Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Anglican Lay Reader suspended for supporting Coalition for Marriage

All Saints Church in Sanderstead is part of the Diocese of Southwark. The parish says of itself: ‘We rejoice in our diversity as churches - but rejoice even more in our unity, as we seek to serve God and our neighbour together.’ But it seems that their rejoicing in diversity does not extend to differences over the Coalition for Marriage petition, for a Lay Reader of 50 years standing and loyal service has been suspended over the issue.

Peter Gowlland, 78, was due to meet with Barry Goodwin, acting Archdeacon of Croydon, on St George’s Day for his Reader’s licence to be renewed for a further year. To his surprise, he was presented with some nebulous charges (with no prior warning) which concerned an incident eight days earlier, when he dared to suggest that the congregation at All Saints might like to sign the Coalition for Marriage petition. He had been preaching about the boldness of the Apostles, and told the congregation that the C4M issue called for a contemporary manifestation of like boldness.

As a result of this, there were one or two mumblings from members of said congregation who favour same-sex marriage, and so they complained to a higher level. Sadly, the Venerable (acting) Barry Goodwin didn’t exhort these believers to follow Scripture and take their complaint first to Mr Gowlland: he decided instead to suspend him for two months.

Bizarrely, the (acting) Archdeacon acknowledged that Mr Gowlland was ‘experienced and committed to preaching and teaching the Gospel’, but it appears that (retired) Bishop David Atkinson (and others) found him a little too committed to the cause of upholding the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage (which happens also to be the law of the land). And so he has been suspended because ‘there is a potential for division in All Saints’.

Well, there’s a bright Archdeacon. You suspend a voluntary and highly-experienced Lay Reader at a time the church has no vicar in order to sustain an illusory unity. Mr Gowlland is not merely a Reader of 50 years’ standing; he has a Diploma in Theology; taught A-level RS for 20 years; and was a headmaster for 24 years. He has been informed that the issue is not with his support for the biblical view of marriage, but with the way he introduced the subject and petition which were ‘bounced’ on his colleagues ‘without prior discussion’. For this reason, the Venerable (acting) Barry Goodwin has ‘withdrawn’ Mr Gowlland from preaching and leading worship for two months. This is not, however, a suspension.


The (acting) Archdeacon has listened to the complaints of a vociferous few who support same-sex marriage and without giving Mr Gowlland the chance to respond to the allegations has summarily ‘withdrawn’ Mr Gowlland’s licence to preach and lead worship for two months, but this doesn’t amount to suspension. And, moreover, the (acting) Archdeacon has done this during a interregnum, when the church needs all the lay expertise it can muster.


Mr Gowlland has appealed to the Bishop of Southwark, pointing out that the Chairman of the District Church Council was not only aware that Mr Gowlland intended to mention the Coalition for Marriage; he even offered to find a table for promotional literature. He told the Bishop that during the notices he read out the petition and encouraged people to sign it. The person leading the service was Mary Duncan, another Lay Reader, who made no comment to Mr Gowlland personally. It transpires that Ms Duncan didn’t approve of Mr Gowlland’s stance, and so made her feelings known to another Lay Reader, Penny Bird. And together, without warning or discussion, they came to the lectern and exhorted the congregation not to sign the petition. “There are other views,” they said. “Do not sign it without giving it very careful thought.” Ms Duncan turned to Mr Gowlland and said, “Just in the interests of balance, Peter.”

The Worldwide President of the Mothers Union, Rosemary Kempsell, then said that the Government was having a consultation and had asked people to respond. Bishop David Atkinson, who was leading the service, said that this was neither the time nor place to discuss this, but suggested a meeting in the near future to do so. It is quite incredible that neither Bishop David nor any of the Lay Readers expressed their concerns to Mr Gowlland privately. And neither has the Rev’d Andrew Watson (curate) nor the Rev’d Susan Atkinson-Jones (vicar-in-charge during the interregnum). This is a great shame, for the situation could easily have been defused with a quiet word in the vestry.

And now Mr Gowlland is suspended, but the (acting) Archdeacon isn’t calling it so, and neither is the Bishop of Southwark. What is significant here is that the Lay Reader whose licence has been temporarily ‘withdrawn’ for two months supports the Coalition for Marriage, while the Lay Readers who oppose it - and who stood up in front of the congregation to dispute publicly with Mr Gowlland – are not subject to any disciplinary action. Of course, Lay Readers are not employees, and so the (acting) Archdeacon is not bound by employment legislation. But, as a courtesy, one might expect the Church of England to uphold certain procedures and principles which accord with natural justice: viz. i) oral warning; ii) written warning; iii) final written warning; iv) suspension/dismissal. This would accord with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 18:15) and of St Paul (Gal 6:1ff).

Peter Gowlland has been charged, convicted and summarily sentenced without the right to present his case (cf Prov 18:17). The suspension (which it certainly is) is a manifest punitive action and a public humiliation. Mr Gowlland is elderly, fragile and very hurt: he and his wife now attend another church. He is not exercising his ministry.


Blogger Gareth said...

This sort of thing is happening all the time in churches and parachurch organisations all over the world. Only the victims are usually the worshippers who hold 'liberal' views.

2 May 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
As it has been said about Murdoch, that he is not fit to run a major corporation (Just who is calling the kettle black?) these people involved are un fit to be involved in the largest organisation in the world.
It is not surprising that the CofE is in such dire straits when it's leaders cannot follows the rules of their leader.
Just for balance, do not condemn SIN, just go away and think about it!

2 May 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger Tony B said...


2 May 2012 at 10:53  
Blogger Stephen Dawe said...

Your Grace,
As a former communicant and seminary student in the Church of England equivalent in Canada (though now exercising my ministry in the realms of "non-denominational" evangelicalism), I am sorry to see that my fellows in England face the same kind of passive-aggresive "tolerance" that caused me to leave the Church my family had worshipped in for generations. I pray that Mr. Gowlland will continue his ministry despite the opposition to his boldness, though he should know that he has already been a witness for at least one fellow believer.

Rejoice when they speak ill of you for His name's sake, they spoke ill of Him too.

2 May 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger Stephen Dawe said...

Your Grace,
As a former communicant and seminary student in the Church of England equivalent in Canada (though now exercising my ministry in the realms of "non-denominational" evangelicalism), I am sorry to see that my fellows in England face the same kind of passive-aggresive "tolerance" that caused me to leave the Church my family had worshipped in for generations. I pray that Mr. Gowlland will continue his ministry despite the opposition to his boldness, though he should know that he has already been a witness for at least one fellow believer.

Rejoice when they speak ill of you for His name's sake, they spoke ill of Him too.

2 May 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger Stephen Dawe said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 May 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger SouthwarkVicar said...

Some Lay Readers are more equal than others?

2 May 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...

If you want the full story, read the comments on the older Posts, "The Witney-Tatton Question", "Boris, must win, and go on and on", and lastly "Siobhan Benita - the real Labour candidate below."

2 May 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

This is a typical example of the whining, snivelling, petty, cowardly, poisonous, creepy, backstabbing way that these Guardian readers operate. If Hitler had won the war, he'd have had to fend them off with bargepoles as they formed queues at Gestapo headquarters offering their services.

When our Lord and the apostles warned about false teachers creeping onto the church to destroy her from within by false doctrines, who could he have had in mind?

2 May 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I grew up in Sanderstead. I would expect that there are many, many people there who would want to sign the Coalition for Marriage Petition C4M. Its a very conservative place.

2 May 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

PS when did it become 'bold' to defend marriage? Is this how far we have sunk?

2 May 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace I have just emailed the Prime Minister's PPS with this post. I thought the PM ought to know.

2 May 2012 at 11:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some Churches are more interested in inclusiveness than defending the faith. Filtering the Bible through political correctness is a sure fire way of spreading heresy.

2 May 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger non mouse said...

Maybe we should consider petitioning HM directly, in large crowds outside the Palace if necessary.

You see, I fail to understand why members of the electorate should grovel about petitioning a traitor who refuses to know his place, and who has given no ear to the British people,ever.

If that lump of blancmange had the slightest sense of honour, he'd resign anyway.

2 May 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger Gary said...

Hereward said: "Some Churches are more interested in inclusiveness than defending the faith."

And some churches are in the grip of satan but the parishioners are too biblically illiterate to notice. Pray for them (they need it!).

2 May 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Which being interpreted means, "I'm above it all".

2 May 2012 at 12:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(1 Cor 6:7-11)

What I've never really understood is why the reference to practicing same-sex partners is the onle one that gets rejected. Presumably if the good lay readers of All Saints take issue with the truth of passages like 1 Cor 6:9 the remainder of the passage is also compromised. Unrepentant adulterers, the greedy or the drunk are presumably ok then? How can we rely on the Bible's condemnation of these sins if it is so drastically wrong on sexual sin?

The sad thing is, we're in danger of missing the truth of what Paul writes, of the Good News itself. I fulfil some of those criteria for those who won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but I was washed, I was sanctified, and I was justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. If we lose sight of why we need that Salvation, we render it meaningless.

Presumably, all the readers at All Saints share in their affirmation of Christ as their saviour. One wonders why they are so insistent about denying that salvation to their homosexual brethren.

2 May 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Richard Brown said...

This is exactly the sort of stupid action over which churches divide. What actual harm does this Acting (with any luck, his promotion will not be confirmed) Archdeacon think is going to be caused, and why does he feel the need to elevate the issue above all others? Who else has the Diocese of Southwark suspended, and for what reasons? If that question were answered, we might see exactly what this very divided diocese's priorities are.

2 May 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

AnonymousInBelfast, said
How can we rely on the Bible's condemnation of these sins if it is so drastically wrong on sexual sin?
Are you saying the Bible is wrong on sexual sin? We can't pick and choose which sins we are cleansed and forgiven from. The Bible is right or wrong. You can't have it both ways.

2 May 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

At the risk of spoiling everyone's knee-jerk reaction to this story, may I just say as the recently-departed parish priest of All Saints, Sanderstead that I know everyone involved in this story very well and that some caution should be exercised in rushing to judgment, especially when the story clearly relies as a source upon the words of someone who is feeling very hurt and bruised at the moment. Canon Simon Butler, former Rector of Sanderstead

2 May 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Simon Butler

If you have something to say, then say it. If you have confidences to keep, then keep them. But don't presume to argue with knowing nods and self-important assertions of inside knowledge that you promptly refuse to share. How are we to evaluate your claims, or your own motivations in this matter? The fact that you are a former rector of the church involved in no way establishes you as an impartial observer.

I don't know you or Peter Gowlland. I do know that I won't easily dismiss the testimony of the later in this case simply because you say we should 'exercise caution.'


2 May 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger SouthwarkVicar said...

I think it should also be noted that the former Rector of Sanderstead now runs a church that on its website liberally uses the word 'inclusive' and says this about the faith:

"We believe that God continues to lead and guide us into new ways of thinking and that the discoveries of science, archaeology and psychology can change our previous understandings of the Bible and Church teaching."

ie I think the canon has his own axe to grind here on the C4M issue ...

2 May 2012 at 14:36  
Blogger David Waters said...

The only logical course for a thinking, Bible believing Christian in the C of E is to leave and worship elsewhere.

This useless organisation is a cancer on the nation

2 May 2012 at 14:41  
Blogger Jim McLean at Acoustic Village said...

Thanks Ramblingseed, who said "PS when did it become 'bold' to defend marriage? Is this how far we have sunk?".

I cannot understand the apathy of the churches...the catholic church particularly in my diocese. They don't mention it, they don't provide guidance, a view....I know Vince Nichols had a letter read out, but after that - nothing.

What meaning does inclusivity have if there is no unity in the acceptance of the Gospel?

