More 'firsts' for the Church in Wales

The John/Starkey wedding, Bangor 2021      Source: Facebook

From Church in Wales Provincial news: 'Archbishop of Wales announces historic appointments at Cathedral':

"The Archbishop of Wales, Andrew John, has announced the appointment of five distinguished individuals to serve as Honorary Canons at Saint Deiniol's Cathedral in Bangor. These appointments mark significant milestones in the Church in Wales, as they encompass a range of 'firsts' ."

Among the firsts is the second Mrs Andrew John, the Rev Naomi Starkey, who has been appointed one of three foundation canons who will be members of the Cathedral Chapter.

Another first is author Fr Jarel Robinson-Brown who becomes "the first gay, black Canon to serve in a Church in Wales Cathedral, a pioneering moment that highlights its commitment to diversity and inclusivity. Father Jarel, who will become Canon Preacher, holds joint British and Jamaican citizenship and is a much sought after preacher, having spoken recently at St Paul’s Cathedral, Yale Divinity School, and Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Universities. He is also co-Chair of the LGBTQ+ Christian Charity OneBodyOneFaith."

Among previous Church in Wales firsts are the first transgender priest and the first same-sex partnered lesbian bishop.

Users

Six openly partnered/married gay and lesbian bishops at Lambeth 2022.                  Source: Twitter

There have been a number of postings on Twitter of this group of gay and lesbian bishops at Lambeth thumbing their noses at orthodoxy, this one by @TransEpiscopal, a group of "transgender Episcopalians and allies dedicated to making the Episcopal Church a welcoming place for all"!

The US Episcopalian Church along with other western Anglican provinces do not need transgender, gay and lesbian priests and bishops to make people welcome. If the Church had not been welcoming there would be no openly gay and lesbian priests or bishops in the Church.

They protest that God loves them and that they are made in His image. So they are. So are adulterers.

God loves the sinner, not the sin, so these entrists busy themselves changing definitions to suit themselves, even re-defining marriage which is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others and for life. Were it not so there would be no children and civilisation would cease.

The LGBTQ+ community is using the Church for their own ends. They are a vocal minority who do not represent the majority of Anglicans and fellow Christians.

The same sex partnered bishop of Monmouth, Cherry Vann, (pictured 3rd from right) is a patron of Open Table, an organisation whose mission is to "warmly welcome and affirm people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA), + our family and friends, and anyone who wants to belong in an accepting, loving worship community."

Very well organised, a vocal minority is using Lambeth to manipulate public opinion for their own ends. 

The Global South stands for Bible based orthodoxy. They have set out four priorities for ‘Orthodox delegates’ including re-affirmation of Resolution 1.10. 

They must not be silenced by a vocal minority intent on serving their own interests above all others.

Postscript [01.08.2022] 

The house of the Lord! - Look at the setting for this circus. What have we become?

Caption corner 26 June 2022

The Archbishop of Wales (right) and gay pride supporters, the sub-dean of Bangor and former Mayor             Source: Twitter

Publishable captions will appear as comments.

BBC celebrates 'love'

Still from the BBC factual drama 'Against the Law'

A vicar in Hull has claimed that words such as 'pride' and 'gay' have been being "hijacked" by people who would seek to normalise LGBT activity as part of mainstream life.  An addition to his list could be 'love' following the BBC's Gay Britannia LGBTQ TV campaign for the advancement of homosexuality in Great Britain.

At the beginning Episode 1 (Series 1) of the BBC's 'Prejudice And Pride: The People’s History Of LGBTQ Britain', a male presenter referred to "loving" someone for a single night!

Presenters Susan Calman and Stephen K Amos 

So 'love' is used to describe a night of sex with someone of the same sex. The female presenter went on to object that lesbians had not been included in the anti-homosexuality laws so they fell outside the definition of what sex could be. Lesbians were "virtually invisible" she complained. All that has now changed.

