Britain's 'first non-binary CofE priest' believes 'Jesus loves sparkly eyeshadow'

She is a bishop of the occult.

Anglo-Catholic Anglican clery have historically had a lot of involvement with the occult. In fact there is a strong connection. Anglo-Catholicism and occultism both "have a sense of ritual, an often Gothic romanticism, and a sacramental world-view. Both suggest that the supernatural can pervade the material world, and both offered their own paths of “mysticism” to penetrate beyond the material world."

Prior to 1920, many Anglo-Catholics were able to blend beliefs in the astral body, reincarnation, and root races with Catholic doctrines and ritual practices. At the 1920 Lambeth Conference, Theosophy was formally condemned, alongside Spiritualism and Christian Science. Some Theosophical Anglicans, such as J. I. Wedgwood and C. W. Leadbeater, eventually decided to leave the Church of England and start their own Theosophical churches as episcopi vagantes."

"The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, established in 1887, was devoted to the Western esoteric tradition, and practised various forms of initiatory ritual magic, the Golden Dawn recruited heavily from the clergy."

"The Revd Francis Heazell, secretary of the Church of England’s committee on ecumenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox from 1917 to 1929, was a Ruling Chief of the Order’s London Temple. His duties would have included teaching the Order’s hermetic doctrines to new initiates. The Rt Revd Timothy Rees, Bishop of Landaff from 1931 to 1939, was a significant figure in one of the Order’s successor groups."

[taken from Church Times/On the Wings of the Dawn - the lure of the occult", 4th Dec. 2018

Seems to be deceptively easy, once you have set up a fake religion tolerating unregenerate sinners hiding behind ritual, to substitute satan for true God.

Twaddle
 
This was always on the cards whilst the churches tolerate more and more celebrating sexual immorality as believers leave because of it.
The prevailing 'love one another' instead of 'do not associate' both from scripture has been a downfall.
The LLF, living in love and faith is not living in love or faith at all. By presenting the whole church with it all who have engaged have engaged in something that compromises believers and corrupts the gospel
 
This was always on the cards whilst the churches tolerate more and more celebrating sexual immorality as believers leave because of it.
The prevailing 'love one another' instead of 'do not associate' both from scripture has been a downfall.
The LLF, living in love and faith is not living in love or faith at all. By presenting the whole church with it all who have engaged have engaged in something that compromises believers and corrupts the gospel
In a word, the CofE has confounded love and lust, agape and eros. In Christianity, agape is "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God". The practice of Eros is confined by the law of God, but in rejecting the law of God, the Anglican Church hierarchy has embraced the law of Satan. One instantiation of the latter is Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", meaning that adherents of Thelema should seek out and follow their true path, i.e. find or determine their True Will." Thelema was founded in the early 1900s by Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), an English writer, mystic, occultist, and ceremonial magician. Aleister Crowley was also an apostate from Christianity.

I guess these apostates might argue: "Thelema is derived from the Golden Dawn. The GD is Rosicrucianism. Rosicrucianism is esoteric Christianity. Therefore Thelema is Christianity.” Whatever: the CofE's religion is now "Do what thou wilt" in respect of sexual morals, at in respect of homosexual relations. Probably they would insist on fidelity within M-F marriage, but since homosexuals can't get married under the law of God, nor even the law of the CofE, how can they pretend to have any regard for sexual morals?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
In a word, the CofE has confounded love and lust, agape and eros. In Christianity, agape is "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God". The practice of Eros is confined by the law of God, but in rejecting the law of God, the Anglican Church hierarchy has embraced the law of Satan. One instantiation of the latter is Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", meaning that adherents of Thelema should seek out and follow their true path, i.e. find or determine their True Will." Thelema was founded in the early 1900s by Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), an English writer, mystic, occultist, and ceremonial magician. Aleister Crowley was also an apostate from Christianity.