2 May 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger Gary said...

Regarding this garbage: "We believe that God continues to lead and guide us into new ways of thinking and that the discoveries of science, archaeology and psychology can change our previous understandings of the Bible and Church teaching."

A Perfect example of man trying to make God in his image.

2 May 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

For the record Southwark Vicar (whose ought to have the courage to put a name to his postings), I am not in favour of gay marriage. And I would have thought the statement on our website is patently true: new insights cannot change the bible, but they can change the way we interpret it. Otherwise one is simply captive to the blindnesses of one's own age. Our attitude to slavery would be a good example of a changed intepretation of scripture.

My concern, Carl Jacobs, is not that Peter's testimony should be discounted, but that it should be seen in the context of deeply upsetting personal experience. Reading the postings here, it appears that for most people it simply confirms previously held views about a whole host of things, "inclusion", "marriage", "the Church of England", "Southwark" etc etc. I just wish people would be a little bit more cautious about such immediate rushes to judgment.

2 May 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Carl Jacobs succinctly expressed

"If you have something to say, then say it...The fact that you are a former rector of the church involved in no way establishes you as an impartial observer." INDEED!

We said that man.

Every day we and our children are being indoctrinated into believing that:

1. There are NO moral absolutes
2. Your business is nobody else's business
3. If what one is doing is not hurting anyone, continue, it's okay
4. If it feels good, it must be right, just do it!
5. You can be anything you want to be
6. You can do anything you want to do
7. You can change your look and feel beautiful
8. You can choose to terminate an innocent human life while it is in the womb; but you have to save the whale and all other endangered species, who are of more intrinsic value than an unborn human being.
9. You came to existence by chance that took millions of years to happen
10.You are a god or can become a god, so act like one.
11.You and nature are one, Indeed, all is one
12. All religions lead to the same god irrespective of obvious differences that cannot be reconciled!
13. "Family" doesn't necessarily mean "Marriage" or "Mum and Dad"....need old Ernsty go on?.

The Old Testament prophet states it best;

Isa 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

The raison d'etre of this blog, old ernst believes, is for His Grace to make his goal our goal which is to raise everyones awareness of the fact that there is an ongoing spiritual battle for our souls and the souls of our children.

Let us, Ephesians 6:11-12 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may me be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." as it appears that those who attacked Mr Gowlland forgot 1 Cor. 4:2, "It is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful."


2 May 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger SouthwarkVicar said...

To David Waters:
No, the call is to stay in and contend 'once for all' for the saints.

The parable of the wheat and the weeds tells us that the chruch (any church) is always a mix.

2 May 2012 at 14:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 May 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 May 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger Flossie said...

This clip is from the now-defunct Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream website, January 2007, which throws a little light on the subject:

'Canon Simon Butler, a leading Southwark Evangelical clergyman and outspoken critic of recent actions by Conservative Evangelicals in that diocese and elsewhere has publicly stated his acceptance that same-sex relationships are “ethically possible” when they are “loving, committed and monogamous”.

In a recent post on the website of Fulcrum, the Open Evangelical group launched at the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 2003, Canon Simon Butler describes himself as “pro-gay and listening”, and says that he now wants to argue the pro-gay case from within the Evangelical Anglican movement.'

No wonder secularists and atheists are confident about downgrading marriage when we have fifth columnists within the church.

2 May 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger Gary said...

Regarding this: 'Canon Simon Butler, a leading Southwark Evangelical clergyman and outspoken critic of recent actions by Conservative Evangelicals in that diocese and elsewhere has publicly stated his acceptance that same-sex relationships are “ethically possible” when they are “loving, committed and monogamous”.

Romans 1 would disagree with him. Or perhaps this "leading clergyman" knows better than Paul?

2 May 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Simon Butler

is not that Peter's testimony should be discounted, but that it should be seen in the context of deeply upsetting personal experience.

What does it mean to say that his remarks "should be seen in the context of deeply upsetting personal experience." Are they unreliable? Are they distorted? Deeply upsetting personal experiences do not necessarily make people unreliable witnesses. They certainly do not make the witness lose credibility to testify to his own victimization. Otherwise, we should never let victims of crime testify against their victimizers.

This is my problem with your comment. You hinted at deeper motivations, and left the reader to imagine whatever dark secret he might choose. You made Peter Gowlland the defendant in his own victimization, and did so on the authority of 'inside knowledge.' You offered no justification, and still haven't. It's a way to slander someone without actually saying anything substantial. You might as well have said "If you knew what I know about Peter Gowlland, you would have a totally different opinion." [wink, wink, knowing look.] How does he defend himself from that statement?


2 May 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Canon Simon Butler: "I just wish people would be a little bit more cautious about such immediate rushes to judgment."

You mean like the (acting) Archdeacon? At the very least, do you not think that Peter Gowlland ought to have been afforded the courtesy (not to say right) to put his version of events before being 'invited to withdraw' from preaching and leading worship?

2 May 2012 at 15:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The treatment of Peter Gowlland is horrific.

All Peter Gowlland did was to invite his fellow parishioners of 50 plus years standing, to sign the C4M Petition.

Are we not in the middle of a public consultation or the matter and hasn't the Archbishop of Canterbury already said that there is no place for homosexual "marriage" ? Why are men such as Barry Goodwin (acting Archdeacon of Croydon, Southwark Diocese) not acting "under authority" as is required by their contracts of employment in the C of E and their Duty to God ?

The 1/2 million people who have signed the C4M petition and the millions more who support marriage "classic" will be horrified at this vicious and unnecessary mess that the Prime Minister and Boris Johnson and their liberal cronies, such as Danny Finkelstein and Andrew Cooper have walked this Nation into.

2 May 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Canon Simon Butler,

Could you also please comment on the procedural status of 'invited to withdraw'? Does it form part of the Diocese's formal disciplinary proceedings? If not, how may it be enforced if Mr Gowlland does not see fit to accept the 'invitation'? If it may indeed be enforced, how does it differ from suspension? Is an 'acting' archdeacon empowered with such authority without reference to his superiors? Or is the fact that no-one is calling it 'suspension' (except, of course, for Mr Gowlland, to whom it undoubtedly amounts to one) a way of circumventing due process? Are not the Diocese's procedures written to ensure justice? How can justice be done when they are arbitrarily set aside?

2 May 2012 at 16:11  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

Archbishop, your point is strange. As the parish is in vacancy, it is the Archdeacon who has to decide on these matters. To whom else should he "put his version of events"? The Archdeacon exercises oversight of vacant parishes on behalf of the bishop.

My problem with this whole matter is not the events as they unfolded. Neither you nor I are party to the interview between Peter & the acting Archdeacon. My problem is that you - or another party - have simply presented (and spun) the story as factually accurate without seeking comment from Barry Goodwin or others in Sanderstead whom you cite and criticise. While it may make for an exciting political blog and suits that agenda handsomely, it hardly makes for good journalistic practice, balanced reporting or a desire to expose the truth beyond that which you already believe to be true. In the light of the ninth commandment, I don't think that's a particularly ethically respectable position.

2 May 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

Archbishop, for the sake of clarity and trying to be as factual as I can, a priest or Reader over the age of 70 does not hold a bishop's licence but Permission to Officiate. The key difference is that, instead of ministering with the bishop's licence (and therefore at the bishop's discretion)a PTO priest or Reader ministers at the incumbent's discretion, which can be removed at any time. This was the case with Peter when he moved to Sanderstead from another parish during my time after his (conservative Evangelical) vicar decided to withdraw permission for him to preach.
In a vacancy, it would be the Area Dean/Archdeacon who deals with such matters, but there is no procedure anywhere in the Church of England that provides due process for anyone 70+ to have redress as far as I'm aware

2 May 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger SouthwarkVicar said...

If you look on the Diocesan website,
the Archdeacon did not follow proper procedure.


From which I quote:


Suspension may be imposed under the following conditions:

Failure to return Licensing or PTO renewal forms by the date required.
Failure to ensure that the annual fee is paid.
Failure to complete the required CRB check when requested.

CRB check returned with unsatisfactory disclosure.
Where a dispute has arisen under the grievance procedure.

Any other circumstance deemed appropriate for suspension by the Bishop, Area Bishop, Warden, Sub-Warden and Registrar in mutual agreement.

The final decision on suspension would be made by the Warden in consultation with appropriate parties.

Top of page

The more detailed procedure can be seen in sections 19 and 20 of this website:

PS I don't reveal my identity in Southwark. Because the powers that be may not like my 'tone'.

2 May 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Ernst @14:58.
Fantastic. Absolutely brilliant. That is what we Christians are about.

2 May 2012 at 16:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

"My problem with this whole matter is not the events as they unfolded"

Thus saith Canon Simon Butler, 'a leading Southwark Evangelical clergyman and outspoken critic of recent actions by Conservative Evangelicals in that diocese and elsewhere has publicly stated his acceptance that same-sex relationships are “ethically possible”. Canon Simon Butler describes himself as “pro-gay and listening”, and says that he now wants to argue the pro-gay case.'

Well Canon Simon Butler you may "not have any problem with the events as they unfolded" but bullying of the loyal and the elderly whose wholly legitimate opinion is shared by many more than 1/2 million others in this Land, is both vile and disgraceful

2 May 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

Southwark Vicar, (whose 'contention for the saints' is - unlike the apostles - destined to remain somewhat shadowy), I think these regulations would not apply in these circumstances and that Archbishop Cranmer is right in his assertion that Peter has not been formally 'suspended'.
To give an example, in a previous ministry I came to the conclusion that a (now sadly departed) colleague's ministry in a parish should cease for a period of time. That was my decision and mine alone, based on my judgment about the appropriateness of the particular colleague continuing in ministry. The Archdeacon is, I think, deciding in place of the parish priest, rather than disciplining on behalf of the bishop.
What a pity you can't 'come out' as the person you are with the views you hold. Plenty of others in Southwark have similar views, I'm sure. Some of them (maybe even you,for all I know!) are my friends!

2 May 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger martin sewell said...

Whatever view one takes upon marriage and the petition this is an appalling example of how not to manage the fellowship of the Church.

A little reflection and penitence would not come amiss.

2 May 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace,

Your readers may like to know that 75% of the Witney constituents who actually voted for Mr Cameron in the 2010 general election happen to agree with Peter Gowlland and his views.

"In a fresh blow to the Prime Minister, a new opinion poll shows that two thirds of voters in the PM's Witney constituency are opposed to redefining marriage. And that figure rises to 75% amongst the people who voted for David Cameron in 2010.

Most of David Cameron's constituents (56%) believe he is out of touch with ordinary voters on the issue.

The Whitney poll is reported in today’s Sun, which also carries an editorial saying David Cameron is failing to speak up for ordinary people: “The PM seems more concerned with fringe issues like legalising gay marriage, a policy hated by his own hitherto loyal Tory-voting constituents.”"

2 May 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger Galant said...

Well this is getting confusing. As I first read it Mr. Gowlland was [insert name for the leave he was asked to take] because he mentioned the C4M petition and asked people to sign it. Whilst matters of church procedure and behaviour are important, as are journalistic ethics, they aren't, to my reading, the central issue. So did Mr. Gowlland receive his 'reprimand' for speaking positively about the C4M petition or not?

2 May 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Deary me, this is a sad story.

The important thing is to sign the Petition for Marriage.

The good Canon Simon tells us he is "not in favour of gay marriage".Has he signed the petition, in that case?

Would he object to someone, like me, urging others to do so and why?

2 May 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

Galant, hooray, now would someone who's (maybe Southwark Vicar if he's feeling brave and not, like me in the eyes of many contributors, 'compromised')would someone like to ask the acting Archdeacon that question and see what answer results? Perhaps we might get more light than heat then.

