bishop of london tories
Church of England

See how the (Acting) Bishop of London loves Tories

The (Acting) Bishop of London just loves Tories. It is seen in his sweet Twitter appreciation that Conservatives apprehend the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things; the beauty of honesty, justice and generosity, and the good nature of their public spirit. Being a bishop of the Established Church and a focus of national unity, he lauds the holy faith and works of all Christian Tories, which they live out and perform in humble service to their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The (Acting) Bishop of London appreciates especially those Tories who distinguish between moral good and evil and natural good and evil, for the evil of sin is different from the evil of suffering, and no Tory rejoices in pain and torment even though it may stem from their sin.

The (Acting) Bishop of London appreciates most especially that Tories try earnestly to do that which is right, so their moral good is that which is contrary to sin, exhorting people who have will and choice to be and act in ways that are virtuous and generous, taking responsibility for their duties to society and obligations to themselves, their families and their neighbours.

It is heartening indeed that the (Acting) Bishop of London can discern who is godly and who is not; that he honours Tories as moral agents, manifesting the heart and will of God for goodness, rightness and loveliness. They are not blind, of course, to their imperfections and inadequacies, but by God’s power their intelligence and political capacity help to transform the world to one of greater justice, liberty, charity and mercy. So many thousands of them delight in God’s law and dwell in His word – holy appetites which the agreeable Bishop seeks to exhort and affirm, for life does not consist of food, drink, entertainment and welfare, but the fear of the Lord and the love of one’s neighbour as oneself.

Tories who are fair and bright will especially appreciate the saintliness and humility of the (Acting) Bishop of London, and take succour in the knowledge that he intercedes for our welfare and prospering. He has conquered our dark hearts and doubting minds with his abundant grace, generous love, and incisive theology. His reverence, submission and self-abasement are an example to all. Long may he continue to inspire our gratitude, joy and zeal for true religion by his harmonious saintliness and holy affection.

  • Anton

    Cut off his salary, then we’ll find out how much he loves Christ.

    • dannybhoy

      Paid to attack political parties you disagree with, and in some cases help destroy the faith you say you represent…
      Can’t be bad.

  • Chris Bell

    Not broad but narrow, not straight but bent and not real but acting.

    • Merchantman

      Strange like Bishop Warlock and Cardinal Sin. Part of the Big pantomime?

      • IrishNeanderthal

        From a notice board in Munich: Confessions will be heard by Doctor Irrgang.

      • Ray Sunshine
        • Let’s pray that it will be so.

        • James60498 .

          It’s vital that we will. I fear it unlikely as the present incumbent is packing the electorate with his own kind.

          But it would be wonderful.

          Most importantly because he will be an excellent Pope.

          But also because it will blow the Progressives heads off. A black leader who opposes everything they do. They will hate it.

          • Coniston

            True. Read his ‘The Power of Silence’.

    • All Church of England bishops and bishopesses are play acting.

      • Chris Bell

        T’was ever so. All of life is but a play upon the stage of the real. Our only task is to read our lines with integrity but never on any account believe them to be true.

  • Dolphinfish

    I hate it when Cranmer tries to be humorous.

    • Royinsouthwest

      As any good Calvinist could tell you humour is no laughing matter.

      • carl jacobs

        >:-( <– Official Calvinist Smiley face.

  • Ray Sunshine

    It will be interesting to observe the effect on church attendance, following Broadbent’s appointment as the new Bishop of London. My hunch is that he will speed up the process of decline and fall. I hope I’m wrong.

  • Inspector General

    Broadbent is the acting bishop of London??

    Somebody bring the Inspector his opium. Quickly now!

    • Manfarang

      Double UO Brand?

  • [Tories] are not blind to their imperfections and inadequacies, but by God’s power their intelligence and political capacity help to transform the world to one of greater justice, liberty, charity and mercy

    If intended as irony, the above assertion plays into Bishop Pete’s hands. If intended as a statement of fact, it could only be accepted as such by Conservatives who have blinded themselves to reality: the diverse Britain engineered by the Con-Lab duopoly will only be held together, if at all, by the continued erosion of liberty.

  • Royinsouthwest

    The Daily Mail and the Telegraph have their faults. What about the Guardian? I would not be surprised if the Actor – he is probably better at acting than at being a bishop – would be totally bamboozled if he were asked to speak about the faults of the Guardian for a couple of minutes. Criticising the BBC would be easier; he would condemn the gender pay gap.

    Can you imagine the Actor condemning the Guardian and the BBC for trying to silence people they disagree with by using accusations of “racism” – even after what happened in Rotherham and many other towns? Can you imagine the Actor preaching a sermon on what Jesus had to say about “virtue signalling?

    • CliveM

      Oh he could talk about the Guardian trust use of a tax exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands.

  • “Daily Wail” “Torygraph” … what an insightful and mature tweet from +Broadbent. And they wonder why people don’t take the C of E seriously anymore. The church should ban clerics from Twitter until they can behave like people whose lives represent the Gospel by which they claim to be saved (or as adults, if that last bar is too high).

