Sunday, November 21, 2010

Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, must resign

It is reported in The Mail on Sunday that Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, has prophesied that the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton will last just seven years.

That's precisely what the Established Church needs: generous, humble and optimistic shepherds of the sheep who set their minds on all that is noble, pure, lovely and of good report.

He really ought to read what the Bible has to say about soothsaying.

Apparently, on his Facebook page, he described the Royal Family as ‘philanderers’ with a record of marriage break-ups who ‘cost an arm and a leg’. He also referred to the Prince of Wales as ‘Big Ears’.

Well, these are simply statements of fact: there have been and are ‘philanderers’ in the Royal Family, and they do cost an arm and a leg. And Prince Charles does apparently possess prominent auditory apparatus, though His Grace is no expert in cranial proportions.

But Pete omitted to tell us that there are also sincere, devoted and committed Christians in the Royal Family who take their wedding vows before God very seriously; they understand fully the meaning of fidelity and faithfulness, duty and honour, loyalty and service.

And Pete also forgot to tell us that, while they do indeed ‘cost an arm and a leg’, they supply the Treasury with an entire torso of revenue and provide the nation with a head.

And Pete should also know that it is wrong to judge by appearances or to mock the afflicted: judging by his beer-swilling picture, he’s no looker.

But Pete is a judgmental bishop, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those whom he hates. He describes himself as a ‘Christian Socialist’, so he is of the Gordon Brown school of economics: perhaps one ought to pity his myopia and forgive his ignorance of fiscal probity and economic morality.

Yet it is one thing spitefully to give the Royal couple just seven years, or to liken them to ‘shallow celebrities’ and talk of their wedding as ‘nauseating tosh’ or ‘national flimflam’. But it is quite another to assert that the hereditary principle – the very bedrock and foundation of the Monarchy – is ‘corrupt and sexist’.

Media reaction to this story has focused on the Bishops ‘cruel’, ‘disrespectful’, ‘absurd’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘childish’, ‘extremely rude’ and ‘un-Christian’ comments: in the words of Nicholas Soames, they are ‘not what one expects from a bishop’.

The Bishop of London could not be reached for a comment, and Clarence House said it did not wish to comment.

Bizarrely, rather than censure the Bishop, Lambeth Palace said: ‘(He) is entitled to his views.’

His Grace begs to differ.

The views he is entitled to express are the views of the Church of England. He is a leader within the Established Church of which the Queen is 'by God's Ordinance’ Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor.

And, God willing, Prince William will inherit those titles and responsibilities when he becomes King.

But Bishop Pete is a self-confessed republican. Apparently, when news of the Royal engagement was announced, he tweeted: ‘Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.’

Being all with-it and media savvy, Pete has his Twitter feed directly linked to his Facebook, and this tweet elicited one of his friends to ask: “Isn’t the Queen your boss?”.

To which Bishop Pete replied: “I think you’ll find that God and the Bishop of London are my bosses. I am a citizen, not a subject!”

This is curious, and the Bishop is guilty of a gross hypocrisy.

All who are ordained into the Church of England swear an oath of allegiance. Bishop Pete has said:

“I, Peter Broadbent, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.”
And so he became a curer of souls.

Has the Bishop become a hypocrite? A liar? Even a philanderer?

Do these vows have so little meaning that they are as easily disregarded as the marriage vows of Prince Charles and Diana, whom the Bishop so evidently disrespects and despises?

And what of Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates?

The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify; but only that prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers.
Does Bishop Pete uphold the traditional doctrine and teaching of the Church he purports to serve, or not?

When he ordains deacons and priests, does he cross his fingers behind his back as he asks ordinands to swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors?

Why would he demand an allegiance of them that he repudiates for himself?

Is his ministry just an act, a pretence, a façade of Christian ministry and ecclesial leadership?

When approached at his home by The Mail on Sunday yesterday, Bishop Pete is reported to have said: “I’m not speaking to you. I really am not speaking to you. If you want to run a gutter story, run a gutter story. Bye.”

His Grace has asked Bishop Pete to become a Facebook friend.

He patiently awaits the decision.

But if His Grace has in any way misrepresented or misquoted Bishop Pete in this article, the errors will be corrected, false attributions retracted and an apology will be forthcoming.

For such is the probity and integrity of His Grace’s ministry, his love for the Church and the authenticity of his faith.


Blogger Jakian Thomist said...

Good one, your grace! I hope Bishop Pete doesn't delay in positively responding to your facebook 'friend' request ;)

21 November 2010 at 12:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank god for Bishop Pete Broadbent.Someone who actually talks sense about the pathetic royal family.They make me sick.He's right and he's entitled to his opinion.

21 November 2010 at 12:57  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I just wonder what all these republicans think about Tony Blair. The chances are, that if we were a republic, he'd be President by now. And just think of Cherie, who in the past claimed to be the "first lady" living in Buckingham Palace!

21 November 2010 at 13:05  
Blogger The Church Mouse said...

You Grace, I'm afraid Mouse must disagree. Bishop Pete may be an old leftie and a republican, but he is one of the good guys, able to keep these things in perspective. The Church of England would be a much poorer place without him. He should probably apologise for his comments, but certainly not resign.

21 November 2010 at 13:06  
Anonymous JamesT said...

Three cheers for Bishop Pete. Gracey- I'd disagree with your comments. Interesting read- but unfortunately too similar to the tone of the Mail. Bishop Pete has always been a left thinking fellow- big hearted, interesting thoughts, and helps challenge the Church of England not to have its head up its own bum. I'm sure many others agree with his comments- and although of course he would want the marriage of William and Kate to be fruitful, faithful and for life- but he is giving commentary on the track record of the Queens children. I mean 3 out of 4 of her childrens marriages ending in failure, possibly needs a little reflection. Right on Bishop Pete!

21 November 2010 at 13:23  
Blogger cymraeg said...

I agree with Church Mouse and while of course Bishop Pete did take the aforementioned oath, he is both a subject (by law) and a citizen too. This surely allows him freedom of both thought and speech.

