Holy Matrimony

My previous entry generated quite a lot of heat from commentators but not on my main point, the sanctity of marriage. 

Understandably people have become weary of the same-sex marriage debate. It drags on and on.

Revisionists do not give up. They maintain pressure until all become used to their ideas. They claim that, if approved, same-sex marriage would be accepted just as divorce and re-marriage in Church no longer raises eyebrows.

The protection of Holy Matrimony deserves more. The Church should be protecting marriage as defined,  the lifelong, faithful union between one man and one woman.

Defenders of traditional marriage are accused of homophobia and bigotry. That is unfair. What people  do in private is between them and their maker but that is not good enough for promoters of same-sex unions who expect others to legitimise their unions by redefining marriage. 

Defenders of traditional marriage who have homosexual friends are aware that many are equally upset by demands for same-sex marriage in Church. As one succinctly put it, marriage is for heterosexuals. Same-sex couples have civil partnerships. 

My entry in 2012, To be joined together, included a reference to an article 'The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion' which stated: "Anyone who is concerned about the influence of the homosexual agenda on reshaping traditional values must become intimately familiar with the major tactics that homophiles commonly employ in order to anticipate them and respond in charity and truth. Homophile strategists are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:

• Exploit the “victim” status;
• Use the sympathetic media;
• Confuse and neutralize the churches;
• Slander and stereotype Christians;
• Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
• Intimidation.

"By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square."

The success of this strategy can be seen at the entrance to 10 Downing street where a pride arch was erected to mark Pride Month 2021. Prime Minister Boris Johnson held a reception to celebrate the achievements of LGBT people.

The Prime Minister said the UK’s first ever global LGBT conference will be about ‘kindness, tolerance and openness’ and will look at what more can be done to promote LGBT equality around the world.

We hear a lot about 'equality'. In the absence of hard theological evidence, secular notion of equality was used to justify the ordination of women. The same argument is being used to allow same-sex couples to marry in Church. 

Woke cajoling has not only enforced acceptance of political correctness. It seeks to legitimise that which defies logic as if black can be white and white, black.

'Female' is defined as "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes." 'Male' is defined as "of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."

Woke personal preference permits those inclined not only to choose their own gender but to insist that others recognise their wish by using gender-neutral pronouns, something that Canadian university professor Dr Jordan Peterson challenged and suffered for expressing logical rather than woke opinions.

Demonized by progressives, the Guardian carried this vitriolic piece: 'How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?'

The selfishness of feminist ideas of equality has changed Great Britain's historic Anglicanism based scripture and tradition replacing it with an attitude of take what you want regardless of scripture and tradition or whoever you hurt. Consequently many have been left un-churched. The forgotten victims.

Holy Matrimony is being attacked under the banner of equality.  

From the Church in Wales web site Holy Matrimony is properly defined:

 

"Drawing on the teaching of the Bible, and of the Church down through the centuries, the Church in Wales Marriage Service talks about marriage as a gift of God. Marriage is described as the lifelong, faithful union between a man and a woman, and married love is compared with the love Jesus has for his people – a love expressed in his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross."

But the current bench of bishops, following their manipulation of the Governing Body, now claim that “it is pastorally unsustainable for the Church to make no formal provision for those in same-gender relationships”. 

The bench have published their proposals to introduce same-sex blessings. In their explanatory memorandum they write:

"The Bench believes that, in the fullness of time, the Governing Body will have to consider whether it wishes to consider a change in the Church’s teaching concerning marriage. This could enable a couple wishing to live in a faithful and mutually committed same-sex relationship to celebrate the rite of marriage in Church." 

Many same-sex couples already live in faithful and mutually committed same-sex relationships. They are accepted in the Church but to pretend under 'equality' rules that same-sex couples are no different to one-man - one-woman marriage defies logic.

The woke culture has become so prevalent that a poll in 2018 found that over half  of our MPs were afraid to speak their mind. The silent majority must speak up. From C4M:

Victims

Neil Todd met the Bishop of Gloucester (pictured) in 1993 at 16 years old while acting as his trainee
and was the first victim to tell senior clergy about Ball's sex crimes. Source: MailOnline

Yet again, child sex abuse has been dominating the news headlines. Another harrowing report Commissioned by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham found that "A paedophile grooming gang was left to roam the streets of Manchester - and police knew who they were and exactly what they were doing:

- Social workers knew that one 15-year-old girl, Victoria Agoglia, was being forcibly injected with heroin, but failed to act. She died two months later.

- Abusers were allowed to freely pick up and have sex with Victoria and other children from city care homes, ‘in plain sight’ of officials.

- Greater Manchester Police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects and at least 57 potential victims. Eight of the men went on to later assault or rape girls.

- As recently as August 2018, the Chief Constable refused to reopen the dropped operation.

Greater Manchester Police's Operation Augusta was set up to tackle "the sexual exploitation throughout a wide area of a significant number of children in the care system by predominantly Asian men".

From The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013):
"By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire
period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how
best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem,
which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the
ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction
from their managers not to do so."

Not so reticent was former home secretary Jack Straw who was accused of stereotyping Pakistani men in Britain after he accused some of them as regarding white girls as "easy meat" for sexual abuse. "We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Leading the attack against Jack Straw, Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee said it was wrong to "stereotype a whole community". Vaz was suspended from the Commons for six months after he was found to have "expressed willingness" to purchase cocaine for male prostitutes. He stood down before the General Election.

Many of the gangs' victims lived in child care homes, often miles away from their families but their plight was ignored for fear of being accused of racism.

