would be my question.

    15. What would Jesus say?5 March 2017 at 21:43

      Where did your Christ say that?
      You confuse translation and interpretation.
      Dreadfully poor quality evasion, but hardly surprising.
      Check the Aramaic and enlighten all us gentiles where might be found "Our Mother" or "The Duchess, the Butchest".
      Duchy's didn't exist in the lifetime of YOUR Christ.
      Put up or shut up.
      My relationship with God is between me and HIM alone.

    16. @Scapegoat
      So go and worship in an Aramaic speaking Church and see what they tell you.

    17. I think you reveal your answer to my question in your words "put up or shut up". By our fruits we shall be known, and no good fruit comes from hate. Is your relationship with God intimate, is what I asked, and the response I have received above suggests - in its tone - that your relationship with God could be more intimate so that your could be more fruitful in the way you write here.

      As for the the Aramaic term we're arguing over (Father) the correct term is :Abwûn - there's not quite an english word that can fully convey very it really, but I suspect Mother gets closer to the intimacy that Jesus was trying to convey.

      I'd encourage you to try many names - Our Father, Our Lover, Our Brother, Our Creator, Our Redeemer, Abba, Daddy - none will exhaust the intimacy with which God wishes us to know him.

      Try it and then let me know if your relationship with God becomes the more intimate. With blessings.

    18. You're having a laugh5 March 2017 at 22:40

      So much for "I put my faith in Christ alone".

      "Language is itself merely a vehicle"

      "Focus on the intimacy of your relationship with God and you'll be fine".

      What's this?
      Some undiscovered Dead Sea school?
      It's the Gospel according to Scapegoat.

    19. @1662

      And how intimate is your relationship with God? Be fruitful, show kindness and not scorn with your capitalised YAWN. Not pleasant and not needed, there's enough scorn and ridicule in the world, and God knows, more than enough words of hate on here.

      Be the change you wish to see in the world, 1662 - be for others the kindness and fragrance of God.

      The Lord bless you.

    20. @You're having a laugh

      Have to say, I laughed at your suggestion that my words are some undiscovered Dead Sea Scroll. Very flattering.

      Words get us some distance in your relationship with God, but all the great mystics of the church teach us that language takes us only to the "hem of his garment" - I suspect that is what I was trying to convey.

      Happy to be a Plonker for Jesus if it means there is some injection of humility and kindness on this blog.

    21. Scapegoat, I'm afraid you've been snookered by What would Jesus say?'s post.
      But more importantly you're snookered by your Christ's teaching.
      Your inability to recognise that speaks volumes.
      Ancient Briton's readers can reach their own conclusions.

    22. @Simple Simon

      Christ's teachings were grounded in love - it was others who tried to snooker Him - and each and ever time they did so, Christ responded with a question, as have I (not that I am saying I am Christ).

      So I ask you the same, Simple Simon - how genuinely intimate is your relationship with God? One measure of judging that intimacy is asking yourself whether you tithe to to the church - do you give 10% of what you earn for the work of God's Kingdom?

      It's a simple answer - yes or no, Simple Simon?

    23. Lux Et Veritas5 March 2017 at 23:41

      For someone so insistent on simple answers why can't you answer those posed by "What would Jesus say?"?

    24. I did Lux - please read above where I commend using many names to capture the intimacy with which God wishes us to know him.

      Do you tithe Lux ? Do you give 10% of your earnings/pension for the work of the Kingdom of God? How intimate is your relationship with Christ?

    25. Scapegoat, your interpretation of the Scriptures is so bad one could be forgiven for concluding you are the false prophet Barry Morgan.

    26. If there's no English equivalent of "Our Father", what do you think the Greek, Latin or Welsh equivalent is?
      In my language "Ein Tad" is definitely "Our Father".
      How long must we tolerate such morons?

    27. You mistake what I am saying. I am not saying there is no English or Welsh equivalent, I am saying that many words in the English are actually needed to convey the intimacy with which Jesus prays to God. It's the intimacy that matters more to Christ and so I keep coming back to that question - the Lord's Prayer confronts us with the need to develop an intimate relationship with God. Furthermore, it asks us to cultivate a forgiving disposition towards those who we would see as our "enemy". I ask those who have called me a moron or a plonker to therefore pray this prayer earnestly and with Godly intent rather than getting hung up about the precise form of words. They would do berrrer that avoid the grapevine of the Green after worship and stay on their kneees a little longer and pray the words of our Lord Jesus. If that is moronic then so be it.

