Ashamed of the Gospel

 'Dhimmi Bishop' Source: 24/6 Mag                       St Paul’s Cathedral hosts iftar celebration in London     Source: Twitter @anglicanink

Former midwife, now Bishop of London, the Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally, DBE, defers to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn, in St Paul's Cathedral where "different faiths and none" gathered to celebrate an interfaith iftar.

The bishop also covered her head with a hijab-like garment at a secular meeting at Regent’s Park Mosque in London. Perhaps surprisingly she did not tuck her pectoral cross into her cassock for fear of causing further offence to Muslims who find the symbol of salvation offensive.

It could be worse. In fact it was at a Durham Church which offered to cover crosses while hosting Muslim prayers.

The Vicar, Lissa Scott, has been described as a “liberal” who uses “gimmicks like Café Church to offer a gospel-less diet of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

Whilst it is understable that simple good manners might indicate a particular course of action out of courtesy and respect for the faith of others it has become a one-way traffic.

Rebel Priest Jules Gomes, wrote: "A parish church in the Diocese of Durham has been criticised for 'being ashamed of the gospel' after saying it would cover crosses and other sacred images in order to host Islamic prayers and an Iftar meal for the local Muslim community. The Church of St Matthew and St Luke, Darlington, also agreed to provide separate worship space so men and women could offer segregated worship."

As another blogger commented, "Is this repugnant surrender of female church leaders to a misogynist creed really what 'interfaith' understanding has come to?"

Postscript [26.05.2019]

The bishop of Bangor has tweeted:
"Last night Dean Kathy Jones led a group of us to the shared meal in Bangor's mosque in this season of Ramadan. We were welcomed and the hospitality was so generous. We can listen and learn when we make time for each other."

Monmouth and St Albans joined in. What would they have learnt from their hosts? It is unlikely that they would have referred to the impassioned address in London by the Rt Rev Bashar Warda who said that Iraq's Christians now faced extinction after 1,400 years of persecution. They certainly would not have referred to the "approximately 270 million non-believers who died over the last 1,400 years for the glory of political Islam."

How is it that Church in Wales bishops can readily engage with a supremacist political ideology that contradicts Christian beliefs and regards women as inferior to men but are unwilling to engage with orthodox Anglicans?

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?

A little bit more

A Crucifix, a Tory politician and unidentified people masked by veils. Source: Archbishop Cranmer

Concluding my entry, Another smokescreen, yesterday I wrote "A 'Christian MSP', Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives has suggested we should defend the right of Muslim women to wear the burka in the same way we defend the right of Christians to wear a cross. God help us!"

He has. No thanks to our bishops but to Archbishop Cranmer who blogged No, Ruth Davidson: the burqa is a world away from a crucifix. Brilliant.

Conservative Muslim Forum founder Lord Sheikh who criticised Boris Johnson for his comments about Muslim women wearing burkas has been back in the news. 

He told BBC Newsnight that he had received vile Islamophobic messages after calling for Mr Johnson to be sacked.

He said he took most exception to "vile things, horrible things, obscene things about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him".

High profile: David Cameron and Lord Sheikh pictured at a party for the Conservative MuslimForum

                                                                                                          Source: Mail Online 28 July 2013

The Mail Online reported in 2013: "To his many supporters in the Conservative Party, Lord Sheikh, a close  adviser to David Cameron, is the epitome of respectability and  a staunch advocate of family values."

The article goes on: 

"But we can reveal the 72-year-old peer became besotted with an attractive waitress 45 years his junior and travelled to her native Uzbekistan to ask for her hand, only to dump her the day before their secret wedding – all while he was still legally married.

"When his wife of 25 years, Shaida, discovered the relationship, she burst into the crowded cafe where the 27-year-old woman works and  launched a furious tirade against her.

"Lady Sheikh is now divorcing her husband.

"As the high-profile founder and chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum (CMF), Lord Sheikh’s behaviour is likely to cause deep embarrassment for Tories as they try to forge alliances with traditional Muslim voters."