'Equality' is another word used by liberal progressives to justify their cause resulting in considerable confusion especially when equality is substituted for theology. 

The BBC had previously screened a harrowing factual drama "Against the law". In 1954 there was considerable shock and outrage when Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was imprisoned after being found guilty of homosexual activity with two airmen. They escaped prosecution after receiving immunity in return for their incriminating testimony, naming more than 20 other sexual partners, against whom no action was taken.

Also convicted was Daily Mail journalist Peter Wildeblood.  Described as "one of the bravest men who ever lived", he was the only openly gay man to give evidence to Lord Wolfenden’s committee which in 1957 recommended the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain.

Sadly this act of bravery was trivialised in the programme by an ageing queen who with obvious delight and amusement outed Lord Wolfenden's son with whom he claimed to have been "having an affair" at the time. No honour among queens!

In his evidence [advance to 1.11.20 on iPlayer] Wildeblood dismissed two of three categories of homosexuals he claimed there to be; 'pansies' who regarded themselves as women and pederasts for whom he had considerable contempt. He said that homosexuals in the strict sense are "adult men who are attracted to adult men. Men who desire to lead their lives with discretion and decency, neither corrupting others nor publicly flaunting their condition." [My emphasis - Ed.] They were "by far" the largest group of homosexuals.

By publicly flaunting their LGBT+ preferences, the gay pride movement is undoing the achievements of Peter Wildeblood in gaining respect for homosexual people "who desire only to lead their lives with discretion and decency". 

The BBC's Gay Britannia celebration is undermining those hard-won achievements in what appears to be a concerted campaign by Church and State to queer Britain and force the acceptance of same sex marriage, a red line for many.

Self or selfless?

The current debate on gay marriage ignores an important aspect of marriage - children. Children may not be in the minds of all gay or lesbian couples but if they are, they ignore the fact that it is normal for a child to have a mother (female) and a father (male). 

In probably the most high profile case, Sir Elton John and his partner have admitted that their son "faced 'challenges' and potential 'double' stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems." Hardly surprising when the boy's 'mother' (and possibly his biological father) will be 84 when Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John is 21 and his father (also possibly his biological father) is in his 70th year and both are/were male. In the US there was another bizarre story of a pregnant father giving birth to a bouncing baby girl. These sort of cases are so far removed from normality that they highlight the absurdity of change for no apparent reason other than self-gratification. I want, therefore I must have, no matter what the consequences.

Fresh from his Review for the Archbishop of Wales who appears to be somewhat accident prone in his choices, the liberal-minded former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth has stepped into the debate with the suggestion: "Instead of at first opposing civil partnerships, and then only accepting them grudgingly with gritted teeth, they should have welcomed them warmly from the first and immediately proposed services of commitments and blessing in church. They should do this even now." Few people are any longer interested in what the Anglican Church has to say but it will be interesting to see what trendy recommendations Lord Harries comes up with for the Church in Wales to hasten its further decline.

Many religious and non-religious heterosexual people supported civil partnerships despite reservations that some participants sought to have their partnerships seen as a marriage. In the church this has become a familiar pattern of give a little, grab the lot. Spurious arguments about equality have seen women's ordination and liberal sexuality take more bites out of the apple until there is nothing left but a barely recognised core. The Anglican Communion is now in its death throws as the Anglican Covenant attempts to paper-over the cracks. For some odd reason, once a band wagon starts rolling people jump on for fear of being left behind and branded yesterday's people, many clergy included. 


PM David Cameron has been followed by the Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband in support of so-called gay rights but in reality it has more to do with electoral advantage than ethics or conscience. By implication Cabinet Minister Francis Maude now associates family values with being nasty!  There is a moral here. Trendy desires have done the Anglican Church no favours in her drive to become more relevant to society. What the country needs is strong leadership based on traditional values instead of pandering to current whims which favour self over selflessness.

