Saturday, March 31, 2012

Tweeting the next Archbishop of Canterbury

Apparently there is to be an ‘extensive consultation process’ to determine the needs of the diocese, the Church of England and the entire Anglican Communion ahead of the decision of the Crown Nominations Commission to appoint the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. Well, good luck with that. Since the needs of these three constituencies are invariably contradictory, not to say mutually exclusive, the CNC must be hoping the Second Coming occurs prior to their selection deadline. For it is now they, not the Prime Minister, who will be held accountable on Judgment Day for their choice.

There have been announcements of this ‘extensive’ process in the Church Times, the Church of England Newspaper and The Times (which says a lot in itself), inviting atheists, secularists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Roman Catholics and Jedi Knights the world and his dog to have input into this process. Fair enough. It is the Established Church and so at the service of all communities.

But this is a curious way to choose an Archbishop of Canterbury. What happens if the majority of letters/emails/tweets/Facebook comments insist on the appointment of someone who desires reunification with Rome? Or the incorporation of the birth of Mohammed into the Church’s liturgical calendar? Or amendment to the Act of Settlement? Or fervent support of ‘gay marriage’? O, hang on...

His Grace does not know if this consultation is to be of the same manner as the ‘consultation’ presently being undertaken by HM Government on ‘gay marriage’ (ie, a non-consultation). But it is bizarrely being trailed as admitting ‘more transparency’ as a prelude to the thoroughly shrouded, secret and closed selection process. Indeed, the election of popes is more open and democratic.

Anybody (quite literally – though there’s no prerequisite that you even need a body –) is welcome to comment ‘on the challenges and opportunities that should be taken in to account in considering the appointment’ of ++Rowan’s successor. You are encouraged to email (by Monday 30th April) abc.vacancy@churchofengland.org, or write to one of the following:
Sir Paul Britton,
Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments
c/o Honours and Appointments Secretariat
Admiralty Arch
The Mall
London
SW1A 2WH

Ms. Caroline Boddington
Archbishops' Secretary for Appointments
The Wash House
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
Ordinarily, His Grace would exhort his readers and communicants to make their wise and discerning contributions via one of these means. But, frankly, he doesn’t want to waste your time. This is not ‘transparency’, and neither is it a ‘consultation’. Nor should it be. The responsibility for choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury rests with the Crown Nominations Commission and them alone.

Since Gordon Brown amended the Constitution, thereby altering (indeed, weakening) the constitutional relationship between the Church of England and the Executive, the Prime Minister and other ministers are no longer advisers, and consequently conduit, to the Crown. Frank Field MP has long argued for the Prime Minister’s continued involvement in the process, on the grounds that any attempt to diminish the involvement of the Crown in Church appointments would lead to disestablishment by default. However, his argument did not prevail: it is now the task of the CNC to submit the name of a preferred candidate (and a second appointable candidate) to the Prime Minster who is constitutionally responsible for tendering that advice directly to the Queen. This is no longer the Prime Minister’s advice, but that of the CNC: the Prime Minister’s role has been reduced to that of a postbox. Basically, the Crown Nominations Commissions is advising the Crown; ie, the Crown is advising the Crown. The Prime Minister no longer possesses the unfettered right to advise on ecclesiastical appointments, and so a crucial ‘check’ or ‘balance’ has been lost.

Jim Callaghan observed as far back as 1976:
There are… cogent reasons why the State cannot divest itself from a concern with these appointments of the Established Church. The Sovereign must be able to look for advice on a matter of this kind and that must mean, for a constitutional Sovereign, advice from Ministers. The Archbishops and some of the bishops sit by right in the House of Lords, and their nomination must therefore remain a matter for the Prime Minister’s concern.
Professor Vernon Bogdanor wrote in 1995:
In the case of the appointment of archbishops and bishops, there is an even more powerful reason why the prime minister must be the person to proffer advice. It is that the archbishops and the senior bishops sit as of right in the House of Lords. Therefore, for as long as the Church of England remains established and remains an Episcopal church whose archbishops and senior bishops sit in parliament, the State cannot divest itself from its concern with senior appointments…
Indeed, His Grace would say that for as long as there are bishops in the House of Lords, their appointment ought to be subject to a degree of political and democratic accountability. But these arguments are long past: we are where we are. Yet the current pretence of democratic consultation is disingenuous. This Commission is composed of learned and experienced individuals, each of whom will have their own proclivities, biases and theological preferences. And each of them will be abundantly aware of ‘the challenges and opportunities that should be taken in to account in considering the appointment’. If they’re not, they shouldn’t be there. And since they are, no number of emails, letters and tweets demanding the appointment of a bishop who believes in and faithfully adheres to The XXXIX Articles will sway them. In fact, all demands for an Archbishop in the mould of Margaret Thatcher (but with testicles, obviously; and without breasts, to avoid confusion) will be ignored. The Commission as constituted is a self-perpetuating oligarchy of the theologically liberal and politically left-leaning, and their choice of Archbishop will naturally reflect this. Perhaps Gordon Brown knew this in 2007 when he surrendered the Royal Prerogative.