2 May 2012 at 17:08  
Blogger Galant said...

See, now I'm more confused, because, Simon, I thought that was the point you were contending. That at least was the issue that the original article brought to my mind, and the procedural issues, while important, struck me as only secondary. So were you not contending that point?

2 May 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Simon Butler

The whole thing stinks.

I hate the nod and wink method of running churches.

So CofE, no wonder congregations despair and number are falling.


;) But we are all right aren't we Simon....we are cool and trendy....... for now!

2 May 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

John Knox's lovechild, I would encourage everyone in my congregation to engage in this important debate and to express their views accordingly. I don't think it's a liberal/conservative thing this one, although the culture warriors this side of the pond want to paint it as such.

But, equally, I want to ask you the same question. Assuming you are a regular worshipper in a church, would you be happy for someone to stand up in your church and ask people to sign the Coalition for Equal Marriage petition? What's sauce for the goose...

Being inclusive means everyone has a place at the table: progressives often find themselves silenced in conservative churches too.

2 May 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

Come to my church Phil Roberts, growing, vibrant, mission focused, utterly inclusive without being anything goes (we have conservative and liberal members who seem to serve God alongside one another pretty well).

I'm not interested in being cool and trendy (if you knew me, you would know that to be true), I'm interested in faitfully following Christ and inviting others to do the same...

2 May 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Galant said...

"Assuming you are a regular worshipper in a church, would you be happy for someone to stand up in your church and ask people to sign the Coalition for Equal Marriage petition?"

Should I take that as the answer to my question or should I expect another?

2 May 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
What has Southwark always been a hot spot for homosexuality. As I wrote on the Ugly Vicar Blog today, I moved to London over 46 years ago and the house I found a room to rent in was occupied by male choristers from Southwark Cathedral and were all as gay as a gum drop. I was shocked to say the least.

2 May 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

I think had I still been in post, I would have discussed it in the Ministry Team before announcing any petition to sign on either side of the debate(it's only fair on one's colleagues in a team); we would have then come to a mind together about how to approach the issue, which would have raised different opinions in the congregation. Perhaps the problem here is surprising one's fellow leaders with something they were not expecting.

2 May 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger SouthwarkVicar said...

When did it become controversial to ask people to sign something which SCripture teaches?
I would hope all Christians could do that.
If not, something is seriously wrong with that particular church.

Off now to carry on my prep. on my sermon on 2 Peter 2 vv 1-12
Sermon title: 'What false teachers are like'.

Ho hum.

2 May 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Galant said...

So, to clarify, the problem here with Mr. Gowlland's 'behaviour' is that as I first thought it was - namely, that he advocated the C4M petition. That's the issue at hand, and the problem you have with the original article is not that these facts are incorrect?

2 May 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger SouthwarkVicar said...

Because the Gowlland affair is a little like the government 'consultation'.

When is a 'suspension' not a suspension?

And when is a 'reprimand' not a reprimand?

Shades of Animal Farm here...

Key is whether Mr G has received reasons in writing which are required.

He can then appeal on those to the Bishop

(assuming he wants to go back to that church - not sure I would want to.)

2 May 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger Galant said...

Pardon the double negative. I'll rephrase my question for clarity:

"That's the issue at hand, and the problem you have with the original article is" something other than these facts?

2 May 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Martin Bormann’s son came home from school one day and told his father his class had been discussing NAZIsm. He asked him what he considered it was. Bormann replied that NAZIsm was whatever Adolph Hitler said it was. Now today, you might think Anglicanism is whatever Canterbury++ says it is also. If anybody can give a definitive answer, it will be him. Well, no need to go that far up in a supposedly hierarchical church, just ask an acting Archdeacon, or better still, some stupidly ignorant female lay reader.

Women were deliberately excluded from involvement in church canon law for a good reason. They are just not up to it, what !

Remember, if you don’t have set rules, discipline, you end up with a crowd of Lens. A succession of sanctimonious finger pointers who will square up to each other like fighting cocks. Each one determined to call the shots. Such is arrogant pride without humility, as displayed by that peculiar man on this site. Now, nobody wants that (…with the exception of course of Len…).

2 May 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Naomi King said...

This article from Pink News July 2010 may tell us more about "Southwark always been a hot spot for homosexuality" - Mr Integrity @ 17.22

Gay cleric Jeffrey John rejected from Bishop of Southwark post

by Staff Writer,
8 July 2010, 10:27am

Rev Jeffrey John was blocked from the post.

The openly gay cleric Rev Jeffrey John has been blocked from becoming a Church of England bishop.

Dr John, the Dean of St Albans, was shortlisted for the post last week and was believed to be the obvious choice for the role of Bishop of Southwark, with reports suggesting prime minister David Cameron was minded to back his appointment.

But reports today say that members of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), the body responsible for selecting bishops, rejected him.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the secret meeting of senior church figures, including Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, decided his appointment would lead to a split in the church and that evangelical parishes would not recognise him as a bishop

This is the second rejection for Dr John, who had to abandon his bid to become Bishop of Reading in 2003 because of traditionalists’ protests over his homosexuality.

He is in a civil partnership with a long-term partner and has stressed that the relationship is celibate.

This week, traditionalists in the church were vocal about why he should not be appointed, with Canon Chris Sugden, the secretary of anti-gay group Anglican Mainstream, saying Dr John was “breaking the law of the church in the sense of Christian teaching”.

The Rev Paul Dawson of conservative evangelical group Reform said his selection would “cause very serious damage within the church” and predicted a split similar to that in the US.

The Rev Colin Coward, of Changing Attitude, the Anglican pro-gay grouping, told The Times that Dr John was a “very gifted” pastor and that the church will have to “come to terms with the presence of lesbians and gay people in every part of the communion at some point”, even if it created a temporary split.

He added: “This is tragic news for Jeffrey. It must be incredibly painful to have lived through the last few days. And now, to be battered again by Rowan not being able to make a decision.”

2 May 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Good to hear it Simon



2 May 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...


To answer your question, no I would not be happy if someone stood up in my church urging signature of the "equal marriage" petition.

I should tell you I am a Catholic.

Churches, or at least my church, is not a debating society, it strives to teach the the Word of God in charity to all.

If, as you say, you oppose gay marriage I cannot see why you would object to anyone urging the signature of the petition for marriage in church or anywhere else.

"Sometimes Mr Fowler,one has to take sides if one is to remain human" as Heng says in The Quiet American.

2 May 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger Simon Butler said...

Galant, the issue I have is simply that, to date, we have assertion rather than facts.
Suspension? We don't know.
Reasons? We don't know.
Process? We don't know.
All we have is one article and a lot of angry people who know nothing of the place, the people or the issues involved.
As a story, it does not clothe His Grace with glory...

2 May 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And this is the follow up article from January this year, 2012 from Pink News

Gay dean to sue Church of England after twice being rejected as bishop due to his sexuality - 02/05/2012 17:51

Gay dean to sue Church of England after twice being rejected as bishop due to his sexuality
by James Park for 15 January 2012, 12:47pm

Britain’s most senior openly gay cleric has threatened to sue the Church of England unless it promotes him to Bishop.

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, currently the Dean of St Albans has twice been overlooked to become a bishop due his sexuality. Dr John is in celibate civil partnership.

The 58-year-old, was forced to give up his appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 due to his sexuality and was blocked from the post Bishop of Southwark in 2010

The Sunday Times reports that Dr John has hired Alison Downie, one of Britain’s leading Equality Act lawyers to fight his case. The newspaper claims that he is now no longer personally interested in becoming a bishop but wants to use a case against his alleged discrimination to allow other gay clergy to gain promotion.

A leaked memo by Colin Slee, the late Dean of Southwark Cathedral could prove critical in the case. It claims that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, originally supported Dr John’s nomination for Bishop of Reading in 2003 but then personally blocked it. It is claimed that Dr Williams also supported Dr John’s promotion to bishop last year but then again blocked his appointment.

“We had two very horrible days in which I would say both archbishops behaved very badly,” wrote Mr Slee after the vote to appoint the Bishop of Southwark.
“The meeting was not a fair consideration at all; they were intent on wrecking both Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam [the Bishop of Salisbury] equally, despite the fact that their CVs were startlingly in an entirely different and better league than the other two candidates.

“The Archbishop of Canterbury was bad-tempered throughout. When it came to voting, certainly two — possibly three — members were in tears and [Dr Williams] made no acknowledgment but carried on regardless.”

The leaked memo also makes the startling claim there are currently several gay bishops “who have been less than candid about their domestic arrangements and who, in a conspiracy of silence, have been appointed to senior positions”.

It added: “This situation cannot endure. Exposure of the reality would be nuclear.”

In 1994, the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and the group Outrage! Outed 10 bishops who were believed to be gay but publicly supported the discrimination of gay people.

2 May 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...

"Colin Slee, the late Dean of Southwark Cathedral makes the startling claim there are currently several gay bishops “who have been less than candid about their domestic arrangements and who, in a conspiracy of silence, have been appointed to senior positions" Well presumably he would know.

2 May 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Poor Peter Gowlland didn't stand a chance.

2 May 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger AR said...

It ia a good job the Lord jesus Christ revealed himself to me a long time ago and through the Holy Spirit has grounded me in the faith.
Because having read all this diaorhea I would never consider believing in Jesus Christ as I see no love anywhere in this blog posting all I see is diaorhea, backbiting, hedonism hatred and a sincere lack of faith and love.
Even unbelievers do not crucify one another the way you lot are crucifying one another.

2 May 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Makes you realise how damaging women 'preachers' can be and the error of setting aside St Paul's teaching on this. One wonders, are Ms Bird and Ms Duncan close friends?

On a point of clarification, can anybody preach the Gospel in the Church of England once licensed? And one has to pay a fee? In the Catholic Church one must be at least an ordained Deacons to preach.

Simon Butler said...

"For the record ... I am not in favour of gay marriage."

Are you telling porkies? Do you deny describing yourself “pro-gay and listening”?

Was the Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream website wrong?

"Canon Simon Butler, a leading Southwark Evangelical clergyman and outspoken critic of recent actions by Conservative Evangelicals in that diocese and elsewhere has publicly stated his acceptance that same-sex relationships are “ethically possible” when they are “loving, committed and monogamous”."

So it would seem you're in favour of homosexual sex and don't see it as sinful but not in favour of homosexual marriage. That or you've changed your position or you're just being dishonest - to be inclusive, no doubt.

2 May 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

AR. You are a nitwit. Unless you put the homosexual deviants back in their place, you won’t have a CoE. Just Stonewall at prayer. Queer type yourself, by chance ?

2 May 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Dodo. The Catholic church has deaconess’ but that’s it. Can’t trust a woman you know, too weak of mind in many, but not all, cases. Yes there are powerful ones out there, but alas, we can’t use them. If we did, their inadequate sisters would be in there like a shot...

2 May 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

The Catholic Chuch has women readers, not ordained Deacons. These can only be men, even married men, and have to train for several years.

Don't go giving our sisters ideas above their station!

2 May 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes, it’s a courtesy title they have...

2 May 2012 at 19:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having read all this lot I am glad I am a Christ follower not a 'Church goer'!.

I see inspector has tried to put his size 12 Catholic boot in(which further illustrates my point.)Is he for real?.Hates women .... definitely' needs watching.'

God has left the Temple. I strongly suspect if Christ walked into most Churches today and sat on the Altar He would either get thrown out or people would remark "Who is He and what is He doing here?"

2 May 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. The Inspector loves women. He sees them as the special sex they are. Child producing and nurturing. Beautiful creatures. It’s you he doesn’t think much of. Still, nothing a slap round the head won’t cure, when we meet in person...