    28. Let us be careful with this idea of 'intimacy'. 'Intimacy' can slope and slip into an equality of relationship. 'Intimacy' can acquire an erotic sense c.f. Liverpool sermon; I am not suggesting that you are for one moment in this instance.
      'Intimacy' is child/parent in this context. The scales are not evenly balanced.
      Let us be careful with changing the 'Abba'. If this appellation has suggested 'intimacy' (where else would it come from?) can it not be left alone. We do not have the right to change Jesus' words with our own, for our own can never be Scripture but only our own. Paraphrasing can stay in the head but not on our lip. Paraphrasing means that 'Our' then becomes 'My' for the initiator because the rest of us might not agree with the substitution and could possibly be offended that somebody has the audacity to muck around with the words of the Incarnate God.

    29. John 17 paints a deeply intimate picture of our relationship with God and Teresa of Avila falls back on the most erotic language of all to attempt to express the ineffable closeness with which we are held by God and with which God holds us: "I in thee, and they in me", says Christ. There are times, in prayer, where I am uncertain where "I end" and "God begins" - I suspect that is what Christ meant by "Abba".

    30. True. True indeed. However John 17 draws heavily on holiness. And this is where our disagreement begins ; we disagree on the holiness of same sex marriage. Once we do unholy things, the intimacy with God is severely impaired.
      "Take not thy Holy Spirit from us." Abba does that when we are wilful and rebellious.

  6. Why does anyone think that promoting LGBTQ+ will lead to growth? I think studies will show this to be fallacious.

    Does this look like a fait accomplie or what?

  7. Here are three bullet points that John of Ely Tower and his Chuckle Brothers might consider as they prepare to commit ecclesiastical suicide in a fortnight's time:

    First, the Diocese of Llandaff needs an outsider as its next Bishop: someone who knows God but does not know Barry Morgan.

    Second, it needs a Bishop who is fully inclusive, where there are no 'entrenched positions' (God knows, there has been enough of those coming from Llys Esgob since 1999); but fellow pilgrims who see things differently, and whose convictions should be respected and affirmed, whether we are talking about Peggy and Jenny or Credo Cymru.

    Third, Llandaff needs a Bishop who is not using his Office to prosecute decades-old battles and settle old scores; but is an instinctive conciliator. Someone who can unite a divided Diocese, communicate the faith of the Church with energy and conviction, and without being embarrassed by his friendship with God.

    I am afraid I read the three Silver Bullets and did not know whether to laugh or cry. Talk about calculated partisan duplicity...

    1. Not much to ask is it?4 March 2017 at 12:07

      Definitely needs to be untainted by Barry Morgan's acquaintance.
      Needs to be 60 or under as it's going to take at least a decade to sort out the shambles left being by Morgan.
      Needs a vocabulary that doesn't include the word "Tough".

  8. I agree with ‘Aghast’ and ‘Not Much to Ask’.
    The ship has sailed from the shores of the Electoral College and should be allowed to go. None of the candidates were able to convince and the process has become dominated by the gay issue at the cost of all other considerations.
    I would invite all/both the remaining candidates to come together and ask them to withdraw unanimously from this unedifying stand-off. They would thus demonstrate, that they have the will to stop the damage further.
    The matter shouldn’t rest there – but the issues arising should be properly explored, at length, in an open and honest church-wide debate. But that is for the future.
    For now, some positive proposals for nurture and training in the role of bishop: The venerable John Lomas, The Reverend Matthew Hill, The Reverend Dr. Trystan Hughes, all male and all married, I know, but we need a time of calm, without controversy, and the list is not, of course, exhaustive. And I hope that it is not attacked in any replies that may follow this post.
    These candidates would bring very different strengths to the Province. Some spiritual, some evangelistic, some liturgical, some pastoral. But as important as any of these, they would represent a new beginning and the Diocese and the church is in desperate need of this.
    And as intimated here, I would envisage some sort of arrangement where they would serve in an episcopal capacity, but with the benefit of mentoring.
    Most crises throw up moments of opportunity. It would be an answer to prayer if the Bench saw this as one of them and acted accordingly, with imagination, an eye to the future and an ear to the faithful, who are tired of politics and in need of spiritual refreshment.