It remains to be seen if David Cameron will accept the CNC’s preferred candidate, but there’ll be an almighty stink if he decides to intervene. Especially after such an ‘extensive consultation process’ to set out the desired profile of the new Archbishop. Basically, the CNC’s preferred candidate will already be the choice of the Prime Minister's and Archbishops' Secretaries for Appointments. The ‘results’ of ‘consultations’ will be utterly peripheral.

Of course, Her Majesty, being the Church’s Supreme Governor, could veto the chosen candidate and instruct the Commission and the College of Canons of Canterbury Cathedral to elect another. But that is not remotely likely: the Sovereign cannot be embarrassed by the failings of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and so cannot appear to have made decisions based upon her own personal preferences.

Frankly, the Scottish Presbyterian Gordon Brown has bequeathed the Episcopal Church of England something of a dog’s breakfast.

And no Tory in the Cabinet either understands or cares.

51 Comments:

Blogger bluedog said...

As they say, Your Grace, it's not what you know, but who you know.

In the context of which, your communicant suspects that somewhere in a sunlit room of Clarence House, a balding figure of ruddy complexion in the rude health of late middle age is scribbling furiously in long-hand in order to express his opinion.

Your communicant can summarise the manuscript with the words: Richard Chartres. A phone call to Dave (always go straight to the top), and that's a good morning's work.

After all, if one is to be Crowned, as the Crownee, isn't one entitled to have a say in the appointment of the Crownor?

31 March 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

The vacancy is probably already on display in the mali jobcenter,and upon arrival in Engalnd,simply present the used tickets for a full refund.

31 March 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You are spot on and this is surely another step in the disestablishment process.

Pray tell, what part the Holy Spirit is to play in this "dog's breakfast"? Before Atlas does, I'm telling you the Jesuits and Diáboluits are at it. Who is predestined to prevail?

And after this extensive nomination process, will the great and the good of the Church still congregate in prayer at Westminster and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit - and then confirm the candidate given them?

31 March 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. The Inspector thanks you for your detailed explanation of the process. By far the most complicated selection process for any QANGO to see who’ll head up the CoE. Perhaps after dis-establishment, a conclave of bishops in the future, with unsuccessful ballot papers mixed with wet straw and sent up the palace chimney...

31 March 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

the Sovereign cannot be embarrassed by the failings of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and so cannot appear to have made decisions based upon her own personal preferences.

I don't pretend to understand the workings of the British monarchy, but one very obvious question occurs to my pragmatic American mind.

Why?

Why is it more preferable for the CoE to dissolve into chaos and dust and dis-establishment than for the Monarch to risk embarrassment? Because that is surely where the CoE is headed.

This all reminds me of the excuses and rules that (allegedly) surrounded Emperor Hirohito, and (allegedly) prevented him from stopping Japan on its road to war. A Monarch is not a china doll set upon a mantle to be admired. Power is given to be exercised. So perhaps it should be exercised.

carl

31 March 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Anglican said...

It will become increasingly ridiculous for future (or present) Prime Ministers, who in all probability will be secularist/atheist/pagan/muslim, to have any say in the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. From this it follows (barring a mass re-conversion of England) that sooner or later, probably sooner, the C of E will be disestablished.

This will place the monarch, as Head of State as well as Supreme Governor of the C of E, in an impossible position.

The present set-up dates from a time when the Roman Catholic, Anglican and many Protestants Churches saw the Church and State as being one – but each thought that their Church should be at one with the State, and as a result bloody and very unchristian wars were fought.

It seems increasingly likely, from a human perspective, that all the Christian Churches will become a beleaguered and counter-cultural minority in this country, and will have to work much more closely together. Of course the Holy Spirit may have other ideas.

