Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Are you listening Archbishop?


Yoke with plough formed as a cross drawn by a pair of oxen                                                                                                                       Source: The Hans India





Using analogies of yoke and cross in his Presidential address to the Governing Body of the Church in Wales archbishop John Davies said  "Readiness and willingness to take upon ourselves that yoke and to take up that cross does however demand certain things of us. I referred, a few minutes ago, to an important process which I want to strongly commend to and urge upon you. It’s the process of listening; more particularly, listening to the voice of the Father; listening to the voice of the Teacher; listening to the voice of the Spirit; and listening to each other’s voices too." 


Following the plough drawn by yoked oxen inevitably results in trudging through piles of excrement, something Christians seeking the truth increasingly have to wade through. 

'Listening to each other's voices' in the Church in Wales has become a one-way communication system in which orthodox Christians are expected to hear the words of revisionists and accept them in good grace even if they contradict the voices of the Father, the Teacher and the Spirit.

This sounds very much like another softening up process, particularly when the archbishop adds:

"Readiness and willingness to demonstrate that respectful and gracious attentiveness of mind, soul and spirit, to the Father, to the Teacher, to the Spirit and to each other, may sometimes mean uncomfortably humbling ourselves by being attentive to and listening to things we don’t like and would rather not even hear; things with which we might disagree profoundly. There are almost certainly items on the agenda of this meeting which some of us will, undoubtedly, view in such ways. But hear about them we must, and be respectfully attentive to those who think differently, we must, shining upon them the light of the Father’s wisdom, the light of the Teacher’s love and the light of the Spirit’s grace."

In their Update from the Bench on Same Sex Relationships Statement the bench "pledge to keep listening, listening to everyone, listening for God."

The Governing Body will learn tomorrow what Church in Wales pledges are worth after Peggy Jackson's divisive motion is put to the vote.

If this is to be a new beginning, fine, but so far there has been no obvious humility on the part of the bench or their enforcer, the Archdeacon of Llandaff. A good start can be made by dropping Jackson's motion.

If it is to be more of the same - but faster, there is no hope for the Church in Wales.

Are you listening Archbishop?

4 comments:

  1. Zadok the beast1 May 2019 at 18:36

    An even better start would be dropping the deceitful and duplicitous Pilate into the deep pool of retirement.
    If it can be done to +Richard then apart from the splash being much larger I see no impediment to doing the same to the useless but dangerous Archdeaconesse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would respectfully suggest that the RB finds a home for the bewildered and commit the Bench to it. I have never read such insanity and absurdity in all my life as I have just read in the Archbishop's statement.
    The Bench are going to ask the Doctrinal Commission to produce a paper on same-sex marriage in a Christian context. Let me give the DC a flying start - it is not possible. Marriage in a Christian context is between one man and one woman for life. That is the end of the story. No doubt, the DC will waffle away the Christian ideal to suit their masters.
    The National Audit Office recently published the UK marriage figures for 2017. In the whole country, only 62 couples asked to marry in a religious building, which includes the buildings of other religions. Why, in God's name, are our insane bishops wasting and asking others to waste so much time on this issue? It appears to me that the LGBT community has already voted with its feet. Yet RELEVANCY is the watchword of the Bench.
    Secondly, they are going to waste the time of the Liturgical Commission in producing a blessing for a civil marriage. Has it not dawned on the bishops that you cannot bless what doesn't exist? The state can call it what it wants, but the one thing that is certain from a Christian perspective is that it is not marriage.
    It would be better for the bishops, their cronies and the two commissions if they stopped wasting time on such fripperies, and started proclaiming the Gospel which was once and "for all" delivered to the saints. In that Gospel alone, lies salvation. Sadly, of course, that Gospel requires repentance and a complete change of heart. That Gospel requires us to deny ourselves and all our sinful inclinations, in return for a salvation that is full and free.
    Funnily enough, the archbishop couldn't bring himself to mention that yesterday because to do so, would have brought down the wrath of the LGBT lobby.
    As for listening respectfully to those who spout error, St Ignatius of Antioch has good advice: "I entreat you (not I, though, but the love of Jesus Christ) not to nourish yourselves on anything but Christian fare, and have no truck with the alien herbs of heresy. There are men [and women] who in the very act of assuring you of their good faith will mingle poison with Jesus Christ; which is like offering a lethal drug in a cup of honeyed wine, so that the unwitting victim blissfully accepts his own destruction with a fatal relish." Letter to the Trallians, 6
    I hope you are listening, your Grace.
    Seymour

    ReplyDelete
  3. I, too, am sure that this archbishop's words are part of a softening up process. Barry Morgan often did the same in quoting Newman's words about change. I fear that the GB is stuffed with place men and yes men - sorry, wimin - so it is usually manipulated. Yes, we really are in a time of crisis: Welsh bishops in their regalia look genuine (apart from the females) but they do not hold tbe Faith. All since the CinWs became an archbishop's Church rather than Christ's. Folly! Folly! Folly!
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, AB, the 62 couples I quoted above were for same-sex marriages, not heterosexual marriages.
    Seymour

    ReplyDelete