  • Interesting that the Muslims, who have always been the beneficiaries of the bullying of dissident opinion by the Grauniad and state, suddenly don’t like it when it happens to them.

    … is a tweet you won’t find coming from any bishop ever. Why do the left suddenly find ‘hate’ acceptable when directed at conservatives?

  • wisestreligion

    Bring back the real Bishop of London. It was good to see Bishop Richard Chartres dignifying the Cenotaph Remembrance Service on Sunday with his leadership.

  • Jill

    What do you expect, from a former Labour councillor? (Was that rude?)

    No chance of The People’s Pete being appointed next Bishop of London (proper). Didn’t he call the heir to the throne Big Ears or something similar?

    • Ray Sunshine

      No chance of The People’s Pete being appointed next Bishop of London (proper).

      Is that true? If so, it’s good news. I was assuming that “Acting” in this case meant nothing more than “pending the conclusion of formal procedures”. My knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs is clearly far from adequate. Is there still a chance, then, that the see of London will get a proper bishop to succeed Chartres?

      • Jill

        Richard Chartres is a hard act to follow, Ray. I really have no idea whether or not Bishop Pete will follow in his footsteps. He’s really a decent bloke, if rather irreverent, and fairly conservative.

        You might be amused to see this clip from Yes Prime Minister on the appointment of bishops.

        https://www.facebook.com/BritishComedy/videos/1967023973514898/

  • What a plonker!
    He’s behaving like a obnoxious brat at prep school who’s been given a new toy for his birthday desperately seeking mummy and daddy’s attention.

  • carl jacobs

    Nothing would fix a troublesome bishop quicker than Disestablishment.

    No seat in the House of Lords. No purple shirt. No pointy hat and stick. No office. No minions. No sense of self-importance. And best of all, no paycheck. One would quickly discover that there is no more problem.

    The Church could then do what it is supposed to do. The State can do what it is supposed to do. And everyone can be content in a properly ordered non-Erastian Universe.

    • layreader

      I just wish we had troublesome bishops. Pillars like Pete are quite the reverse.

      • Henry VIII managed to rid the realm of those when he illegitimately grabbed the power to appoint those who supported him and dispensed with those who didn’t.

    • “The Church could then do what it is supposed to do. The State can do what it is supposed to do.”

      As if there’s a clean and neat division between the temporal and spiritual realms. Each should operate in its own sphere and respect the legitimate authority of the other. Certainly a Monarch ought not to be declared the head supreme governor of the Church and bishops should not be paid from public taxation.

      • carl jacobs

        And certainly the church shouldn’t raise armies with which to conquer. Neither should it declare itself a temporal authority over the king.

        • There’s no plans to territorially expand the Vatican State, Carl. The Church should always state what Christian moral principals are in temporal affairs and seek to influence the temporal realm in ways deemed appropriate. God’s law always comes before man’s.

          • carl jacobs

            There’s no plans to territorially expand the Vatican State

            Anyways, not since it lost the ability.

            God’s law always comes before man’s.

            It does not therefore follow that an officer of the church should have authority over an officer of the state.

          • That depends on the type of authority we’re talking about.

          • Anton

            Suppose a country persecutes the Catholic church and Catholics had the numbers and the physical weaponry to put a stop to it by enacting revolution. Would you advocate that?

          • No, of course not. Jack isn’t a Puritan.

          • carl jacobs

            You know. Because what happened in Spain in1936 doesn’t count.

          • That was a civil war between anarchist/communist revolutionaries and conservative nationalists law and order increasingly broke down in the State. The elections in February 1936 produced a victory for a left-wing Popular Front coalition. This outcome brought a wave of violence by anarcho-communist groups further to the left than the elected coalition members who were for all-out revolution. The Spanish army would stepped in as the Republican government had lost control of the situation by July 1936 as leftist militias roamed the streets.

          • Chefofsinners

            …and the rain, Jack. Don’t forget the rain.

          • The first duty of a State is to protect its citizens lives and property. In Spain in 1936, the State was incapable of doing so and the country was in meltdown. The army stepped in.

          • carl jacobs

            The Army stepped in to prevent the establishment of a Communist state. Assume that Nationalists were roaming the streets killing Communists and anarchists. Does Franco intervene?

            QED.

          • The army stepped in to preserve the rule of law. In the situation you’ve described, yes, Franco and the army should have intervened.

          • carl jacobs

            “Should have”? Heh. The question was “Would he have” because that reflects directly to your contention that Franco intervened to restore law and order. Before we answer, let’s remember all those Leftists Franco had extra-judicially executed after the Civil War.

            Franco intervened to restore the Catholic Monarchy and halt the Communist take-over.

          • Jack isn’t going to speculate about what Franco might or might not have done, nor would he defend all his actions. All he’s supporting is the initial intervention to attempt to restore law and order. Whether he was morally right in establishing a military dictatorship with repression and deaths of political opponents and dissenters through forced labour and executions, is another question.