21 November 2010 at 13:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Mouse,

The Bishop was seemingly given the opportunity by his Facebook friends to retract, but he chose to justify and entrench.

With respect, the Church of England does not need bishops who can 'keep things in perspective', but who can set an example to the faithful and lead as the Lord and the law of the land require.

His Grace has had cause before to question the judgment of +Pete: this latest outburst is not simply rude and discourteous, it manifests a rank hypocrisy. How can he, in conscience, demand the allegiance of ordinands to an institution he considers to be 'corrupt and sexist'?

21 November 2010 at 13:27  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! I must say it strikes me as odd that this latter-day incarnation of Dr Spacely-Trellis joined the episcopal Anglican Church, being so republican-minded. Surely he would be more at home in the United Reformed Church or something without a heirarchy. He's not what constitutes bishop-material in this neck of the woods, I can tell you. Archdeacon Grantly was beside himself with righteous fury when he heard Bishop Broadbent's blather and even my Lord Bishop had one of his kalashnikov moments. Time to translate Bishop Broadbent to some far-flung see, like Waziristan...

21 November 2010 at 13:28  
Blogger dave bish said...

I really don't mind people being Anglicans, but I really don't get why people want to be Anglicans without being thorough-goingly Anglican... you'd have thought all those ordination vows were important.

I mean if you're Anglican be one, if you're not then be a free-churcher of whatever variety. I know its a good boat to fish from, and I know they pay for your education and give you a place to live etc, but integrity is meant to be important too. The Oxford Martyrs taught us all that, didn't they?

21 November 2010 at 13:31  
Anonymous Indigo said...

@JamesT 21 November 2010 13:23
of course he would want the marriage of William and Kate to be fruitful, faithful and for life

Didn't you hear what he said - he said he gives their marriage 7 years. He did not say he wanted or even hoped that it would be fruitful and faithful for life.

@The Church Mouse 21 November 2010 13:06
The Church of England would be a much poorer place without him.

I disagree. He is giving the rest of us Christians a bad name. He can leave now, as far as I am concerned. His was a completely unprovoked attack on Prince William and Kate, so one can only imagine what he says about the rest of us poor sinners.

@cymraeg 21 November 2010 13:23
while of course Bishop Pete did take the aforementioned oath, he is both a subject (by law) and a citizen too. This surely allows him freedom of both thought and speech.

Oh, dear, you are conflating freedom of speech with freedom to offend other people. He can think what he likes - although it sounds as if his mind is a sewer - but he has no entitlement to offend.

21 November 2010 at 13:46  
Blogger Alastair said...

Thank you for your comments Your Grace - as one of those who takes his ordination vows and the authority of Her Majesty seriously I can agree with much of what you say.

But we are, despite what certain groups might wish, a broad Church - and that breadth should surely be reflected in our Episcopal makeup.

Even a royalist like me with immense respect for oaths of Allegiance, the thirty nine articles and the historic formularies of the Church of England has to cross my fingers every now and then when repeating them - not least because the 'divine right of Kings' is probably not a theological position many would hold to any more.

None of us are perfect, all of us struggle with the balance of Church and State in their authority over the C of E - and all of us (appropriately on this Festal Day of Christ the King) would, I trust, consider our ultimate allegiance to be to our Lord and Saviour.

And (though I may be wrong) I thought that there was a slight misunderstanding of the episcopal role - +Pete and any Bishop, and indeed any who hold authority under them are not responsible for the curing of souls, that is the work of the great physician himself, but of the curating, the care, of souls.

21 November 2010 at 13:52  
Anonymous gunter krappsalaten said...

totally agree with Pete - the royal scroungers are completely useless & despicable...who's paying for bodyguards for airhead Kate? Prince Chuckie? don't think so. Who's paying for 80million quids worth of security? Queen Liz? Yeah right.

21 November 2010 at 13:53  
Anonymous Elliot Kane said...

'Give it seven years', eh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't William & Kate been a couple for EIGHT years already?

Don't think I'll ask that Bishop to predict the winning racehorses for me any time soon! :D

21 November 2010 at 13:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for saying everything I wanted to say about this sour, spiteful hypocrite. He sounds like a typical frustrated school bully. I hope his next sermon is punctuated by a few well-thrown deceased members of the feline species.

21 November 2010 at 14:03  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! What a palavar. Just thought I'd say I have been discussing the whole matter with Mr. Slope, my Lord's chaplain. He is of the opinion that Willesdon is the English equivalent of Waziristan and can therefore be safely ignored. Alternatively, perhaps the time has come to buy some faggots... no doubt Bishop Broadbent would thoroughly approveof that.

21 November 2010 at 14:07  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Agree with dave-bish, Mrs. proudie and Indigo.

Gunter, I think you've missed the point...and then some.

21 November 2010 at 14:07  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 November 2010 at 14:37  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

I dare say republicans will always be with us and will continue to eschew intelligent argument for insult, preferably alliterative (a left-wing commentator once described the Queen Mother as a pastel-coated parasite), and if Bishop Broadbent gets an additional kick from poking fun at personal appearance we can but pity him and hope that he’ll grow up.

But why the silence from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London? Bishop Broadbent’s remarks reflect badly on the Church and a spot of righteous indignation from a senior cleric would be very welcome, always assuming that the C of E still does righteous indignation.

21 November 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Pete Broadbent is the typical modern bishop. It seems he breaks at least one dominical teaching on a daily basis. I sometimes wonder what these new religionists would say to the woman at the well. Perhaps she would have been held up as a model of modern thinking? Or maybe derided in some way. "Look at you! You lost one husband after the other. But at least you've got a partner now".

I get the feeling that for some prelates they would prefer to be of the world in the world. They don't seem to get it. Pity.

21 November 2010 at 14:53  
Blogger RevArun said...

It's worth bearing in mind some of the other things that Pete said on his FB account. There were 42 comments including this one from Pete:

"Yes, but the wedding belongs to the family. It's their celebration. Not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes, for a couple whose lives are going to be persecuted and spoilt by an ignorant media. I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me. Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone."

