Archbishop Welby continues to live down to expectations

"Fury as 'pointless' Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby turns his back on chaplain reported to a terror unit after questioning his school's new LGBT policies" - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...bury-turns-chaplain-reported-terror-unit.html

The Most Reverend Justin Welby is on sabbatical, fellows. He can't be bothered with this kind of minutiae.

 

I might have even read this article if it wasn't reported by The Mail on line.
.

 

The Christian Legal Centre, which has taken up Dr Randall's case, appealed for Archbishop Justin Welby, along with the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, and the Bishop of Derby, Libby Lane, to publicly support Dr Randall.

'Will you use your platform to defend Dr Randall and freedom of belief and religion in our schools,' centre chief executive Andrea Williams asked in a letter.

But all three senior figures declined to give Dr Randall their backing.

Asked whether the Most Rev Welby, who is on a three-month sabbatical, believed the school was right to report Dr Randall to Prevent, a spokesman at Lambeth Palace said: 'We don't have any comment.' ​

An assessment of the Daily Mail can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

In reality reporting the Reverend Dr Bernard Randall to the anti terrorism focussed group 'Prevent', seems to my mind to be an overreach. I seems to me on what I have read that independent thinking is in some cases only allowed to go so far, and I suspect that there is a lot more to the story. I would have thought that the lead in support should have come from Dr Randall's Bishop, who I think is the Bishop of Derby, The Rt Rev'd Dr Libby Lane. She is reported thus:

Public statements in support of one side in a dispute, prior to the evidence emerging in legal proceedings, is neither in the interests of good legal process nor, indeed, likely to serve Dr Randall's personal interests well.​

Of course the result of the referral is also reported

The school decided Dr Randall's sermon was 'harmful to LGBT' students and referred him to Prevent, although a police probe ruled the chaplain posed 'no counter-terrorism risk, or risk of radicalisation'.​

My only hope is that his Bishop was in reality much more supportive of him pastorally than the report suggests.

 

At this point Welty is jus treading water until the demonic LGBT mafia can destroy the last vestiges of Christianity in Great Britain, and he can preside as the new high priest of the lavender paganism.

Think about it, even if he were a double-agent, he couldn’t be doing more damage than he’s causing now to the most christian culture and heritage of Britain. The Queen has an infiltrator, a Wormtongue in the midst and she doesn’t even know it.

 

A digression: Wikipedia is so slanted to the left that it almost topples over, especially in matters of culture and religion. I have a policy of never accepting anything from Wikipedia as a primary citation for that reason. It is more a leftist propaganda organ than a neutral source of information. Even the purely factual stuff on math and physics are being slowly infiltrated by the Woke editors.

Wikipedia is a Marxist trash-hole, in other words.

 

There was a time when Wikipedia was a (somewhat whimsical) but great mostly reliable source of general information, about lots of subjects. That was before political operatives figured out that it could be used for propaganda purposes. It's been documented that there's been an infusion of political-agenda moderators taking over Wikipedia pages, and those mods who rejected political slant have been increasingly pushed out. Currently almost all of the top brass in Wikipedia moderator ranks is occupied by progressive and yes even openly marxist-driven moderators, who will nudge the articles they oversee, to embody more and more of the agenda which they believe is important for us to accept.

 

This post is in my view very trashy, and I would have expected better of this site.

I have little experience of the Daily Mail. The current state of tabloid journalism around the world leads me to conclude that political leans take priority over facts far too often. The Daily Mail article was in my view struggling to understand the issues, the Church, or indeed what the story was about, so it ended up being a story about the AB of C, simply to heighten the sensational.

I am not completely convinced that this is as true as you suggest. The manipulation of data so as to enact some for of social change is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia, and indeed is counterproductive, and if that were to be the case, then they would have lost their way, and will consequently lose readership. Some 15 years ago I had a view that Wikipedia was inclined to be Americentric in its world view, however I am happy to see that that is less the case today.

__________________________________

I know we can't avoid bias, and I know that objectivity is a subjective possibility, however I think we should try to limit the negativity that can creed in. Recent days have seen attacks on the this site, and Lutherans, Romans, and Anglicans. Conservative, Orthodox, Traditional Anglicans should be known for what we believe, not simply for what we are agin. ​

 

If woke means knowing and caring about fairness in a cosmopolitan society, would the opposite to 'Woke' be uncaring racist scum?