Perhaps as a good Muslim he was striving to emulate the example of the Prophet Muhammad who had many wives and "married Aisha  at the age of six or seven - but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina" [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

"The peer – who has a daughter 15 years older than the waitress – acts as Mr Cameron’s ambassador to the wider Muslim world, as well as drumming up support for the Tories in Britain.

"Recently he said in an interview: ‘I joined the Conservative Party as its policies and ideologies match our own traditions and culture that are based on strong work ethics and family values’."

Another smokescreen

The conviction of 17 men and one woman in Newcastle in August [2017] restarted the national debate on grooming ( PA )                           Source: Independent

BBC Newsnight's coverage of former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnsons’s remarks about wearing the veil reported that the Chair of the Muslim Women’s Network UK regarded his choice of words as "clumsy and inappropriate". While acknowledging he was against a veil ban and against men telling woman what to wear, she said, “The problem I’ve got is the language he used".

One would have thought that Johnson's gaff could have been left there but the skirmishing continues.

Further Newsnight coverage last night featured a debate between journalist Yasmin Alibi-Brown and Claire Fox, Director of the Academy of Ideas:

"Ms Alibi-Brown argued that: 'Boris was jeering here. And I do think politicians have a special responsibility, especially in these fractures times'.

Ms Fox responded: "We should also have the freedom to make judgements and criticise. I believe in religious freedom, absolutely, but only if it comes with a freedom to lampoon, to make fun of."

"She added: 'certain subjects are ring fenced and I do feel that one of the subjects which is ring fenced is an open discussion about a problem of integration'."

Alibi-Brown's interruptions appeared designed to avoid such open discussion as she tried to divert attention to antisemitism. It had a familiar ring.

The furore that has erupted over this relatively trivial story once more provides a smokescreen which obscures far more serious issues such as the longstanding problem of predominately Muslim men regarding young white children as easy meat, as former Home Secretary Jack Straw put it.

Barely reported, and certainly not attracting the moral outrage and indignation as has Boris Johnson's remarks, three men who complained that their human rights had been breached because they may be deported as a result of the decision to remove their British citizenship were told that the decision had been upheld. They had been convicted for grooming and sexually exploiting young girls:

The Independent reported, Rochdale grooming gang members could be deported after judges uphold ruling to strip them of British citizenship

"Three men were among nine men jailed in 2012 after grooming and sexually exploiting young girls. In some cases the girls, aged in their early teens, were raped and pimped out to paying customers in Rochdale and Oldham.

"Each of them challenged the decision, arguing it amounted to a breach of their human rights, but their cases were rejected by both the government’s First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal.

"Outlining their offending, Lord Justice Sales said: 'All the men treated the girls as though they were worthless and beyond all respect. They were motivated by lust and greed'.”

From the Independent 8 October 2017: "Grooming gangs across the country are repeating the horrific abuse exposed in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and most recently Newcastle, victims and investigators have warned.

"There are mounting calls for nationwide action to combat sexual exploitation, with authorities accused of playing catch-up after ignoring victims 'for decades and decades'.

One victim who was abused as a teenager by the Rotherham ringleader waived her right to anonymity. She said abuse was underway “all over the country”.

“It’s an issue for every town and city, more people are being failed,” she told The Independent. “I’m hearing a lot of new complaints from survivors.

“Some are saying they have been to the police and didn’t get taken seriously, others are getting support.

“But I think the Government is still trying to play this down and make out it’s not a major issue – they are not doing enough.”

I don't hear the protesters raising their voices in defence of these vulnerable children.

The authorities have become paralyzed over the years for fear of being accused of being Islamophobic, a strategy designed to avoid any constructive criticism of a supremacist ideology.

So much so that too many politicians have joined the Islamophobia chorus with no apparent understanding of the issues involved.

A "Christian MSP", Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives has suggested we should defend the right of Muslim women to wear the burka in the same way we defend the right of Christians to wear a cross.