          • Manfarang

            And in Spain it is remembered that the democracies didn’t come to the aid of the Republic.

          • carl jacobs

            Why should they have come to the aid of what would have been a nasty little Stalinist killing ground? Did we need more shed blood to understand what Communism is?

          • Manfarang

            The manifesto of the Popular Front advocated a moderate left-leaning economic policy that rejected the idea of nationalisation of land and instead supported the provision of state economic assistance to agriculture, a new progressive tenancy law, and promotion of collective forms of production.

          • Manfarang

            There is no rule of law after an army stages a coup. The army wields .arbitrary power. Ever heard of Article 44 ( Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) 2014)

          • Manfarang

            Rubbish!

          • James60498 .

            Do you actually know what happened in Spain in 1936?

          • Chefofsinners

            The rain stayed mainly in the plain. As confirmed in Pygmalion (1938).

          • carl jacobs

            Yes actually I do. That’s why I mentioned it. It fit perfectly into Anton’s question which deserved more than Jack’s flippant response. Jack has justified Franco many times on this blog for doing exactly what Anton asked about.

          • James60498 .

            Jack’s answer is correct. But as most history is written by the Marxist atheist “elite” it’s not particularly surprising that those trying to avoid the truth can do so.

            You do have some strange ideas about Europe. Your view that Germany is generous to Greece because it gives it money which in amount pales into insignificance compared to the amount that Germany gains and Greece loses by sharing a currency is just another, but more current example.

            But then again you regard that as Protestant Germany selflessly helping out unworthy Catholic Greece.

          • Anton

            I think you can safely take it that Carl is aware Greece is Orthodox rather than Catholic.

          • James60498 .

            Fair point.

            But doesn’t really change the overall case. Replace the word Catholic with Orthodox and the rest of the post stands. I suspect that Carl is no more a fan of Greek Orthodoxy than he is of Roman Catholicism, except to the extent that it is much smaller and therefore feels less of a need to constantly battle it.

          • Anton

            NB I’ve added to the post you’ve just replied to, in case you wish to upgrade your response!

          • carl jacobs

            I battle it when Jack brings it up.

          • carl jacobs

            My opinion on Greece was that Germany should have eaten its debt and Greece should have left the Euro. I have little sympathy for Greece and its entitled attitude. I have little sympathy for German creditors and their export driven lending. I have no sympathy for the Euro regime. If you want to dig up my old posts on this, feel free. I probably haven’t posted on it in two years.

            As for Spain, I thought Jack was largely accurate. However its a stretch to say the Govt had broken down because Anarco-Communists were killing members of the Catholic Church. That’s what they do. My point wasn’t that Jack was wrong. My poi t was that it fit the criteria of Anton’s question – which criteria Jack had dismissed with a cheap shot at Puritans.

          • James60498 .

            Ok. Fair enough on your old European posts. I just remember a debate with you which as you say may be a long time ago. Time passes so fast now. Apologies.

            I have to say you do surprise me now in saying that you generally agree with Jack about Spain. That doesn’t appear to be what you were saying but I do acknowledge that the two of you could probably disagree over the sum of 2+2.
            Good. Because I rather suspect that I lost a mark or 10 at A Level Spanish because I took the “wrong” side in my Civil War Essay. Glad that at least both you and Jack think I was right.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack has this habit of making categorical statements like “No, of course not! Jack isn’t a Puritan”. Then when he is confronted with his own inconsistency, he will try to carve out exceptions for the RCC on the basis of special pleading.

          • Jack’s point was that the State was unable to meet its primary duty to protect its citizens and their property. The rising wasn’t against the State – it was to preserve the State. Franco and the army stepped in to restore law and order and defend the country against a Russian inspired communist revolution. Without him there would have been a rerun of France 1789 and Russia 1917. The situation between Cromwell and Chares I is hardly comparable.

          • carl jacobs

            He wasn’t “preserving the state”. He was restoring the form of the state he preferred. He in fact rebeled against its lawful government. Was it a good thing? Yes. Does it compare to Cromwell? It doesn’t matter. It fit the criteria of Anton’s question and you approved. Your approval is founded upon the fact that Franco was attempting to preserve Catholic Spain against the emergence of a Communist state. That’s exactly what Anton asked you about.

          • He was defending the State against chaos and anarchy. Certainly he was protecting Catholic religious and lay members. The State wasn’t executing Catholics or persecuting them. It was standing by powerless as lawful government had broken down. It was a civil law.

          • Anton

            Even after the first (phase of the ) civil war came to an end – and it was Charles who first raised his standard – the idea was simply to clip absolutist Charles’ wings a bit; it never entered anybody’s head to dethrone him, let alone execute him. But from the Isle of Wight he negotiated the Scots down by selling out his episcopalian principles and breaking his word yet again.

          • Yeah, sure.