Also ignored but in more comfortable surroundings were the victims of Anglican bishop Peter Ball and his accomplices. His friendship with Prince Charles made the paedophile bishop 'impregnable' while establishment figures rallied round to support.

There was a presumption of innocence, as there was in the case of Carl Beech who accused senior politicians, army and security chiefs of sadistic sexual abuse and claimed to have witnessed boys being murdered in the 1970s and 1980s. He was jailed for 18 years for perverting the course of justice, fraud and child sexual offences. The Metropolitan Police spent £2m looking into Beech's allegations, all of which proved to be false.

Bishop Peter Ball escaped such scrutiny. When charged with improper conduct towards Neil Todd a young novice monk he was given a caution and released after pressure from establishment figures. It was made clear that many bishops of the Church of England from the top down knew of the allegations. When Ball was cautioned other victims came forward, writing to Lambeth Palace detailing similar behaviour. The letters were not handed to the police.

 The story unfolds in the BBC documentary Exposed: The Church's Darkest Secret. Had it involved one apparently holy man manipulating victims and supporters alike, the deception would have been understandable. What is not is the blatant disregard for Ball's victims by bishops who knew of the abuse, withholding evidence, and the establishment campaign to discredit victims and avoid further investigation.

Another of Ball's victims, the Rev Graham Sawyer, had been introduced to him under a scheme Ball had started in 1980 called Give a Year to God, where teenagers and young men would go to live with him to 'learn the ways of a holy man'. After Sawyer rejected his advances, Ball said he would make sure he would never be ordained. He was true to his word. Sawyer was rejected for ordination. He moved to New Zealand where he was ordained three years later.

At The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), a solicitor for five survivors of abuse by Peter Ball told panel members:

"But what is now very clear is that in the Church of England, Peter Ball found the perfect cover for his offending. If a charlatan with an insatiable appetite for abuse wanted to secure a continuous supply of vulnerable young victims, there was no better way of achieving this than by founding a religious order not subject to any external supervision, and by making his victims' participation in the abuse a religious duty obligated by their oath of absolute obedience. Not for the first time, theology and religious ritual provided the ideal mask for abuse, with the evil of what Peter Ball did being compounded by his nauseating claim that the abuse was spiritually uplifting.

"Most of all, however, Peter Ball found in his fellow bishops in the Church of England the perfect accomplices, prepared to turn a blind eye to his abuse over many decades, to collude in the lie that the abuse of Neil Todd was an uncharacteristic aberration, to cast doubt on Ball's guilt, to smear his victims, and to rehabilitate him.

"It is now clear that for many years before the 1992 investigation, there were many in the Church of England who knew of or must have suspected his offending, and decided to turn a blind eye to it, and later tried to evade their own culpability by claiming that Ball had never really offended at all. Eric Kemp, the Bishop of Chichester, was aware of serious concerns about Ball well before 1992, yet in 2006 he repeated the lie that Ball's resignation had been the 'work of mischief makers'."

One would have thought that such a damning indictment would have seen many heads roll but this is the Church of England. Instead they continue as they wish. So there are more cover ups, this time in the evangelical wing, again going right to the top. Video HERE.

In no way comparable to the suffering inflicted by abusers on innocent children and young men, those who have looked for guidance to bishops now shown to be guilty of duplicity may be classed as spiritual victims of bishops who have been shown to care only for themselves and the establishment, not for those supposedly in their care.

Postscript [16.01.2020]

From Church Times:

Belated apologies from bishops and church leaders, praising survivors of the serial abuser Peter Ball for their bravery, after their testimonies appeared in a new BBC documentary on the case, broadcast this week. The church leaders also condemned the “cover-up” of abuse by the Church. Full report HERE.

Dreams to reality

Rev. Mary Glasspool (right)  the second openly gay bishop elected in the US Episcopal Church. (AP)

"ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) -  Pope Francis said on Tuesday more study was needed on the role of women deacons in the early Christian Church, which eventually could affect decisions on the role of women today.

"Francis and his predecessors have ruled out allowing women to become priests. But advocates of women priests say a ruling that women in the early Church were ordained ministers might eventually make it easier for a future pope to study the possibility of women priests."

The movement for the ordination of women has a clear track record. Claim victimhood, gain support of secularists, substitute equality for theology, foot in the door, deacon, priest, bishop, LGBT rights, gay church, exclusion of orthodox Anglicans, decline and collapse. Queering the Church continues unabated.

From Another screw in the Anglican coffin (2011): "The slow death of the Anglican church looks set to continue. While the role of bishops and priests becomes ever further divorced from traditional religious reality congregations continue to haemorrhage."

The writing on the wall has been clear for some time.

Postscript [09.05.2019]

On the plane again
"Catholics would do well to pay greater attention to the programme which resulted in the ordination of women in the Church of England." - ignatius his conclave

Florence Nightingale

It was odd that the bishop of Llandaff in her first interview for Wales Online should choose Florence Nightingale as a fellow victim of her alleged prejudice and discrimination.

June Osborne: “But isn’t it inspiring that social history is changing in front of us? If you think back to Florence Nightingale, she would probably have been a bishop had she been allowed.

“She was a very devout Christian but the church wouldn’t welcome her.

"I think of women who haven’t had the kind of chance we have watched come in my lifetime. It’s inspiring."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Florence Nightingale's upbringing was one of great wealth and luxury. She was brought up by governesses but she was determined to serve, not to be served.

She felt called by God to serve others, unlike women motivated by Women and the Church (WATCH) who serve only themselves. Not content with admission to the episcopate they campaign for self advancement with spurious claims of injustice, inequality and exclusion, ignoring or belittling the views of anyone taking a contrary view. Ideology has replaced theology.

