Ten white Anglicans out to save the world

Ten white Anglicans out to save the world


And if one white Anglican should accidentally come unfurled

There’ll be nine white Anglicans out to save the world.

– Sung to the tune of Ten Green Bottles

Since the first caveman hunted for his first cavewoman, Homo sapiens has trodden the pedestrian path of traditional sexuality. How boring! Now we have a new gospel for the primitive barbarians of the Third World. Ten white Anglican knights in shining sexual armour will soon be marching across dark continents to save us all from the vestiges of the primordial forms of our binary and bigoted sexuality. The Jayne Ozanne Foundation (JOF) is on a global mission to civilise the sexual savages of this world.

I don’t blame them. If you are a virtuous cloister of ten white, monochrome, middle-class, middle-aged, well-educated, mostly Oxbridge (never Uxbridge!), mostly Church of England clerics, swearing by the same Left-wing ideology, and astoundingly non-diverse in your composition, wouldn’t it be exciting to add some paint and pizzazz to your insipid middle-England existence and form a charitable foundation to preach the gospel of sexual diversity to the nations?

Our ten white Anglican ‘sex missionaries’ are the trustees of JOF, announced at the beginning of the New Year. Their chairman is Bishop Paul Bayes, patron of Gay Pride in Liverpool. When I was a member of Justin Welby’s Task Group for Evangelism, Bayes was second-in-command. Clearly, he now has the gospel of sexual diversity to preach to the nations.

Other ‘influential’ trustees include David Ison, Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral; Colin Blakeley, editor of the evangelical Church of England Newspaper (his inclusion in this group has led to the Rev Julian Mann stating he will no longer write for the paper); and Dr Stephen Barclay, Senior Lecturer in General Practice and Palliative Care, University of Cambridge.

Snow White was far more diverse and inclusive. At least she had seven dwarfs. I put the list of JOF trustees under the microscope, searching for the token one-eyed, vertically challenged, black, transgender, lesbian, of part-Chinese descent, who is obese, dandruff-ridden, dyslexic, lives off benefits and failed high school, but my search for diversity among the trustees was in vain. The old boy (and girl) C of E network clings to uniformity like iron filings to a magnet.

What, then, are the noble goals of this august body that bears the postmodern white man’s burden? ‘The new foundation has been set up to help educate and advocate on LGBTI and gender rights around the world, particularly within religious organisations that are opposed to non-heterosexual relationships. In addition, it will look to foster good relations inside religious organisations that hold conflicting views on sexuality and gender issues,’ explains the JOF website. ‘We believe in just love for all!’ its motto trumpets, and you can almost hear the Beatles belting out ‘All you need is love’ from the Bose hi-fi in Ozanne’s bedroom.

When ten white Anglicans start speaking in the tongues of Marx and Marcuse and tell us they have a vocation to take the gospel of LGBTI-gender rights to the uttermost parts of the earth, one looks for substance behind the slogans. No doubt, Christians should stand up for persecuted homosexuals, as Andy Hunter, Scotland Director of FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches) persuasively argues. As a journalist in India, I would walk up to cops who were harassing gays and ask them to stop. The cops made a sadistic sport of targeting gays hanging out in Mumbai’s ‘hotspots’ to meet similarly inclined folk. I still get upset when Indians I know make fun of gays who were our mates in school.

But I am also outraged when militant homosexuals trap Christian bakers or florists or photographers and deprive them of their freedom of religion and their right to conscientiously object to participating in a ‘gay marriage’. I am incensed by LGBTI activism that seeks to brainwash children into accepting what the cultural Marxist academic Herbert Marcuse sought to promote as ‘polymorphous perversity’.

So how is JOF going to campaign for LGBTI-gender rights ‘particularly within religious organisations that are opposed to non-heterosexual relationships’? Surely they would have to begin with Islamic countries where homosexuality is punishable by death: Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria (in states that have adopted Shariah law), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates. How are our ten magnificent white crusaders going to challenge the most virulent form of gay discrimination endemic in Islam?

When I enquired about the composition of JOF’s trustees, Ms Ozanne kindly wrote to me that ‘good governance should never be about “representation” of groups, but a collection of skill sets that ensures the charity can be effective in its legal duties, and is able to recognise when it needs to draw on external expertise when needed’. She also clarified that JOF has ‘specifically ensured broader representation across the denominations with our Council of Reference’. That shifts the goalposts of the diversity agenda quite conveniently, doesn’t it?