God help us!

Postscript [15.08.2018]

"Thirty men and one woman have been charged with offences linked to child sexual exploitation in Huddersfield.

"The offences relate to five women when they were aged between 12 and 18, and are alleged to have taken place between 2005 and 2012.

"Charges those accused face include rape, trafficking and sexual assault.

"Twelve men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have been charged with "numerous offences in connection with the same investigation", police said."

The above report is from the BBC. There are similar press reports, none of which mentions 'Muslim' or 'Islam' although readers of the reports may infer a link from the frequent appearance of names such as Hussain and Mohammed given the similarity of other cases including the conviction of 17 men and one woman in Newcastle in August 2017.

By contrast a former police Chief Superintendent, one of Britain’s most senior Asian policemen,  criticised Boris Johnson for "stating Muslim women wearing burqas 'look like letter boxes' and comparing them to 'bank robbers', are racist and likely to stoke violence against Muslim women."

Since when were Muslims a race?

The former Chief Superintendent would have served the whole community better if he explained what stokes child sexual exploitation and violence towards children among predominately Muslim men of Asian heritage.

Speaking up about more serious matters than attempted humour would be a real step forward.

The way of the cross

Jerusalem then and now

The right to wear the cross

Photo: Rex Features

A belated post after my memory was jogged on seeing this article repeated in the Catholic Herald. See previous posts here and here. 

"In a Telegraph report of 28 April, David Barrett relates that Michael Nazir Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, has written to the European Court of Human Rights in support of Christians who are claiming that they have suffered discrimination at work because they have been banned from wearing a cross. In his submission, Bishop Nazir Ali writes: “We have reached a stage where Christians in the United Kingdom risk their employment if they wear a cross. However, the United Kingdom courts have permitted the wearing of a Sikh bangle, the Islamic headscarf and even a corncrow haircut.”

The Government plans to argue at the same Court that employers have the right to ban the wearing of the cross because it is not a requirement of the Christian faith. Archbishop Rowan Williams, in what seems an embarrassing own goal, appeared to support (or at least not protest against) the Government’s position, by stating at a church service in Rome in March that the wearing of a cross had become something “which religious people make or hang on to” as a substitute for true faith. I disagree with him. “Religious people”, those who publicly profess their Christian faith, wear a cross as a sign of this faith (and who is he to judge their motives anyway?) It is non-religious people – often celebrities – who affect a cross simply as decoration or jewellery, but the Archbishop didn’t say this.

He should have said what was left to retired Anglican Bishop Nazir Ali to say: Christian employees should have the right to express their faith by wearing a cross. The Bishop went on to state, “Any policy that regards the cross as just an item of jewellery is deeply disturbing… It is disrespectful and insulting to practising Christians…The cross is ubiquitous in Christian devotion from the earliest times… The cross is the most easily recognisable Christian symbol in architecture, church furnishing and the dress of the clergy.” He added: “I am aware that many Christians wear the cross and would be distressed to be required to remove it.”

Bishop Nazir Ali echoes what Cardinal Keith O’Brien said in his Easter Sunday homily when he urged Christians to “wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ on their garments each and every day of their lives”, adding, “I know many of you do wear such a cross of Christ, not in any ostentatious way, not in a way that might harm you at your work or recreation, but a simple indication that you value the role of Jesus Christ in the history of the world, that you are trying to love by Christ’s standards in your own daily life.”

I was once given a pair of black earrings in the shape of crosses. I have never worn them. They couldn’t be seen as anything but items of jewellery; very different from the little silver Celtic cross, given to me by my mother, which I have worn round my neck for years. Perhaps it is time for parish priests to follow the example of Bishop Nazir Ali and Cardinal O’Brien, and preach about the importance of wearing a cross as a symbol of faith – and not as a style accessory.