Florence Nightingale reflected on Mary's service to mankind when she said, "'Behold the handmaid of the Lord and so have I said in my youth.' (Luke 1:38) To a night nurse in 1886 Nightingale prayed: May we all answer the angel as Mary did: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to Thy word."

She was an Anglican with a Unitarian background. From Caring & the Christian Story:  "Her theology was far from orthodox - she dismissed the incarnation, the Trinity and the atonement as abortions of a comprehension of God's plan. However, she considered herself a Christian and her work a "call from God."

Baptised in the Anglican Church, Florence Nightingale was "highly critical of the Church of England, dismissing both its male centred power structure as unjust and the Apostles' Creed as unbelievable. She regarded the theology of the Book of Common Prayer as childish and was particularly aggrieved by the sort of prayer which she believed was insulting to God's majesty and grandeur." (Florence Nightingale, radical theologian).

In that sense Florence Nightingale would have made a typical Anglican woman bishop but in stark contrast to the desolation caused by those holding the 'victim' views expounded by the bishop of Llandaff, Florence Nightingale dedicated her life to saving others.

As the founder or 'mother' of modern nursing Florence Nightingale improved lives. WATCH shatters them.

The movement for the ordination of women was built on deception. The deception continues with references to what Jesus would have said or done. We know from the Bible what He said and what He did. Feminists choose to ignore it or twist scripture to mean what they want it to mean.

Florence Nightingale a bishop? Rubbish. She was far superior.

Victims!

The bishop-elect of St Davids receiving Holy Communion from the Chaplain to the LGBT community in the Diocese of St Asaph.                     Source: BBC

"By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square." 

The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion

A BBC report headed 'Church in Wales premieres sexuality acceptance film' includes a video clip showing the bishop-elect of St Davids receiving Holy Communion from the Chaplain to the LGBT community in the diocese of St Asaph, illustrating an inclusive church in which homosexual people are portrayed as victims.

In the Guardian report St Asaph Cathedral will host the screening of All One in Christ on 6 December. The 12-minute documentary is "critical" of the church’s approach to homosexuality. It tells the story of two former nuns who fell in love only to be ostracised by the church after their relationship was exposed.

That was forty years ago. Today, gay and lesbian clergy are very much in evidence from deacons to deans. There has yet to be an openly gay bishop but there have been plenty of rumours surrounding some of the bench sitters over the years so why such absurd claims?

If homosexuality is accepted on a par with heterosexuality there would be no need for people to come out. With two wives and two husbands raising children as 'family' units, acceptance as normal families is demanded. But it is not normal. It is part of the same sex marriage agenda which members of the Church in Wales rejected by a margin of 4:1 in St Davids diocese. 'Changing Attitude' explains the Archbishop's claim that Canon Penberthy is 'the best person to be a bishop'. Someone to carry on his mission after Dr Morgan retires in January 2017.

The claims are false. The real victims in the Church in Wales are those who have been ostracised for keeping the faith against the tide of secularism advanced by Barry and the bench sitters. That Canon Penberthy has been made bishop-elect of St Davids in such circumstances is a travesty from which the Church in Wales is unlikely to recover.

Worldwide Persecution of Christians

A Guardian article sourced by data from Open Doors in July 2015 reported that "Converts from Islam have faced persecution in Egypt for many years, but until recently the indigenous Coptic Christians have largely been left alone. After the overthrow of the Islamist president Mohamed Morsi, however, there was a sharp increase in attacks, with 65 churches, convents, Christian bookshops and schools attacked. There are fears these attacks will increase as radical Islamist groups gain power in the region."

Yesterday it was reported in Christian Daily that "Orthodox Coptic Christians thought that they would experience less discrimination from Muslims after the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak five years ago, but the post-Arab Spring years have only seen the attacks against them rise."

Persecution of Christians is widespread in Muslim countries (details here) which makes it all the more extraordinary that Islam is being allowed to extend its influence in the Western World with shocking consequences for the victims of a culture which regards women as second class along with non-Muslims, or kafir. Worries have been expressed over the Government's desire to make the UK the centre for 'Sharia compliant' Islamic finance even though it is 'inherently discriminatory' against women and non-Muslims and about BBC plans to increase Muslim influence at the expense of Christianity, the foundation of British law and our culture.

With friends yesterday I found myself in conversation about the BBC's plans to downgrade Christian programming in favour of increased coverage for Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh faiths. The Director-General of the BBC, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, is reported to have said that he will increase the coverage of other faiths and could broadcast Friday prayers from a mosque along the lines of Songs of Praise because there have been complaints that the Corporation was ‘too Christian’. One can imagine how such complaints originate when different values are in evidence. 

It was put to me by a nominal Christian that the BBC should allow Friday prayers to be broadcast because 'Imams in the UK have explained that Islam means peace and love of others'. This is a well used tactic to hoodwink the ill-informed. If the BBC were to increase their coverage by taking a critical look at a religious ideology which encourages such deception while bringing death and destruction around the world, people would be better informed about Islamic ambitions for world dominance under Sharia.

The Open Doors Watch List consistently reports persecution, repression, killing Christians and destruction of their churches along with persecution of others such as the Yazidis, greatly adding to the refugee crisis. In some countries such as Saudi Arabia Christians must keep their faith completely secret. If not executed by the state, they risk becoming the victim of an honour killing by a family member because leaving Islam is regarded as a great disgrace. 