So what experience do the trustees have in challenging discrimination against real victim groups? We don’t see any of the trustees remotely resembling Ayaan Hirsi Ali and campaigning against Female Genital Mutilation, or ISIS throwing gay men off rooftops, or Pakistani men raping white underclass girls on an industrial scale in the Muslim-dominated Shariah zones of Britain.

All we smell is the stink of neo-colonial assumptions underlying the performative contradictions of JOF’s objectives.

Assumption 1: Traditional indigenous religions in their current orthodox forms are flawed when it comes to sexual morality and need ten white Anglicans to correct them.

Assumption 2: LGBTI-gender rights have universal legitimacy because they are based on a set of universal moral truths. Sadly, for centuries savage aborigines like us have not discovered these truths, but Enlightenment has finally dawned from the bowels of Oxford.

Assumption 3: LGBTI-gender injustices are at the top of the hierarchy of evil. The genocide of Christians in parts of the Muslim world does not even feature on this ladder of injustices.

Assumption 4: Liberal, Western, gay rights activists hold the golden interpretative key to the scriptures of all religions. Christians who oppose homosexual acts have ‘a simplistic and ill-informed view of the Bible’, Ozanne condescendingly claims. Many of these Christians come from Africa’s ‘heart of darkness’, which actually poses the biggest threat to the pansexual liberation movement within Western Anglicanism.

Assumption 5: Virtue is cultivated by gratifying the desires of the flesh. This contradicts every religion, which calls for self-denial as a vehicle for virtue. There is an imperative to be who I am, and that means embracing my gay desires, says Ozanne in a debate with the New Testament scholar Robert Gagnon. There is an imperative to deny who you are; Jesus did not come to gratify people’s innate desires, he called people to repent of sin, replies Gagnon.

Here’s my challenge to the trustees of JOF. I’ll contribute towards Bishop Bayes’s air fare when he leads a Gay Pride march in Riyadh. I’ll send a cheque to JOF when Jayne Ozanne delivers her lecture on conversion therapy at Al-Azhar University. Until then, I’ll sing ‘Ten white Anglicans . . . nine white Anglicans . . . eight . . . seven . . . six . . . five . . .’

159 COMMENTS

  1. When all the LGBTQI brigade have taken over the church, can the majority of the congregation start up their own church?

    • “can the majority of the congregation start up their own church?”
      Good news; You can do that at any time.
      Bad news; You cannot exclude anyone with ‘protected characteristics’.

    • No. They’ve already taken over the Church of England and appointed their limp-wristed leader in the form of Justin Portal Welby. As with the Swedes, the first things to go will be the ban on Homosexual “marriage”, followed by images of the cross and the identification of God as “He”. No doubt then, a Commission for re-drafting of the liturgy so that it doesn’t offend anyone at all, if that’s ok with you, Mephistopholes?

        • That demonic proverb is not in the Bible. However, I agree that “stated” good intentions (which are actually pretended motives) do indeed pave the road to hell. True good intentions, however, which of course only God knows, are actually put there by God’s Spirit and can only lead to good works.

          • Not a fun activity for me. On some days, it is not a pretty sight.

            It is true that what I believe, I have come to believe very strongly, with lots of evidence to convince me over many decades. Therefore, I am quite opinionated. I present my beliefs strongly (being backed up by the scriptures, apostolic doctrine, and science where it applies). Although you may ascribe no authority to what I say, I will speak with the authority of these many years of experience and a great deal of higher education (lots of letters behind my name). I say this not to show off, just to reveal that I am no novice in understanding the Bible, the Church, or psychological science. And I agree with the author of this article (Jules Gomes) on almost everything.

  2. The Church of England is dead as a genuine Christian Church. The bible is absolutely clear on LGBTQ and gay marriage, there is no nuance. So if you support this as a Church you are no longer Christian.

    There are however non-affiliated churches, and by that I mean not affiliated to the CoE or a national body (For example, The Baptist Union of Great Britain).

    An example is the Association of Grace Baptist Churches, its Churches have a loose association but are not dictated to by any central administration or leadership structure. They are together in principles only.

    What is very frustrating is when your church has to bend with the current political fads of the day, or your minister is a “Liberal”, which is another name for a “Progressive” or “Communist”. Many Christians leave these Churches with no where to go, and my advice is to find a non-affiliated Church which has solid principles and takes nothing from comtemporary culture.

      • It is a long way from being perfect, but the teachings of the New Testament are a better guide than those of the Q’uran.

        And also a better guide than the teachings in the so-called ‘Old Testament’, which are the deranged ramblings of the malevolent tribal god of the Semitic peoples, and should not appear in the Christian bible.

        • Strange you say this when the teachings of the New Testament are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who himself acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament.