 

This is a terribly naïve take, and runs completely against our experience of social media in the 2000's. It turns out that the tech giants have figured out a way to leverage our human frailties against us all. One technique is the "nudge" theory developed by Thaler and Sunstein et. al. -- it basically uses a mix of mass-media propaganda, administrative rule-making, and the amplifying power of internet social media to stigmatize behavior the elites deem "objectionable". The meteoric rise of CRT (Critical Race Theory) from an obscure Marxist academic sub-specialty to a major social movement is a perfect example of the technique in action.

Wikipedia is at the leading edge of the "nudge" spear. Just look at the edits on controversial topics sometime; they are usually subtle (though not always), but always always in the left-liberal direction.

Do you doubt me? Just look at the current wave of demonization against Bill Gates. A couple of months ago he was a philanthropist hero; now he's a crony of Jeffrey Epstein and just maybe guilty of certain unstated and unsavory practices. What happened? Why is he a demon now after being a leftist saint for so long? How could the entire media apparatus turn on one of their own so quickly? All you have to do is look at how messaging spreads over social media networks and you have your answer. The hardcore Marxist left has been honing this technique for decades (Orwell captured it in 1984 in the development of "Newspeak").

Another example is the risk-reward mechanic in something like gambling or video games. Human beings almost universally crave the dopamine hit that a "reward" gives them, and many (not all, but many) are prone to becoming addicted to this dopamine hit. The odd thing is that it doesn't have to involve a real-world reward. Getting a "pat on the head" for doing something "correctly" provides the same response. This is why "virtue signaling" is such a prominent behavior among the political and activist left, and why it tends to feed on itself.

None of this is a conspiracy theory; just read the literature, and listen to leftists when they talk to each other. Companies have monetized this whole process and have reaped hundreds of billions of dollars off of it. Name any "lifestyle brand" you can think of and their entire business model revolves around this ideology.

 

Here is an article by the chaplain in question.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-cancelled-chaplain/

 

1. I have no problem with Dr Randall, and his point of view is both important and valid, and by an large I would support his take on it.
2. I have no problem with Archbishop Welby leaving to Bishop Libby Lane to defend a priest who has been dismissed for what seems an unreasonable proposition.
3. I would have a problem if Bishop Libby Lane failed in her Episcopal and Pastoral care of her clergy, including the ones she may disagree with.
4. I do have a problem unreasonable belittling and demeaning of those in authority in the Anglican Church and in other Churches.
5. I don't have a problem with those who think Wikipedia does not have everything right, and I would agree. So I think we have to be cautious in what we read, and if important validate sources independently where possible, and the same might be said of the Daily Mail and any number of other publications. Objectivity may well be hard to achieve, however it remains an aspiration goal for those who seek the truth.

 

As usual, once the actual facts of a matter can be examined, rather than the 'spin' put upon them by 'right' or 'left' journalism, which has agendas not aimed as distributing truth but more about spreading and encouraging 'beliefs' in its readership, a 'mind freeing' perspective on the matter emerges to replace the incarcerating solitary 'brain confinement' of propaganda induced, imprisonment of thought.

The Daily Mail and Mail on Line is politically very RIGHT but very rarely actually right, in almost eveything it reports. The Daily Mail 'news'paper, actually supported Hitler in the rise of the Nazi Party 1930-1938, and its editorial bias has changed little ever since, just enough to remain readable by some, still decent, people. It is read mostly by people who desire their prejudices fed and bolstered, rather than by anyone actually seeking truth.
.

 

The ‘controversy’, such as it is, appears to be a result of two intersecting (and conflicting) states of affairs:
1. The Church of England continues to be established;
2. The majority of the population of England is not Anglican.
This unfortunate reality predates the current archbishop.

 

Sophistication always has to be at the service of truth. The "Anglican sin" of the last 50-60 years has been for all these urbane sophisticates to discuss finer points over sherry right before dessert. They put truth at the service of sophistication, while the world burned down around them. I'm not playing that game. Now it's for the next generation, for me and my children, to rebuild the world that they have destroyed. This is life and death we're talking about. This "God business" is awful, awesome, dangerous stuff, not a parlor game.

"let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one."
-Matthew 5:37

 

Is this why we post on forums like these? The gratification of our posts being 'liked' and agreed with?

 

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.​

 

And yet we can't let our Christian brothers and sisters fall into the clutches of Satan out of a desire to be "nice". Christ was not nice. He was good and kind and just, but not "nice". He certainly wasn't afraid of hurting feelings or even physical altercation if it came to that (or have you forgotten when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip? John 2:15).