Unsurprisingly the Mail didnt print that, nor did they reefer to the fact that during the past seven days they have described the the Royal family only last week as "notoriously dysfunctional".

It's remisniscent of the columns that were ignored or pulpled by the Mail et al about Diana in the days prior to her death - which criticised and ridiculed her - which were so quickly forgotten afterwards.

As it happens I disagree with Pete about this and take the opposite view to him on all aspects of this, but the Dail Mail's treatment of him is shameful.

21 November 2010 at 15:10  
Blogger Gillibrand said...

My Lord will be pleased to hear that even I as a Catholic regard myself as a subject and not a citizen. They do not have citizens in heaven, in the divine Court, so surely there cannot be such here on earth.

21 November 2010 at 15:26  
Blogger Suciô Sanchez said...

Did he have a dream involving 7 cows?

21 November 2010 at 16:26  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Your Grace, I have always been royalist and loyalist; and I remain so in appreciation of the way we have developed the principles of constitutional monarchy, as opposed to the cast iron rod of the divine right of kings.

Prospective powers and dominions would replace our system and assume divine rights, no matter what titles they mask themselves in. And just look at the alternatives we've seen: the Bliars, the Brown stuff, the Cameroons, Rumpy-Pumpy, the millipedes. Neither, I think, do other foreigners present more glorious models: Obama and the Bush Dynasty spring most readily to mind; most of the others are unpronounceable anyway.

So yes, I hope for the best and am glad William and Kate are there. I also pray that the media (including churchmen, in that role) will show respect for their lives; that the predators will reign themselves in.

Such is not the nature of predators, however. Perhaps, then, we need to develop a new and constitutional relationship with the media?

21 November 2010 at 16:46  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

If Bp Broadbent said this, as RevArun quotes, then he is indeed flimsy with his understandings.

"Yes, but the wedding belongs to the family. It's their celebration. Not some piece of national flim-flam paid for out of our taxes, for a couple whose lives are going to be persecuted and spoilt by an ignorant media. I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me. Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone."

All weddings in church must have the door open. The Church down the centuries has seen the sacrament of matrimony as a public event. It may not be a public spectacle but it is in no way a private matter. I think he is putting his private prejudices first.

A bishop is supposed to be of "good report without". So many today have got a very ropey report!

21 November 2010 at 16:55  
Anonymous RJ said...

I really do not understand how someone can be a bitter enemy of the British crown and yet be in the Anglican church, given the contents of the litany, the order of communion, ordination oaths, et cetera. That conflict is the problem, and I do not understand why the hierachy doesn't upbraid him at all on the point.

21 November 2010 at 16:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Bishops are the cause of most distress within organised religion. They are an encumbrance and remarkably supernumerary nowadays.

Rather than sell works of art from Durham we should declare 70% C of E bishops redundant forthwith unless they agree to act as vicars on a basic stipend.

Hierarchy is too much of a luxury in the Church of England today which should be evangelising not pontificating

21 November 2010 at 17:13  
Anonymous FacebookUser said...

There's no need to be a friend of the Bishop to actually read his comments, provided you're already a facebook user. You can read them here after logging in (assuming he hasn't/doesn't delete them)

The comments

21 November 2010 at 17:39  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

It is sad to see such a piece on this blog, especially as it is one that I regularly enjoy and sometimes contribute to in the comments.
First and foremost, I should say that I am a friend of +Pete (or just Pete, as I like to call him :-p) and have been for over 31 years. I was also a part of the Facebook conversation that the Mail has somehow gotten hold of and printed to sell papers. Indeed, I was posting comments against Pete's view on things and one of his direct replies to me was quoted in full in the story.

Now, first off this "story" is a complete non-story. Whilst it is true that Pete does hold republican views, his choosing to comment in the way that he did in no way bore malice towards any of the parties involved. He was merely expressing a view that he knew would get a conversation going that he would enjoy being a part of. After all, that's the point of putting things on Facebook!
Secondly, Pete should definitely not resign! Why? Because he is actually damned good at his job and really cares about looking after the churches that he is responsible for in the episcopal area of Willesden. There isn't a weekend that goes by (apart from when he's on holiday) that I don't see a tweet or Facebook comment about how he's really enjoyed a visit to a church or that he's visiting between 2 and 4 churches on a Sunday.
I could go on and on, but I have a feeling that people would just skip the rest of the comment, so I'll leave it there on why he shouldn't resign.

Just because he's passionate about things (just look at his tweeting about Spurs!) doesn't make him a bad bishop, in fact I'd say it's very much a positive for the work. And yes, even if he holds views that differ from the official view of the CofE. I mean, if that were the case then certain former bishops (Southwark and Oxford in particular spring to mind) should never have held office due to their views on human sexuality. Pete being passionate about things simply means that he believes in them. But he can still act within the current set up of the Anglican Church in full authenticity as I do not see him actually acting in any way that is against the Queen.
As someone has already said, the CofE is a broad church. Whilst I might not agree with all views held by some members, they still have their views and I have mine and we are a part of the same international community. I am sure that Pete's not the only one holding such views about the established nature of Anglicanism, just as there are groups of people who believe that homosexuals should be priests and bishops and groups who do not accept the authority of female headship.

Now, if there is anyone who thinks they know Pete better than me and thinks I have it all wrong, do put me right. But I would seriously recommend that you take this as being a pathetic attempt by the Daily Mail to sell papers by taking comments on someone's personal Facebook account and putting them out of context. Surely the bigger question is how they managed to get access to the conversation!

21 November 2010 at 17:39  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

I believe that some of His Grace's communicants have mistaken your post and embarked upon a rant about republicanism. It is a red-herring.

This is about the tenure of a Bishop who has made cynical, judgemental and inflammatory remarks about a couple who have decided to get married in his Church. In doing so, he has not only undermined the integrity of their choice (of which he is clearly ignorant) and cast doubt upon the longevity and sanctity of marriage itself, whilst being at the same time, entrusted with the promulgation of marriage and its implications.