  9. @Batsfordm27 speaks much sense. I disagree in one respect. Only someone from outside Wales can bring healing to this wounded and divided diocese. The people he mentions have excellent qualities; but have been too close to the archiepiscopal machinations of recent years (not in a malign way - but close nonetheless). @Aghast is right. Knows God but doesn't know Barry Morgan. Hole in One.

  10. Perhaps the time has come to do away with electoral colleges with their politics and pre planted people?
    All other jobs are now applied for and intensive interviews take place.
    Monmouth proudly announced two days of interviews including an over night stay for Ministry team leader jobs.
    A manager in any business would be put through their paces. Archdeacons now apply for the job. Perhaps bringing the episcopate into line might cut out all the "jobs for friends" and be truly inclusive opening it up to everyone?
    The three bullet points are scary.......
    it sounds like young people can decide the future of the CiW? They of course, wouldn't agree as they are diverse too. Statistically the churches attracting young people are the non traditional newer denominations which are solid on Bible teaching.
    The other points make it clear that a Bishop's role is to change peoples views if they disagree........we already knew that............

  11. Many in their careers have encountered incompetence at the top, and suffered personally because of it.
    Here in the Church in Wales we have had an Archbishop who for the same reason has caused great damage. People are set against each other, there is unhappiness and bewilderment. The authority, the dignity, the joy of the Church have been lost. A better example of mis-management would be hard to find.
    And yet Barry doesn't seem to see for himself what he has done. Why has he taken the secular path in the issue of gay rights and gay marriage, and not realised that, regardless of the arguments, problems would arise. He has acted with perfect insensitivity and with complete arrogance.
    Worryingly, he has planted his attitude at Llandaff and on the Bench of Bishops. In both cases it will be difficult to remove the people concerned.
    I mourn for the loss of what was once a great Church.


    1. Bullseye Pirran.

      "Caring for our existing membership is important but........"
      Precious little evidence of this available to support such a notion.

      "Mission should also focus on offering faith commitment to young people, and responding to THEIR vision to create the Church in Wales of the future."
      How backwards is this?
      The focus should be on teaching young people to recognise - and accept - GOD's vision for the Church in Wales of the future.

      Little wonder at the current dismal state of affairs.

  12. @Pirran.That is absolutely the point -the path of gay rights and gay marriage has no place in Christian teaching. It has not been a prominent argument here that homosexuals are denied their choice to live as they wish. No-one has said that LGBT may not be welcomed as part of the Christian community, but it is said that such way of life is not intrinsically Christian and many are uncomfortable about attempts to present and support it as such. I hope that the Bench have the foresight to recognise the risks of alienation should they make an inappropriate appointment to Llandaff.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. Funny but no surprise that comments are not posted when they don't meet the blog view. Shame.

    3. On the contrary Bourdon. If that were the case Scapegoat's comments would not have been published. All views are welcome but not unfounded allegations. Please see my comment @ 14.33: "I would be grateful if commentators would moderate their language where necessary, avoid commenting on third parties and stay on topic."

  13. "No-one has said that LGBT may not be welcomed as part of the Christian community" no but what you have said that LGBT people are freaks and psychologically damaged and your postings over the months have vilified and ridiculed LGBT people. Your vilification and belittling of LGBT has been VERY prominent, Simple Soul. It's hate and vilification like that should fill you with remorse when you attempt to worship and pray. Hopefully you'll call to mind your vilification and hate when you are next at the eucharist and confess your sin before God. Amend your ways and turn to Christ.

    1. "LGBT people are freaks"
      Well, not freaks perhaps, but abnormal.

    2. @Scapegoating, I find your viewpoint rather myopic. Many of us have no particular beef with LGBT in its own right, but the constant promotion of the "inclusivity agenda" is problematic. A lot of people who seek guidance from the Church feel browbeaten by a very vocal minority who (it would seem) seek to elevate their particular suffering above all else.

      I quote here from a post by Paul Young on the "Call to Repentance" thread on this blog. He highlights the real problem in the Church, which is the focus on these issues to exclusion of more pressing issues, not least the severe shortage of priests and the need for more grassroots activity:

      "As a church warden of a ministry area church in the Rhondda valley, I , like so many that I talk to, feel that we the ordinary parishioners of the Church in Wales, have been forgotten and discarded.
      All we seem to have heard about in the last twenty years is women priest,women bishops, gay priests, gay marriages, and virtually nothing about the ministry of Christ .