31 March 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anglican said ...

The present set-up dates from a time when the Roman Catholic, Anglican and many Protestants Churches saw the Church and State as being one."

Not so with Catholicism. The Erastian Settlement placed the Church under the State.

31 March 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Not so with Catholicism.

(Cough) Infallible Two Swords Doctrine. (Cough)

carl

31 March 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"From this it follows (barring a mass re-conversion of England) that sooner or later, probably sooner, the C of E will be disestablished."

It feels inevitable.

31 March 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace said,
The Commission as constituted is a self-perpetuating oligarchy of the theologically liberal and politically left-leaning, and their choice of Archbishop will naturally reflect this. Also, The Prime Minister no longer possesses the unfettered right to advise on ecclesiastical appointments, and so a crucial ‘check’ or ‘balance’ has been lost.
Whose fault is this? How has the leadership of the church become so weak and puerile to be of no effect on reviving the Church? I would not want Cameron poking his nose into something he knows nothing about and even worse would be Miliband or Clegg.
When Williams was selected for Canterbury they rejected the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, because they thought he might offend the Muslims and Gays. So what good was it of Blair interfering? How did that help the Church or country? Unless we have God fearing men in Government it is best if they don’t meddle.
If the church members had done their stuff, the leadership of the church would not be so left leaning. Caring for the poor is one thing, but taking the church away from traditional Biblical beliefs is another. There has been a long battle internally between the High Church and the Evangelicals and it’s a pity more credence has not been given to the ‘Life’ of the Evangelicals. They could have given the Church some vigour and appeal to the populous.
As for this nonsense of consultation, they may just use it as an excuse if the whole thing falls down around their ears. Let the Queen chose. She has more spirituality in her little finger than most of the clerics put together.

31 March 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Nasty cough there.

The Catholic Church's doctrine of the 'Two Swords', as laid out in the Papal Bull 'Unam Sanctam', teaches that the Church controls the spiritual sword and the State the temporal sword. It qualifies this by going on to say that the temporal sword is hierarchically lower than the spiritual sword, allowing for Church influence in politics and society. Kings ruled through Divine Right and had to comply with Divine Law.

Roman Catholic teaching regarded the Monarch as always being subject to natural and divine law. The possibility of a Monarch declining morally, overturning natural law, and degenerating into a tyranny oppressive of the general welfare was answered by this Bull. The Pope would assume the place of an arbiter of natural and divine law in deposing Kings that offended God's law.

There are parts of scripture supporting this doctrine. The medieval Roman Catholic concept was that Kings were bound to protect the Christian Constitution of states, to defend and extend the boundaries of Christendom by lawful means, to protect and defend the innocent, the weak, the poor and the vulnerable, and to protect the church and the Papacy with the King's own life, if necessary.

The doctrine in its time and circumstances seems fine by me. God's has an earthly Church with authority from Him for leading souls to Heaven. Kings are appointed by God to rule according to His law. The Church arbitrates and where need be intervenes. If there was a problem with its exercise, don't blame the teaching!

Is the secular, atheistic model with the UN any better? Really?

31 March 2012 at 15:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Ladbrokes latest betting. Rather amazed to see oddball Peter Mullen in there. Now, he WOULD make a good ++Canterbury, although the Inspector loathes the man personally...

Next Archbishop of Canterbury...

John Sentamu Evens
Graham James 5/2
Richard Chartres 5/1
Nick Baines 5/1
Christopher Cocksworth 6/1
Tim Stevens 8/1
Tom Wright 8/1
John Inge 10/1
Stephen Cottrell 14/1
Peter Mullen 20/1
James Jones 33/1
Christopher Forster 33/1

31 March 2012 at 16:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It's got to be Richard Chartres. He's got the authoritative edge.

31 March 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Where's Cardinal Keith O'Brien's name? Are Catholics excluded from this democratic process? Time to change that along with their outrageous exclusion from the Monarchy.

31 March 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s got to be Mullen. He’ll have the middle classes back in church on a Sunday. Anyone who’s met him will testify to the extraordinary zeal he has for his church. He’s a no nonsense Anglican. You just can’t help yourself agreeing with what he says and writes. He’s also a convenient way for Cameron to exit from the gay marriage agony. Mullen just wouldn’t consider it. And no to women bishops either. And there will be no Anglican split - Mullen just wouldn’t allow it. But most of all leadership. He has that in spades...

31 March 2012 at 16:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Not The Rev'd Peter Mullen? He's turns 70 years soon.