Islam is Islam. Many Muslims live peacefully, ignoring what is done in their name but the essential difference in the attitude of devout Muslims to non-Muslims is if they are in a minority rather than a majority. 

While Islam is allowed to flourish and more mosques are built in Britain and Europe, often financed through the Saudi Connection, Christianity is being systematically destroyed in the Middle East with attempts to obliterate all evidence of ancient pre-Islamic civilisations such as the Assyrians.

The persecution of Christians must be stopped. You can help by signing a petition against the BBC proposals here.

Postscript [18.11.2016]

"Donald Trump’s Pick For National Security Adviser Loves To Stoke Islamophobia" - Huffington Post:

Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s pick for national security adviser, has stoked Islamophobia by calling Islam a “cancer” and saying fear of it was “justified”. In August, Flynn said that Islam, which has around 1.6 billion followers around the world, was a “political ideology” that “hides behind being a religion.” He also described it as a “cancer” because terrorist groups instructed followers to “get into the bloodstream of the opposition.” He has tweeted that fearing Muslims is “rational.”

Doubters should look at the map. Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries know what fear is. The evidence speaks for itself. Are they are guilty of Islamophobia?

Playing the victim

Hat tip to The Spectator for this video clip, "BBC mayoral debate: Sadiq and Zac try to set the record straight over ‘extremism’ allegations".

In the clip a student from Notting Hill complains that her Muslim friends often felt uncomfortable in public when in Islamic dress. She asked the candidates how they could help tackle such prejudice in the city. 

Understandably candidates seeking votes do not want to alienating voters so Muslims in Islamic dress are identified as victims of prejudice without question.

A comparison:

Source: Daily Sabah/AA Photo

Diyanet Center of America, a Turkish-funded complex containing culture centers and one of the largest mosques in the United States, was inaugurated on Saturday by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who defined the site as a place to serve American Muslims and spread Islam’s message of love and compassion - DAILY SABAH

From Gatestone Institute: "Turkey Builds Mega-Mosque in U.S., Blocks Churches in Turkey":

• As yet another enormous mosque has opened in the U.S. (funded by the Turkish government), Christians in Turkey are waiting for the day when Turkish state authorities will allow them freely to build or use their churches and safely pray inside them.

• In Turkey, some churches have been converted to stables or used as storehouses. Others have been completely destroyed. Sales of churches on the internet are a common practice.

• Meanwhile, Turkish President Erdogan said during the opening ceremony of the Maryland mosque that the center was important at a time of an "unfortunate rise in intolerance towards Muslims in the United States and the world."

• How would Muslims feel if mosques in Mecca were put up for sale on the internet, turned into stables, or razed to the ground? How would they feel if a Muslim child were beaten in the classroom by his teacher for not saying "Jesus is my Lord and Savior?" How would they feel if they continually received violent threats or insults for just attempting peacefully to worship in their mosques?

It is too easy to play the victim.

Bishops' rank hypocrisy

Getting married in the Church in Wales

The introduction to the Church in Wales Marriage Service describes marriage as a gift from God.  The Bible teaches that marriage is a life-long, faithful union between a man and a woman, and compares married love with the love Jesus has for his people – a love expressed in his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross.

 Compare the above introduction taken from the Church in Wales web site under the heading Marriage with the same-sex marriage Press Release in which the bishops of the Church in Wales draw attention to a joint pastoral letter issued in response to consultations and debates on same-sex marriage across the Church in Wales last year, as well as to a statement from the Primates of the Anglican Communion in January. It contains this grovelling apology for alleged mistreatment:

“Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

We recognise that you have often been persecuted and ostracized by the Church for your sexuality, that you have been mistreated by the Church, and forced into secrecy and dissimulation by the attitudes of prejudice which you have faced.  We deplore such hostility, and welcome and affirm the words of the Primates that condemn homophobic prejudice and violence.  We too commit ourselves to offering you the same loving service and pastoral care to which all humanity is entitled, and we commit ourselves to acting to provide a safe space within the Church and within our communities in which you can be honest and open, respected and affirmed.

While as a Church we remain unable to bless the committed partnerships you form in marriage or in civil partnership, yet we commit ourselves as bishops to work for a Church in which you can be fully affirmed as equal disciples of Jesus Christ or seekers after truth.  We will pray with you and for you, that together we may seek God’s blessing on our lives, and for faithful discipleship.”

This has Llandaff written all over it. If we consider two former bishops of Llandaff, both were loved by many but received entirely different treatment. One resigned after being accused of indecency. He was not "persecuted and ostracized". I recall numerous diocesan occasions when the bishop was present. He later returned to pastoral and episcopal work. The other bishop was not in favour of the ordination of women. His life was made hell.

The Press Statement continues - In the letter, the bishops acknowledge that while the consultations showed that the Church is not yet ready to allow or bless same-sex marriage, the debate is not over. They commit to working for a Church in which gay and lesbian people are “fully affirmed as equal disciples” and to praying with and for them. They also apologise to gay and lesbian people for the persecution and mistreatment they have endured at the hands of the Church and they commit themselves to providing a safe place within the Church for all gay and lesbian people. [My emphasis - Ed.]

The bishops "apologise to gay and lesbian people for the persecution and mistreatment they have endured at the hands of the Church" but where is the evidence? If gay people want to wear their sexuality on their sleeves we are entitled to ask for some facts. What persecution and mistreatment and directed at whom, clergy and/or laity? What proportions of the clergy are gay, lesbian or transgender? And what about heterosexual couples "living in sin"? Are they not worthy of an apology?