Peter Broadbent has done a Ratner.

He has basically said, "How is it that we can marry people and come up with all these fine words about 'till death do us part? Because it's crap!

Peter Broadbent is not a Dennis Skinner. Skinner is a lone maverick MP who is as likely to say what Broadbent has said, but with the obvious difference that Skinner plays no part in the upholding of the sanctity of marriage or has a role in government. Peter Broadbent is not a Lord Young, who, earlier this week fell on his sword for a flippant, but not very serious remark.

No, Broadbent has crossed the line. It is ok for him to be political, but his remarks are not commensurate with his tenure as a senior Anglican, as His Grace has eloquently pointed out.

Whether you believe in God, the Monarchy or little magic people the facts are clear; he cannot remain.

21 November 2010 at 17:40  
Anonymous JamesT said...

Pete is a good faithful man, and my life is the richer for it.

I've got to say I completely agree that the Daily Mail again has taken things out of context, has sensationalised a non story to sell papers. Sure that's their job- to sell stories, but how desperate do they have to get.

@Indigo Unfortunately, I don't think you read the bits on his FB page that weren't published.

"I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me. Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone."

I know that he would wish their marriage to be fruitful and a success. But the quotes published are out of context of the appropriate audience and conversation. He is choosing to challenge amongst other things the pomp around the money wasted on the Royal Weddings. Sure he may have sparked up a debate in the manner in which he did it, but lets not come to these sensational conclusions, that the Daily Mail of all papers points us in. Surely we know not to believe everything that the papers have to say. This would be one of those occasions.

I have come across Bishop Pete on many occasions and would say that I have the hugest amount of respect for him. He is an example of someone who loves God, loves people, is passionate about the ordinary things to life, has bad taste in football (Spurs), is down to earth yet a Godly example of integrity, and loves to express his faith in ways that are accessible to others.

I like the fact that he's willing to encourage us to ask questions. Yet again, please lets reserve judgement about someone until you've met them or been able to see what has communicated in context.

Daily Mail- again- you're lack of journalistic integrity is so disappointing. Cranmer- I had previously enjoyed this blog, but you are so far off with this post, that it's a real shame.

21 November 2010 at 18:02  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Phil Taylor,

His Grace thanks you for your comment.

This is a senior cleric of the Church of England who childishly refers to the Prince of Wales as 'Big Ears' and disparages the entire Royal Family, irrespective of their faithfulness, sincerity and devotion to duty.

It is he who first sank to the level of 'the gutter press' with such immature insult-hurling, so it is hardly surprising that they have delighted in his fellowship.

He may be a good pastor; he may be dedicated to Spurs. But this outburst is unbecoming of one of his ecclesiastical status. His Grace awaits a response from +Pete on the allegiance he swore to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors, and how, in conscience, he can ask such allegiance of ordinands when he so clearly repudiates the very concept.

21 November 2010 at 18:06  
Blogger Just Wonderful said...

This really in confusing for me. A Bishop in the Church of England who has sworn an oath before, and in the name of God is readily admitting that he neither meant nor respects that oath. Seems a strange thing for a man of faith to do. I wonder if there are other times he crosses his fingers.

Seems he may need to do some pretty fast talking to extricate himself from this one.

All else that he has said is irrelevant after that I would have thought. He certainly can't be saying in a capacity as a Bishop as he has said that the oath he took was meaningless to him.

21 November 2010 at 18:08  
Blogger Frank Mason said...

Unbelievably poor taste for a Church of England bishop to be predicting the demise of Prince William's marriage on facebook.

I read the thread... nothing too offensive if it was said in private between trusted friends, but putting it on facebook, he might as well have written it in a letter to the editor of the Daily Mail. Either he intended his thoughts to end up in the Mail, or he is incredibly naive for a man in his position!

21 November 2010 at 18:23  
Blogger Timothy Belmont said...

Absolutely agree that the man must be dismissed by the Lord Bishop of London forthwith.

I have commented on my blog about the matter and alluded to Your Grace.

21 November 2010 at 18:35  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace,

The Bishop's an idiot and Lambeth Palace is stupid and gutless.

21 November 2010 at 18:59  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Your Grace.
It appears that the Bishop has said some foolish derogatory things, that even if felt privately, should as matter of respect be kept so.

Some might say that the wearing of copes & other regalia have pagan associations or are all about giving the congregation a show & that it is a way of appearing part of a religous elite. That this seperates christians into a them & us group of spiritual shepherds over the ignorant stupid sheep.
So some would opine that Bishop Pete lived in this category.

Maybe the good Bishop should resign, as his remarks were to say the least distasteful, thoughtless & crass. As an ambassador for the CofE if not for Christ he has not set a good example. If he wants to be 'Call me Pete' then perhaps he would be better hanging up his mitre & working with the destitute & homeless for a minimum wage.
People who live in glasshouses etc.

21 November 2010 at 19:23  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Mr Slope approves of Bishop bashing...can't think what he means...

21 November 2010 at 20:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I read in the Daily Mail", "apparently" - why don't you ask him yourself instead of going by gossip?

21 November 2010 at 20:33  
Anonymous not a machine said...

If this is the quality of bishops left upholding the church of England , I may have been too quick on women bishops judgement .
His office is not the daily titbits of opinion , somthing I thought he would have been aware og when he joiend

21 November 2010 at 20:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you. Well put.

21 November 2010 at 20:47  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

21 November 2010 at 21:13  
Anonymous Anita said...

Having young William be King because his ancestors were is quite ridiculous in a modern democracy. Getting rid of the Royal Family (well, after this Queen who has an amazing work-ethic given her age) will help rid the country of a culture of entitlement. In an age of austerity, it's ridiculous that the tax-payer should support some families in castles because their forebears lived in them. I agree with the Bishop's republican views.