          • Anton

            To deny that is simply ignorance of history. All reputable historians accept it. Are you not aware that Cromwell, Ireton and Fairfax negotiated most cordially with Charles after Cornet Joyce had brought the king to them? Why do you think Charles was not executed on the spot? Even after he broke his word and called the Scots down and the Army defeated them, the Army held off while parliament negotiated further with Charles. Check it out for yourself.

          • carl jacobs

            No, it doesn’t really. A man who occupies an office in the church does not acquire by virtue of his office any authority over any state office or any officer holding that office. Papal claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

          • Carl, legal authority is not the be all and end all of authority. For example, a Catholic politician would be obliged to follow Church teaching on abortion or euthanasia.

            1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria …..

            2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’ (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

            3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

            [Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
            Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger; July 2004.]

            If the King were Catholic?

          • James60498 .

            But they don’t follow the Church’s teaching on anything. Or at least many of them don’t. And they still receive Communion.

            When Bishop Egan of Portsmouth suggested that those “Catholic” politicians voting for “gay marriage ” and abortion should be excommunicated he was slapped down by a Spokesman of the Bishops Conference.

            The Spokesman being a former Labour MP who had voted against everything Catholic and then got his job running the Catholic Education Service. He was appointed by a Committee led by a Bishop who later got promoted to Archbishop.

            If the Pope were Catholic?

          • And didn’t poor Connor Burns (“as a gay man I don’t see how I can vote against something that’s presented as bringing greater equality”) play the victim over it.
            Bishop Egan was right. Those politicians should have been denied access to the Eucharist.

          • Anton

            Yes. Agreed.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s a different subject. The church can have authority over the private man who is a Catholic. It doesn’t have authority over the office he exercises. So if the Office holder isn’t Catholic, then the Pope has no purchase whatsoever. If the office holder is Catholic and chooses to obey the Pope, then the office holder may be subject to sanction for violating his oath of office.

          • It’s exactly the same subject. When it comes down to, do we owe loyalty to Caesar or to God? And it’s not about “obeying the Pope”; it’s about following one’s faith.

          • carl jacobs

            No it is not the same subject. If I was the office holder, would the Pope have any claim to authority over me? No. Does the Pope have any claim to speak for God in the first place? Only if I was Catholic would I think so. The authority a church holds over a man does not extend to the office he holds. It cannot command the office holder. It can only command the man and only if he is Catholic.

            You have to differentiate between the man and the office. They are not the same.

          • How a man exercises the office is very much a part of him. The separation is a false one. How can a man claiming to be a Christian support behaviours that directly contradict the Gospel?
            It’s not about the Pope “commanding” the office holder. It’s about the man staying true to his beliefs and principles in performing his duties. Ultimately, it’s about a man staying true to Christ. The issues we’re actually talking about are specific positions on homosexual marriage, abortion, euthanasia, no fault divorce, etc. We’re not talking about the specifics of how a state should run the economy, preserve law and order or defend the nation against external threats.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, assume I am the office holder, Protestant that I am. Does the Pope exercise any authority over my exercise of that office? Yes or no.

            If you say “Yes” you are claiming that the Pope exercises lawful temporal authority over the state. If you say “No” you are conceding my case.

            Choose one.

          • Does Christ exercise any authority over the way you perform your duties? The Church and its magisterial teachings hold authority in the spiritual realm and this should be accepted by all those claiming to be Christian.

          • carl jacobs

            Is that a “Yes” or a “No”.

          • It’s not an either/or situation.

          • carl jacobs

            Does the Pope have authority over me even though I don’t recognize it?

          • “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humane creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis)..”

            The temporal and spiritual swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, under the direction of the spiritual power. The earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority; the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and to judge it when it does not act rightly. When the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God. This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one. Consequently, whoever opposes this power opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles.

          • Anton

            Carl was modestly asking for one of two words. You gave him 200, but none was what he asked for.

          • Oh Jack thinks he’ll understand the answer given.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh Carl absolutely understands the answer given. It’s hard to say “Yes” when you need so badly to sound like you are saying “No”.

          • It’s a very clear “Yes”.

      • Anton

        Are they? I thought that the CoE paid people from its investment income, from rent deriving from land it owns, and from parish shares and collection plates.

      • The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head and Supreme Governor of the Church and no one else.

        I am not aware that Bishops are paid from public taxation.

        • Jesus is indeed the Head of the Church. And as the Head, He appointed a Steward to carry His authority until His return.

          • Indeed He did; the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-14).

          • And we learn in scripture how the God wants His Church to lead His people:
            “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

            This passage contains several critical points about Church authority: Jesus tells the Apostles that the authority He is giving them derives from His own, divine authority. The Apostles’ authority and mission comes directly from Christ himself. The nature of this mission is to lead or govern, sanctify, and teach. Christ promises to remain present with them always in support of this mission.

            “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

            This is another key passage for demonstrating: Christ’s deliberate intent to establish a new Church. His choice of Peter as the foundation, or leader, of this Church. Christ conferring on Peter his own divine authority for ruling the Church. This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors in union with Peter.