I guess these apostates might argue: "Thelema is derived from the Golden Dawn. The GD is Rosicrucianism. Rosicrucianism is esoteric Christianity. Therefore Thelema is Christianity.” Whatever: the CofE's religion is now "Do what thou wilt" in respect of sexual morals, at in respect of homosexual relations. Probably they would insist on fidelity within M-F marriage, but since homosexuals can't get married under the law of God, nor even the law of the CofE, how can they pretend to have any regard for sexual morals?
Great observation.
 
The early church condemned homosexual acts. I suggest sections of the Anglican hierarchy are given over to the worst forms of heresy and gnostism; and nothing to do with the true church (cf. the Great Commission) or the true God (the Father of Jesus). Isn't the father of today's CofE and US episcopal hierarchies now satan?

From Wiki:

In his fourth homily on Romans, John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said: "But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere."​
The writings of the early church contain strong condemnations of same-sex acts.​
Tertullian wrote, "When Paul asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature in that which is unnatural, he validates the natural way". Ambrosiaster wrote, "Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry. Those who interpret this differently do not understand the force of the argument. For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended?... It is clear that, because they changed the truth of God into a lie, they changed the natural use (of sexuality) into that use by which they were dishonored and condemned".​
John Chrysostom wrote, "No one can say that it was by being prevented from legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven to this monstrous insanity... What is contrary to nature has something irritating and displeasing in it, so that they could not even claim to be getting pleasure out of it. For genuine pleasure comes from following what is according to nature. But when God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down."​
Cyprian wrote, "If you were able... to direct your eyes into secret places, to unfasten the locked doors of sleeping chambers and to open these hidden recesses to the perception of sight, you would behold that being carried on by the unchaste which a chaste countenance could not behold. You would see that it is in an indignity even to see... Men with frenzied lusts rush against men. Things are done which cannot even give pleasure to those who do them".​
 
Rwanda, Egypt and Congo are amongst the latest countries condemning that grotesque parody of a Christian, CofE heresiarch Justin Welby.

___________

“What the Church of England has done is the ‘last nail in the coffin.’ Therefore we do not recognize Canterbury and the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury,” Archbishop Laurent Mbanda, the primate of Rwanda, told OSV News in a telephone interview.

“It is unbiblical and the archbishop of Canterbury does not have the authority to lead anymore. He cannot lead the synod into a heresy.”

“He (Archbishop Welby) says he will not resign, but as far as I know he resigned a long time ago when he departed from his vow. The authority has shifted. He has to understand that he is not first among equals,” Archbishop Mbanda said.

__________

Congolese Anglican Bishop Steven Ayule Milenge of Bukavu viewed the latest development as “the work of a devil” within the church and through some leaders.

“Many leaders are running the church as a secular entity,” Bishop Milenge told OSV News. “We must follow and teach what the Bible says and teaches.”

__________

The Egyptian Council of Churches welcomes and supports the statement issued by the Episcopal Church in Egypt, in which it declared its strong and firm adherence to the teachings of the Bible regarding marriage and the only written picture of marriage, which is the sacred and permanent connection between one man and one woman....The five churches that are members of the Council of Churches of Egypt affirm their adherence to the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the Bible in this regard

Reverend Joshua Jacob, General Secretary Egyptian Council of Churches
 
Its caos in England. Many churches and vicars have been thrown under the lgbt bus.
Many churches have either withheld contribitions or are considering it. These are usually the primary contributors rather than receivers
 
This is the state of ignorant unbelief in the hierarchy of the CofE

The bishop quotes Jesus Matthew 7 'you will know them by their fruit' although the bishop says fruits, plural. The Bishop then says the task of discernment is difficult. Not sure how that relates except that the passage is about false teachers because they come as wolves in sheep's clothing.

The Bishop says Jesus finds ways of mercy and kindness in every encounter. I would kind of agree, though of course some whom he spoke too were upset and offended, such as the Pharisees and the rich young man, so I am not sure what the Bishop is saying.