          • We could do without the New Testament because Christian teaching would still have been handed down in the life of the Church, together with the rest of Tradition. The Old Testament is irreplaceable.

          • According to Orwell, the OT was “the only good book that God ever wrote” – although I’m not sure what he meant by that.

          • Considering the struggle many people have reconciling the written OT with the written NT, it’s probably just as well we have both.

          • Virtually everything we know about Jesus Christ and everything taught by His chosen Apostles was gathered together (and canonized) in what we call the New Testament. Without the NT, there would be no Christianity; it would have died out. Without being written down, all knowledge gets garbled and eventually lost. Did you not ever play the game as a child in school, where you whispered a short message to one child who passed it on? It always comes out very different after about five or six passes. Imagine a very long and complex message passed on a million times. Obviously God wanted His gospel message to be passed on intact, put in concrete so to speak. Or, as Paul put it:
            “…the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
            (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV)

          • The number of sayings in the NT that are genuinely known to be directly reported sayings of Jesus are very few.
            They do not include anything about the authority of the OT.

          • Genuinely known by whom? Who gets to decide which of the many sayings of Jesus are genuine? Jesus frequently references the Old Testament in his teaching, and never indicates that it is invalid. Or have you decided that the places where Jesus does endorse the OT are not “genuinely known to directly reported sayings of Jesus”? If so, please tell us by what authority.

          • I go by the biblical scholarship that has been published since the mid 19th-c Germans started looking into it closely.

          • The extremely liberal German theologians are well known to be unbelievers or heretical nominals (Christian in name only).

          • You people spend an awful lot of time denouncing others. It’s east to see how the Spanish Inquisition got started.

          • You have come on to a conservative website to an article written by an orthodox Anglican priest who believes in the authority of Scripture. So of course many here (who strongly agree with Gomes) will rebuke your unbelief and heretical ideas. What else do you expect? We believe that your thinking can cause harm to others, so we are mitigating such harm as best we can. No one is going to chop off your head or burn you at the stake. But it will get hot in the kitchen for you, and if you cannot stand the heat….

          • What? That is an idiotic question. Answer: Of course not, especially in Europe. Nor are all Bible-believing Christians conservative (just a large majority).

            The author of this article and many others on CW is Rev. Jules Gomes who IS a conservative Bible-believing Christian. So I want to hear his wise words and promote them (versus all comers).

          • It reminds me that someone once said the CofE was the Tory Party at prayer. People here might be happier if it still was.

          • Matthew 5:18-19
            “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Pretty clear, huh?

            Every time Jesus said “It is written…” to back up His teachings (which was many times as recorded in the NT), he was referencing the OT. It was the Bible of Jesus and the Apostles.

        • I have close to zero knowledge of the Qu’ran, so I’ll have to defer to you on that one. And a lot of what appears in the Old Testament is ever so slightly alarming.

        • Are you serious ?
          The Bible is a great collection of myths & folk tales.
          The great skill of the Western Churches is their ability to ignore so much of their holy book.
          Eg anyone who literally believes in the Adam & Eve story or that Jesus walked on the water is not very intelligent or well educated.
          Educated Christians side step such stuff. Just like wealthy or well connected Catholics get divorces.
          One such friend of mine had 3 marriages, all recognised by the Catholic Church – some ceremonies included his three wives and assorted progeny from each union.
          All organised religion is essentially a form of politics.
          The sheer Earth bound, non spiritual nature of religion is striking.
          If you want spiritual or transcendental experiences, listen to The Song of the Earth, appreciate nature, emphatically don’t listen to men in beards & frocks – especially if they sit in the House of Lords.

          • 1. Yes, I’m serious.
            2. Says who? You. Who else? People with an agenda.
            3. True, but this discredits the churches not the holy book.
            4. I had a classical secondary education and have first class honours in philosophy.
            5. Not all educated Christians side-step this stuff. Divorce is not approved in the gospel.
            6. Some Christians are nominal, some are hypocrites. This does not discredit the Bible.
            7. Possibly true – depends what you mean by “organised religion”.
            8. The “non spiritual nature of religion”: sweeping generalisation.
            9. Listen to men in beards and frocks? I don’t.

          • I agree. With #7, all groups of all kinds (not just religious groups) have internal politics and conflicts, and they also have political and philosophical views that lead to “us versus them” positions when dealing with those not part of the group. This is a universal sociological fact; so pointing the finger at churches in particular is disingenuous of “Reborn”– who truly needs to be reborn.

            # 8. Again about definitions. There is much psychological research that has been done on the differences in Christianity between internalized religious belief (faith) as opposed to external identification and religious behavior. The former is more spiritual; research shows these people to be happier and their faith more enduring.. You can easily fake faith by adherence to the externals (see Matthew 23).