The chap who wrote on his blog, he that homosexuals should carry health warnings, for instance, "Sodomy may seriously damage your health"!

And of Muslims that they "lend themselves to ridicule: sticking their arses in the air five times a day. How about a few little choruses, 'Randy Muslims when they die/Find 70 virgins in the sky'?"

Also saying there could be an "agreeable carnage" at the start of the annual Hajj in Mecca: "They usually manage to stampede and slaughter quite a few hundred of their co-religionists."

Not usual material for Archbishop of Canterbury and, given his age, a wasted bet.

Where to place one's money? This is better than the Grand National.

Next?

31 March 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger David B said...

Disestablish and be done with it.

David B

31 March 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. That’s the man. Someone’s put good money on him and it wasn’t yours truly. And he’s got a good ten years left in him...

31 March 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Richard Chartres, if his sermon at the Royal Wedding is to go by then a good man. Against him though Wiki says, 'In October 2008, the Independent on Sunday named Chartres as number 75 of the top 100 environmentalists in Britain in their "Green List".' Not good by me.

31 March 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 12:33 : you never miss an opportunity do you eh? Just accept it: 'Rome' will never again prevail in Britain. Poking with the pointy end of your Jesuit stiletto will just blunt it, is all.

We Angles are Anglican, and NOT Romangles/Jeswangles or even Celtwangles. As they say: the secret is in the name. You just cannot wangle your way out of that.

31 March 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
But doesn't the AB of Canterbury have to retire at 70?

31 March 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The normal retirement age is 70. Presumably, that’s when the pension is at it’s optimum...

31 March 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Christopher Cocksworth 6/1"

My vote is for him. It would add a comedy edge to any gay marriage debates if he were picked.

31 March 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

The Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975, requires mandatory vacation of office at age 70 for Archbishops. He could stay on for a maximum of one year after this, provided there are "exceptional circumstances" and the Queen authorises it. Technically, it's not 'retirement' because they are 'office holders' not employees.

A 69 year old is therefore an unlikely winner.

The current field and odds:
John Sentamu 11-8
Christopher Cocksworth 7-2
Nick Baines 8-1
Justin Welby 9-1
Graham Jones 10-1
Vincent Nichols 1000000-1

31 March 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Ok, let's deal with the Inspector's list:

John Sentamu Evens - A good bet, though possibly ruled out due to having only 7 years in him before mandatory retirement age (unless the rules are changed). However he speaks out about issues that matter, he is evangelical and has been open about his views on gay marriage. Would also be a feather in the CofE's cap to break down the race barrier and have the first ever black ABC. Would also go down well in Africa.

Graham James 5/2 - Has the history of being chaplain to Runcie, so knows the territory, and given that he's on the media committee (or whatever it's called) he should be media-savy. Downside (though this is only due to lack of info) is that he doesn't appear to lean any particular way on the major issues facing the CofE currently, so could mean more of the same. Also only 9 years possible in the job.

Richard Chartres 5/1 - Clearly the "big beast" of the names with excellent links to the royal family. Well recognised as not being a liberal, so not inclined towards messing with "innovations" to theology. However he only has 5 years available in post, which would cause problems for the next Lambeth Conference, and he is also not in favour of women priests, let alone bishops, which would not sit well in certain circles and especially not in the HoC.

Nick Baines 5/1 - Media-savvy, engaging, young (relatively) and definitely on the evangelical side of things. However, he is not long in his only diocesan post (previously only a suffrogen) and s could be deemed to lack experience. The one thing that could remove this is that a previous ABC was in a similar position when appointed, by the name of George Carey. He would also have about 15 years possible in post.

Christopher Cocksworth 6/1 - Even younger than Nick Baines (possible 17 years in post if appointed), evangelical, former theologian and head of Ridley Hall and, according to my father (who worked with him in appointing a vicar to the church my dad was warden of and to whom Cocksworth was Ridley's representative as the patron of the church), is a very sound guy, affable and easy to work with. Youth and lack of experience may count against him, but if people want someone who can t least come close to Rowan Williams' in learning then he could be the man.

31 March 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Tim Stevens 8/1 - He has some interesting experience prior to ordination, most notably working for the Foreign and Commonwealth office. A lot of experience in East London before becoming Bishop, and has been all the way through the ranks, so to speak. However he is older than Chartres and would have at best 3 years in post.