2 May 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Simon Butler nuanced to all on this blog

"Galant, the issue I have is simply that, to date, we have assertion rather than facts.

The facts;

Suspension? We don't know. WE Do, or a rose by any other name..?
Reasons? We don't know. We Do but they appear covered for the sake of appearance sake, do they not?
Process? We don't know. Its called equivocation, my lad and goes like this...
we use a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

A nice play on words by all in authority in this matter. He was SUSPENDED for saying what He DID and he was denied this by reason of CROOKED COUNSEL as the REAL reason for the suspension.

Old ernst imagines that if a 'liberal' had got up and stated same sex marriage should be signed for by the congregation as defending God's word, that if any had disputed this term as true, 'where is the love of Christ' would have been used to justify silence against it! No bereans in southwark it seems?

"As a story, it does not clothe His Grace with glory"...Err, WE think it does, as he tries to shine the light into the areas of the church and which leave all who love Christ and His examples to us as the church completely mystified!
Pure Nicolaitianism which, by the way, the Lord utterly abhors!!

Praise be to His Grace for giving voice to those oppressed and bullied by the false teachers within our flocks.
Do False teachers/shepherds in the flock even understand the term 'False'?


2 May 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Naomi King said...

len, with respect you have missed the point if we are Christian we must accept the Holy Bible. This is God's script. Romans 1 is unequivocal,and it avoids all confusion, (even for the Church). Romans 1 clearly states how and why people ‘became’ homosexual,

2 May 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


My poor boy. What on earth are you being accused of regarding Romans 1 and why. You don't appear to have said anything regarding this as far as old ernst can see?

Ernst 'utterly mystified' Blofeld

2 May 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger bwims said...

And thus the cultural marxists contine their long march through the institutions... in this case the CofE

2 May 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Mr Integrity: It was a rhetorical question. My aim is to try and be consistent in how I read and apply Scripture, because I believe it to be authoritative. I'm suspicious of movements that try to overturn Scripture's clear teaching on the predictable handful of issues of sexuality, gender, and money. Mostly because I don't see the point: as you say, it's right or wrong. Neither have I ever fully understood why there are swathes of Christian who profess God's death and resurrection, who believe Jesus walked on water, who believe, at least notionally, in an afterlife, but who find it impossible to accept that God might, just maybe, have ensured the transmission of His Will in Scripture and the teachings of the Church.

But that's really what I see this issue as being about: it's not about the oft mentioned "homosexual agenda" - which, even if it does exist to the extent that is sometimes claimed, would have no more hope of triumphing over the Sovereign Lord than any other earthly power. It's about what it's always been about: the Good News of Christ's Salvation. I'm not interested in seeing people who are attracted to the same sex driven from the Church - I want, as I want for all people, for them to be saved in the same way that I have been.

There is no sin too black that Christ's blood cannot wash the sinner clean - but if we teach that that Salvation is not necessary, that our sexuality is somehow not part of the restoration brought by God's Grace, well then, we're potentially hindering the salvation of our brothers and sisters. It's not our task to judge them - just as we haven't been judged but loved and forgiven. We just have to preach the Good News, unadulterated, as we have been taught.

2 May 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Simon Butler:

You're on the money @17.24 - and likewise by helpfully observing that the issue of how the Church engages with issues of sexuality can all too easily end up being divided into partisan camps of conservative/progressive (which usually end up being caricatures of the positions anyway).

I'd applaud your inclusive attitude, and pray that God will bless your ministry. All are welcome at Christ's table.

I suspect that what concerns many of the members of this blog, and which in fairness we have grown accustomed to seeing, dare I say it, particularly in the CofE, is the mutation of Christ's inclusiveness - which is to say, Salvation for all who repent and believe - into a far more secular understanding of the term, where mutually exclusive propositions are initially held to be equally valid (or at least equally "not-valid", and where more often than not, any attempt to point to the authority of Scripture, or to orthodoxy in general comes to be regarded as being itself suspect.

One kind of inclusiveness promises Life; the other... well I'm less sure of what it promises.

2 May 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Orthodoxy suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others."

Richard John Neuhaus

2 May 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Romans 1 most clearly talks of salvation, there is nothing here that says that God does not love Sinners, on the contrary it shows rather that the problem is that Sinners do not love God

Romans 1

ROM 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

ROM 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

ROM 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

ROM 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

ROM 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

ROM 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

ROM 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

ROM 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

ROM 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

ROM 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

ROM 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

ROM 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

ROM 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

ROM 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

ROM 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

ROM 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

ROM 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2 May 2012 at 20:56  
Blogger Preacher said...

Firstly. Thank you Dr Cranmer, you continue to shine the light in the dark places.

Simon Butler: Smoke & Mirrors!.

Peter Gowlland: You see the support of so many of the Brethren. Stand firm. Even Elijah felt weak & down, but God lifted him & strengthened him.

The two lay readers who complained & started this persecution: Shame on you.

2 May 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Naomi: Not a message to be watered down.

For those of us who do submit to God, Romans 2 (in its entirety) presents us with further caution. If we seek to judge others for their sins, we'd better be certain we have none of our own (Rom 2:1-4), 'Or [we] show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness [...] led [us] to repentance?'

None of us will be declared righteous (Rom 3:19-20), but of course that's why we all need saving: 'Christ died for the ungodly [...] God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us' (Rom 5:6-8).

That's why I love Romans. Take that long list of depravity and wickedness in Romans 1: take every single type of sinner listed there, and those are the people Christ died for.

That there yet remain a great many sinners should just motivate us all the more to bring the Gospel back to the world. Christ has done the work and died for them - all we have to do is faithfully impart what has been given to us. If we impart nothing but judgement - well Romans 2 covered that.

2 May 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Anonymous In Belfast

I am not sure anybody is judging anybody apart from Barry Goodwin (acting Archdeacon of Croydon, Southwark Diocese) judging Peter Gowlland unfit to be a Lay Reader.

Shameful isn't it.

2 May 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger Roy said...

Surely the logical thing in this case would be to suspend the acting archdeacon who obviously does not believe in anything that is not written down in the Gospel According to the Guardian.

Why hasn't some higher authority, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury if necessary, intervened to suspend the heretics?


2 May 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Roy, but that just wouldn't be terribly Anglican, now would it?

Belfast, do you believe those sinners listed in Romans 2 should receive the Eucharist without first repenting and deciding to change their ways? Scripture warns us of the consequences of partaking unworthily in the the Lord's Supper.

2 May 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Being judged for the sake of the Gospel is what we're called to. If that's what happened to Peter, his reward is clear.

Simon Butler, though, has the advantage over me in that he's actually heard Peter preach, and I think he's probably right in urging a bit of caution about casting the Archdeacon in a poor light, simply and only because *we* don't have all the details.

The C4M though, is not itself the Gospel. Its raison d'etre is certainly not incompatible with Scripture (as the C4EM inevitably is), but if signatories are motivated out of a desire to condemn, or a desire to drive a particular set of sinners away from God's grace, or indeed a desire motivated entirely without reference to God (there are presumably non-Christian signatories), then there is no reason why we should afford it the same status as the Gospel. It certainly won't bring eternal life. In that sense, I don't think it would be out of place to discuss the issue before exhorting it from the pulpit. On the other hand, preaching fidelity in marriage, and exhorting parishioners to be sexually pure should never be shut down.

So I guess it depends: did the Archdeacon 'suspend' Peter because his support for C4M is motivated in a way that doesn't best reflect the Gospel? Did he suspend him because he has himself departed from a Scriptural view of sexuality? Or did he suspend him simply to 'keep the peace'?

The first is acceptable, and I'd argue, the duty of Church leaders. The second is unacceptable, and grounds for a rejection of the Archdeacon's authority within the Churh. The third is pretty unimpressive.

I simply don't know which applies here. If Cranmer is willing to pursue this with his Christian diligence for truth, perhaps more will come to light. But even if it doesn't - God is sovereign, and will reward faithfulness to His Word.

2 May 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Dodo: Nope. Christ's inclusiveness is salvation for all who repent and believe. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.

Those who excuse or deny sins are preaching a false gospel. There is though also a danger that we can, even in faithful adherence to Scripture's teaching on sin, come to fixate on it to the point where we exchange Grace for judgement. We can't preach redemption if we don't acknowledge the mortal danger of sin, but neither should we supplant our message of hope to all mankind with one that ends up simply preaching more death.

I guess I'm saying that Romans shows that the Christian response to sin is to tell people how they might be saved from it.

2 May 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger anonymous in sunderland said...

Simon Butler - I stood up in out church and urged people to sign the C4M petition and to pray thy marriage would remain as God clearly set it out in the Bible I.e. Between one man and one woman. If I hadn't that morning there would have been at least two others who would have stood up and said the same thing. I would expect nothing less in a Bible believing part of the body of Christ.

I would never expect to have to call a meeting to debate the speaking of Biblical truth in the house of God first.

But then, I'm just a woman - according to some of the commentors here, what would I know?

2 May 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Why are the Liberals taking over the CofE?
In the Old Testament, God tells his people not to take in the heathens. Not to take wives or husbands from the other tribes. Why? Because it dilutes the tribe of the children of Abraham.
The disciples when rejected by villagers, shook the dust off their shoes and moved on.
You can only pursue people for so long, if they have hardened their heart, there is little you can do.
Jesus berated the religious people and the liberals are the religious people of today, There message is easy to accept as its kind to all people. The Gospel is good news but is not always easy to accept.
We must not let our guard down and feel bad about maintaining a strong defence of the Gospel.

2 May 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

What is all this standing up in church and setting forth one's own view of the truth of scripture?

A recipe for chaos and division, I'd say! Surely its the job of the Minister to explain God's Word and the teachings of the church? Can anyone do this and is every view considered equally meritorious?

len, this is a wonderful opportunity for you. It's a shame you're reading of scripture means your sabbath is a Saturday so the church might be empty!

2 May 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger anonymous in sunderland said...

Dodo the scripture is truth and it is clear on the practise of homosexuality - old and new testament.

I am part of our leadership team actually. The ordained minister and the entire leadership team in our church believe the Biblical truth that the practise of homosexuality is sin. If I were to get up and say that murder was sin, that would be truth surely, not simply my view of truth. There ARE absolutes!

2 May 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


I absolutely agree about homosexuality and murder! However, some don't in more 'tolerant' churches that seek 'unity'. Divorce, homosexuality and abortion are some examples.

So does the minister and the leadership have a pre-meeting to decide and agree on who will say what? And can other parishoners join in?

There is much in scripture that is not clear and needs interpretation. Personally, I believe it is the role of the minister to lead, to preach and to teach - not the laity who have have different roles to play.

2 May 2012 at 23:57  
Blogger dfordoom said...

"but with the way he introduced the subject and petition which were ‘bounced’ on his colleagues ‘without prior discussion’"

It would have come as an enormous shock to his colleagues. Imagine a Christian supporting marriage! That's the last thing they would have expected. There's obviously no room in the Church for perverts who believe in heterosexual marriage.

This weirdo probably believes in the Ten Commandments as well! Even worse, he probably believes in God. So what's he doing in the Anglican Church?

3 May 2012 at 01:13  
Blogger dfordoom said...

""The only logical course for a thinking, Bible believing Christian in the C of E is to leave and worship elsewhere."

I totally agree. Real Christians should vote with their feet. If it splits the Church then that might be a good thing. The wishy-washy politically correct liberal Church might soon find itself regarded as an irrelevance.

3 May 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger non mouse said...

Chaucer seems apposite - in response to both Southwark and today’s thread!

Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
[. . .]
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
(GP 12)
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, (12)
[. . .]
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.
Bifil that in that seson on a day,
In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay
Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage
To Caunterbury with ful devout corage,
At nyght was come into that hostelrye
Wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye
Of sondry folk, by aventure yfalle
In felaweshipe, and pilgrimes were they alle,
That toward Caunterbury wolden ryde.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The General Prologue.” The Canterbury Tales. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd ed. General ed. Larry D. Benson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987; 23.

_____________. “The Pardoner’s Prologue”; 194.

[[What follows is fairly long, so I'll forgo the translation, unless anyone would like]]

3 May 2012 at 01:43  
Blogger non mouse said...

This today–because I say we still can learn from Chaucer, who not only presented “diversity” but also illuminated human frailty and hypocrisy. For example, he revealed stewards of Christianity perverted by economic and political agenda, who, consequently, victimise others while preaching Salvation. He depicted papists (the ambiguous Pardoner (with papers "from Rome al hoot" (687)); misogynists (Friar, Summoner), possibly even a misandrist (Wife of Bath); etc. The Tales show conflicts brought about by genderism, ageism—whatever neu labels apply. Only one thing has changed: Chaucer’s pilgrims enjoyed FREEDOM to preach of their common destination, and of the true Judge who will sort us thereafter.

Oh ... and I say the Tales promote heterosexual marriage. Doubtless lack of antibiotics and contraception made it a wise choice, but good marriages clearly enabled healthy, moral children; familial continuity, and social stability. Many therefore see Chaucer’s pilgrimage as any individual’s journey through the problems of life: from Cupiditas to Caritas.

Thus, we can say, the “Father of English Poetry” presents MORAL tales...allegories, even, which illustrate the earthly rot that results from abandonment of God's Love. Radix Malorum est Cupiditas: so the Pardoner parrots St. Thomas.*

Is there a lychgate around Southwark? Or an inn diametrically across the green from a church? If so, how I wish someone could present readings or a video there: stressing this aspect of the stories. Why, the protesters could even collect signatures on a document that demands the People’s Right: to retain traditional, heterosexual, marriage.

* “The Pardoner’s Prologue” (334); 1 Tim. 6:10.

3 May 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: Oh well. Where's Monty Python when you need him?

3 May 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger Naomi King said...

"Doubtless lack of antibiotics and contraception made it a wise choice [heterosexual marriage], but good marriages clearly enabled healthy, moral children; familial continuity, and social stability". Non Mouse

"It would have come as an enormous shock to his colleagues [in the Church of England]. Imagine a Christian supporting marriage! That's the last thing they would have expected. There's obviously no room in the Church for perverts who believe in heterosexual marriage. This weirdo probably believes in the Ten Commandments as well! Even worse, he probably believes in God. So what's he doing in the Anglican Church?" dfordoom

What follows in the next post is the letter I wrote the the Prime Minister on both these subjects, his reply was "I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your letter of the 9th February. Mr Cameron very much appreciates your taking the time and trouble to inform him of your views". I got a better response from Her Majesty The Queen who said, "The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter of the 27th February. Her Majesty has noted the content of your letter, but I should explain that this is not a matter on which The Queen would personally comment. As Supreme Governor, Her Majesty would not intervene in the day to day running of the Church of England. Your were, therefore, quite correct to address your correspondence in the first instance to the Archbishop of Canterbury."

3 May 2012 at 05:48  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Naomi
Subject: Christianity and Family Life
Date: 9 February 2012 21:11:57 GMT

Dear Mr Cameron

The values we draw from the Holy Bible go to the heart of family life and the heath of society. The future of our country is at a pivotal moment.

Christianity, belief, religion, the Church and the Holy Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. We've got to stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, its a strength. Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong.

The absence of any real accountability, or moral code, the almost fearful passive tolerance, has allowed behaviour in ways that run completely counter to our values. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality, has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of lawlessness and a broken society. Moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. There are values which speak to us all and I believe we should stand up and defend them.

Yes they are Christian values. They are values we treasure. Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self sacrifice, love, working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have one to another, to our families and communities. Indeed, as Mrs Thatcher once said, "we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Holy Bible". The Holy Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country.

Christianity is alive and well in our country. In the non Jewish/Christian world equality of persons is inconceivable. But by faith in the one true God, through Jesus Christ, each and every individual is related to a power above all of us and every human being is of equal and infinite importance, being created in the very image of God. The knowledge that God created mankind in his own image is a game changer for human dignity and equality. The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Holy Bible in which Kings are anointed and sanctified with the authority of God.

Knowledge of this book is still absolutely pivotal.

As I have said moral neutrality should not be an option, if we don't stand for something, we can't stand against anything. What I am saying is that the Holy Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today at its best; values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. And we should not be afraid to say so as we are a Christian Country. The Holy Bible is as relevant today as at any period in history. I do believe this. None of us should be frightened of recognising this.

I am a committed Church of England Christian who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith. The Holy Bible will continual to profoundly impact our collective future. We should celebrate it and live by it. One of this country's greatest achievements is having taken this greatest of books to all four corners of the world.

Yours sincerely


3 May 2012 at 05:49  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

I'd love to comment but I would just be intruding on the private grief of the CofE.

Thanks not to be snide - I just pity all the decent Anglican churchgoers who must wonder what the hell is going on.

As Blofeld said

Isa 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

People are allowed, nay encouraged, to prosletyse for gay marriage and yet those who speak against it, and quote the Biblical sources are thrown out.

How does that work?

Damn - I've gone and commented anyway.

3 May 2012 at 06:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

From Pink News this morning

Today [May2nd], David Cameron told the Evening Standard that he is “clear about my views” on the issue. He said:“I ask myself the question, why is it that we deny gay couples the ability to get married, and I don’t think that’s right.

Recognising the heated debate on the subject within his own party and the Church, Mr Cameron said: “Obviously this is a controversial issue. I feel the time for change has come. If you ask, particularly young people, they say this feels like a very natural change to make … We are not changing what happens in church.”

3 May 2012 at 06:26  
Blogger Naomi King said...

More from Pink News this morning

"When [the Prime Minister was] questioned on the role of the Church of England in the debate [on homosexual "marriage'] and his role in the appointment of the successor of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, the newspaper [The Evening Standard] wrote that the prime minister “suddenly looks genuinely upset”. He told the paper: “I have said enough. I don’t want to start getting into a fight with the Church. The Conservative Party has been on a journey to where all small-c institutions go, in a modern world, which is that if marriage is good for heterosexuals it is good for gay couples too.”

Asked if he is worried if he’d lose support to UKIP, criticised by for its approach to homosexuality, Mr Cameron said: “I am a heartfelt Conservative. The reason I wanted to lead the Conservative Party was that I felt it needed to make important changes, to broaden the base of its support.”

Read the full article on

3 May 2012 at 07:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Naomi King(2 May 2012 19:42)

Please explain your comment?.

The whole case that I have argued constantly(against constant opposition) is the authority of scripture and you comment comes as somewhat of a surprise and I wonder what is it based upon?.

3 May 2012 at 07:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear len

My apologies I also argue from the basis of the authority of scripture hence the usefulness of quoting Romans 1 in full. I must have misunderstood your point. I believe the Inspector has said the same thing.

God bless

3 May 2012 at 07:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have used Romans 1 to make the point about departing from God in another thread on this Blog.

That is why your comment surprised me.

I am in total agreement with your other remarks!.

God Bless .

3 May 2012 at 07:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Thank you that is very gracious.

3 May 2012 at 07:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...

So where is David Cameron leading us?

Romans 1 shows that homosexuality is an addiction, it enslaves people in the same way that drugs, alcohol and other habit forming substances and activities do. The Holy Bible teaches that we are all born potential homosexuals, drug addicts, alcoholics, paedophiles, murderers, rapists, adulterers, fornicators, extortioners – the list is endless.

There is a collective noun to describe this condition it is – SIN.

Of course these traits will not all be manifested in our lives but some of them will. But the point is that the potential exists because we are all born ‘sinners’. That is why the Holy Bible teaches that we must be ‘born again’ through faith in Jesus Christ, and this is the great mercy of God. As part of the package He then gives us power over this enslaving sin which includes all of the above list.

3 May 2012 at 07:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Naomi King ,
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments( 3 May 2012 07:39)

This encapsulates the problem of mankind..... and the remedy.

However wait for the opposition it will not be long in coming!.

3 May 2012 at 08:23  
Blogger Steve Hayes said...

Sounds like Donatism in reverse.

3 May 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger Preacher said...

There is no issue here. The ministers of the Christian Church have a duty before God to uphold HIS teaching & HIS laws. It doesn't matter what they personally believe or even what their sexual preferences are. If that is too difficult then they should seek employment elsewhere.
David Cameron is a politician, he has no remit regarding God's laws in Holy Scripture.
Camerons opinions are his own, his beliefs are also his own, he should not venture into unknown territory & attempt to alter or meddle with things that are spiritually beyond his jurisdiction.
Homosexual couples have the legal right to a civil ceremony, giving them the same standing as any couple married in a registry office. that is the law of this country. Many may disagree with it on moral grounds, but it is a legal statute.
A Minister of religion simply has not got the authority to change the laws of his chosen faith, it's out of his hands.
The same would apply to the police in matters of criminal law, or to any leader of any faith. If you can't agree to its beliefs or follow its laws, Leave.

3 May 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Well said! You present very clear views founded on Christian teaching.

You could learn a thing or two from this lady's presentation of the Christian message.

I may differ with her on the theological points of being born again, the part played by Baptism and the ongoing need for Grace to sustain us and the necessity of the sacraments in this. However, there is no exclusivity in her presentation or suggestion of a 'one size fits all' operation of the Holy Spirit.

3 May 2012 at 11:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"You could learn a thing or two from this lady's presentation of the Christian message. " So could you, my boy (AHEM.*Splutter*)

"I may differ with her on the theological (ESSENTIAL?) points of being born again, the part played by Baptism and the ongoing need for Grace to sustain us and the necessity of the sacraments in this. However, there is no exclusivity in her presentation or suggestion of a 'one size fits all' operation of the Holy Spirit." Then ask her, my lad, while she may still be found on this blog and see if her reasoning is the same as yours.

Ernst, my boy.

3 May 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Bless you both and I love your comments.

In Christ and in His service

3 May 2012 at 12:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo, re Naomi King

The 'good Lady' (and all others who follow Scripture) are' singing from the same hymn sheet' .

You have parts ripped out and other bits glued onto 'your Hymn sheet' and it makes a a pretty awful sound (more like ' dying duck'or even a howling wolf than sweet music.

3 May 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Simon Butler nuanced further..

"While it may make for an exciting political blog and suits that agenda handsomely, it hardly makes for good journalistic practice, balanced reporting or a desire to expose the truth beyond that which you already believe to be true."

You appear to have completely missed the point over this matter as have others who have read the account of Christs trials that led to His condemnation and crucifixion. THEY ALL BROKE THE LAW WHILST TRYING HIM..Crooked Counsel!!!
What Judge/Archdeacon therefore is allowed to arrive at a decision without giving an explanation as to HOW he found against the person accused.
Indeed, any journalist present, hearing such a travesty of justice, would immediately report and print this miscarriage of justice to his/her readers!

In the light of the ninth commandment, I don't think that's a particularly ethically respectable position."

and you quote the Ninth Commandment in defense of injustice?

The value of any statements which we accept from others depends entirely on their verity and accuracy.
If they are false, they are worthless, misleading, and evil. Where is the veracity and accuracy in what has befallen Mr Gowlland?

Veracity is not only a virtue, but it is also the root of all other virtues and the foundation of all right character.

In Scripture, therefore, "truth" is often synonymous with "righteousness".