21 November 2010 at 21:17  
Blogger The Church Mouse said...

Your Grace

Bishop Pete did not call the royal family corrupt and sexist. He called the hereditary principle corrupt and sexist, which is very different.

21 November 2010 at 21:32  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


The royals give more to this country than they take out; both in tourism and their other ventures. To lose them for economic reasons would be foolish and would result in a net loss to the nation. Good on the (soon to be) royal couple; Catholic I may be, but I'm still a royalist at heart. I think it's very unfair for the Bishop to make judgements on anyone's marriage; just imagine if this was any other couple on the street. Perhaps it just shows the Anglican attitude to marriage: it's probably going to fail, so we won't take it too seriously.

A combined hereditary and elected principle is actually the most effective. Hereditary peers and monarchs are pressured into justifying their position; they are trained throughout their life to be great leaders. Career politicians are in many cases in the job for power or ideology. They feel they have free rein to act as they please because it is the will of the people. We have not done away with the divine right of kings only to have it replaced with the divine right of the elected.

Checks and balances people, checks and balances. We have evolved our parliamentary system over 1000 years. Look at some of the nonsense that comes from revolution and you'll see why it is (was) superior. An unelected and un-appointed upper house, a Monarch and an elected lower house. The perfect compromise against despotism and incompetence. This is why I'm so wary when all elected sides are in agreement about some liberal principles. How can they be accountable?

21 November 2010 at 22:07  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Your Grace,

Everyone, including I, agrees that the bishop was rude and insensitive.

No one, however, seems interested in truth and trackrecords and the obvious. Why are bishops in the C of E allowed to do almost everything that denies the Lord, the Scriptures and blasts the doctrines of the 39 articles of the Church? They are allowed to do all that, but let them say a few silly things about a royal bubble and all England is fluttering. England is no longer interested in God, only in emotional bubbles and fairytales created by a hypercommercial industry.

Everyone seems to want to start dreaming about another fairytale marriage and exclusive commitment that never was. Look at what happened after the fairy tale marriage in Danmark.

An excellent chance for William to break with the past, and prove the bishop all wrong by an exclusive and firm commitment God, to Kate, and the Church of England.

I wish them every happiness.

21 November 2010 at 22:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

If the Bishop must resign over this matter, then let it not be because he insulted the royals. After all the notion that it is the Monarch's church is surely counter intuitive to it being a religion and not simply a club. Let it be because he picked on a perfectly lovely couple based on their background and continues to pick on their family without just cause.

There is no difference between picking on the rich for their wealth and bullying the poor for their poverty

21 November 2010 at 22:14  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Church Mouse,

If you bothered to read His Grace's post you would see that that is precisely what His Grace said.

21 November 2010 at 22:20  
Anonymous Matt London said...

The two issues that strike me are first that he publicly makes such a disparaging remark about the marriage of two people. Even if this were a private remark it would raise questions about his pastoral judgement. To make it in the public forum of Facebook is appalling. Beyond that as his grace points out he has repeatedly in his career sworn oaths of loyalty to the queen and her successors. what is his word worth?

Taken together I'd have thought he'd made it impossible for him to retain his position - and as far as I can see, good riddance!

21 November 2010 at 22:52  
Anonymous Synod Outsider said...

He is a minor bishop in the Church of England whose views can usefully be ignored.

21 November 2010 at 23:21  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

The more reasonable the fisking, the more devastating.

This was most reasonable.

21 November 2010 at 23:23  
Anonymous Bernicia said...

Anita @ 21:17 --- you call this a democracy; this hash that the commies have brewed up for us? Thou kiddest whom?

. . . Queen who has an amazing work-ethic given her age.
I suggest that her age, and that of her lineage, are probably paramount among the reasons she has this "work ethic." She'd be as vacuous and vicious as any young, self-seeking, career politician ... had she been trained according to your 'modern' and alien influences; and were she not imbued with the seriousness of the responsibilities and traditions that inhere in "who she is."

Certainly, aliens don't want her there for us.

21 November 2010 at 23:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He just wanted to show there are some pricks left in the Church of England. Brendan

21 November 2010 at 23:38  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

I still can't believe how silly some people are here. For starters, as some have said, you are judging someone based on what the Mail (as in not the most reliable of papers for accurate reporting!) has said he said and then not taken the context (not to mention the whole story!) into account.

Pete likes to provoke comment. Pete likes interaction and conversation. Pete has opinions, which he bases on his world view, and he is happy to use these to engage with people. None of this is anything bad for a bishop, regardless of how bland some bishops can be!

All you who speak against him, you have no idea who you are talking about! I do and whilst, as I said earlier, I disagree with him on this issue I can say without a shadow of a doubt that there is no malice within him towards William and Kate. He has views, based on the facts of what has happened before now, and he has expressed them. Yes, he did it in a public forum. So? Are we saying that people's views must always be kept in private when they might offend someone? Dawkins is offended by Christianity, does that mean I can no longer speak about my faith?

Your Grace,
As regards the comments on his swearing allegiance, I have 2 possible scenarios.
Firstly, how about he swore it when he became a priest and has since changed his view on the matter? Surely we are not saying that people can't change their opinions once they start working for the CofE! Look at those that have a view on human sexuality that goes against things such as the Windsor statements. They are still in the church and, as far as I am aware people are happy for them to hold their views even if they are thought to be wrong.
Secondly, he could look at the oath as being to the Queen purely as her role as head of the Church of England, and thus really an oath to the Church. I do not see an issue with this particularly and enables Pete to keep his integrity both with him keeping to his own oath and also asking priests to swear to the same allegiance.
Which ever it is (or there may be another option), I don't see it being a problem for Pete's integrity.

21 November 2010 at 23:47  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Broadbent is a mean spirited prat, is all...

21 November 2010 at 23:50  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

If only we could burn the Bishop at the stake!

You see, Your Grace, that is why the Church is on its way out and the Anglican Islamic Caliphate on its way in.