            A striking passage in Acts tells how the Apostles understand and describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28). This passage shows the Apostles knew that they had the governing power necessary to decide this question; and they are conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is guiding their decision, so ultimately it is God who has decided the matter. This passage in Acts would be meaningless if the Apostles did not in fact possess the authority of Christ, supported and guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

    • Martin Sewell

      Bishop Pete and I disagree on most things ( save the best soccer team ) but not even his greatest opponent thinks he would sell his soul for a seat in the House of Lords etc.

      He may be mistaken but he is honestly mistaken.

      • carl jacobs

        I was speaking of Bishops in general.

      • carl jacobs

        the best soccer team

        Oh? You follow Man City as well?

        • Ray Sunshine

          Don’t we all, now that Jesus is playing for them.

          • Anton

            I think you weren’t yet here when I last wheeled this one out:

            At Babel God legislated against Man United.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. Heh heh heh.
            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • Anton

            Not so fast. At the end of the Book of Revelation Babylon is Man City whereas Jerusalem is Civitas Dei.

          • carl jacobs

            Sounds Darby-ite to me. Must be based on spurious exegesis.

          • And God incarnated Himself so that Man United would be restored.

          • Anton

            We end up divided into Man City and Civitas Dei.

          • The Red Devils – a nickname from the early 1960’s.

          • Anton

            And put on the badge in 1970 according to Wikipedia. That’s a shame.

      • Only because he’s a Republican.

  • layreader

    The People’s Pete doesn’t apparently differ from the People’s Corbyn, then. That’s the problem with Bishops – they get to be a Pillar of Liberal Society, and forget who they are.

    • CliveM

      Unfortunately Bishop Pete cant forget who he was.

  • Anton

    O how things change! Within living memory the Church of England was called “the Tory Party at prayer”. Today it is the Labour Party at prayer. Perhaps it was some use when it was in between.

  • Skidger

    Complete Wally. They really must be scraping the barrel with this one.

  • layreader

    ‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.’ (Romans 13:1,2)
    Unless, of course, the authority is a Conservative government.

  • Broadbent is a good description of the Church of England.
    Broad is the gate it offers to its members and increasingly bent in its teachings.

    • carl jacobs

      Upvote for cleverness.

      • Just noticed Chris Bell got there first.

      • Chris Bell

        ah but a plagiarism reflected upon a morning blog. See below!!

        • Just noticed, dear Sir. One of the few comments you’ve written that Jack agrees with. However, your offering didn’t offer the same short clarity of Jack’s.

          • carl jacobs

            I wouldn’t take that argument into court, Jack. I know that you didn’t read Chris Bell’s comment before you posted. But it’s the same concept. He bested you by three hours.

          • Chris Bell

            Now, now its only a game. Happy I am that jack is happy.

          • carl jacobs

            No, no. Not when it comes to Jack.

            Carl! What is best on Cranmer’s?

            To crush Jack’s arguments, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their syllogisms!

          • Then it must be a daily disappointment for you posting here.

          • Chris Bell

            I never believe in agreement. And disagreement is mere stupidity.

    • Chefofsinners

      Peter Broadbent is an even better description of the Catholic Church.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I see the Old Firm (Rangers v Celtic) are at it again.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Does anyone here follow the Anglican Unscripted blog? This recent item

    Anglican Unscripted #344 – CofE and the Shadow – YouTube

    tells us that Anglicanism has been largely taken over by Jungianism, which is the mindset of today’s secularism.

    (I hardly knew anything about Jung’s stuff up to now.)

    • Chris Bell

      Yes but the jolly Ashenden is very wrong he should have said B.F. Skinner.

      • Ray Sunshine

        Skinner invented the Skinner box and Reich invented the orgone box. Either one of them sounds like more fun than Jung, who only invented archetypes.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Reich also believed in flying saucers.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        Since I saw that video, a couple of contributors have said that modern “Jungians” have completely altered the meaning of what the man himself said.

        • Chris Bell

          As is always the way. Carl Gustave Jung devoted his entire life to trying to heal the fractured psyches of his patients. Though not an apologist for Jung it is quite clear that he was a deeply spiritual man who longed for the Church to see the power of its own transformational symbols in that they held the Absolutes which the human mind could discover in contemplation and prayer. But he knew that this required deep faith in God.
          And courage!! The latter is of course absent in the CoE.
          No, Ashenden is quite mistaken probably because to face one’s own fears requires the questioning of one’s deepest beliefs. To paraphrase those words Christ gave us: If you want to save your life you must first lose it.
          He means all that you depend on must be challenged…………..then and only then will He come.

    • dannybhoy

      No, but I have been greatly enlightened by Thinking Anglicans..

      • carl jacobs

        Enlightened? Really?

        Is this another instance of that inscrutable barely detectable concept called “British irony”?

        • Brian

          It’s called ‘Know Your Enemy’ – or enema.

        • dannybhoy

          Ah, an American who appreciates subtlety*
          Most unusual. Very few of the Yanks I have known have understood irony.
          * at least subtle for me..