The Bishop says the scriptures should be interpreted through the lens of the love of God and neighbour. I would agree except that we also need the Holy Spirit because as Jesus says its the Holy Spirit that guides us in truth and reminds us of what Jesus has said and done

So we can recognise there is bad fruit in our present pastoral practice as a church, rejection and dishonesty. Ok what are these exactly?

The Bishop says 'long term fracture between church and society' . As a people set apart for God's purposes, and the world spoken of is negative terms most of the time, one surely would expect that, but somehow the Bishop seems disappointed with that.

He has been moved to tears by the 'bad fruit which lgbtqia+ people have sent' to him. Lgbtqia+ people? where are they in the Bible? The Bishop focuses on what Jesus has said, about something for which there is no concept or mention.

The Bishop the says conversely there is so much good fruit from loving, permanent, stable same sex relationships. What exactly? Jesus makes it clear God created a man and a woman to be in union. How can what God hates be good fruit?

Next the Bish pays tribute to lgbt+qia clergy. DO what ?

The bish thanks God for them. Do What?

The bish talks about their commitment to Christ's call. What call is this? Since God hates same sex acts what call is this from what people are these? the bish is talking complete nonsense.

The bish says 'and their fruitful, fruitful ministry'. What does that entail Bish?

anyway, this is about as deluded as anyone can get, let alone someone who is supposed to be a leader in a church

Equal marriage? The guy doesnt have a clue.
 
This is the state of ignorant unbelief in the hierarchy of the CofE

The bishop quotes Jesus Matthew 7 'you will know them by their fruit' although the bishop says fruits, plural. The Bishop then says the task of discernment is difficult. Not sure how that relates except that the passage is about false teachers because they come as wolves in sheep's clothing.

The Bishop says Jesus finds ways of mercy and kindness in every encounter. I would kind of agree, though of course some whom he spoke too were upset and offended, such as the Pharisees and the rich young man, so I am not sure what the Bishop is saying.

The Bishop says the scriptures should be interpreted through the lens of the love of God and neighbour. I would agree except that we also need the Holy Spirit because as Jesus says its the Holy Spirit that guides us in truth and reminds us of what Jesus has said and done

So we can recognise there is bad fruit in our present pastoral practice as a church, rejection and dishonesty. Ok what are these exactly?

The Bishop says 'long term fracture between church and society' . As a people set apart for God's purposes, and the world spoken of is negative terms most of the time, one surely would expect that, but somehow the Bishop seems disappointed with that.

He has been moved to tears by the 'bad fruit which lgbtqia+ people have sent' to him. Lgbtqia+ people? where are they in the Bible? The Bishop focuses on what Jesus has said, about something for which there is no concept or mention.

The Bishop the says conversely there is so much good fruit from loving, permanent, stable same sex relationships. What exactly? Jesus makes it clear God created a man and a woman to be in union. How can what God hates be good fruit?

Next the Bish pays tribute to lgbt+qia clergy. DO what ?

The bish thanks God for them. Do What?

The bish talks about their commitment to Christ's call. What call is this? Since God hates same sex acts what call is this from what people are these? the bish is talking complete nonsense.

The bish says 'and their fruitful, fruitful ministry'. What does that entail Bish?

anyway, this is about as deluded as anyone can get, let alone someone who is supposed to be a leader in a church

Equal marriage? The guy doesnt have a clue.
By his own admission, Stephen Croft doesn't serve Christ but "society." He is propagandist-in-chief for the revolutionary overthrow of the Church's teaching, and is antichrist.

He classes LBGTQI clergy as saints. The bible condemns them as idolators and God-haters.

This is the sentence on all such Jezebels in the church:

Rev 2:20 "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."
Rev 2:21 "And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not."
Rev 2:22 "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."
Rev 2:23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
Yes I agree. The assumptions the bishop makes had already been refuted and exposed to him.
He is so far off the mark as to be able to not consider him a bishop.
 