22 November 2010 at 00:45  
Blogger Stewart said...

Hi Iam Stu, Prince William and Future Princess Catherine are God,s perfect natural selection for the Royal Family and the Church of England. BISHOP of WILLESDEN must resign immediatey.My comments are to Obscene to mention. Stu Rawnsley.

22 November 2010 at 01:40  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

This is mainly the fault of The Church of England itself.

The CofE should never have allowed political ideology to infest its rank and file, never mind its officer class.

IMO, party politics is the lowest form of ignorance, while socialism is the lowest form of party politics.

Not because socialism is completely wrong, or that people who believe themselves to be socialists are bad people, but simply because socialism is a establishment designed construct. Therefore is a highly dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing.

Does this excuse for a spiritual leader really believe that our creator concerns HIMSELF with the party political indoctrination of anyone, never mind bishops. Who should have their mind focused on infinitely higher things?

Surely all intelligent people should know by now that party politics is the work of Satan.A better example of the Dark Art of cruel deception it would be hard to find outside The Houses of Parliament.

Party politics is simply a method by which the establishment divides and therefore continues to subversively rule over the 'profane.'

Only a fool like this bishop could believe that truth and justice is represented only by one particular carefully contrived and ever changing wing of political opinion.

The truth is that good people are equally spread between all political opinions. People are in general extremely GOOD. We are the creation of God and in his image, therefore how could the vast majority be anything else other then fundamentally GOOD?

We care for others, we are social, as well as conscious beings. We all instinctively know that our own interests are closely related to the interests of all of humanity. Even Margaret Thatcher (god bless her) knew this without doubt, and never claimed to believe otherwise.

We all want what is best for ourselves, as well as everyone else if at all possible.

The great mass of humanity do not want to break the system, we know only too well that evil loves revolutions. We just want whatever system that has been inflicted on us to work well and in the general interests of everyone.

How could we possibly be so divided by mindlessly following either the red team or the blue team, unless this division was covertly contrived to exist?

We were only allowed to have democracy, because our ruling class knew how easy democracy would be to utterly control. Which is why THEY invented socialism in the first place, and then spent so much time, money and effort promoting it all over the entire planet.

We were not given democracy because the people fort for it. REAL history dictates, that the great mass of ordinary people have never fort for anything, that they received any benefit from whatsoever. The only thing a farmer could ever had hoped to have gained from going to war, was to still be alive, so able to go home again.

Democracy was originally given to only land owning gentry, to help ensure their loyalty to the thrown. It was only later given to the plebs, because the land owning classes needed to ensure the loyalty of its serfs to help them fight their then Imperial wars for them. They also only decided to do so because they intended to effectively invent, run and finance, therefore utterly control, all sides of the political divide.

As I have said before.

The establishments Temple has two pilers, otherwise the building would become critically unstable, and therefore swiftly collapse into a big pile of useless rubble.

If this bishop does not know this surely self-apparent reality, then why did the CofE allowed him to become one?

A spiritual leader should be WAY above the gutter of party political BS, or he is no kind of spiritual leader at all. He is indeed either a simplistic fool or a dishonest politician, the former may be forgiven, the later cannot possibly be.

22 November 2010 at 02:14  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Phil Taylor @ 23.47pm, your justification of Bishop Pete is risible.

Some points:

1) Holding high Office is a priviledge and carries certain rights as well as certain obligations.
2) Bishop Pete has the right to express opinions, but surely not those which conflict with the terms and conditions of his Office.
3) Bishop Pete has an obligation to be loyal to the terms and conditions of his office. In this regard he has failed dismally.
4) If Bishop Pete has 'changed his mind' and no longer feels able to abide by the terms and conditions of his office he should resign.
5) If Bishop Pete does not resign he cannot be regarded as a man of integrity and his ministry is diminished, if not worthless.
6) The Anglican communion is entitled to believe that its priesthood is sincere in its beliefs. Bishop Pete threatens that belief.
7) Bishop Pete likens the Royal Family to 'shallow celebrities'.
8) What does he think he is?

Your post suggests that it may have been approved by Bishop Pete before you hit the send button. Bishop Pete has the option of defending himself directly on His Grace's blog. Why doesn't he? Why are you doing his dirty work for him?

22 November 2010 at 04:06  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Just wait until harry hewitt gets married,the jew press will make a fortune.

22 November 2010 at 08:13  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Would an honourable man have spoken out in such a way? It sort of boils down to that in the end, doesn't it? And what's with this 'Bishop Pete' thing? Faux chumminess to win over the yoof?

22 November 2010 at 09:25  
Anonymous Papal Bull said...

Bishop Pete... so what Saint did he take that name from? Not the one of "upon this rock I will build my church" fame, surely?
Lacks gravitas.
Not a credit to the Anglican heresy, I'm afraid.

22 November 2010 at 10:50  
Blogger Sally said...

At least Bishop Pete speaks his mind without hiding behind the robes of a long-dead cleric! You, "Your Grace," are an impostor and thus your words and offers of 'friendship' ring as hollow as a church bell. This incident ia a storm in a teacup - Lambeth has done well to give it scant attention.

22 November 2010 at 11:54  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Can't help think of Mark 7 whenever the CofE comes up in conversation ... loving the traditions of men rather than the Word of God.

22 November 2010 at 12:15  
Blogger eddie said...

Hmm. Anonymous Anglican attacks Bishop for unwise comments, quoted out of context in the Daily Mail.

It all makes me very glad that I'm a non-conformist!

22 November 2010 at 13:41  
Anonymous Martin G said...

"And Pete also forgot to tell us that, while they do indeed ‘cost an arm and a leg’, they supply the Treasury with an entire torso of revenue and provide the nation with a head."

I'm afraid they don't supply the Treasury with revenues. They don't pay taxes for a starter and the myth of tourism bringing in the cash simply doesn't stack up despite the PR, which you obviously believe without reference to the full facts (or at least those facts that are not hidden behind the raft of self-interest and FoI exemptions).

But even if they did bring in loads of money, is their espousal of a life full of privilege and the encouragement of the worship of false idols and prophets sufficient in lieu?