"That is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." (John 14:17)

The godly man is "he that speaketh truth in his heart" (Ps. 15:2). The man that "doeth truth" (John 3:21) has discharged his duty.
It is by the truth that the Holy Spirit sanctifies the soul (John 17:17).

It is not that His Grace has IGNORED all/any evidence presented but because of the very LACK of it, that it must be stated so.!!!

Ernst Blofeld

3 May 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len and Ernsty
The pair of you should meet up in a dark corner somewhere and stay there - stroking your pussies!

You are both seeking to highlight difference between myself and Naomi. Why is this? Isn't it sufficient that there exists common purpose in presenting the Christian truth on moral issues? Unlike the pair of you no-hopers, she has at least taken a stand for Christ and made her views clear.

All you pair do is carp on about the state of "religion", follow your own narrow agenda and rarely take a stand on issues - be too "condemnatory" for those who are "born again". And she is a member of a Church - you know, the places you loath where people go a Sunday to communally worship.

3 May 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo blustering against poor old ernst

"You are both seeking to highlight difference between myself and Naomi. " contrast "I may differ with her on the theological points of being born again, the part played by Baptism and the ongoing need for Grace to sustain us and the necessity of the sacraments in this. " You have highlighted it yourself or do you not read your words prior to posting?

"Isn't it sufficient that there exists common purpose in presenting the Christian truth on moral issues?..she has at least taken a stand for Christ and made her views clear. " AS HAVE WE but they appear not to be to your liking, old bird.!

"And she is a member of a Church - you know, the places you loath where people go a Sunday to communally worship." Old Ernst does go to church but knows that we are saved by an individual relationship with Christ, not by temporal associations, else why wheat and tares?.

All people are judged as individuals, to see if their names are found in The Lambs Book of Life, not 'en bloc'!
"HE THAT HATH EARS TO HEAR, LET HIM HEAR" never 'They which have ears let them hear?'. Singular is an exhortation to believers but plural is always a condemnation of the lost!!

The Roman Catholic Church is merely ONE of the churches of Christ and NOT,'THE ONLY ONE'!
You rejoice at the troubles of other churches in maintaining a right relationship with Christ's commandments yet never once can you see the veritable amazonian forest sticking out of Rome's eye...Why is that?

Ernst, old fruit.

3 May 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Hi Guys, we are officially on the C4M website.

If you click on the C4M site (link above on this blog) and go to the toolbar, select 'news' there is a link to this post.



Anglican Lay Reader suspended for supporting Coalition for Marriage

Archbishop Cranmer blog, 02 May 2012

3 May 2012 at 15:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

@ Miss King

There seems to be a question mark over the values and principles of your C of E faith that you adhere to so strongly. There does not appear to be any consistency in your religious organisation which must be very confusing for the congregation.You are adamantly opposed to homosexuality yet your Church allows homosexuals to become vicars and bishops.

I strongly suspect the integrity of anyone belonging to a religion like this. It forces people with integrity to sign up to Catholicism or the Eastern Coptic Churches whereas if the C of E were better organised with some guidance and rules this would not be necessary.

Homosexual sinners have always been a minority part of the fabric of society along with hypocritical sinners who are in the majority.
Is the sin of homosexuality worse than the sin of hypocrisy?

All of mankind is flawed with a potential to commit sin.Yet the majority of mankind in not wired to commit the more serious ones .It may even come as a surprise to you in spite of your misinterpretation of Romans that there are a quite a few of us still existing who do not have a potential for homosexuality in our DNA. Admittedly our numbers may be dwindling according to statistics.

I am opposed to ssm because it is
undermines Critian ethics. If it is legalised in the Western countries then it will be the beginning of the end of Judaeo Christian civilisation and this is a frightening prospect for the future and will inevitably lead to the rise of Islam as the major influence.

Homosexuality is only
one factor in the numerous factors of secularism spreading like the plague throughout society..yet it is the only one discussed here over an over the point of obsession.A bit pervy I think!

3 May 2012 at 16:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo, The amount of abuse I have suffered from you, Albert, and the Inspector whenever I even dared to mention being ' born again 'was unbelievable.

And are you now saying that you accept what I have been 'discussing' with you?.Because being' born again'is not an optional extra one' tacks on' to ones Christianity(or even totally ignores) but a major foundation of Christianity on which all else hinges.

I have no desire to cause disunity but some points (being' born again' for example ) are to important to compromise or to simply 'gloss over'.

3 May 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, you can be ‘born yesterday’ for all the Inspector cares, but he’ll think you’ll find the abuse you received derives from your casual hatred of all things Roman Catholic, including it’s adherents. Your worst offences occur after you’ve lost an argument with Dodo or Albert. Still, this is a public site, so hatred away, but when you attack a chaps religion, don’t be surprised if the contents of a bucket of shit come flying your way...

3 May 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Luther said...

If Christ walked into a church today he would in fact have to ask, in most 'churches', "What are you doing? Why are you ignoring the teaching of my Word? Why are you telling people to go and sin?"

3 May 2012 at 17:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo I have attended Churches some good, some bad, some indifferent.

When you refer to 'the church' are you referring to the' religious system'or the congregation?

Because there is a vast difference.

I have nothing against the Church('the congregation') but I believe the religious system (the Church )should be held to account whenever it pursues 'an agenda'other than God`s.

'The Church 'as it stands today would be hardly recognisable to those who formed the early 'Ekklesia.

The first complete English bible was the Tyndale bible in about 1524, and that bible did not use the word "church" anywhere in its pages, it used the word "congregation." Sometime after this bible, they started replacing the word "congregation" with the word "church."

n 325 AD, "The Church" joined the State under Constantine, and it was carried through the Reformation. The Reformers, were all involved in civil government, such as John Calvin who set up the civil government in Geneva. The pope was the head of the Catholic Church and he was kicked out of England, and King Henry VIII took jurisdiction over the Church. And then when the King James version was done, it was very important for them to retain the word "church" because they had jurisdiction over it, so King James made fifteen specific edicts, as far as the translation goes, and one of those edicts (edict number three) stated that this bible was to retain the word "church" in the translation and it was not to be replaced with the word "congregation." That was his specific edict. He has no jurisdiction over the congregation (people), but he does over the church (physical buildings). So you can see he never wanted the word "assembly" associated with the original meaning of the Old Testament which meant "congregation." So he knew the correct translation, obviously, but he didn't want it in there, that way they retain control over "the church."

3 May 2012 at 18:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector nicely put.( 3 May 2012 17:51)

I expect you can fill buckets quite frequently ?.

3 May 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Do go away with all your nonsense. Now you're playing the "poor little abused me" card. The misrepresentations you post are beyond lies.

Take off you weasel!

3 May 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Yes it was rather well put, as you say. Don’t think the Inspectors sentiments will be lost on His Grace's numerous following, you despicable religious nutcase...

3 May 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger Nick said...

It seems that the "Equality" Minister has her Thought Police everywhere. Still, it is sad that the Church, which has been attacked and villified by her and her theophobic followers, are now doing her dirty work for her.

3 May 2012 at 19:02  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Pray that God will bless our nation with repentance and that His enemies, whether Secularist or Islamic, will be converted to the cause of Christ, or that their plans will come to nothing before our holy and awesome God. Who is on the Lord’s side? Come along and stand with us!

BEHOLD, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear. (Isa 59:1)

3 May 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I'm not sure what 'nonsense' you are referring to, but len is absolutely correct that the translators who produced the KJV were instructed not to make any translation decisions that might negatively impact the ecclesiology of the Church of England. The KJV may be a foundation of Western Literature but it is an inferior translation relative to modern efforts.


3 May 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger anonymous in sunderland said...

Naomi - Amen to that!!

3 May 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Cressida

All sin separates us from God and as I said adultery and fornication are equally sinful however, the proposed sanctification of homosexually is the most pressing threat to our Nation at this time.

You claim that I had singled out homosexuality from a number of sins mentioned in the Apostle Paul’s letter to New Testament churches. You were right, I had singled out homosexuality - because at this time I see that there was confusion, (even in some quarters of the Church), as to why people ‘became’ homosexual, and I wanted to help those people who were being tempted by unwelcome homosexual desires within themselves to ‘find a means of escape’; just like the advertisers on Boris' buses.

British society has continued down the slippery slope of becoming ever increasingly secular, the discussion is no longer about how homosexual acts went from being a criminal offence to the current position of criminalising people who criticise homosexuality.

The current debate is whether people’s unorthodox sexual relationships and appetites should be given the same respect and legal status as the singular most important societal relationship - marriage – which for millennia has been defined as the lifelong union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

If the Government force through this legislation – I am persuaded that this will be the beginning of great sorrows for the United Kingdom of Biblical proportions.

As we celebrate our Queen’s 60 years as Sovereign, we would do well to reflect on how the Mother of Parliament’s has fared since the beginning of her Majesty’s reign as one Government after another has brought wicked legislation forward for her to give royal assent to in complete contradiction of her coronation oath.

At her coronation HM The Queen swore that to the utmost of her powers, she would maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant Reformed religion.

3 May 2012 at 21:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is as much as what leads to homosexuality as homosexuality itself which is the problem.
To just condemn homosexuals is to merely pinpoint part of a much wider problem.
It is when man turns away from God and then decides for himself what is acceptable (to him)or not that the problem begins!.
Fallen man is forever pushing the boundaries and more and more, things previously unacceptable are now deemed 'acceptable' and 'even desirable'and this'new morality' based on the' reason of man' is promoted in Society and enforced though the doctrine of 'Political Correctness'. There is a widespread attack on Biblical Christianity and Christian morality and this is an agressive attempt to destroy the very foundations of Christianity in this Country.

The grave danger here is that when the public as a whole accept as 'good' what God condemns God may actually give then over to it!.
This is a progression and things will get steadily worse(as they are doing)

This Nation needs to repent(literally turn) to Christ and gain all the Land it has given up to the enemy of mankind,........ the alternative is unthinkable.

3 May 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. attempt to destroy the very foundations of Christianity in this Country.

As in the way you broadcast your contempt for Roman Catholicism. You snivelling fraud...

By the way, it’s the done thing to attribute your ‘copy and pastings’ , you ignorant renegade.

3 May 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Er, they were ordered to stay true to Scripture and avoid Protestant misrepresentations, more like!

The first English Bible was the Wyclif Version - not the Tyndale version - completed about the year 1380. This was impartially done with the translators working from the Latin Vulgate.

Unfortunately, the translations inspired the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement mainly amongst the uneducated, that rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Lollardy taught the "Church of the Saved", an invisible true Church which was the community of the faithful, which overlapped with, but was not the same as, the visible Catholic Church. The Lollards had no central belief system and no official doctrine. Lollardy neither had nor proposed any singular authority. The movement associated itself with many different ideas, but individual Lollards did not necessarily have to agree with every tenet.

(Actually that all sounds strangely familiar.)

Tyndale in the 1520's wilfully mistranslated the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible with the assistance of Martin Luther to support the protestant reformers assault on the authority of the Church as an organisation (not a building as claimed by len).

The question was whether Christ intended a priesthood and a teaching authority as opposed to individuals each claiming equality of status through "faith alone" and "scripture alone".

Tyndale's translation was purposefully anti-clerical and heretical giving supreme place to individuals who made up congregations. He corrupted scripture by changing the meaning of certain key words and the meaning of scripture.

The terms appearing in the Catholic texts were “church” and “priest”, These words became “congregation” and “elder".

Hardly what Christ had in mind when He said:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

3 May 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope lennie infallibly declared ...

"There is a widespread attack on Biblical Christianity and Christian morality and this is an agressive attempt to destroy the very foundations of Christianity in this Country."

Yes, and it's the likes of you that has well and truely undermined Scriptural authority by falsely claiming we are all equally capable of understanding it and living our lives accordingly.