Apropos to Dr. Randall: if we do not protect our shepherds, who will look after the sheep? If Church leadership makes it clear that to speak out strongly on unpopular topics will leave one in a cold and windy place, then few will have the bravery or will to do it. Easier to go along to get along, and isn't that the sad story of Christianity in the 20th and 21st century in a nutshell.

Modern Christians have fallen prey to the "be nice!" trap in the same way they have fallen for the precious treacle that sits on your grandmothers mantelpiece: the ceramic praying hands, the postcard with the word Peace written in cursive over the form of a flying dove, the picture of the beatific Christ sitting down while adorable children gambol about, all the rest. Don't be a Pharisee! we are warned. Don't be a legalist! Be nice! Meanwhile Satan and his legions bear down upon us. We have literally turned into sheep, bleating and baa'ing plaintively as the wolves carry us off one by one.

Remember that when Christ commands us to love God and love our neighbor, he is speaking of a selfless, self-sacrificing, brave kind of love. You do not love your neighbor if you let them persist in a sin that will lead them to Hell. You do not love God if you not only make way for Satan's minions, but actually pave the road so that they can advance. A lack of action is an action in itself, as the philosophers say, and God does not call us to sit about and congratulate ourselves on our own salvation while the world burns down around us. We are called by Christ to contend for the faith. Anglicans used to know this, back when St. George was still venerated.

 

How would that apply to our lord and savior who called people “vermin”, who labeled folks the “children of satan”, who whipped sinners, who promised eternal damnation for transgressions? I won’t mention the Old Testament where those who even thought badly about God were executed by him on the spot, the Amalekites who were exterminated? The men of Sodom who were erased? Etc?

The history of Christianity is full of those not afraid to call a spade a spade, to whip and be whipped, to suffer for the gospel and inflict discomfort on those who rejected it. That’s how they built the holy Christian civilization on a hill. I will stand with the saints, prophets and martyrs. Where they did not flinch, I must not flinch either.

 

I think I have been clear. Dr Randall has a Bishop, and that is the Bishop who should be stepping into the affray. I am just asking that we stop using the Archbishop of Canterbury as a convenient whipping boy. As Christians I believe we should be exhibiting a level of prayerful support for those who lead us (or at least some of us). I don't mind disagreeing with him, that is well within Anglican purview, but he language of your #4 in this thread I believe is deplorable, and not fitting to the nature and character of what this forum should be about.

 

Anglicans used to know, (well some of them perhaps), that this was written by St. Jude, not Jesus Christ. Not that that makes it any less advisable, or the 'call' any less valid, but I thought I'd point that out in the interests of truth and accuracy when quoting the scriptures.

Another inaccurate and deliberately misleading interpretation of the scriptures is Stalwart's "vermin". Jesus never called anyone 'vermin', so this is actually a lie. Matt.6:19-20, RSV; Matt.6:19-20 in the NIV does report Jesus saying that our posessions can be destroyed by 'moths and vermin', and thieves can break in and steal, but clearly he was not implying that sinful human burglers are to be considered 'vermin', even though we may understandably label them 'dirty rats', Jesus is not reported in Holy Scripture as ever calling people 'vermin'.

g1035. βρῶσις brōsis; from the base of 977; (abstractly) eating (literally or figuratively); by extension (concretely) food (literally or figuratively): — eating, food, meat. AV (11) - meat 6, rust 2, morsel of meat 1, eating 1, food 1;
act of eating. In a wider sense, corrosion.

Literally: (where moth and eating doth consume), in appreciation of how Stalwart does so like to interpret scripture 'literally'.

For some reason the NIV decided to 'go it alone' and replace the KJV, RSV, ESV, NRSV - 'rust' - with 'vermin', but for all that, it is not suggesting that Jesus called anyone a rat. Jesus likened some people to "Whitewashed tombs full of dead mens bones and all manner of filth", a fox, blind guides etc. but, according to scripture, not vermin, nowhere 'rats'.

Incidentally the scriptures also do not say that Jesus whipped anyone when he drove them out of the temple along with the sheep and cattle. He certainly seems to have threatened to, but it only says he drove them out along with the livestock and as anyone knows threating behaviour is not an actual assault. John 2:15. John 2:15. None of the other gospels suggests Jesus whipped people either.
.