Bishop Pete is 100% correct and I regret that he has had to make an apology. Let's not forget that the first thing that Jesus did when he entered Jerusalem was to take on the establishment and challenge their desecration of the Temple. I would have thought that good Christians would see that as an example to topple the most corrupt of regimes even if that includes the current Head of the Church of England.

22 November 2010 at 14:08  
Anonymous Bernicia said...

Well, Martin G: I'd rather see them topple the Westminster puppets and Ole Rumpy --- Up until his predecessors started subverting, we usually managed to balance our powers tolerably, and in our own way; and the dialogue was continuous.

Now, we have no dialogue: and that's the way the euros want it.

22 November 2010 at 16:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please tell me Pete did not insure the couple of HIS prayers...would they want such a thing from a man willing to be so foolish in his words. What would he do to a priest in his area that makes comments on things like divorce...hhmmm..embarassed, again, are we.....

22 November 2010 at 17:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Sally @ 11.54 ... have you been introduced to Claire Khaw? You two should get together for an inter-faith bitch-fest ... prizes will be awarded to whomever gets to leave the room. On second thoughts though, you'd probably become a convert!

22 November 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Your Grace,
The term “Christian Socialist” is a contradiction in terms. A socialist looks at what others have and decides that life is unfair. In so doing, from a platform of envy, he promotes resentment and ultimately malicious activity This is not the gospel of good news. The Christian knows that God provides for his every need according to God’s riches in glory. He knows how to abound and to be abased. He believes Jesus in Matthew 6 when Jesus tells us not to worry about how we shall be clothed tomorrow or what we should have to eat tomorrow. He knows that, as long as he seeks the kingdom of God and his righteousness, all that of which he has need will be added unto him.

The Christian gives tithes and offerings from a heart that lives within a new creation. He does not rail against the rich and privileged. He leaves that to God. He prefers to bring them the good news of the gospel and to pray for their conversion. He knows that we must convert the heart and the wallet will follow.

Bishop Pete epitomises the socialist in spouting his malice against this couple. As sinners they need to hear the gospel from our Bishops. Sadly Pete is typical of a strand of Christian leaders for whom the gospel of Marx has priority over the gospel of Jesus.

When did Pete last lead a sinner to repentance?

22 November 2010 at 18:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No king, no bishop.
And a good job too.

22 November 2010 at 18:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I attended Holy Trinity, Harrow and Wealdstone with my wife,when Pete Broadbent was vicar (in the early/mid 90's).

Sadly we always felt then that his politics defined him fair more than Christian love and compassion.

22 November 2010 at 20:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Bishop Pete.....truth is never popular. The Royals are a disgusting lot and anyone who thinks otherwise needs a reality check.

22 November 2010 at 20:08  
Blogger Sally said...

Oswin@11.54 Claire Who? Never have been interested in a bitch-fest, and never will be. You should really get out more, Oswina....

22 November 2010 at 20:48  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Bluedog, don't be a cretin. If Pete felt the need to defend himself against the number of moronic comments here and elsewhere he would have done so in person.
I, as a friend, felt the need to try and put some truth into a lot of vacuous nonsense but it seems that you prefer the latter to the former.
1) Yes
2) Where does it say that holding republican views and a dislike for the way that the press deals with the Royal family is against such terms?
3) How has expressing views shown disloyalty? Does holding any position mean that you become a mindless drone that no longer thinks for themselves? Does a bishop have to disengage their brain when they don their mitre? Is there only 1 way to be as a bishop? If so, I'd love to know what they mould is as I can't see one clearly showing between all others!
4) Changing your view on a person/rule-set and choosing to act against them in a negative way are 2 very different things.
5) Cobblers! You clearly have no comprehension of the man.
6) Umm, how? Did you even think when you were coming up with these "critiques"?
7) That's a matter of opinion. Certainly that phrasing could be interpreted as such, but given the way that society has become they are certainly being treated as such.
8) A bishop, as in what the Bible describes a bishop to be. Check it out, go meet Pete and see him in action and I think you'll find he ticks all the boxes.

23 November 2010 at 02:28  
Blogger starcourse said...

Bishops are supposed to have wisdom, judgement and discretion. Bishop Pete's remarks show a deplorable lack in these departments.

He has rightly issued a grovelling apology. If he does this again he should certainly resign.

23 November 2010 at 07:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really like the comments of Bishop Pete. Royals are also humans and they are not divine and therefore we can comment on their behaviours.

23 November 2010 at 09:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe after 7 years, if William and Kate are still married, the bishop will commence his own stoning for being a false prophet?

If the prophesy comes true....

Well, he'll have been justified in his prophetic words. Not necessarily the rest of his statement.

23 November 2010 at 11:20  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Umm, starcourse, are you a tabloid junkie? I only ask because "deplorable" and "grovelling" are rather hyperbolic words for the situation.

23 November 2010 at 12:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His comments were condemned by Tory MP and friend of Prince Charles, Nicholas Soames, as “extremely rude” and “not what one expects from a bishop.

They are exactly what I would expect from a politically left wing bishop. The greatest paradox of all here has got nothing to do with the monarchy or the pending royal wedding. The fact that anyone of the modern Left, particularly in its nauseating, self destructive, politically corrected form, which Broadbent certainly is, should even be a senior member of the church is a very sad reminder that the Anglican church today is a very poorly led, spiritually weak, shadow of its former self that is choosing to distance itself ever further from God, truth and from the real message of Christianity. Broadbent's beliefs and attitudes revealed by his comments are just one of many widespread symptoms.

23 November 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As one of his parishioners, all I can say is that I am extremely disappointed by the unkind and catty tone of his remarks. If he wished to make such comments on a public forum he should have set up a Facebook account under a pseudonym and not under his identity as Bishop.