In my previous entry I drew attention to the claim that bullying played a part in persuading women to leave the Church and that many victims "vote with their feet, and leave the organisation. 

The bishops are encouraging the same strategy as was highlighted in the ordination of women campaign. Exploit the "victim" status, slander and stereotype (substitute homophobic for misogynist) and intimidation.

Before they go any further the bishops should consider who the real victims are of their secularisation of the Church in Wales.

Bullying is back on the Agenda

Photo: Church in Wales

Bullying, or 'alleged' bullying, rears its ugly head at the forthcoming meeting of the Governing Body of the Church in Wales.

In Question time (Item 16) on Day 2 the Archdeacon of Llandaff continues her campaigning. She demands to know:
 "What steps have been taken by the Standing Committee and dioceses to
circulate the (Todd) “Report on the Representation of Women in the
Church in Wales 2015” to deaneries and parishes, and what actions have
been taken in response to the recommendations?"

This late entrant to the Church seems more intent on advancing the role of women in the Church regardless of merit than proclaiming the Gospel message as received.

The Todd Report was debated at GB last April. Here is a flavour.

Dr Gill Todd (Swansea & Brecon):
 "The proposals in the report, she said, were designed to "achieve change and embed gender equality unequivocally in the Church in Wales for ever; and, secondly, to make the Church in Wales recognise the joy that comes from men and women working together in God's name; and the pain that comes from continued discrimination and bullying. A failure to recognise the gifts, calling, and vocation of others is a failure to demonstrate Christlike behaviour."

The Archdeacon also adds her name along the Rev Jan Gould of Llandaff to the question:

 "In the light of the final communiqué from the Primates of the Anglican

Communion after their meeting in January, can the Bishops outline how

they propose to respond now to continuing calls by the LGBT members of

the Church in Wales and their supporters for full and equal inclusion and

acceptance?

That anyone from Llandaff could add their names to such a question seems ridiculous from what I hear and read about Llandaff. Granted some commentators complain of not being accepted although no evidence has been produced and I do not know anyone who has experienced it. The question alleges that there is not "full and equal inclusion and acceptance" in which one has to ask, how do all the gay clergy manage to perform their ministry?

On a practical level, if the questioners have the laity in mind, what do they propose? Stewards and welcomers asking, "Excuse me, are you gay?" so that they can give them an affirming hug? When it comes to worship a person's sexuality is irrelevant so why would anyone see the need to flag it?

Such questions are bullying in themselves. They present statements as factual then demand action regardless of proof but it is this statement by Dr Todd which takes the prize for double standards:

 "Bullying also played a part in persuading women to leave the Church, she said. Many victims "vote with their feet, and leave the organisation. Unfortunately, they also leave the bully to make the next person's life a misery." [My emphasis -Ed.]

Considering how many worshippers have left the Church, including many devout women, over the ordination of women and the bullying which took place at all levels in order to secure the vote, such statements would be laughable if they were not so pathetic, especially when the prime bully continues to pursue his agenda against the real victims when it is he who is out of step with the teaching of the wider Church.

Victims

Source: BBC/Welsh News Service

Readers who are a little longer in the tooth may recall holidays abroad when a tag was used to obtain services thus removing the need to carry cash. Indeed, in their student days they may even have experienced landlords economising on paint by using a uniform colour, green in the case of Jesus College, Cambridge.

Red has become the symbol of oppression for asylum seekers, something picked up by David Davies MP. No matter that many people in this country would be glad to have a roof over their head and be assured of meals without having to rely on food banks, as increasing numbers of people do in Great Britain today, wristbands it seems have become a sign of oppression despite being fashionable in some quarters and generally obscured from view unless revealed as in the illustration above. 

Baroness Cox knows only too well how difficult it has become to retain a sense of proportion regarding British values without someone complaining that they are being victimised as a consequence. The Baroness's Bill which seeks to protect women and challenge the application of sharia law in the UK has been approved by the House of Lords but it needs an MP to sponsor it and steer it through the House of Commons. Baroness Cox has already been accused of being Islamophbic so with parties fighting for votes from minorities the chances of success are not looking good.

So the strategy continues:

• Exploit the “victim” status;
• Use the sympathetic media;
• Confuse and neutralize the churches;
• Slander and stereotype [traditionalist] Christians;
• Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
• Intimidation.

People are falling over themselves to say what they perceive to be the 'right' thing regardless of the circumstances, seemingly oblivious to what else is going on in the world so here is victim, reminiscent of Rochdale, Cologne, Denmark, etc, reported by the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA).

This poor 17-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan was killed by a group of Muslim men because she spurned their sexual advances after they shouted "How dare you run away from us! Christian girls are only meant for one thing – the pleasure of Muslim men."

Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the BPCA said the world is ignoring the treatment of Christian women in Pakistan, where an average of two women a day disappear and are raped, sold into sexual slavery, or forced to marry Muslim men.

Not only in Pakistan. Christian Refugees Live in Fear. 

It should be clear who the real victims are. What is being done about them?

The journey's end but for whom?

It began here

became adapted here

and here

and now here:

Canon Jeremy Pemberton (right) and his husband, April 2014                               Photo BBC

Is this the crunch and if so for whom?

Canon Jeremy Pemberton was refused a licence to work as a hospital chaplain because his 'marriage' was against the Church of England's teachings so he brought a discrimination case against his bishop giving the distinct impression that for some clerics sexual preference is more important than their priestly ministry. This is not equality, it is stupidity. A line needs to be drawn to avoid further haemorrhaging of Church members, something the ordination of women clearly failed to do.