          • carl jacobs

            Ha! Take that, Jack!

          • dannybhoy

            Jack enjoys sparring with you, but of late has been rather tetchy due to the number of (mostly deserved) observations/attacks on his beloved mother Church..

          • ‘Yes, but Jesus loves me, and (subject to terms and conditions), I’m on my way to Heaven…’

            For a protestant that is progress. Of course the key bit which you need to elaborate and which protestants can’t agree on, is: what are the terms and conditions and do you have any role to play in them?

          • dannybhoy

            The terms and conditions are more than clear throughout the New Testament. As St Peter himself wrote in chapter 1 ..

            “3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice,[b] though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, 7 so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

            What you have cannot convincingly explain is how the (Catholic) Church justified adding extra clauses and penalties to the process of salvation. Like for instance purgatory, simony, a celibate priesthood, papal succession, the worship of Mary, and the role of Mary as an intercessor, when St. Paul says in 1st Timothy 2

            3 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

          • Jack has repeatedly explained the doctrines and dogma of purgatory, the veneration of Our Lady and relics, the community of saints, ordination and Apostolic succession, the authority of the Church to lead the people of God until Christ’s return and to impose sacramental disciplines such as priestly celibacy.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes I know, but it fails to convince those of us who perhaps naively believe the Bible narrative..

          • All the doctrines and the authority of the Church are supported by scripture.

          • dannybhoy

            So why do so many Christians disagree.?
            Are they all heretics to be destroyed by the Catholic Church with the full blessing of the Godhead?

          • Grow up, Danny.

          • dannybhoy

            Grow up?
            Too late for that Jack.
            I reached my maximum height years ago.

          • dannybhoy

            But not St Peter, St. Paul, St. James and the Gospel writers..
            Nowhere do they support the papal succession or salvation ‘add ons’ as per Catholic traditions.

          • Sola scriptura is not itself scriptural. Look to the early Church and her practices and beliefs to witness how she understood herself based on Christ’s teachings as handed down by the Apostles.

          • dannybhoy

            They were interpretations of Scripture Jack, the early church leaders discussed and debated what was meant by Scripture and looking for precedents in Jewish tradition etc.
            But the thing is Jack, it’s opinion, not revelation. And anyway, all Christian Protestants know they are united through their faith in and reliance on our Lord Jesus Christ’s salvation and sanctification; regardless of denominational differences.
            And we feel the same way about individual Catholics who also love and rely on our Lord in the same way as we do…

          • All interpretation of scripture is “opinion”? The Church then has no dogma. One generate can look afresh at scripture and form “opinions” as valid as those they succeed. One protestant can hold one “opinion” and another a different one.

            What you’re saying, in effect, is: The Bible, interpreted by the Fathers, may or may not be the word of God; the Bible interpreted by the Church may or may not be the word of God; the Bible interpreted by any one beside myself may or may not be the word of God; but the Bible interpreted by me, that is indeed the word of God, my only teacher, my guide, my infallible authority.

            As Philip, sent by an angel, asked the Ethiopian: “Do you understand what you are reading?” And the man replied: “How can I unless someone explains it to me?”

            And the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

            As St. Jerome said: “A wrong explanation turns the Word of God into the word of man, and, what is worse, into the word of the devil; for the devil himself could quote the text of Scripture.” The Bible, though divinely inspired, is a written document often so obscure that St. Augustine confessed that there were more things in the Bible he did not understand than those he did.

            The Bible, as a written document is always silent unless interpreted and some meaning is affixed to the words. The Bible cannot speak and interpret itself as you must take the Book in your hand, open it, read it, compare passages, and attach a certain meaning to the words.

          • dannybhoy

            First off I said it was interpretation, then discussion and debate (which I would agree with).
            The opinion bit was in relation to the Catholic idea of St Peter – Pope, Church – as God’s authority on earth, Church- as authorised to interpret Scripture, develop Church thinking and authority, introduce concepts- which re-inforce the Church’s authority.
            I also pointed out that Christians of a Protestant understanding can feel united in Christ (through the Holy Spirit), even though they may adhere to different denominations.
            We don’t argue over the authority of Scripture, only our interpretation thereof.
            So I recognise in some of the Catholics we interact with, the same love and devotion to Christ that we feel and act upon. And I tie that in with Scriptures that point out “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right’ and ‘God looketh on the heart’, and ‘the Lord knoweth those who are His’.

          • dannybhoy

            This is a very interesting page from recent history regarding Yugoslavia
            http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/12/the-role-of-the-catholic-church-in-yugoslavias-holocaust/
            Dunno how true it is but it seems kosher according to research done by various scholars such as lawyer Jonathan Levy..
            http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/new-wwii-lawsuit-threat-against-croatia-far-fetched–03-20-2017

          • Anton

            Thing is, we see the baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists… and you see the Catholics and everyone else. We don’t have to accept your terms of discussion.

          • Danny’s not the sharpest tool in the box, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Lemme Guess. Your principle evidence for this assertion is …

            ..an American who appreciates subtlety

            You should open a Boutique: “Tautologies By Jack”.