23 November 2010 at 20:44  
Blogger Sally said...

@Anonymous - So the 'real message of Christianity' you propound is that it fine to say as many unpleasant things about people as you like, as long as no-one knows it was really YOU who said them? Yet another nail in the coffin of ecclesiastical integrity! Your sounding gong tunes well with His Grace's clanging cymbal.
Pete Broadbent spoke as himself, in all honesty, if unwisely. His brand of openness is far more in touch with God's people in its widest sense than those who wish to hide their darker deeds under their cassocks.

23 November 2010 at 22:08  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Phil Taylor at 02.28, good to see that Bishop Pete has been cut down to size.

24 November 2010 at 01:30  
Blogger Pam said...

Sally said:

His brand of openness is far more in touch with God's people in its widest sense than those who wish to hide their darker deeds under their cassocks.

I'm not sure what unique 'brand of openness' this is - do you mean that lots of clergy have set up anonymous facebook accounts to critique the press and call the royal family names?

Since + Broadbent has apologised for the tone and content of his remarks, and it has been made clear by his supporters that he didn't believe he was making them publicly anyway, I'm a bit puzzled by the continued applause for what he said and his 'openness' in saying it.

He expressed views, as he thought in private, which were unacceptable for a Bishop to express in public.

I think we can all understand the predicament he is in now and feel for him, but personally I don't attribute his behaviour to principled or prophetic action. He just didn't understand Facebook.

24 November 2010 at 09:33  
Blogger Sally said...

Pam said:

"I'm not sure what unique 'brand of openness' this is - do you mean that lots of clergy have set up anonymous facebook accounts to critique the press and call the royal family names?"

Not at all - just that + Pete spoke as himself, without sniping from behind a pseudonym, as advised by Anonymous.

I do not applaud his words, challenged them myself as too harsh, and agree that he didn't understand Facebook.

By 'openness' I mean the ability to enable many ordinary people to connect with the Church and its teachings, in straightforward, direct and relevant actions by which the integrity of the person and his faith shine through. There are many fantastically dedicated clergy and laity within the Church, at all levels, who have this gift. I happen to think +Pete is one of them.

Maybe +London is too? I can't say as I've never met him. His subsequent action, however, while appealing to some of those cosily-Established in their pews, would seem to endorse a widely held view that the Church's desire for 'respectability' often leaves it trailing far behind in achieving its aims of effecting real change in the world.

24 November 2010 at 10:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont think that he should have been suspended in doing so you made him a martyr. True.
We all saw the Queen break the 1700 Settlements aCT by being reconciled with the Pope and all things PApist ( dont insult our intelligence by not knowing what reconcilation is?!!!) The Act is like a Catholic bull but is protestants and absolves ALL CITIZENS esp protestants and true Protestants from all allegiences from such a mnonarch that has broken the settlments act.

The GOOD BISHOP spoke of being a Republican he spoke well and spoke as afforded by the ACT . It was UNCHRISTIAN and illegal to have suspended him.

Elizabeth Obisanya
Creator ; IT WAS FURTHER ENACTED documentary..

24 November 2010 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

&#lt;irony&#gt;Oaths taken in the Church of England don't count because they're forbidden by Jesus who is the Lord of the Church: they're merely hoops that clergy leap through to get into the church, in the same way that people who attend church for baptisms and weddings simply recite the bits they're told to by the clergy so they can get the kids done or have a pretty backdrop for their photos...&#lt;/irony&#gt;

24 November 2010 at 11:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, trying that again...

<irony>Oaths taken in the Church of England don't count because they're forbidden by Jesus who is the Lord of the Church: they're merely hoops that clergy leap through to get into the church, in the same way that people who attend church for baptisms and weddings simply recite the bits they're told to by the clergy so they can get the kids done or have a pretty backdrop for their photos...</irony>

24 November 2010 at 11:54  
Anonymous RevJ said...

So Cranmer would have turned in his grave at +Pete's language, but then his liturgy was intended to keep it's users in their proper place in a hierarchical society. Fortunatly we live in a different age and culture, and most of us have abandoned language that is no longer "understandeth of the people". The bishop is intitled to his views, and I wonder if his remark had been linked more clearly to the intrusive nature of the red tops there would have been half the fuss. Unfortunatly the Bishop of London has over reacted and appeared heavy handed (not for the first time). Is this a window into the powerplays of the leadership of the diocese, and a clipping of his Assistant Bishop's wings? As for the oath of obedience, I wonder how many clergy would say it with joyful hearts should Charles and his queen (of tarts) come to the throne. We haven't had a good king Charles, and it seems nothing is about to change.

24 November 2010 at 14:48  
Anonymous rayprab said...

I think this controversy will be the making of Pete. Already I see that he has 23000 hits on google versus 5000 for his inoffensive predecessor Graham Dow. I predict we will see Pete on newsnight pretty soon. Since he happens to be the most articulate communicator in the C of E (have any of his detractors heard him speak - as a member of his diocese I have to say the man is a genius) that is no bad thing. As with other people's experience of twitter, he was trying to be funny. It was unwise but wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

24 November 2010 at 17:53  
Anonymous C Reginald Dalby said...

Just to say - Pete stood a good chance of being Archbishop by now - if Tony Blair hadn't blocked his elevation to Bishop of Liverpool. At least he isnt afraid to open his mouth (even if to put his foot in it). Better than all the other Bishops who never seem to say a word about anything

24 November 2010 at 18:06  
Anonymous work in progress said...

"There but for the grace of God go I" Bishop Pete has done what many or most of us do from time to time - got his foot stuck in his (Facebook) mouth. How often I have been led to regret failing to obey another, less well-known, adage: "Make sure that the words you speak taste sweet, for in time you may have to swallow them."

Lord, have mercy on brother Pete, and on all of us who completely blow it from time to time...

24 November 2010 at 18:43  
Anonymous woofwoof said...

I heard Bishop Pete at Spring Harvest and New Wine and I agree, he is a brilliant speaker, certainly not sleep inducing

25 November 2010 at 14:58  
Anonymous Blessed Edwin Belcher said...

Presumably if +Pete had come out with some homophobic rant instead, it would be pats on the head all round.

27 November 2010 at 14:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


3 December 2010 at 11:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older