      "[It] may surprise you to know that not one of our three ministry area priests (one non stipendiary) appear to show the slightest bit of interest [in our outreach work to local schools], but with seven Churches to cover,which has recently become nine,they are probably too busy. A number in our congregation has said that you have more chance of a visit from a priest when you are dead than when you are alive."

    3. According to today's grapevine on The Green at least there's some good news on the 'shortage of priests' issue. It seems Bishop John has given Bazza's Ass a real job to do by effectively demoting him to the Archdeaconry of Margam.
      Perhaps the Archbishop's Chaplain will be given a real job to do next?

    4. Painful as it is to admit, I do wonder how much the "pink pound" is being chased in the promotion of the LGBTQ+ agenda?

    5. SIMPLE Simon... ++ demoted to the archdeaconry of Margam?.... pray tell.

    6. That sounds like an invitation to just gossip

    7. You don't have to accept the invitation.

    8. No you don't Simple Simon, you don't have to accept the invitation to gossip, much less initiate it with your talk of the "grapevine on the Green", if you are going too gossip anything, gossip the Good News of Christ and is love for humanity. Keep away from the Green with its gossip and spreading of hatred

    9. "too gossip"

    10. What would Jesus say?5 March 2017 at 23:34

      You don't get it do you?
      The gossip on The Green is more reliable than the rubbish peddaled by the dud in the Llandaff Deanery.

    11. @laughing Gas

      If all you can do is draw attention to a typo, then more fool you.

    12. @ What Would Jesus Say

      "dud in the Llandaff Deanery" - Christ asks us to speak kindly about our brothers and sisters. Please refrain from language like this. I also suggest that you too keep away from the "grapevine of the Green" and turn instead to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Simples ... but not Simples Simon

    13. Of course O Duchess, thou Butchest. Thy will is my Command.

    14. Tell us Scapegoat.
      Has Wilbourne been sent to Margam or not?

    15. The dud glove puppet in the Deanery is no-one's brother but one of Barry Morgan's false prophets.

    16. @Dick Pickles,1662, Ruth

      The Grapevine of the Green is a place for you lot to avoid - no good can come from you scuttling around for tit bits of clerical gossip. As I keep on saying, get out there and gossip the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christian with as much enthusiasm as you can muster. Keep praying that prayer of intimacy to Abba/Father and develop a kindly disposition towards those you find most easiest to call prats/freaks/morons/duds.

      Go on - see if you can offer a kindly word or two in here.

      And be warned - nothing good can come from the "grapevine of the Green", nothing.

      All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

    17. Facts are not gossip.
      Has Wilbourne been sent to Margam or not?

    18. Ring him and ask him - be upfront about it and you may get an answer.

      Avoid the Grapevine of the Green - it's a poison to one's soul.

      Facts are never facts on this website - they come with warped insinuation attached.

      Let this be your Lenten disciple - avoid the Grapevine of the Green.

    19. Scapegoat:you are desperately trying to take the moral high ground hoping it will save you from facing up to the issues about which there are very strong and valid opinions different from your own.
      Yes, the language is in some cases regrettable, but the situation is a consequence of stupidity and secrecy at the top. The Grapevine on the Green is of your making.


    20. Thank you Pirran. I would be grateful if commentators would moderate their language where necessary, avoid commenting on third parties and stay on topic to avoid handing ammunition to critics of this blog. Many thanks.

    21. @Pirran

      'The Grapevine on the Green' is not of my making - the tittle tattle of gossip that gets posted here is of others' making (e.g. 1662, Simple Sion). I don't for one minute think it is at all healthy.

      I 100% embrace AB's call for people to moderate their language - in the last 24 hrs I have been called deluded, a moron and prat. I can't imagine what non-christians reading this blog would make of that and AB is right -it give ammunition to critics of this blog.

      Let's disagree but do so with kindness as we each demonstrate the intimacy with which we pray to God our Father/Abba/Mother etc.

      All shall be well, all manner of thing shall be well ....

  14. I do hope that the Cathedral Chapter (and all other such bodies involved) have the wisdom not to conduct themselves as a mini Electoral College in this consultation process. They are not constituted for such a purpose. Their role must be to identify needs, clarify processes and maintain absolute impartiality as a group. Should they be tempted to endorse any one of the existing candidates, or indeed, nominate anyone else, then we will be back to square one of this mess, with the mistrust and paranoia compounded. Needs and processes – that should be the focus of their discussions for the present.