Traditional Anglicanism in England and Wales has given way to self interest. Career choices, often second choices for middle-aged women, are represented as 'a calling' with what appears to be virtually automatic acceptance for female candidates while a young male candidate with traditional views about the ordination of women is rejected. That is discrimination. 

After equality, 'love' has become the in-word but it is also used as a euphemism for lust. Advocates correctly claim that Christ commanded that we should love one another but that was not given as a license to pursue every conceivable twist of the word. If it had been, it would not have taken 2,000 years for people to understand the Bible. 

Reaching a new low the House of Bishops of the  US Episcopal Church (TEC) wants to change the definition of marriage in the canons so that any reference to marriage as between a man and a woman is removed. - Read Anglican Curmudgeon's 'Bishops bless blasphemy' here and the Archbishop of Canterbury's reaction here. 

What happens in TEC has been used as a green light by revisionists to push for changes in the Anglican Church in England and Wales while ignoring the views of the wider Church. See "Pride Festivals Draw Liberal Clergy on Parade" (here) and "John Sentamu calls for harmony as Church of England rows over sexuality escalate" (here).

Same sex marriage has become the sticking point for many. The vote in Ireland and more recently by the Supreme Court in the US has turned tolerance and understanding into an absurdity. The Tory Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan warns, "Children who hold homophobic views [are] more likely to become extremists". Ms Morgan who is also Minister for Women and Equalities must be unaware that opponents of same sex marriage are branded homophobic simply because they hold to the traditional view that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Such views are not confined to the Conservative Party. Norman Lamb, a Liberal Democrat leadership contender has argued that children’s TV shows like Peppa Pig should feature gay characters. In line with fashionable thinking he said  "Our broadcasters must realise that sexuality is not, fundamentally, about who you want to have sex with – but who you are, and who you love", an open sesame if ever there was one. As Melanie McDonagh put it in The Spectator, "If love now rules supreme, should incest and polygamy also be legalised"?

Labour leader hopefuls also talk of equality confusing equality with sameness. Andy Burnham whose LGBT credentials had been questioned now says that "faith schools should be forced to teach about gay relationships", forgetting the transient nature of childhood feelings: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. A childhood crush is just that. Attempts to spread the gay agenda on TV and in our schools should be resisted, not supported.

These false views of equality should be seen for what they are, stupidity giving licence to lust masquerading as love. Again in the US, Diana Butler Bass, "an independent scholar and expert on U.S. religion" penned a piece for the Washington Post in which she reflected on Katharine Jefferts Schori’s tenure as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Regarded by many as a heretic there was nevertheless a glowing appreciation of the retiring Presiding Bishop which included a reference to innumerable indignities, "most noteworthy of which was a 2010 order by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that she not wear a mitre (the hat worn by Christian bishops to symbolize their spiritual authority) when preaching in an English cathedral". 

Predictably the facts were twisted. The other side of this incident can be read here. Jefferts Schori's called, "their canons about the ministry of clergy from overseas" nonsense and said, "It is bizarre; it is beyond bizarre", much like her ministry.

Diana Butler Bass is a leading voice in Progressive Christianity in which Christ's new commandment to "love one another" has become an excuse for every excess, ignoring Christ's example "as I have loved you". That is, no women Apostles, no gay agenda, no same sex marriage.

One would have hoped, even expected, that when the Church is so obviously being used for political advantage to the detriment of the body of Christ, the successors to the Apostles would have something to say about it. To their shame, those who do are more often part of the problem supporting the latest fad rather than defending the faith.

Speaking at the discrimination case brought by Canon Pemberton against the Church, the Rt Rev Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, described the Church of England's teaching that marriage is only between a man and a woman as "a lousy definition". This created outrage drawing in the Archbishop of York. However, the Dean of York, the Very Rev Vivienne Faull, "defended York Minster's support for a section of the community that frequently experiences discrimination and hostility" as she played the well worn victim card.

The 'victim card' has become an absurdity. The new victims are the very people who are accused of victimisation while the majority of bishops seek popularity by reflecting current trends in society rather than follow Christ's message: "Everyone will hate you because you are committed to me".

Meanwhile I see that the Venerable Ruth Worsley is to be the next Bishop of Taunton in the Diocese of Bath and Wells. On hearing the news she said: "I am surprised and amused to be chosen as the next Bishop of Taunton as I grew up in a non-conformist church where women held no roles of leadership". Par for the course in New Anglicanism!

Postscript [11 July 2015]

"Church of England hosts away-days and retreats in luxury stately homes in bid to break deadlock over homosexuality....the events would collectively cost £360,000". Story here.

 According to the Telegraph report, the Archbishop of Canterbury hopes that encouraging people to take part in frank, face-to-face discussions will help "break the deadlock over what has become one of the most toxic issues in the Church. A similar tactic led to breakthrough over the issue of women bishops which was finally agreed last year after decades of argument". 

What is there to talk about? Homosexuality is already recognised as a fact of life. Civil partnerships have been welcomed as a significant advance in human rights but the current movement to put homosexual relationships on a par with the institution of Holy Matrimony designed for the procreation of children is a step too far. That the Church of England, along with the Church in Wales, even discusses the issue illustrates the extent to which Anglicanism has lost its way in this country. And at such a cost when children are going hungry!

Postscript [19 August, 2015]

From the 'Not Another Episcopal Church Blog': When to Leave a Church.

For 'Episcopal church' one could read Church in Wales.

Comments: important note

The number of comments under this post has overflowed onto additional pages. 

To access the latest comments please click on 2** comments as usual. At the foot of the page you should see "Load more...". Clicking there should reveal subsequent comments.