The Church doesn’t make a “rule” about wearing a cross, rightly giving people the liberty to choose. But reverence for the cross and what it symbolises concerning the price of our redemption is “a requirement of the Christian faith”. If Christian employees choose to wear one, the Government should recognise this as an expression of deeply held beliefs – beliefs that have shaped the history, laws and culture of this country."

Jesus was a Muslim!

Much has been written recently about the cross and whether it is appropriate for Christians to wear it as an expression of their faith. At the same time in Afghanistan the cross has been publicly burned by Muslims who complain bitterly about any form of disrespect shown to their own faith.

It seems ironic then that Muslims claim Jesus as one of their own, a prophet referred to in the Quran as well as in the Bible. But that is only part of the story, a story which some years ago was the subject of an ITV programme, The Muslim Jesus. To the casual viewer I imagine the story would have been quite compelling without further evidence of the truth. Muslims deny that Christ died on the cross (some say another took His place) so they would have no objection to burning the cross as a Christian symbol. There is no dispute that Jesus is referred to in the Quran but the claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible is readily disputed even by many Muslims.


Visitors to Birmingham will be familiar with Islam being freely promoted on the streets as illustrated in this video. Last year I heard complaints that similar operations had been extended. A stall had been set up opposite a well-known Anglo Catholic church in a Cardiff suburb where, in common with many other areas, Christians are becoming marginalised as parishes become dominated by Islamic influences and appearance. When a dispute arose over the claim that 'Jesus was a Muslim' the police intervened. On being told that exception was taken to people shouting outside the Church that Jesus was a Muslim, the police response was that the pamphlets were not offensive and that we live in a free country.  One wonders what would have been the reaction if Christians stood opposite one of the City's 32 mosques and made counter claims. The group still engages with passers by claiming: "Let us show you what the Bible really says about Islam - and how Jesus really was a Muslim"!


When Channel 4 broadcast a programme, 'UnderCover Mosques', to highlight what was being said inside rather than outside mosques, in this case the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, the West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service ignored the hate allegations uncovered and investigated the programme makers instead. They were later forced to apologise after the programme makers were vindicated. The National Secular Society (no friend of Christianity) recently quoted this example in their evidence to the United Nations. Illustrating the extent to which Islamic influence is spreading around the world the NSS included this astonishing testimony:


 "I am deeply saddened that in this Council of all places in the whole world, Sharia law has been ruled to be beyond discussion by distinguished delegates, unless they are "experts" and therefore presumably Muslim. If I have got that wrong and non-Muslim experts are acceptable, I will be quick to apologise.


For those of you who like solving simultaneous equations, or are logicians, I have a little exercise. If criticising Islam = Islamophobia, and Islamophobia = racism (as we are told), and racism = unacceptable (as we agree), does this therefore mean that criticising Islam is unacceptable? That is the very questionable algebra or dubious logic that is being increasingly employed to silence critics in the UK by guilt-tripping them. We must not allow criticism to be stifled in this manipulative way. I'm very much struck by Indian born UK writer Kenan Malik's opinion that: "The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims, on the one hand, with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And, in reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived - but criticism of Islam should be greater. All too often Islamophobia is used as an excuse in a way to kind of blackmail society."



I am not suggesting that restrictions to freedom of expression are the monopoly of any one religion. I therefore oppose all blasphemy laws, and helped in the abolition of the UK's remaining (Christian) blasphemy laws. We also know of censorship by Sikhs and Hindus. The worst example of countries operating a blasphemy law, however, is Pakistan where accusing a rival of blasphemy is a convenient way of removing them. Not only does this result in their removal to jail, but the survival prospects of those accused of blasphemy, far less convicted of it, is very poor. And the judiciary are wary of even trying such cases.


Looking at the categories of Muslim influence in What Islam Isn't, it is clear what is now happening in the UK and elsewhere around the world. Islamic street propaganda must be seen for what it is. 


Jesus was NOT a Muslim. He died on the Cross and is the fulfilment of the prophecies.

Hold Thou Thy Cross

Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;

Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies.