Queer Street

Life has taken a queer turn for older generations who thought 'gay' meant bright and lively. Considerably younger than myself, Robert Peston finds himself in hot water for referring to Carey Street as Queer Street, something we oldies would have readily understood.

Meanwhile, others are applauding the decision of Liverpool City Council to erect street signs to assist 'gay' people. As The Christian Institute points out, this is in stark contrast to Councils that have banned Christian symbols from public display. How very queer!

What people want to hear

Recently the shadow Home Secretary found himself in hot water for his secretly recorded anti-gay comments which were contrary to party policy. Similarly former notables oversold themselves in a Channel 4 Despatches sting while attempting to earn more than a few extra bucks for themselves. It is a tempting device.

The general election campaign provides a golden opportunity for telling people what they want to hear. But can the parties deliver so much? Giving “All things to all men” is an impossible task but no doubt we will be treated as idiots and expected to believe it to be possible. Much sadder though are those who hear only what they want to hear making a complete nonsense of the whole process.

Postscript: Gay “Marriage” (2)

In previous blogs on this subject I have suggested that describing Civil Partnerships as “marriage” struck the wrong note. Whether or not civil partners are ‘joined together’ is not a matter with which others need concern themselves so should not be implied.

However, it appears that following the shadow Home Secretary’s boo boo, the Tories are so desperate not to lose pink votes that they had a meeting with Pulpit-crasher Tatchell: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gjjrw_a-7904Aq0Cy8jE6I2g0xLQ

As Tatchell said afterwards, "The best he [George Osborne] could do on gay marriage was say he would consider it." Not quite what he wanted to hear and certainly not what I wanted to hear but clearly what Osborne thought they wanted to hear.

Gay “Marriage” (2) – Wahee….!

The Independent reports that the amendment to the Equality Bill, which was tabled as a free vote by gay Muslim peer Waheed Alli, received overwhelming backing in the Lords, including from a number of prominent Anglican bishops. The report continued, “MPs are unlikely to oppose [the Bill] because the vote was so overwhelming in the Lords.”

In a previous Blog I predicted that civil partnership blessings would soon be turned into ‘weddings’. Within days pressure was building up to refer to these ceremonies as such and voices have grown ever stronger following the vote in the Lords. Some may regard that simply as semantics but more worrying from The Times, “Church of England clergy will be sued for discrimination if they refuse to “marry” homosexuals under a proposed law, a bishop has warned. Other religious leaders fear that churches that refuse to bless civil partnerships might be forced to close”.

Such a shame to close churches after all the hard work put in by our American friend with her WATCH campaign, supposedly revitalising the church despite its dwindling numbers. Who will put the next nail in the Church of England's coffin I wonder? But I thought this quote from our Muslim friend took the biscuit, “Religious freedom cannot begin and end with what one religion wants.” – Waheed. I shall have to remember that one.

Gay “Marriage”

Reports that Gay and Lesbian couples could soon be allowed to “marry” in church strike a wrong note. According to The Times, “senior bishops in the Lords have [said] that they will support an amendment to the Equality Bill next month that will lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. The amendment would remove the legislative prohibition on blessings of homosexual couples and open the door to the registration of civil partnerships in churches, synagogues, mosques and all other religious premises.”

Advocates of change will be quick to point out that a blessing is not a marriage but that will not stop a blurring of the ceremonies. In June 2008 The Telegraph reported that two male Anglican priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites. The report continued, “Although some liberal clergy have carried out "blessing ceremonies" for homosexual couples in the past, this is the first time a vicar has performed a "wedding ceremony", using a traditional marriage liturgy, with readings, hymns and a Eucharist.”

The introduction of civil partnerships righted a serious wrong but that is what they are. To blur the distinction between a civil partnership and a religious ceremony in which marriage is proclaimed in the Anglican Marriage Service Preface as “the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured” is nonsense. Civil partners “in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love” but they are not “married”.