The blame game

Another Islamist demonstrator marches in London - The Telegraph    Photo: CARL COURT/AFP

“OF COURSE they say nice things these days,” says a Lebanese woman, a sophisticated Sunni Muslim in her 50s, gliding between English, French and Arabic. “They know who they're talking to. But you cannot trust them—absolutely not.” Again and again, in secular and liberal circles in Beirut, Cairo, Rabat, Tunis and even Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority, you hear almost identical dark warnings against the Islamist movements that are gaining ground across the Arab world as dictators are toppled, tackled or forced into concessions. ...
The doubts persist. “It is an 80-year project,” says a grandee of the liberal Wafd party, referring to the Brotherhood's origins. “In the long run they want an Islamic state, a caliphate.”
From: "Uneasy companions", The Economist, Aug 6th 2011

If things looked bleak in 2011 they are much worse in 2015 despite the crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. In June 2014 the leader of so-called Islamic State declared the creation of a caliphate stretching across parts of Syria and Iraq. Had the last Muslim onslaught not been stopped outside the gates of Vienna in 1683, how many Western democracies would there be today? Looking at the fate of minorities in Egypt and other states where Islam dominates, Christianity would have suffered a worse fate than that inflicted by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church or, closer to home, by her devoted disciple the Archbishop of Wales. But I digress.

Of late I have been encouraged by two pieces of news. In the Telegraph: "Extremism in Britain: Now the crackdown is launched" - The Government is planning a series of tough new measures to combat the growing threat from Islamist extremists. A leaked draft of the Home Office’s new counter-extremism strategy, seen by The Telegraph, targets Sharia courts and calls for a ban on radicals working unsupervised with children over fears the young could be brainwashed. The crackdown is said to be part of a new "strategy to deal with the perceived growing threat to the UK from Islamist extremists."

About time too. According to the Telegraph report, the number of jihadists who have now travelled to Syria to fight with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) "has exceeded more than 700. Of those, about 320 “dangerous” jihadists have now returned to the UK after fighting with Isil, reinforcing the urgent need in Whitehall for a new set of anti-extremist measures."

The second news item has been delivered today by the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond: - "Terror 'apologists' must share blame: 'Apologists' for those who commit acts of terrorism are partly responsible for the violence...Security services have been criticised over their handling of Mohammed Emwazi - known as "Jihadi John". But in a speech the foreign secretary praised the "brilliance" of Britain's intelligence officers. He has said ministers must act "decisively" in debates about powers given to the security services so they can "get on" with keeping the UK safe." That's the spirit!

There was an outpouring of sympathy in some quarters for one of the most notorious, bloodthirsty criminals, 'Jihadi John': "Critics say MI5's heavy surveillance drove Emwazi down path to radicalism. Pressure group Cage said Emwazi was ‘gentle’ before being probed by MI5". Balderdash. He was following his religion, although he made an exception when it came to alcohol, something forbidden in Islam and punishable by flogging in the Quran, unlike beheading, crucifixion, amputations and stoning which are believed to be the path to paradise for jihadists! [Warning, gruesome images which some may find distressing - Ed.]

Continuing the blame game "Relatives of three east London school girls who ran away to Syria, say the police failed to make sure they had crucial information that could have helped them stop their daughters from joining Islamic State" (here). I find it extraordinary that fifteen-year-old school girls not only had access to their passports, sufficient finance and other means to travel abroad but watching the proceedings of the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee was illuminating.

Predictably the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his Specialist Operations Assistant Commissioner were given a hard time by the Chairman for the Met's failure to stop the girls. Not knowing of the girls' intentions (why would they when tracking around 300 known serious risks), they had assumed that, as is common in most schools, letters given to children for their parents would have been properly delivered. With the benefit of hindsight these girls were found to be less than trustworthy. In evidence the Assistant Commissioner revealed that the money used to buy the airline tickets was the proceeds of selling stolen family jewelry.

We are led to believe that Muslim girls are not expected to be as vulnerable as the 'easy meat' exploited by men from allegedly "predominantly Pakistani and/or Muslim heritage backgrounds". - A spurious claim resulting in Asians being "unfairly blamed for this crime, when Islam is the common factor for 90% of the perpetrators, not their country of origin". Muslim girls are often bound in an 'honour' culture which in many ways contradicts the apparent freedom observed as these girls absented themselves from our shores. In that sense they are victims but they are victims of an alien culture which recognizes girls aged 9 as being of marriageable age following their Prophet's example. If you want the whole truth read the 'easy meat' link and download the PDF file.

Another contradiction hit the headlines with: "Dal Babu, a former Met chief superintendent, said the government’s anti-radicalisation strategy is a “toxic brand” run by mainly white officers with little understanding of Islam, gender or race....the lack of Muslim staff in the ranks of the “Prevent” scheme is hampering efforts to stop vulnerable young people, particularly women, from travelling to Syria to join Islamic State. He says police have been caught unawares by young people such as the three Bethnal Green schoolgirls travelling to Syria - and criticised counter terror efforts as “chaotic, piecemeal and unco-ordinated." Added to allegations of ‘spying in the community’ and ‘targeting Muslims’, it was suggested that the anti-terror strategy is seen as "intrusive and secretive by many Muslims".

Surely the obvious place to look for so-called radicalised Muslims is in the Muslim community. This issue was also raised at the meeting of the Home Affairs Committee implying that if  more Muslims were employed things would have been different because 'they understand the culture'. Based on the dissembling evidence to date, that would be blaming everyone but themselves. Given the Islamic instruction to lie for the faith how are we to discern the truth?

