The Church of England Lunch Party

The Church of England has announced plans for the big lunch party in association with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations. From the Church Times:

Churches are being encour­aged to take their trestle tables and tea urns out to the street and to host a “Big Jubilee Lunch” on the after­noon of Sunday 3 June. Dr Rachel Jordan, national ad­viser for mission and evangelism, said that churches could be “known as places that hosted and helped to catalyse the biggest party the nation has ever had. . . . It’s a simple idea, and it doesn’t take much resourcing.” 

This initiative comes in tandem with 'The Big Jubilee Thank You' plan when letters sent to Her majesty from each diocese will give people the opportunity to add their own comments. The three big thanks are:

Thank you for your Majesty’s faithful witness to the Christian faith.

Thank you for your Majesty’s gracious leadership as Supreme Governor of our Church.

Thank you for your Majesty’s devoted service to our nation over the past 60 years.

After the Queen's appointment of a traditionalist chaplain, signatories may wish to add an appropriate apology for the church's departure from the traditional Christian faith:

Sorry, your Majesty, that the Church into which you were born does not now follow your faithful witness to the Christian faith having moved with the times rather than followed your example of devoted service and leadership.

Personally I would have hoped that the church Her Majesty and I were born into would be remembered for something other than 'a simple idea' of the biggest lunch the nation has ever had; real mission and evangelism based on our traditional Christian faith perhaps?

Bazzer's world

Ed Thornton for the Church Times has produced a summary of what our Archbishops and a few bishops had to say in their Christmas messages about social division but it was this reference that had me digging deeper: The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, preaching in Llandaff Cathedral, said that the Occupy protesters had “reminded us that in Jesus, the view of God as a holy, set-apart God has been shattered for ever”.


Dr Morgan started his Christmas day sermon with a reference to the Occupy protesters. Clearly disappointed that they didn't give him another publicity opportunity by choosing his cathedral for their protest he had some harsh words for St Paul's cathedral clergy when he seemed to be likening them to the Pharisees. Not cleanliness next to Godliness but, rather, filth is more holy appears to be the new message. I can see what he is trying to say but he misses the point that in removing the 'otherness' of God everything is removed with it as witnessed by people voting with their feet and emptying churches. 


The Archbishop's true agenda appears in a follow-up interview for the Western Mail when he said that he was 'holding on to the hope that the church will accept women bishops before he steps down'. This is to be his legacy regardless of the divisions caused and the example of his US counterpart. He said: “The thing about Wales is we haven’t got extreme views and it’s quite a small church and you know one another individually and therefore you are able to talk to one another. Certainly, I haven’t felt any rancour from those who hold a different position.” [Apparently he ignores them - Ed.]


It might be 'quite a small church' to him but for others it is part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the overwhelming majority of Christians hold true to the faith, dwarfing the three-vote margin that so disappoints the Archbishop. If he is so interested in the wishes of the majority, why does he not look to the whole church rather than just his own little world becoming a symbol of dis-unity in the process? His Christmas day sermon is full of references to Jesus breaking down barriers and the prominence He gave to women but sadly for Bazzer, not as apostles. Christ set us a different example, an example the wider church is content to follow without putting a personal spin on it. The leader of the Church in Wales would be better served doing the same instead of looking to Christ only if it suits his argument.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

The Church Times today (23 July 2010) is carrying an article showing that “a poll by YouGov, which was not commissioned by any external organisation, found that 63 per cent of those questioned agreed that the Church of England should appoint women bishops, while ten per cent objected to the move. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) said they had no opinion either way, and three per cent did not know what they thought.”

In response to their own ‘survey’ the Church Times found that Synod did the right thing for traditionalists in the women bishops' votes. These figures will now be bandied around by the supporters of women’s ordination as justification for their stand, ignoring the fact that the historic faith shared by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world cannot be changed by committee simply to satisfy feminist whims.

Accepting that the YouGov survey was a representative sample, what did the sample really represent? It represents the views of people with scant, if any, knowledge of the real issues. The organisation Women and the Church (WATCH) have skillfully manipulated public opinion, including many church-goers, into believing that it is simply a matter of women’s rights. Having achieved their aim in principle, they sought to put the measure into practice while claiming that adequate provision will be made for those worshippers who, in common with most of Christendom, believe the innovation to be illegal, breaking our bond with the wider Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The proposed voluntary code of practice is another skillful device which, to those looking at the issue from the women's rights perspective, obscures the real issue that it cannot be acceptable to those who, in conscience, believe that what is being done is not the will of God but of man, or, in this case, of woman with the support of many men who have been hoodwinked into supporting the measure under false pretences.

In another YouGov poll, 67 per cent of people agreed that the burqa should be banned in Britain. Along with the Immigration Minister, many oppose such a ban on the grounds that we are a tolerant society and Muslims should be allowed freedom of expression. It has been admitted that for security reasons there are circumstances where the face would have to be uncovered leaving one to wonder if the only time it would be permitted in public would be on the public highway where it could conceal anyone or anything. As witnessed on Question Time last night, strong passions are aroused in such discussions, similar to those aroused over the possible restoration of the death penalty in 1998. In that debate, 99 per cent of those questioned said that the death penalty should be re-introduced according to “a staggering 99 per cent of the 95,000 [Sun] readers who responded to our You The Jury poll”. You can get almost any answer you want if you ask the ‘right’ question of the ‘right’ people.

So what of our so called ‘tolerant’ society when the very thing we pride ourselves on is used against us? Our cherished values are being undermined under the banner of political correctness but we deceive ourselves at our peril. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed in their attempt to provide a crumb of comfort for traditional orthodox Anglicans in their battle for survival. As one female activist shouted from the gallery on an earlier occasion, “We asked you for bread but you gave us a stone!” Short memories!

The intolerance of Islam towards Christians in Islamic countries is being echoed by intolerance of ‘Christians’ towards traditional Anglicans. So much so that Dr John Sentamu the Archbishop of York had to remind Synod members to behave like Christians. Tolerant Britain?