            I like the saying that Christianity is not really a religion but a relationship; a relationship with the divine through Jesus, a relationship with brothers and sisters in the faith. Knowing Christ is a spiritual thing. Obeying religious rules … not so much.

          • So what you’re saying is that the less someone engages their brain in worship and devotion, the happier they’ll be?

          • Not at all. I am a C.S. Lewis fan since high school. I was taught very early on to not check my brain at the door when I went to church. I was always questioning. I eventually went to seminary to help answer some of the hardest questions (theodicy questions, mostly).

            What I am saying is that people with true faith and spiritual maturity also tend to have greater inner peace, contentment with life, and moments of real joy (not just the enjoyment that comes from physical pleasures). My dissertation research confirmed previous findings. In a population of senior Christian females from assorted denominational backgrounds and
            socioeconomic status, it was found that spiritual/religious maturity (as measured by the Religious Status Interview) was positively related to fewer mental health symptoms (as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
            Inventory). That is, in these women, the more spiritually-minded and religiously mature were less anxious or depressed. Anybody surprised? But it helps in a secular culture to have scientific research verify what we already know from scripture and common sense.

            “Religious
            maturity and psychological distress among older Christian women.”

            Atkinson, Bruce E. & Malony, H. Newton; International Journal for the
            Psychology of Religion, Vol 4(3), 1994, pp. 165-179.

          • Depression often is what it is. And if I meet someone else who wants to suggest that it’s because someone hasn’t prayed hard enough, then I may scream.

          • There are many causes of Clinical Depression, which vary from case to case. Yes, genetics and biochemistry play a part, but so do habits of negative thinking, unresolved grief and trauma, and other environmental stressors. I know personally hundreds of people who have overcome depression through therapy alone (no meds). But the best strategy is usually a combination of therapy, medication, and such things such as regular exercise, building better social relationships, and more focus on one’s spirituality and faith. Don’t disregard the power of prayer.

    • Jesus was remarkably silent on homosexuality.
      As he was on the persecution of left handers & those with ginger hair.

        • The apostle Paul, the more you dig into the circumstances of his life, becomes a hugely complex figure. A lot of what is accepted as Christianity seems to have been a Pauline invention.

          • “Hugely complex” – you sound like a liberal clergyman. Almost everything we know about the apostle Paul, if not everything, comes from the writings of the New Testament. If you wish to reject the NT, that is your choice. If you wish to plead scholarship and revisionism as a means of picking and choosing between extracts, please tell us by what authority you do this.

          • You know what? There’s zero point in these conversations. At the end, and as at the beginning, you’ll view me as theologically weak if not an actual heretic and neither of our minds will change. I have zero authority that you will recognise, so it’s best that we don’t talk further.

          • I much prefer those who honestly admit they are heretics to those hypocrites who say they are orthodox believers but are not. Which means I like you and Barry, even if I totally disagree with your opinions on Christianity and the Bible. You are more honest than the trolls I regularly deal with online.

          • Thank you sir, I feel quite humble. I had not expected such a gracious response.
            As I’m sure you have realised, my heresy consists of not believing that the almighty God, who placed Jesus on this world for our redemption, is the same as the tribal god of the semitic peoples, YHWH or Allah.
            A modern re-birth of the old Marcionite belief I suppose.

          • Exactly. This was the belief of the arch-heretic Marcion. He was intensely antisemitic and sought to suppress all NT writings that said anything positive about the Jews. Of course, Jesus was a Jew, as were all the Apostles.

          • It would be nice if trolls (those who disagree with the author and are here just to cause trouble) and other heretics went away. But they are lonely and this is one place where they can get the attention they crave (negative attention may be better than none at all). So until they become obscene in their comments, they get to stay … and be rebuked.

          • If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong. But the definition of a “troll” is not mere disagreement.

            As a Moderator on another website, I have little tolerance for trolls. According to one good definition, “trolls” are those who come to websites to cause trouble. They generally do not agree with what the article’s author (or the website) stands for. They are negative and insulting; they often use ad hominems and emotional reasoning. Why should the website give them a free public platform to promote causes which are antithetical to the website’s reason for existence? But some websites are more tolerant of trolls than others. Trolls remind me of Proverbs 18:2: “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

          • I come here for debate as conservative websites tend to have a faintly higher calibre of intellectual debate than others such as the Guardian. If you dislike that, block me.

          • You do not disturb me, Barry, so why would I block you? Rather, I feel sorry for you. Besides, I have no responsibility to moderate or ban trolls on this website.