  15. Talking about being "untainted by Barry", see the glowing eulogy by the Golf Caddy in this month's Bell from Llandaff:

    "I should like as well to offer my own personal thanks to Archbishop Barry for supporting me as Dean and on behalf of us all, to express profound gratitude to God for his vision, scholarship and pastoral concern as our bishop. Above all perhaps, we thank Archbishop Barry for his unwavering friendship as a guide and fellow traveller in the Gospel."

    (it's on page 5 of the online copy here:

    The only profound gratitude to God that I can offer for Barry is that he didn't stay a minute longer as Bishop and Archbishop.

    On page 24 of the Bell there's a nice photo of Barry's minions at Llandaff. According to the online thesaurus, synonyms of "minion" include:

    backscratcher, backslapper, bootlicker, dependent, doormat, fan, fawner, flatterer, flunky, follower, groupie, hanger-on, lackey, parasite, puppet, slave, stooge, subordinate, toady

    So take your pick!

    1. There's no need to make a selection Bjorn.
      Gerwhine ticks all those boxes.
      As do Masson and so many others.
      Even the head virger gets his own dishonourable mention, but last and least I see.

    2. @1662

      See how those Christians love - avoid the Grapevine of the Green.

  16. Vicar of Dibley5 March 2017 at 11:43

    I am proud to be one of Gerwyn's "minions" and not afraid of standing up and being counted. Show some respect for heaven's sake you hypocrites.

    1. Respect is earned, not demanded or imposed minion.

    2. There is a considerable difference in having respect for a post or position and the incumbant post-holder Vicarette.
      The last Dean of Llandaff who earned my respect was John Rogers.
      Bonaparte was bad enough but the current imposed dud is worthy of only utter contempt.

    3. Pride.
      One of the seven deadly sins.

    4. Vicar of Dibley6 March 2017 at 13:41

      Envy is another Esther. Perhaps you are jealous of the Dean's position in the Church.

    5. There is nothing there tempting enough to even consider breaking the tenth commandment.

  17. Somewhat Perturbed11 March 2017 at 10:57

    Dear Ancient Briton, even the local MPs are getting in on the act, did you see this article yesterday?

    1. Yes Somewhat Perturbed, the LGBT campaigners are in full cry. The article quotes one of Jeffrey John's friends saying “Jeffrey would be a good Bishop. He’s not actually a campaigner on gay issues. The only things you can be sure he will be talking about are Jesus and God."
      That is incorrect. He supported the Out4Marriage campaign in a video clip which twisted the Gospel as he did when when he preached on the healing of the centurion’s servant in Luke 7.
      This has nothing to do with homophobia, the charge often leveled against anyone who disagrees. The leaked 58% shows that John was well short of the required two thirds of the votes required. My understanding is that much of his support had more to do with avoiding a woman bishop than wanting Jeffrey John.

  18. Well, AB, congratulations on this story appearing on this blog before someone leaked it to Mr Shipton et al. I'm puzzled though. Perhaps someone could explain why the MPs letter doesn't ask about other gay candidates who were unsuccessful? Seems to be limited to Jeffrey John?

    1. "Hack" and "Bjorn Again" identified the likely culprit on the earlier Llandaff Stalemate thread.
      Barry Morgan wants Jeffrey John to succeed him but his frontrunner unexpectedly falls at the first fence.
      Barry's hastily implemented plan B is to get his minions to play the homophobia, discrimination and victimisation cards by arranging the various leaks from the Electoral College.
      The only candidate who benefits is Barry's chosen one.
      The letter from the 6 MPs is the result of selectively incomplete information.
      One imagines they might be very angry with their source(s) when they find out they've been played for fools and manipulated as pawns on Barry's chessboard.

    2. Subversive Canon12 March 2017 at 17:36

      Your trains of thought have reminded me of something that reached me many years since but I filed away in my mind and then forgotten all about.
      Shortly after the 2008 Bangor electoral college a little bird whispered in my ear Jeffrey John had not only been a candidate but a serious contender for the job.
      Until Barry Morgan intervened to prevent his election at that time.
      If my memory is playing tricks feel free to correct me 'Another Ruth'.