Church of England members - what do you make of your new supreme governor?

Tāṇḍava

New Member
I am interested in what Church of England people think of Charles automatically becoming supreme governor. He is almost certainly not someone who would be selected for the job due to both his personal conduct and theological position, preferring to be defender of all faiths rather than "the faith" (Anglicanism). Do you see this as a concern, or perhaps as irrelevant, his position just being historical and the Archbishop of Canterbury being the "real" head of the church?
 
At the funeral he stated he was Christian, head of the CofE and defender of the faith.

Great talk.by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the funeral but both will soon have to decide which CofE church they go with, the traditional one or the woke lgbt one.
 
Christ is the head of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Queen the head of the particular denomination.
 
At the funeral he stated he was Christian, head of the CofE and defender of the faith.

Great talk.by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the funeral but both will soon have to decide which CofE church they go with, the traditional one or the woke lgbt one.
It's a difficult balancing act for them to follow. Both sides are quite entrenched. As a non-Christian I think that the way that they have handled it has been a good example, emphasising what the two sides can agree on, like there should be no discrimination against celibate gay people because it makes no difference if you are resisting temptation from one gender or another, and that everyone should treat gay people with respect and sympathy. Of course while agreeing on this you still have some people who would happily conduct gay marriage ceremonies and others who would sympathetically tell the same people that they should refrain from their lifestyles.
 
It's a difficult balancing act for them to follow. Both sides are quite entrenched. As a non-Christian I think that the way that they have handled it has been a good example, emphasising what the two sides can agree on, like there should be no discrimination against celibate gay people because it makes no difference if you are resisting temptation from one gender or another, and that everyone should treat gay people with respect and sympathy. Of course while agreeing on this you still have some people who would happily conduct gay marriage ceremonies and others who would sympathetically tell the same people that they should refrain from their lifestyles.
thanks for the reply.
Is it a balancing act at all? Where are 'gay people' in the Biblical testimony of God? Has a group of people been created based on a made up identity that should be treated differently from everyone else? I dont think so.
Do I ever get tempted to lie? Yes. So should I be labled a lying Christian? Should the church, as part of a balancing act, allow some to teach that lying or paedophilia is alright ?
 
I am interested in what Church of England people think of Charles automatically becoming supreme governor. He is almost certainly not someone who would be selected for the job due to both his personal conduct and theological position, preferring to be defender of all faiths rather than "the faith" (Anglicanism). Do you see this as a concern, or perhaps as irrelevant, his position just being historical and the Archbishop of Canterbury being the "real" head of the church?
The English Monarchy AS A WHOLE is Expen$ive, and irrelevant.
 
The monarchy, the "firm" as they are called, are a theological aberration. Only a few monarchs have shown any Christian tendencies since the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Under the last Queen, Elizabeth II, the Church of England became ultra liberal, effete and effeminate; full of homosexuals. Her reign could be considered as an utter disaster for the CofE. It seems none of her sons have any interest in religion. Britain is becoming one of the most atheist countries in the world: one hears nothing from the CofE nowadays, unless it is a new scandal or move into liberalism.

The current Archbishop of Cantebury, Justin Welby, I would rank as an A* heresiarch. He is incompetent in every field of theology except in sounding pompous.
 
Yes quite a number of believers have left the CofE. The lgbt activists within are even more intolerant than outside the church
 
Yes quite a number of believers have left the CofE. The lgbt activists within are even more intolerant than outside the church
The ambivalence, ney hypocrisy of the man Justin Welby is astounding. One the one hand, he "seeks to mollify conservative bishops around the world by “affirming the validity of a 1998 declaration that gay sex is a sin." On the other hand he believes that churches in liberal democracies should cave into the LGBT lobby to ensure their survival.

"He indicated that he would not seek the authority to discipline or exclude churches – including those in Scotland, Wales and the US – that conduct or bless same-sex marriage.​
And in a hint at possible future change in the Church of England, he told the conference that for churches in liberal democracies, not updating traditional teaching could also challenge their very existence. They, too, could be “a victim of derision, contempt and even attack”. [source]​

So he does not believe that freedom from sin is worth defending: he believes in the supremacy of the church, rather than faith. He trusts more to government than to Christ. He is a dissembler and a sophist, not defending the faith, but allowing sin to infiltrate for the sake of political expediency.

He is an antichrist.
 
I am interested in what Church of England people think of Charles automatically becoming supreme governor. He is almost certainly not someone who would be selected for the job due to both his personal conduct and theological position, preferring to be defender of all faiths rather than "the faith" (Anglicanism). Do you see this as a concern, or perhaps as irrelevant, his position just being historical and the Archbishop of Canterbury being the "real" head of the church?

Pope Charles
 
I have left the CofE now and become a member of a New Frontiers church.

Lets be clear, the CofE is now a mixture of some outstanding and some apostate churches and Bishops
 
Christian.
What I meant was, what other affiliation besides New Frontiers, e.g. Evangelical Alliance? New Frontiers is just one of a number of affiliations a "New Frontiers" church may maintain. In most cases I should imagine the church will be a lot older than its "New Frontiers" affiliation.

Anglican theology is sound enough, the apostasy comes when Bishops abandon it.
This is what is troubling me. It seems that the original articles of the CofE have been effectively dismantled by the decisions of synods and Archbishops down the ages, such that what is or isn't anglican theology is now extremely difficult to ascertain, if it is ascertainable at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Cambridge - 27/11/2022
"Church worshippers cried 'heresy' at the Dean of Trinity College as they left a sermon claiming Jesus may have been transgender 'in tears'.

"But the view of a transgender Jesus is 'legitimate', according to Dr Michael Banner, the Dean who stepped in to defend the claim made at a Sermon last Sunday that Christ had a 'trans body'.

"Dr Michael Banner, the Dean of Trinity College, was backing up junior research fellow Joshua Heath, who displayed Renaissance and Medieval paintings of the crucifixion depicting a side wound that he likened to a vagina in front of the congregation.

The side wound 'takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance', said Heath, whose PhD was supervised by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

The Dean of Trinity College, Dr Michael Banner, has stepped in to back up the view of a transgender Jesus after a junior research fellow claimed Christ had a 'trans body' last Sunday

The Dean of Trinity College, Dr Michael Banner
________________________

With heretics like this in charge, of the CoE, it cannot be labelled a legitimate church.

Also the law required every sacrifice to be an animal without blemish.

________________________

More heresy from Dr Michael Banner (14 Nov 2017)

Delivering the Thought for the Day on the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme, he said ‘the books of the Bible, from which the church takes its inspiration and teaching, themselves challenge the stereotypes and negative attitudes which have led us to exclude from fellowship those whom we judge outsiders’.

Citing a story from the biblical book of Acts where one of the disciples meets a foreign eunuch......

‘His baptizing a foreign financier of uncertain gender status, holds out to us an inclusive vision of community – a vision to which schools, Christian schools above all, should surely aspire.’

‘Uncertain gender status’? Twaddle. Being made a eunuch doesn't affect gender.

________________________

Revd Dr Michael Banner, dean at Trinity College, claimed that anyone who opposes paying slavery reparations is guilty of ‘ignorance’ and ‘stupid, knee-jerk responses’. [source]
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Nic
Eunuch is a castrated or impotent MALE.
No good having a leader in a church who knows neither science nor faith
 
Back
Top