            It amuses me at times to interact with atheists, heretics, PC libertines, those of other religions, and even political liberals. As an apologist for the scriptures and for good psychological science, I like to regard my participation as rather a ministry. But the information I share is usually intended for the many who read the comments, not necessarily for the individual person I am addressing (who is anonymous to me).

          • I find St Paul unsettling and anyone who professes a deep affinity with him also unsettling. As the Americans might say, I give them the swerve.

          • You feel unsettled by St. Paul, naturally. He says ,”All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”… that would unsettle anyone who does not believe that he is a sinner. He says that the Gospel of Christ is a stench to those who are perishing but an aroma for those who are being saved…” yes… you will feel unsettled because it contradicts the Leftist Liberal view that human beings are basically good and there is nothing called hell for those who do not come to the saving knowledge of Christ. You would feel unsettled because St. Paul is not for the snowflakes and he does not molly coddle who cheapen the Gospel of Christ. He will unsettle everyone who thinks that Christian life is easy and there should be no challenges. St. Paul makes you realise that that when Jesus said, ‘take up your cross and follow me…’ Christian life becomes,” to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Those who worship idols of all sorts will not be happy wth St. Paul.

          • Yes, well said. And even many who call themselves Christian these days are actually Pelagian heretics who follow secular humanism more closely than they follow the Scriptures.

          • I think, from where you are standing on these spiritual issues, you actually need much unsettling. Then perhaps someday you will chose to stand upon The Rock.

          • Then he certainly was no saint. But he was a saint, in fact an Apostle chosen by Jesus Himself. And his teaching was consistent with the gospels and writings of the other Apostles. His letters were the earliest writings to be accepted as NT scripture by the early churches, and was copied used by them.

          • There was a ‘Jewish’ Christianity, based around St James (the just), a younger brother of Jesus according to tradition. Sadly some Jews didn’t like what they heard from him, so they took him to the top of a synagogue and threw him off. When they found he wasn’t dead, they stoned him until he was.
            Remind you of any other group?

          • 7th day Adventists? No! Mormons?, No!. jehovah witnesses? No!
            Can I phone a friend, his name is Abdul…….

          • If you believe that, then you cannot be a Christian. If the Bible is lying to us about Jesus’ Damascus Road call and choosing of Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles, then a majority of the books and words in the New Testament must be jettisoned. Fortunately, Peter himself called Paul’s writings “scripture” (2 Peter 3:16), not to mention 2000 years of agreement among Christians, so who are you to say otherwise?

          • Obviously. But as the old droll proverb puts it: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

          • Paul was surely a very complex figure. But he did not invent Christianity. He was called to complete what was left for him to complete … meaning building the body of Christ and he did this under the unction of the Holy Spirit. He did not invent anything but did as the Holy Spirit revealed to him. Remember he was a man of exceptional intellect with an unexceptional power of the Holy Spirit that was at work in and through him. He had extremely unusual mystical experiences and unparalleled life of suffering for the cause of Christ. You need to be really dumb to say he invented Christianity or even to say that much of what is accepted as Christianity seems to have been a Pauline invention.

          • Well said once again. Any committed Christian who is truly educated in the scriptures and church history would agree with you. Paul was the personally chosen Apostle to the Gentiles… by Jesus Himself.

        • See my response to Reborn above. Jesus was actually not silent at all about the underlying spiritual issues associated with homosexual behavior.

          • There’s something either hilarious or tragic about seeing people who have no idea what same sex attraction is telling people with such attractions how to live their lives. There’s nothing like counsel from people who have no idea about the problems you face.

          • I am a licensed psychologist, a psychotherapist for over 30 years. People do not pay me in order to lie to me. I hear their deepest secrets, the truths they hide from others. Don’t tell me I don’t know about same-sex attraction. Don’t tell me I don’t know about the homosexual lifestyle and its consequences.

            I have seen much success toward positive change and contentment (including minimal symptoms of anxiety, depression, addiction, acting out) in my clients— which I regard as accomplished by the grace of God through the faith of my clients. I have been privileged to be used by God to help many to overcome their unwanted and distressing desires, feelings, thoughts, behaviors, and temptations via cognitive therapy, trauma recovery, and other psychotherapeutic means. I also pray for them and encourage them in their own faith.

            What is tragic is that there are people who believe as you do and do not realize the great potential for recovery and the great reason for hope that exists for those who are same-sex attracted. But change can only occur with those who truly want to change and commit to the process of recovery. We have a joke in my field: Question: How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: Only one, but the light bulb must want to change.