          • Chris Bell

            None of them are particularly sharp are they?

      • “Thinking Anglicans”
        ROFL.

        • dannybhoy

          ‘Sinking Anglicans’?

        • Chefofsinners

          I recently enlightened an effigy of Guy Fawkes. I could do the same for you…

    • dannybhoy

      At present my iPad won’t let me edit on this blog, but I wanted to say I don’t follow it religiously; I dip in from time to time.
      I did like what the other bald headed bloke said towards the end, that the CofE was a plane about to drop out of the sky..

  • not a machine

    Mmmm your grace throws a few difficult things as regards having some opposition and beef to belief and politics of a Bishop. Of course it is difficult to name even one Bishop in history who did not possess political skills, which can be a troubling thought. Oh andR4 are running a fonella fielding quote for so my request is “oh you are awful, but I like you ” 🙂

    • not a machine

      As for being a bit bonkers, which probably means something else these days, well we all have had some not so good moments, the hope and the skill is when you find truth. Mmm gov building houses is good but pondering if they are thoughtful to future?. I think there are problems with houses where the economy has been cyber ruined, and no greenfield building you’ll create cruelty to farm animals.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Are there people who think that the Acting Bishop has political skills? Perhaps that explains his appointment.

  • Inspector General

    The Daily Wail is a superb paper. Always a copy at the ‘New Mouse and Wheel’ for a fellow to peruse when he’s there. Written by journalists who are not victims of this or that or the other. Just ordinary British types who ‘get on with it’

    As those who know the Inspector would attest to, he has an almost morbid fascination with Sodomy, and can unsurprisingly inform said paper is reviled by devotees thereof. However, no matter how intense their disgust is, they can quote the thing verbatim and do so with astonishing regularity. Most strange.

    Tally ho!

    • Anton

      Does the New Mouse and Wheel refer to the computer-type mouse with wheel, and the old to a traditional furry mouse on a treadmill?

      • Inspector General

        Under the old tied house arrangement, a pub landlord could be in the same establishment for decades. Not the case when the pubcos took over. They change their people around every 2 to 3 years. And so it happened at the Mouse and Wheel. It had happened before, but the latest blighter, an uncouth individual had only moved a relatively short distance – and his faithful clientele followed him. Tattooed urban peasants to a man.

        Fortunately, nearby was the New Mouse and Wheel and it’s now used on a Saturday as a place of R&R for the worn out wicked. It’s a grand place to be.

        • Chris Bell

          Still can’t smoke my old pipe though and have a rough game of darts. Miserable places now full of people who will all definitely die and still thinking health is eternal.

          • Inspector General

            One knows the type. Death puts a hand on their shoulder and they can’t understand why, having followed ‘good advice’ that has told them by which death can’t touch them…

          • Chris Bell

            …..and it was said that death is birth and birth death……….but only of these mortal coils….the rest of it, boys, is infinite. The health police will all perish as much as all name and form will perish. Have no fear.

          • Anton

            I suppose darts have quietly gone as a police condition of license renewal, as they comprise weapons in a roughhouse. You’d be surprised how many discreet cameras now film you in pubs for the same reason. But I don’t miss my sweater or jacket smelling of other people’s smoke next morning.

          • Chris Bell

            I would feel the same in the street being polluted by a thousand exhaust pipes of other’s vehicles and enveloped in the miasma of other peoples flu germs as I walked into the sick surgery at night to see a Dr in a gas mask. But fortunately I know of a Truth that transcends the bodily hell that passes for ‘my’ world and its death no longer quite bothers in the same way.

          • Inspector General

            Large numbers of these intolerants are misshaped due to excessive food consumption…

    • not a machine

      What would skippy the bush kangaroo have to say Inspector?

      • Inspector General

        Ah, a Times Crossword man! Skippy suggests the answer is found in every other word, but Kangaroo is the killer. That’s a jump.

        No. Can’t work it out…

        EDIT

        It’s not ‘tits’ is it?

        • not a machine

          Lol…. no Inspector but have had a referendum in Australia.

          • Inspector General

            Australian polls have a majority in support for those who have religious or other objections to dogshit marriage

  • Dreadnaught

    This guy is just one more TitHead amongst many. The fact that he and his ilk can alienate so many of his co-religionists with his school-boy brand of cat calling is another good argument for explaining the decline in the authority of the CoE and dwindling congregations. I very much doubt that there are more Lefties than Tory voters amongst his flock – so he slights them to make a political statement, What a clown.

    • Inspector General

      Before his acting appointment was confirmed, an innocent Inspector wonders if the Caliph of London was consulted for his view…

  • Marcus Stewart

    He’s an arch plonker: enough said. A poor choice as Acting Londin – but then the field’s so poor.