Tom Wright 8/1 - Sadly the negatives come to me first, not least because he has taken himself out of being a bishop to return to academia, much like Rowan Williams. He is also not young, having at best 6 years in post available. That said, if he were appointed he would bring an equal depth and intellect to the post as Rowan has, as well as being of the evangelical persuasion and he has not been afraid to speak out on issues in the past.

John Inge 10/1 - From his training college I would guess at him being an Anglo-Catholic. This could potentially be a problem for those in favours of women in leadership, particularly as bishops. However, since I hardly knw anything about him I would suggest that he is very much an outside bet at best.

Stephen Cottrell 14/1 - My diocesan bishop, he is from the liberal wing of the church, previously the Bishop of Reading (appointed after Jeffrey John stood down at ++Rowan's request), but not in post long at Chelmsford. He is very positive about church building and planting, his favourite saying at the moment being "The problem with the Church is that there are too many churches. The solution for the Church is to create even more churches!"

Peter Mullen 20/1 - Past the retirement age for the job so a non-starter.

James Jones 33/1 - Has recently come out in favour of homosexuality (at least to some extent), having previously been recognised as firmly in the evangelical wing of the CofE. Also getting on a bit, with only 6 years possible in post.

Christopher Forster 33/1 - Another relatively unknown, young enough to make a go of it and long enough in hI current post for inexperience not to be an issue. I have no idea about his theology, so can't pass comment.

Overall I'd say that John Sentamu is the best for the role, simply because he will step up and speak out about issues that the church should be speaking out about, and not just on sexuality but given all that's going on in the Anglican church it may well be sexuality that is of particular significance currently.
However, given his age, if this is something that comes in to Layton I would suggest Chris Cocksworth might be the best for the role with Nick Baines going to York when Sentamu retires.

But, given that the appointment went outside of the CofE last time, this list may not have all the runners and riders on it. The only thing we can say for certain is that e Inspector's choice is a non-starter!

31 March 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Outstanding work Youthpasta, giving us the form like that. Looks like they are nearly all acceptable (...ie, improvement on Williams...)

31 March 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

++John Sentamu will be the right man for the job for a number of reasons, not least that he will be able to bring the African bishops back into line and away from the poison of the Sydney Diocese's desire to drag Anglicanism back to 1554.

++John will be a breathe of fresh air in Lambeth Palace.

31 March 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

As you are well aware, that, being a time traveller I could not possibly reveal who will be the next ABC (although that doesn't stop me from plonking £100,000 on the winner!!).

PS- are listening posts in the Orion Nebula have picked up the following message :

"We are... Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. But inevitable and welcome"


Does this mean anything to the British Space Empire?

31 March 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

In any case I am quite happy. We managed to save Alpha Draconis from the Super Nova and vanquish the Chelonia for all time. Worried about that message though...

31 March 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha
Chin up our brave reptillian knight. Each sentient being is facing yet another dividing of the ways. It is the way of life. We are relying on you and your comrades in arms.

They have different names in your time, at this time they are known as 'Jesuits' and 'Diáboluits'. When I say 'we' I refer to a small, select group who are in the know. Throughout history these two forces have and will be locked in mortaland immortal struggle. (Atlas knows the details). In each time they take a different form and the methods of combat are different.

Resist the demands of your enemy. At least it have declared its intention openly. In our time the method is covert, cultural infiltration and terror. Shortly before that brute, naked power had been resisted. So it has been since the beginning of time and so it will be until the end of time.

You will succeed!

Ps
It won't cause a rupture in the space time continuum if you tell me who finally wins the 2012 English Premiership title in May, will it?

31 March 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Someone please tell me my Michael Nazir-Ali cant be or isn't being considered? He stood down from Rochester because Williams was in favour of Sharia Law. (Michael is an expert on Sharia Law apparently). He should have been ABC last time and having met him, I think he is an excelent choice.

31 March 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Integrity, I would also be in favour of Nazir-Ali. I think that the reason he is not being suggested us probably because he is associated with the GAFCON movement and it is held as being more a break-away movement than one of holding the communion together (not saying this is the case, just what opinion in the upper reaches of the CofE think). As such it would be deemed a decisive move well beyond appointing Sentamu.
From having him as my previous diocesan bishop, I had te fortune to meet and chat with him and he is engaging, thoughtful and very personable, all of which would be an asset. The only other downsides are his age (less that 7 years in post possible) and that he is known to be a bit wordy. A friend of mine once said of Nazir-Ali "he takes the view - why say one or two words when thousands will do" which could put people off. But he, like Sentamu, would also tick the "ethnic" box, which would be seen as a positive.