          • So what’s wrong if someone wants to change his or her sexual orientation? You have a problem with freedom of choice? You want to live in a dictatorship? If someone can change his or her gender, which is biologically determined, why can’t they change their sexual orientation?

          • Psychological attitudes, feelings, and of course behaviors are quite changeable. Same-sex attraction has been shown to be environmentally caused, not genetic or predetermined. It often does change.

          • Research is clear: self-identified gays (like around 75%) eventually turn heterosexual even without treatment. Thus it is a temporary developmental abnormality for most people. You could say Mother Nature or God cures them, or perhaps they cure themselves.

    • There are still, thank God, Anglican clergy, both Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, who are completely orthodox in their beliefs and teaching.

  3. “…good governance should never be about “representation” of groups…”

    Really? Perhaps Jayne Ozanne can try preaching that particular piece of worldly wisdom to our great leaders, who all seem hell bent on conforming to the strictures of identity politics. Or is it just groups that are predominantly white, male and heterosexual that are wrong and have to change and conform?

    • Don’t do what we do, do as we say. Looks like some sort of Anglican inquisition not likely to stray far from “conferences” in nice places.

    • Isn’t it funny to watch Jayne Ozanne squirming as she writes to Rev Gomes, pre-empting his devastating critique of her fake organisation? The last time I had so much fun when Bishop of London Sarah Mullally was interviewed by the BBC and asked if gay sex is a sin. The whole CofE is now like something out of the Carry on Movies.

  4. Initially I wasn’t that bothered about your religious agenda, Reverend. But you write so well that you are winning me round.

    Keep it up please!

  5. Arose this morning wondering whether to go to Morning Prayer (yes, we still have some 1662 Prayer Book services) in my village church. Decided I am so out of countenance with the C of E that I didn’t. I can get closer to God with a Bach cantata. If there are too many more who feel the way I do the C of E is surely in grave danger?

    • I don’t blame you, There is enough left wing dogma being rammed down our throats in daily life without getting it in church too. The spiritual side seems to lose out to an emphasis on “equality”, LGBTQWXYZ and the rest of it, woman bishops and the Labour view of the economy. I don’t want a SJW agitator lecturing me from the pulpit, thanks. It’s a pity that the C of E has become the religious wing of the Labour party.

      • When it comes to being lectured from the pulpit by SJWs, I believe that we are fast catching up with Sweden, where they even remove the cross for fear of offence.

        • The Church of Sweden now has 80 percent of female clergy. Yes, you’re right. In fact, one of their lesbian women bishops suggested removing crosses from churches so Muslims could be made comfortable when they prayed to Allah. The CofE is following fast in its footsteps with all these women vicars and the sissy men pandering to their feminist fetishes.

    • I think there are a lot like you, which explains why C of E congregations are dropping so drastically. It was only a few years ago that it was announced that less than a million people regularly attended Anglican services. Today, it’s about 800,000.

      And guess what! That problem will not be resolved by clerics burbling high mindedly about gay sex, with moral superiority aforethought.

      • The problem will be solved by Anglicans proudly defending their historical achievements – many
        and admitting their past mistakes – few compared to Catholicism.
        Above all, Christians of all denominations should have the courage to openly
        defend the West against its Oldest Enemy, instead of taking out pews so that mohammedans can use churches for their activities.
        Suicidal & contemptuous of our history & achievements.

      • Bach was a very deeply committed Christian. Every composition he wrote begins with the initials JJ (Jesu juva) for Jesus help me and ends with SDG (Soli Deo Gloria). To the greater glory of God. Better to listen to a Bach cantata, or motet or passion (for Lent) than to listen to these vicars who feed their congregations with popcorn and bad pop music.

  6. Paul Bates lead a gay pride march in Riyadh? I’d love to see him try. Allah vs LGBT is likely to be far more gory than Alien vs Predator. I think this project tells us one of two things. Either the LGBT movement is mind – bogglingly naive about the influence they will have on Islam, or they are being dishonest about their intentions. I suspect those intentions are more to do with hitting soft targets (like Christians) than doing anything that may possibly require real self-sacrifice .

    • Paul Bayes couldn’t say boo to an Islamic goose! I’m waiting to see him taking up Reverend Gomes’ challenge!

    • Spot-on. JOF has, of course, no intention whatsoever of pursuing LGBT rights in any country other than the UK, nor any other church than the Church of England. They are a pressure group hell-bent on destroying two thousand years of orthodoxy. The think they will de-toxify the CoE brand and people will flood back to it. The brand they can have, but the truth and the power of God’s Spirit will be long gone.