  • Marcus Stewart

    Should have added to below post that his suspension some years back for ill-advised comment on the royal family – one of whom’s titular head of his Church – seems to have failed to curb his silliness. As just another sneering metropolitan liberal, what Anglican C/conservative – in any sense – could look to him for care? As a London bishop he has many Cons MPs and voters in his cure. I profoundly support free speech and hate PC – but while it’s fine for clergy to be ‘political’ and aligned, they must resist the temptation to make public remarks that alienate their opponents (keep it for the dinner party). He may well be a fine pastor – but the social media presence diminishes.

    I once complained to Richard Chartres that London (and Southwark) had far too many ‘senior clergy’ (some 20 or more archdeacons and bishops between them, pissing in wind): why was another suffragan bishop being appointed? He told me that they were so busy another was needed. You could’ve fooled me.

    • Mike Stallard

      The bureaucracy grows as the real congregations shrink. When the bureaucracy has killed off the congregations entirely, it will still be there serene and faintly smiling.

      I wish he realised that by supporting Buggins against Gubbins, that Gubbins supporters would not be best pleased. He should have known that as the superb irony of the article suggests.

  • Chefofsinners

    On the other hand, the Tories in question are the Remoaners: Nikki Morgan, Anna Soubry, Ken Clarke and the rest of the Miss Piggy lookalikes club. They were called traitors by the papers for standing on a Tory manifesto that promised Brexit and then doing all they can to sabotage the process. Seems like fair comment to me, but they’re squealing about being bullied and having their feelings hurt. Pork Ken. I mean poor Ken. No more snout in the EU trough.

    • Anton

      Hopefully their constituency party committees can be stirred up to threaten them with deselection.

      • Chefofsinners

        Deselection is too good for ’em. I once spent a summer morning castrating piglets and returned to the farmhouse to find it was meatballs for lunch.

        • Anton

          Long ago I had a summer job working in the stores for an industrial electrician’s, making up orders coming in from the firm’s men working on building sites and on industrial-scale repairs, and putting what they needed onto the works van for delivery. One day they were shortstaffed and I was told to pretend I was an apprentice and sent out to a job where one of our sparkies was repairing the 3-phase chainsaw in an abbatoir. Lats time it happened our electrician went veggie for a month afterwards. I came home and had a steak.

          • Chefofsinners

            Abbatoir: place where Swedish pop groups go to die.

    • Father David

      Nikki Morgan, Anna Soubry, Ken Clarke et al have obviously seen the Light and also foreseen the coming “darkness over all the land” post March 2019.
      I’m not a fan of the Daily Torygraph and would certainly not purchase the Barclay Brothers rag but I did like that icon of the Holy 15 saintly that they put on the front page the other day.

  • Chefofsinners

    Speaking of traitors…. I see a picture of Jesus Christ has been sold for £350 million. Once upon a time you could have had the real thing for 30 pieces of silver.
    See…? They told us inflation would spiral out of control if we voted for Brexit.

    • Manfarang

      How do you know what he looked like?

      • Father David

        The Gospels tell us nothing about Jesus’ physical appearance apart from possibly that he was not very tall.

        • Anton

          Isaiah prophesies that he looked like a normal bloke of the time and place and had a beard. Where is the clue that he wasn’t very tall, please?

          One may be sure he didn’t look as effeminate as in this picture.

          • Father David

            Maybe that’s why someone at a later date added a beard to the Da Vinci painting. Of course, the very earliest representations of Jesus have him as a young clean shaven man with curly hair bearing a lamb or a sheep on his shoulders. Rather like Michelangelo’s famous Florentine statue of David. Although unlike David the Lord is clad rather than naked.
            Luke 19: 3 KJV tells us of Zacchaeus and records the following “he sought to see Jesus who he was and could not for the press, because he was little of stature”. Now, we have always assumed that Zacchaeus was a very little man, and a very little man was he; but it could be interpreted that it was Jesus who was “little of stature” and so Zacchaeus climbed the tree in order to see him?
            Mind, you would think that with “the press” in attendance they might have taken a paparazzo along with them to take a photograph then we would know exactly what Jesus looked like. Failing that we always have the image on the Turin shroud.

          • Anton

            Adding beards and moustaches to portraits is a fine schoolboy tradition.

    • IanCad

      We need look no further than the Widow’s Mite to see how slowly inflation evolves.
      Using the Rule of 72 and assuming a compound interest rate of 2.5%, it has been calculated that her 2p contribution would now be worth more than all the money in the world.

      • Royinsouthwest

        And Happy Jack would be happy to tell us that the Church (or rather one particular Church) is the rightful heir to that fortune!

        • Nope, the money was given to the Jewish Temple. It didn’t do much good though as the Temple was destroyed in the year 70.

    • Anton

      Today you can have the real thing for free… yet millions decline it.

    • Pubcrawler
  • John

    The ecclesiastical equivalent of Donald Trump. Petty, tribal tweets demeaning the dignity of his office.

  • Mike Stallard

    Only on this blog…

    Superb!

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Did anyone see Michael Wood on BBC Four last night, talking about Ovid?

  • Why have all the Wilisden’s for the last 30+years been so pre-Labour? From Butler onwards.