Twelve months ago the Independent reported: The number of Muslims in the prison population had more than doubled to nearly 12,000 in a decade according to figures from the Ministry of Justice while Muslims represent only 4.7 per cent of the population in England and Wales, according to the most recent Census. One in seven prisoners (14 per cent) in England and Wales is a Muslim, according to the statistics. The dramatic rise prompted 'calls for ministers to investigate whether police and the courts are treating Muslims more harshly, with some suggesting the rise is due to Islamophobia', another handy tool in the blame game designed to exclude Islam from the criticisms thrown at other faiths.

How is that Muslims regard themselves as the victims despite all the benefits they have come to enjoy in Great Britain while non-Muslims are portrayed as at fault. Muslims are the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity, justifying their actions on a supremacist religious ideology based on the claims of one man which demand that non-Muslims are converted to Islam and that Sharia replaces democracy - or else?

There is an excellent answer to that question here in 'The False Dichotomy: Moderate Muslims vs. Radicals'.

If you didn't bother to watch the video testimony by Ex-Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat who found Christ I strongly urge you to do so. His faith is an inspiration as he exposes the lies (taqiyya) perpetrated against non-Muslims.

"Loving Muslims is to tell them the truth." - Walid Shoebat

By The Book

"Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me;  

I will repay, says the Lord." Romans 12:19

I have lost count of the number times the Quran has been quoted after the Charlie Hebdo massacre to convince us that Islam is a Religion of Peace: 5.32. It is because of this that We ordained for (all humankind, but particularly for) the Children of Israel: He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind. Assuredly, there came to them Our Messengers (one after the other) with clear proofs of the truth (so that they might be revived both individually and as a people). Then (in spite of all this), many of them go on committing excesses on the earth.  

No mention is made of 5.33: The recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth causing disorder and corruption: they shall (according to the nature of their crime) either be executed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off alternately, or be banished from the land. Such is their disgrace in the world, and for them is a mighty punishment in the Hereafter.

Of course the majority of Muslims want to live peaceful lives but that is not the point. Islamists such as IS and Boko Harem terrorize Muslims and non-Muslims alike for not adhering strictly to the book using "The Verse of the Sword" to justify their actions.  Questioning the basis of this ideology prompts outrage leading to even more deaths and burning of churches. From BBC Africa: At least three people have been killed and six churches attacked in Niger amid fresh protests against French magazine Charlie Hebdo's cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad. There are 114 chapters in the Quran giving ample scope for quoting peaceful passages  but WikiIslam lists 113 verses which are abrogated by the Verse of the Sword - full list here.

Excuses, half truths and outright dishonesty will not provide a solution to jihad. Islam should be explained openly, not misrepresented. Instead we have the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) complaining about a letter from Eric Pickles "sent to 1,000 Muslim leaders after the attacks in Paris".  He wrote "You, as faith leaders, are in a unique position in our society. You have a precious opportunity, and an important responsibility, in explaining and demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity. "We believe together we have an opportunity to demonstrate the true nature of British Islam today. There is a need to lay out more clearly than ever before what being a British Muslim means today: proud of your faith and proud of your country. We know that acts of extremism are not representative of Islam, but we need to show what is." 

The MCB said the letter appeared to suggest that, "like the far right", Muslims and Islam were "inherently apart from British society". MCB members need to get out more. Many people in Britain will recognise the situation outlined in this article where whole areas have been Islamised with Sharia law courts in place around the country while Muslim polygamists simply circumvent UK law by using unofficial Islamic ceremonies. That is not integration. Other critics of the letter are popping up in the media turning the problem around by suggesting that Imams and Mosques are powerless. Playing the victim card is similar to cries of Islamophobia - just shut up and let us get on with what we are doing without interference. That is not good enough.

Open examination of Islam is absent in Great Britain. More often it is promoted by politicians mouthing the usual mantra that Islam is a Religion of Peace despite all the evidence to the contrary from around the world. The basis of violence in the name of Islam needs to be confronted. Muslims who denounce violent jihadists as not being true Muslims need to be part of the debate. The life of their Prophet, the circumstances in which God is said to have delivered His message and its context in the 21st Century would be a useful starting point opening Islam to the same scrutiny as other faiths. 

Islam denies the very foundation of the Christian faith: that Christ died for us on the Cross "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" 1 Corinthians 15:4 but Christians do not take to the streets abducting the innocent, killing, burning and pillaging.

The resurrection of Christ is central to Christianity. If Christ has not been raised our faith is in vain but according to the Quran Jesus did not die on the Cross, thus wiping out the centrality of the Christian faith. "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself." Surah 4:157-158. Read "What does Islam teach about the crucifixion of Isa al Masih (Jesus)?" here. 

There are even Muslims who claim that Jesus was a Muslim! In fact, Islam demands the freedom to make any claim regardless of the sensibilities of others while demanding no right of reply for fear of offending their Prophet. Whereas the Bible is a collection of stories which can be held up to scrutiny, the Quran is a set of instructions which Muhammad said he had received from God to be followed without question. There lies the problem.

We owe it to Muslims and all God's people to spread the message while being aware of the dangers involved spreading the Good News today. There can be none other after Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the prophecies of Holy Scripture. Witnesses and historians testify to the Resurrection. Accordingly, Muslims who have lived by the Quran, taking vengeance in God's name are in for a nasty shock when they meet their maker: "Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord." Romans 12:19

This is the reality in Islamic states so, "Why Are Christian Cathedrals Opening the Door for Muslim Prayers to a Different God?" here. HT Anglican Mainstream.