  7. Even if, you don’t believe in a God, from a philosophical point of view a man would (should) realize that, he cannot succumb to wanton carnal desire nor indulge himself freely in whatever he craves to do, there must be limitations, practice of self sacrifice, laws must be set, or else we have returned to the jungle.

    JOF do as they jolly well please after all they would argue it’s a free society is it not? and that’s the flipping problem, mankind’s addiction to making up the rules to suit whatever his/her peccadillo and persausion and then forcing it – new rules upon others, crikey it so sounds like, the very echo of Socialism.

    Believe it or not. The Church is open for all believers, if you don’t believe in its tenets; the teachings, sacraments, family and tradition, then you don’t belong.

    JOF should make Pakistan their first port of call, and then if they manage to escape with their lives to judge on, see how far ‘the true Enlightenment’ has travelled.

    • Butm but, but…that would trammel freedom with responsibility, like those dead white men said. Yeah, those dead white men who gave these morally dead white mostly men the leisure to be lazy heretics by building the west.

  8. I have a dream! That one day, the C of E will encourage people to read their Bible, say their prayers, repent of their sins, and live in Christian godliness and harmony.

    Until then, I have to ask, not for the first time, what exactly is the C of E for? Anybody wishing to leave behind his worldly ways and seek a higher spiritual path is probably better off seeking out the Mormons and the JW’s than the Anglicans, which might explain why C of E congregations are falling so catastrophically

    • Yes. But at least there are now a considerable number of non-Church-of-England Anglican groups out there who still subscribe to the doctrines and morals which are traditional and biblical.

  9. “The new foundation [JOF] has been set up to help educate and advocate on LGBTI and gender rights around the world, particularly within religious organisations that are
    opposed to non-heterosexual relationships.”

    By its own self-identified mission, this is a group of antichristian (sex worshiping) trolls, looking to infiltrate, proselytize, and recruit from normal traditional Christian churches and cultures. Trolling for converts to their idolatry and blatant immorality, they seek to infect populations wherever they go. We evangelical Christians taught them how to evangelize, but their antigospel is totally antithetical, incompatible, and irreconcilable with the Gospel which Jesus brought to us, which the Apostles taught and wrote about. Paul was passionate about rejecting any false gospel.
    “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you
    accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”
    (Galatians 1:6-9, see also 1 Corinthians 6:14-17)

    These idolatrous libertine ideas are like cockroaches which have already crept into our house through the cracks in our cultural windows and doors. A divine Pest Exterminator is now required.

    “The morally ‘disordering’ influence of [the media] is more subtle and insidious than direct incitement. What happens to all of us, unless our powers of moral judgment are acute and alert, is that our understanding of what is ‘normal’ begins to be modified. Under the impression that ‘everybody does it’, and that nobody nowadays believes much in God or in absolutes of truth and goodness, our defenses are lowered and our
    values imperceptibly altered.”
    We begin to assume that sexual promiscuity and any personally chosen sex object (when we are aroused) is acceptable. It has become the accepted norm of western
    society. We have been conned.
    (taken from ‘Authentic Christianity’ by John Stott and Timothy Dudley-Smith. See also:
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/06/the-revenge-of-conscience )

  10. Excellent article, Rev. Gomes. Keep on writing about these hypocrites and heretics. They cause weak Christians to stumble… it is better for them, as the Lord said, that a millstone be hung round their necks and be drowned in the sea.

  11. To be a Christian is to follow Christ. To follow Christ one must respect and observe the clear advice given to us in God’s Word, the Bible, and that includes advice on sexual conduct. To call oneself a Christian whilst promoting the disobedience of God’s Word, is at best self-delusion, and at worst a deliberate rebellion against God. These “missionaries” are not working for God. They are classic examples of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    • The aim of JOF is to make the Church of England appeal to society at large. They think people want a church which tells them anything goes; God will accept them whatever they do. They think that achieving this is worth the destruction caused by abandoning two millennia of tradition and worth the intellectual dishonesty of pummelling the words of the bible to extract the meaning which suits their purposes.
      This is deeply patronising, as if people can’t see through their shameless, hypocritical chasing of the zeitgeist. It is the Blairite doctrine of abandoning principle to gain popularity.
      Anyone with a real interest in the Church is attracted for the exact opposite reason: because it offers moral absolutes, certainty and stability in an ever-changing world.
      “Change and decay in all around I see
      O Thou who changest not, abide with me…”

  12. Jayne Ozanne is a fraud. So is Paul Bayes. They are also cowards. I’ll give you evidence for both. Go to their twitter feed. Start with Ozanne. You will not find a single reference to her willingness to stand up for places where homosexuals are persecuted the most, i.e. Islamic countries. Reverend Gomes has exposed this entire bunch of virtue signallers. The Emperor (of Gay Pride, Liverpool) and Empress (of Blandings!) are naked.