1 April 2012 at 01:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Gay Butterfly said...

Youthpasta said ...
"A friend of mine once said of Nazir-Ali 'he takes the view - why say one or two words when thousands will do'"

A man after my own heart! What are his odds? Any scandals on the horizon we should know about?

Have safequards against betting scams beeen put in place? I mean if the game of cricket can be corrupted by mammon this selection process could be too.

Keep us posted on developments asmy future financial security could be at stake.

1 April 2012 at 01:33  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

A consultation without the opportunity to change set minds? Sounds like the consultation on gay marriage.

Add that to the refusal to allow a referendum on Europe after promising it and Europe's refusal to accept referendum results they do not like and it is plain to see that within the UK and the wider EU we no longer live in a democratic West.

For the sake of clarity, I do not think that the ABC should be appointed after consultation - just that fake consultations smack of the tricks that dictatorships indulge in.

1 April 2012 at 08:00  
Blogger len said...

There is a 'great need' at the forefront of every Church on God`s Earth at this present moment in time.

There is also a 'great need' overriding every other need as a 'number one' priority in the life of every inhabitant of this Planet.

And what is that need?.(I hear you asking)


To find Christ and to place Him in His rightful position (in the Church and in the Heart of every man, woman , and child.)

Then God`s purpose will be fulfilled and Creation will be restored to God`s Original intention.

1 April 2012 at 08:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! I raised this issue with My Lord the Bishop and his chaplain, Mr. Slope, aftern Matins this morning. I expressed grave concerns over the exclusion of the PM over ecclesiastical appointments over a fortifying cup of Earl Grey. Mr. Slope listened to me most carefully. 'Mrs Proudie, if I may be so bold,' said Mr. Slope as he dipped his Garibaldi into the brimfull Crown Derby, 'Prime Minister Brown was an utter Twat, and if Parliament had a set of testicles they would remove every piece of legislation that Arsewipe put on the statute book. I trust I have not offended by my plain speaking, Madam?'
I felt a strange stirring in my bosom.
'Too 'effin right mate,' I said.

1 April 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Gay Butterfly said...

Mrs Proudie
Well said, you passionate lass. The Bishop of Barchester must cause you many moments of bosom stirring but the Earl Grey will quieten you.

2 April 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Gay Butterfly said...

Ps
Just make sure Lady Grey is not around!

2 April 2012 at 02:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ah, Lady Jane Grey, poor girl.

2 April 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 April 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oswin are you referring to the Inspector's girlfriend Lady Grey
( Nurse Shark) who ripped off len's swimming trunks?

3 April 2012 at 02:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

No. No. I take it you are not British and therefore ignorant of our history.

You have intruded on one of Oswin's dearest fantasies - the late (very, very late) Lady Jane Grey.

His sigh was one of unrequitted love. He has a romantic fixation on Royal ladies and concubines from this time. If you have influence with the man encourage cold showers. Another remedy is an elastic band round the wrist which is 'pinged' when temptation rises.

Being Catholic, myself and Inspector have no need for such aids. Early training and strength of character ensures pure thoughts prevail and healthier outlets are pursued.

3 April 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you and your 'mate' seem to be quite exception in that respect then!.
I think your sexual repressions are breaking out all over this blog for all to see!.

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”
(Robert Burns)

3 April 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
Don't you have an allotment to tend? Think of the vegatables you might grow.

3 April 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger len said...

Do do`s, I think your new identity is 'fowl'

Boom boom its the way I tell em `to be sure!

3 April 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida @ 02:49 : que? I know nothing! Sharks notwithstanding, I seem to have unwittingly strayed into strange and dangerous waters.


Dodo: I have a wee gadget that cleverly applies stout rubber bands for certain, er, 'lamb' related procedures. Care to borrow it, free/gratis? I'll even pay the P&P for you! See how you 'ping' then my boy!

4 April 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin: no, you keep it to hand my lad. As I said, I have no need for such devices. Do be sure to use plenty of ice when the time comes.

4 April 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: relax, we have plenty of ice; currently a depth of several inches!

4 April 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin: our thoughts are with you. Hopefully the procedure will not cause you too much pain and afterwards, who knows, you might get a singing part in the next village play.

4 April 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo, such drollery; I know when I'm out-gunned...

4 April 2012 at 19:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older