3 May 2012 at 22:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No-where man said :

" I just pity all the decent Anglican churchgoers who must wonder what the hell is going on. "

That's me! I am fed up with the Liberals in the Church of England (Bishop Alan of Buckingham take note) and am jumping ship. Not sure which ship (Rome or the Baptists?), but I've already cancelled my 10% tithe to the anti-Church with is Canterbury! (Sorry Y'oth Pasta- some other bugger will have to pay your wages!

3 May 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Lord Lavendon

Has to be Rome, old bean. The Baptists are way too demonstrative.

3 May 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova asked ...

"Is the sin of homosexuality worse than the sin of hypocrisy?"

Hypocrisy is far worse. It is a cancer the spreads undetected.

Adultery in many ways is a more grevious threat to society than the minority persuit that is homosexuality. Admittedly, it is a silent sin and not overt in its attack. People still recognise it as a moral evil and hide it. Nevertheless, it undermines society and destroys lives. At least homosexuality is out in the open.

Homosexuality, pre-marital sex, abortion, contraception, adultery and divorce all share a common root cause. Hedonism and selfishness given over to indulgence. A misuse of the gift of love between a man and women where eros and agape meet and are one in a God given gift directed at unity and the transmission of life.

4 May 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Yeah, yeah. All that 'through-the-looking-glass' history that passes for RC apologetics is quite interesting, I'm sure. I was just stating an incontrovertible fact. The KJV translation was constrained by specific rules from the crown. To whit:

The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.


4 May 2012 at 02:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Adultery in many ways is a more grevious threat to society than the minority persuit that is homosexuality.

Adultery at least has the advantage of being consistent with the intended use of the body. Homosexuality is a violation of the created order. It is an unnatural use of the body and therefore a perversion. It is rebellion & idolatry as the creature shakes his fist at heaven and says "Why did you make me thus? I shall re-create my nature as I see fit."

Romans describes this as a self-evident truth. Homosexuality is used as a physical example of men seeing the obvious truth of God's power and glory written in creation. Men suppress this obvious truth and unnaturally turn to idols. Likewise men suppress the obvious truth of heterosexuality as norm, and turn to the unnatural act of homosexuality.


4 May 2012 at 02:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

Cressida and Dodo are right to raise the issue of hypocrisy and I believe that this issue of the proposed sanctification of homosexuality (which God abhors) will be the testing in the refiners fire for all the Church, in each and every flavour, because you cannot serve God and the flesh together.

It will divide the sheep from the goats because you cannot be equivocal. The battle lines will be drawn and individuals will be on one side or the other. I thank God for Lord Carey and the brave members of the Coalition for Marriage. I thank God for Archbishop Sentanu, Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien and other members of the Catholic Church. I thank God for David Burrowes MP and Peter Bone MP and others, and for Rowan Williams who have all publicly declared from their position from Public Office that this proposal is truly wrong, UnGodly and disastrous for the moral and spiritual and social health of this Land. They are now being openly persecuted for their faith in the Lord God Almighty and his Holy Scripture but what would you expect we are in the midst of a spiritual battle for the very heart and soul of this Nation.

Where does this leave the Church of England ? She will have to make her mind up. Thank God Rowan Williams has made as stand, in a very low key Rowan Williams sort of way but there it is. Sadly the CofE is infiltrated by Fifth Columnists but there it is also, it is not a perfect world and never will be this side of Heaven. The future is in God's hands. This is his battle not ours although we all have our parts to play in it as his loving servants.

You are right there are dangerous schismatics on the Church of England, such as the newly appointed Bishop of Salisbury Nicholas Holtam (see my post earlier on his part in the Southwark Diocese Homosexual crisis @17.58) and I have written to him personally in very strong terms on this point.

I am most unhappy about Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury's UnGodly approach to this issue. His views are totally unbiblical and show a mind turned away from Biblical truth, the propagation his schismatic views through the office of the Church, and the Front pages of The Times and Sunday Times, is wholly unacceptable. No doubt he is also a close friend of Danny Finkelstein, the executive editor of these two newspapers, a self proclaimed ex SDP turned Tory party "moderniser". Danny Finkelstein is, as I have mentioned before, also a close friend of David Cameron. Do we see a coterie here ?

Whether the Church of England can hold together time will tell. As the Church of England is damaged so is the Monarchy (but then David Cameron doesn't seem to care too much about that either). In fact it is proving very difficult to see what David Cameron cares about at all. Maybe we just go back to the point discussed at length in his Grace's Witney-Tatton blog, on the 26th April, that Mr Cameron doesn't have good judgement or maybe he is such a fallen secularist that he is a frightening danger to us all.

4 May 2012 at 07:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Idolatry is always linked to rebellion against God as soon as people turn from God then the Idols start appearing. Our World today is full of idols physical and material.

Dodo, ' Hypocrisy' is the act of wearing a mask to conceal ones true identity.This is the act performed by those who practise' religion'(especially the hierarchy in the RCC and other 'churches'This is the religious 'system'(not congregations)
Originally, a' hypocrite' meant an actor who put on a mask to assume a false identity
while he played a role for the audience.
The accusation made by Jesus against' the religious'Pharisees would be really be offensive to them because they hated all forms
of Hellenization, including the Greek theatre.
Jesus was calling them the very thing that they hated.

Jesus said to them:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one,
you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are…."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside
are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside
you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness….
You snakes! You brood of vipers!
How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

4 May 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I feel the one person who has wrongly escaped criticism in this affair thus far is the retired Bishop David Atkinson who so ably lead the lynch mob against Peter Gowlland, who found Mr Gowlland "too committed to the cause of upholding the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage".

4 May 2012 at 09:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...

These are going to be very testing, Ephesians 6, times.

4 May 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Umm, just to point out that those who sin break relationship with God, so all sin is the same from an eternal standpoint. That means that homosexual acts are the same as petty theft, hypocrisy is the same as gossip and so on. Just because some do more damage on earth does not mean that they are worse in God's eyes as they all cause Him the pain of broken relationship. Fortunately they can all be atoned for in the same way, through relationship with Christ.

4 May 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

We can all make pretty compelling reasons not to be a member of any of the denominations. It's certainly true that liberalism is particularly prominent amongst CofE leadership - but it's hardly absent in grassroots Catholicism either, whatever the Magisterium's indictments are against it. There are priests not that far away from where I'm sitting who (along with their RC congregations) express views not enormously dissimilar to some of those we've been criticising here. Unquestionably, if they started openly challenging Rome in a public way, they'd be disciplined, but there is quiet disobedience in apparently obedient churches, just as there is quiet obedience to the Sovereign Lord in apparently disobedient ones.

My advice to anyone who feels called out of the church they are in is to base your decision solely on one thing. Luther wondered what Christ might think walking into some of those churches, and it's true, He'd have to walk into them, because He isn't currently there. He is present in many others - and though they may have different words stuck on the noticeboard, and be part of different hierarchies, you will find that the Eternal Church is manifest wherever there are congregations devoted to the Living God and who are steadfast in their devotion to His Word.

4 May 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Maybe, but your incontrovertible fact came with some spin. You suggested the limits placed on the translators was driven by a desire to simply preserve Church power. An alternative and equally valid view is that protestants were driven by a desire to destroy Apostolic Church authority.

Surely your not denying adultery is just as serious a departure from God's intentions as homosexuality? God made us to share our bodies with one life long heterosexual partner for unitive love and the transmission of life. And Romans lists any number of sins as being unacceptable in addition to homosexuality.

One could advance an argument that the liberalisation of attitudes towards heterosexual sex was the foundation for the acceptance of homosexuality behaviours.

little pope len
Yes, yes ... *sigh*


Now do tell me what religious hypocrisy is currently being practiced by Church hierarchies "especially the hierarchy in the RCC"? What masks are they wearing and what is their "true identity"? Not back to the Whore of Babylon and the Son of Perdition are we?

4 May 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


"One could advance an argument that the liberalisation of attitudes towards heterosexual sex was the foundation for the acceptance of homosexuality behaviours. "

I've often thought this myself.

4 May 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Et Expecto said...

Life is a lot simpler in the Catholic Church, where the faithful are expected to adhear to the teachings of the Church.

Is anyone interested in formong a Sanderstead Ordinariate exploration group?

4 May 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AiB: "I've often thought this myself."

Me too.

4 May 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

It's not late enough to make slippery slope innuendo yet is it? ;)

Actually, I'd apply a similar model to Christian life: acceptance of the Lord is the foundation for the acceptance of and capacity to have sexual purity.

4 May 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger AR said...

Office of Inspector General said...AR. You are a nitwit. Unless you put the homosexual deviants back in their place, you won’t have a CoE. Just Stonewall at prayer. Queer type yourself, by chance ?
Sir or Madam
Is this what the Lord Jesus Christ has called you to do? If so please tell me the scripture reference. As in all the English translation Jesus says we are to:
‘Love our neighbour as ourselves.’ And gave the following example:
An expert in the law asked Jesus, “who is my neighbour?” (Read the whole parable in Luke 10:25-37 to find out the answer, remembering that the Jews hated the Samaritans)
As for calling people deviants do consider Jesus’s words to the self-righteous in John 8:7 – better still read the whole passage in John 8:1-11.
Oh and by the way I forgive you for your hurtful loveless words.

5 May 2012 at 00:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Inspector whilst raging like a demented bull, spitting fire and brimstone all over the blog is really probably like one of those small timid men who 'grow a pair of horns' when driving a car and shout insults at all and sundry.It just happens when he sits at a keyboard and' the Padre' cannot see what he is doing.

And his passenger doing the same ?The luckless Dodo.

5 May 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len

It must be great waking up full of the joys of our Saviour and witnessing to the good in the world.

5 May 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Daddy said...

I can report that someone who invited members of the Salvation Army to support C4M's petition was made to feel that they should apologise unreservedly for having done so.

There is nothing in the wording of the petition which is contrary to Salvationist doctrine and teaching. So I signed.

I didn't join the organisation, I signed my name to a statement which my denomination manifestly believes in.

Not sure why there is such a furore.

5 May 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The petition is a political action (ironic given the "Don't play politics" text at the top) and so signing it is not only an assertion of religious belief but also a demand for political action which affects us all, religious and non-religious alike. Now, there's nothing wrong with that at all but promoting the petition is national politics over and above religious belief or Scriptural understanding.

5 May 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Praise be for you, my man.

"Not sure why there is such a furore." Unfortunately it's called the 'world being in the church' ?

Government and true faith were always meant to be intertwined, it's God's historic promise to those who love Him, however, ONLY with Christ on the throne and ruling righteously for the good of all mankind and as our only true Saviour, who is worthy of worship and praise!

We are just not at that moment yet! Be of good cheer all, He has overcome the world.

It appears the atheist's have no plan B, bit like Satan?


5 May 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspector recognises that AR is somewhat annoyed at comments directed his/her way. Dear thing, no offence caused but rather mystified at how you have come to take umbrage...

‘Deviant’ used quite straightforwardly. There is the norm, as in men/woman sexual behaviour. Any deviation from that is deviant behaviour.

The Inspector loves all His Grace’s communicants including you. Even the one’s that don’t deserve it. The sole exception being Len. Jesus would understand...

5 May 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "‘Deviant’ used quite straightforwardly. There is the norm, as in men/woman sexual behaviour. Any deviation from that is deviant behaviour."

Ah. So, the norm is for people to form relationships, have sex, perhaps have offspring, and so on. Therefore, Catholic priests are deviants because as a general rule they don't marry, don't have sex, and don't have offspring. Supported by the insistence of the Catholic Church that they behave like that. Well, it's an interesting point of view you have there. Thanks for sharing.