    • Standing up for homosexuals in, say, Saudi Arabia would get you killed or imprisoned. What do you suggest?

      • I suggest Ozanne and Bayes put their money where their mouth is and not go after soft targets. If they have the guts, then start speaking up for persecuted gays where they REALLY are being most severely persecuted. Christ got killed and Paul was thrown into prison. The entire group of trustees claim to be Christians. So what’s the problem? Bonhoeffer died standing for the Jews.

          • Good. We will have a few more martyrs. At least they’ll die honourable deaths and not live as cowards.

          • Life and death for all of us, Barry. Whether we trust God or not means eternal life (forever living with Christ) or eternal damnation (forever dying, separated from God). I don’t know your friends among “them” but I can interact with you . For both you and me, it is life or death… forever. Choose well, dude.

          • What was it old Wil had to say? Something like, “A brave man dies but once, but a coward dies a thousand deaths.” I should look it up, but Bach is on my stereo, and I don’t want to work that hard. Lots of white feathers around these days.

          • I believe gay people should be part of the church, but there’s no way in hell I’m going to Riyadh to proclaim it. By a similar token, my great granddad disliked Kaiser Bill, but he wouldn’t have strolled across No Man’s Land reading from the Bible to tell him why.

          • That’s nice, Barry. But homosexuality is simply not Christian, and your, and my, feelings about it are irrelevant.

            No I’m sure your great grandad would have rather taken his SMLE in hand, and left his Bible in his pocket on that stroll. Just as my great uncle did with his Springfield, and his New Testament, likely in Norwegian..

          • In your opinion homosexuality isn’t Christian. There’s a difference. And neither you, nor I, know for sure. Me, I’d rather be accused of loving too much than not enough.

          • No Barry, my opinion matters not a whit. It is what has been taught since Christ himself taught it. You know, Christ, the Eternal Word made man. Doesn’t mean I can’t love them, just mean they aren’t Christian.

          • You’re welcome to your beliefs. And beliefs repeated stridently and with great certainty are still beliefs.

          • The author, Dr Gomes, has nowhere argued that homosexuality is or isn’t Christian. He is challenging Anglicans of a certain kind who patronisingly and condescendingly want to correct other cultures and other religions on their attitudes to homosexuality.

          • I worked in the field of addiction treatment for many years. I feel for those who are addicted. In fact, I can say that I love crack addicts, but I certainly will never support their self-destructive behavior, no matter how great it feels to them.
            Love is not the same as codependent enabling of destructive behavior. As S. Hubbard wrote: “Of course we are to love them! But real love is not passive or blindly accepting. Real love actively, even relentlessly, seeks to bring the beloved into a closer relationship with God, through repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. We are not loving our gay brothers and sisters by telling them that sin is not sin after all. We need to be offering them hope through the redeeming love and transforming power of Jesus Christ.” This is my attitude as a Christian: love the sinner but hate the sin … because (by definition) all sin is destructive to God’s beloved creatures.

          • Then you should not form a charity or a foundation that pompously claims to proclaim LGBBTI rights to other countries and other religions. Simple.

          • I think even murderers and atheists should be part of the church… and therefore repent of their ways and amend their lives to greater moral purity and integrity. But murderers should not be allowed to continue their evil behavior and atheists should become believers. Or else they do not belong at all.

          • Sin is sin. Murderers and homosexuals are equally unqualified for heaven (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but all people can change if they honestly and truly repent and submit to God.

            Block me if you wish. But this is a public forum comment section and therefore if you post, I may respond, especially if you choose to denigrate the scriptures.

      • Some straightforward unequivocal verbal condemnation would be a start. The problem is that nobody in the British establishment seems willing to openly criticise Islam or Islamic culture. The risk of being tarred with the Islamophobia brush is too great. So those very unfortunate homosexuals in Saudi Arabia are not likely to get much support from Britain.

          • So continue to name the worst offenders… Muslims and Islamic nations. Those who only pick on Christians (who love the sinner, hate the sin) are hypocrites and cowards.

    • Yes, if you mean the Church of England, the Episcopal Church (USA), the Anglican Church of Canada, and other Anglican churches in Europe. However, the majority of Anglicans on earth live in the Global South and are holding the line on biblical orthodoxy and traditional doctrine (GAFCON). The upstart breakaway Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is doing so as well. These churches are alive and growing, unlike the CofE and TEC.

Comments are closed.