Heaven's morning breaks, and earth's vain shadows flee;

In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has angered many campaigners with his suggestion that the cross itself has become a religious decoration. As ever with the Archbishop, if you understand what he is trying to say you know what he means but the average Christian in Britain today will not analyse what was said so may misinterpret the message. Nowadays many Christians, especially Anglicans, may go to church at Easter and/or Christmas. Otherwise they are more likely to be taken in at their baptism, walk in for their wedding and be wheeled in for their funeral when Abide with me will be sung. Sometimes families will have long forgotten the hundreds of other hymns in the English Hymnal but for others, the hymn and the Cross have a deep religious significance, a significance that will encourage them to wear a cross rather than, eg, the mark of Satan even if as a piece of jewellery the latter may appear more decorative. 

Whether worn as jewellery or not, the Cross is still the most potent Christian symbol. The fact that there is no compulsion to wear it makes Christianity what it is, relying on God's grace rather than the compulsion of man-made rules. But is this to be our undoing? Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, has embarked on a battle to stop Christians being able to wear a cross at work 'because it is not a strict requirement of the Christian faith' but where is the equality in that when we are daily forced to observe the religious symbols of other faiths. I recommend reading a legal view of this decision here and an interesting political judgement here. 

Whilst the Government is busy helping to suppress Christianity and Christian values in this country, sadly Mrs Featherstone's “live-and-let-live policy” does not extend to Christians who are under threat simply for being Christian. To use two current examples of blind prejudice, In Iran Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani faces execution for refusing to recant his Christian faith. In Pakistan the life of Shamim Bibi, mother of a 5-month-old girl, is under threat charged with ‘Blasphemy’ for refusing Islam. 

If you believe that the Government's action to stop Christians wearing a cross at work is wrong you can act now as suggested here.

The twilight of the cross

From Anglican Mainstream:

Ann Widdecombe is right: Christianity in Britain today is under severe persecution

Looking forward to a speech by Ann Widdecombe tomorrow, the Rev Peter Mullen in the Mail Online paints a depressing picture of the state of Christianity today. Please read it. 

Regardless of one's views of Christianity, or religion in general for that matter, what has shaped our British way of life is being extinguished. Yes there is much that the church has to be ashamed of, particularly its abuse of power, taking advantage of vulnerable people who had little but faith to sustain them. But while that power has waned, detractors have taken every opportunity to condemn the church and its pastors. In doing so they ignore the fact that for all of us, Christ died in agony on the Cross testifying that there is a better way, that we love our neighbour as ourselves. But this is not a rule to be followed blindly. His message was to look at the rules and to apply them sensibly. If we fail to do this and to remain faithful to our Christian culture a far greater oppression awaits us. Meanwhile the Established Church is obsessed with women's issues, gay rights and anything else that is prominent on the secular agenda!

Death and a Cross

Around two thousand years ago Jesus of Nazareth was hung on a wooden cross to die after being severely beaten because he preached the difference between right and wrong.

Today, those who believe Jesus to be the Son of God and wear the cross around their necks are condemned by people who don’t know the difference between the sign of redemption and jewellery.

The latest reason for not allowing a Christian nurse to wear the cross she has worn in complete safety for thirty years is that a patient may grab it making it a danger on health and safety grounds. On the other hand, a Muslim may wear the hijab as a mark of faith.

If any of this modern day ‘Pontius Pilot’ tribunal are hospitalised and ministered to by Muslims I hope they remember not to grab them by the hijabs thus making a mockery of their judgement.

Let him burn!

A Hindu traditionalist has won the right to be cremated in Britain on an open funeral pyre so that his spirit can be released into the afterlife. A few days ago Britain's first Asian judge said Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public venues.

Muslims and Sikhs are of course allowed to wear hijabs and religious kara bangles respectively, but Christians may be asked to remove Christian crosses or hide them from sight for fear of offending non-Christians.

Great in Britain if you are one of the 6% belonging to a non-Christian faith.