5 May 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you’re about ! You’re splitting hairs. If there is no sexual behaviour, you can’t deviate from the norm, now can you {INSPECTOR CHALKS ANOTHER ONE UP}

5 May 2012 at 20:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The norm is to actually have a sex life, as I'm sure you know. Well, now that I say that ...

5 May 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, can’t fault the reasoning there, if that is what an individual wants. As you know, the Inspector is not one to throw a bible at you types. You are what you are, and it is a burden you did not set out to endure. His only gripe is when you leave the confines of ‘the group’ and proudly announce to society it should go mainstream.

Was listening to a radio biography of Frankie Howerd last weekend. Much material from his lady secretary / agent. It wouldn’t have been a true picture without mentioning his homosexuality, and it was, right at the end. She was asked how he felt about it, especially in the light that his act was a hetro one. Her reply – “He hated it”

5 May 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger Martial Artist said...

I find it rather interesting that a position in line with existing law and something of the order of two millenia would be considered to offer "a potential for division," whilst a resistance to legislation which would officially encourage opposition to multiplication would, by implication, be seen as fostering unity. Odd, that.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

5 May 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "She was asked how he felt about it, especially in the light that his act was a hetro one. Her reply – “He hated it”"

A product of his time, I expect. 20 to 30 years ago, gay teenagers were encouraged to hate themselves by other teenagers encouraged to hate what they were. No wonder some of them committed suicide and others lived in terror of being found out. Thank god we're moving away from that sort of evil now.

5 May 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Randal Oulton said...

Thank goodness for people such as Mary Duncan and Penny Bird. It can't have been easy for them to do what they did, but I guess after Mr Gowlland's repeated failure to consult the ministry team on several occasions on this issue, they finally felt impelled to.

In the years to come, it will be people such as Mary Duncan and Penny Bird who are remembered as heros of the church.

6 May 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

In years to come, unless the likes of Ms Duncan and Ms Bird are set on the correct path, or silenced by the hierarchy, there will not be an Anglican church.

7 May 2012 at 01:08  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I don’t think you will find many woman in ministry in the Anglican church who have not been corrupted by the secular morals of our time.

7 May 2012 at 07:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Naomi, It is very sad if your statement is a fact.

' I don’t think you will find many woman in ministry in the Anglican church who have not been corrupted by the secular morals of our time'

Corruption entered' the Church' and diluted, corrupted and destroyed the Gospel message. The Reformation was an attempt to redress the corruption in the church and to put the Church back on course.
Satan did all he could to destroy the Reformation and that process is still ongoing!.Satan does not change his methods|!.
When the Church compromises with 'the World'it is corrupted by the World.
God gave us His Word so we can separate truth from error and until we do this (ruthlessly) we will remain an ineffective weak and useless Church.
Unless the Church becomes salt and light to a dying World it WILL get trampled underfoot or will simply remain an institution, a counterfeit to fool people that this is the 'real Church'.This is the real tragedy people will join this church thinking they 'are saved'when all that has happened is they have joined' an organisation'which is a counterfeit of the real Church (which is the 'Body of Christ' Spirit filled believers united with Jesus Christ.)

We must return to Biblical Christianity.!

7 May 2012 at 10:15  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len

Matthew 16 would be a good place to start given the inevitable outcome of a reliance on the individualism spawned by protestantism.

7 May 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Ernst matches you with Matthew 18 and raise with


1Thess. 2:3-4
For our exhortation does not {come} from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been 'approved' by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts.

The word for "approved" in Greek is "DOK-ee-mos," Have you been a good workman? Are you being diligent with your responsibilities towards the God you claim to believe in?
God is doing the same thing regarding our handling of His Word. What's He looking for, my bird? That we handle accurately the Word of truth because if we don't know how to use it, we may hurt ourself or someone else..

Too many Christians throw the sword of truth around clumsily , misquoting and misappropriating the Word of God. They quote verses completely out of their original context, showing they have no idea what they're talking about. The imperative should always be that we should be experienced at it, swift and skillful. Knowing the right times to quote the right verses.

Love for the body of Christ is essential in discussing these matters. Please try to 'Show some'!


7 May 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Your opinion is noted.


Most apt for you and the ramblings you present and your endless game playing with scripture and general dispect for it and the faith I follow - oh, sorry, I do mean "parody".

As for litttle pope len, he is less culpable because of his obvious intellectual incapacities. You, on the other hand, come over as insincere, haughty and patronising.

7 May 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger AR said...

Would you be so good as to provide me with answers to my questions to you above.
As for my sexual orientation that is between me and Almighty God, what I will say is I am a sinner who has been forgiven and through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ am made righteous in His sight.
I am so glad I never had the misfortune to meet you when YHWH extended His invitation to me to accept His Son or reject Him; because if I had met you I would have rejected the invitation.
Jesus once said:By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Where in anything you have typed is your love??????

8 May 2012 at 20:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo, One thing has occurred to me(well several relating to you) but one in particular!.
Perhaps you are too clever to understand the gospel(you have made several suggestions that you are a lot' cleverer' than me).

Remember the Disciples were unschooled men.In contrast Saul (the Pharisee was very clever(just like you) but he could not understand the Gospel despite all the evidence presented to him!
In fact Jesus had to literally knock him to the ground to knock some sense into him!.

<< 1 Corinthians 1:27 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Paul also says,'On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses. For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain from this, so that no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me. Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me–to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in WEAKNESS.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my WEAKNESSES, so that the POWER of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am WEAK, then I am STRONG. (2 Cor. 12:5-10 NASB)

8 May 2012 at 21:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AR, you are wasting your time with the' inspector'.

You are more likely to get blood from a stone than to wring a drop of love out of the Inspector.

8 May 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

AR said ...
"As for my sexual orientation that is between me and Almighty God, what I will say is I am a sinner who has been forgiven and through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ am made righteous in His sight."

"Faith alone", eh?

Your 'orientation' is not what matters to God; it's what's in your heart and your future behaviour that matters.

Righteousness means leaving past ways behind and being transformed into the image of Christ through cooperation with the workings of grace.

Why does it matter what the Inspector says?

8 May 2012 at 21:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo, You seem to be advocating that we CAN obtain righteousness by works then Dodo? With God giving us' a bit of help'?.

The Bible says different.

'What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based' on works'. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.(Romans 9:30-33)
Your advice is quite right though, (dismissing the Inspectors remarks as being intended to harm not illuminate.)

8 May 2012 at 23:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len

Is that what I'm saying? No, it isn't! Tell me, where have I referred to "works" - whatever you mean by that?

What I'm saying is that we can loose Heaven by succumbing to evil. I'm saying one has to avoid sin and that righteousness can be lost through wilful, serious evil.

Are you seriously suggesting that a man once "born again" can obtain salvation through "faith alone"? That he can commit murder, rape, procure an abortion, be an adulterer, practice homosexuality and remain sanctified?

No wonder protestantism is falling apart!

What do you say to a person who has faith and yet continues in serious sin? That Christ has covered his sin and paid the price?

Paulis subtle and nuanced. He was refering to the Jewish mindset - not saying all one needs is faith! Faith, most certainly, is necessary. But sufficient on ots own? I don't think so - and the bible does not say so.

9 May 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger AR said...

If you are right about the Inspector and the stone, I am wondering why he follows this blog!!!
I would say you are almost righ when you say "Righteousness means leaving past ways behind and being transformed into the image of Christ through cooperation with the workings of grace"
For me I would put being transformed before leaving the past behind, but I understand what you mean, because we are to turn round 180 degrees when we come to Christ, but there is still the old self that needs to be transformed. I do not believe that this transformation is through cooperation with the workings of grace, as I believe it is the working of the Holy Spirit in a believers life that is the transforming power of Almighty God.
You ask about someone who has been "Born Again" and then returns to sinning.
I would initially want to know if they had truly been born again - repented - or not.
If they had been born again then the question becomes can a believer lose their salvation as the promises of the Lord Jesus are "that none can pluck them from my hand", and what about a person who has walked most of their life with Christ and then immediately prior to their death they sin does that sin discount them?
Remember that in Gods eyes sin is sin there are no degrees of sin (degrees/levels of sin is a man made distortion of the truth and may well have been made up by someone or somebodies because they did not like that lying was as grievous to God as murder)
You ask "Why does it matter what the Inspectot says?"
This is simple Jesus told us that we are to love our neighbours and to love our enemies and to love one another, the inspectors vitriole about me showed no love whatsoever, it just displayed condemnation because of something he read into my original post.
If Len is right about the Inspector and love, I wonder how many people have rejected Christ because of his attitude, and that of others who may be like him - as I say this is if Len is right; I have nothing other than posts on this thread to go by.

12 May 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Dear Dodo

No he did not, he told it as it was, and unfortunately very much still is.

Tyndale died a horrible death for his evidently truthful understanding of The Holy texts, after years of soul destroying torture, and being mercilessly persecuted by both papal and monarchical powers.

IMO Tyndale was and still is one of the very few true heros of the common people. Which is incidentally why hardly anyone has even heard of the man, including the vast majority of so called protestants.

What possible motive do you think this eminently earnest individual could possibly have had for deliberately misinterpreting the scriptures? Do you believe that he positively enjoyed the inevitable prospect of being tortured to death, and then burnt at the stake?

He was a former Roman Catholic as were all protestant Christians barely living within the 16th century version of the EU at that particular period of time.

Tyndale was one of the first laymen to have ever actually read The Holy Bible, and to have possessed the much needed courage to tell others of truth he had discovered.

Perhaps you may like to try reading the book yourself as some time in the not so distant future, perhaps you may actually learn something of great importance to yourself and your connections.

Having actually read the Holy works many Roman Catholics including RC priests came to the exact same conclusions as Tyndale did. They most certainly did not need any help from Tyndale's own interpretation.

Being in opposition to papal dictate in those days was often considered to be an act of pointlessly inevitable suicide. Tyndale had nothing to potentially gain from his extreme acts of bravery other then his hopped for eternal salvation.

Please understand that unlike Len, I am not a Christian, but an agnostic theists, or simply an honest seeker of truth. Therefore I consider that I have a foot in both camps, as well as in neither.

However IMO the VERY long standing claim that The Roman Catholic Church is a traditionally pagan, cosmologically based death cult, on a mission from Satan himself, which is now, and has always been directly linked at the hip to murderously despotic oligarchy; which is not only heretically sworn to the ultimate goal of subversively obtaining to itself world dictatorship, but also fundamentally opposed to absolutely everything Jesus Christ substantively claimed to represent; I see as not only conclusively proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, but also the single most important fact worth knowing.

Therefore given that you can no longer claim unwitting ignorance as an excuse in your defense, I have the following question.

Are you still absolutely certain that your eternal soul is destined to arrive at its preferred destination?

Oh and BTW could you please give examples of these purposefully inaccurate changes you claim Tyndale made to the Holy texts, for I know of none, and would genuinely interested to know of any?

No, I thought not.

The authorized King James version is essentially the same as Tyndale's. The only notable differences being the more poetic usage of the English language, and the leaving out of Tyndale's more hysterical anti-papal footnotes.

Which is why it still took the RCC more then 200 more years before they allowed any of their victims to read any bibles never mind the King James or Tyndale versions.

Indeed up to not so long ago not even RC priests were allowed to read the bible, but were simply supplied with small snippets of same, which had been savagely edited by The Papal authorities in Rome.

Bad art and evil religion have many things in common, the foremost of which being that they both are said to require a higher authority to 'correctly' interpret them to the common masses, as well as to the intelligentsia.

True art, and faithful religion neither demand nor require any such thing.

17 May 2012 at 02:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo,Romans 6
King James Version (KJV)
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

17 May 2012 at 08:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

17 May 2012 at 08:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older