Your average tale of debauched "gay-adultery" amongst CofE clergy men of sin (2 Thess 2:3).
(Extracts taken from the i-newpaper online / March 13, 2023 - hidden behind paywall - search for "defrocked" ).

_______________

Rev Riba-Thompson, 64, will soon be stripped of his job, his home, as well as banned from any ministerial activities for five years, because he fell in love, did not disclose the intimate details of it when questioned — and a member of the public objected. There was no coercion, harassment, illegality or misconduct that in any other profession would have led to this, he says. All it took was a simple complaint.

“I’ve been caught up in a system that is not fit for purpose — that hangs the clergy out to dry in a way that would never happen in the rest of society,” he says, hoping that by speaking out today it will embolden the campaign to reform the Church of England’s disciplinary process.
.
.
.
“In 2016, I [Rev Riba-Thompson] was unhappy in my existing relationship with another man,” he says — his husband. The reverend went on Grindr, the gay dating app, met a man called Oscar and had sex. Oscar, now 36, was also in an “unhappy situation with his partner”, he says. The pair soon began to realise that there was more to their connection than the physical, but didn’t expect it to endure so did not tell their respective partners.

By 2018, however, Riba-Thompson’s relationship ended, partly because of this affair. “It was a catalyst,” he says. Six months later, in July 2018, Oscar’s relationship also ended, enabling their new bond to develop. In the autumn of that year, Oscar’s ex, Jonathan Hollow, made a formal complaint to Riba-Thompson’s boss, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, the Bishop of Southwark, who sits in the House of Lords.

The Diocese of Southwark then wrote to Riba-Thompson. The letter, written by the registrar, alleges the priest “engaged in a secret affair with the complainant’s then partner” and quotes the complaint itself, which describes Riba-Thompson’s new relationship as “totally inappropriate”, “based on deceit” and “knowingly destructive of a committed relationship”.

But the other stated reason was that the relationship took place when Riba-Thompson “was in a pastoral position to Oscar”, because he was preparing Oscar to be baptised.

Hollow, Oscar’s ex-partner, told i that priests “are not permitted to mix a romantic relationship with baptismal preparation. Like doctors and teachers, they are required to separate sex from professional relationships.”

Outside the Anglican church, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 prohibits certain professionals in a position of trust, such as doctors, police officers and social workers, from having sex with anyone in their care who is under 18. (They can also face the sack due to professional conduct guidelines.) However, the Sexual Offences Act clauses do not include clergy, Oscar was in his thirties, and he was not a parishioner. For Riba-Thompson, the idea that he should be prohibited from a relationship with an adult denies any agency to that adult — to Oscar.

In other walks of life, neither the breakdown of relationships nor extra-marital affairs enable those left behind to complain to their ex’s employer. But the Church of England isn’t governed by employment law; instead, its clergy are subject to the Clergy Discipline Measure or CDM — a piece of ecclesiastical law from 2003. This includes in its “misconduct” section broad transgressions such as “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office or work of a clerk in Holy Orders”. This was the clause invoked in the complaint against Riba-Thompson.

In English law, adultery isn’t grounds for divorce within same-sex relationships (unlike heterosexual ones), but in the CDM “marital infidelity is regarded as unbecoming or inappropriate conduct for the purposes of the clergy discipline measure”. Yet the Church of England is exempt from same-sex marriage legislation, and its vicars can’t perform same-sex weddings.

“But the Clergy Disciplinary Measure enabled Jonathan Hollow to say I had behaved badly as a priest and that therefore I should be punished,” says Riba-Thompson. Rather than dismiss the complaint, or encourage mediation, the Church of England decided there should be a hearing. The bishop, the archdeacon and all of Riba-Thompson’s seniors ceased contact with him, he says. “They disappeared.”

At the hearing, he says, “I was asked by a representative of the tribunal system to explain the nature of my friendship with Oscar in the first 18 months of our meeting each other.” In his reply, he did not describe the sexual part of their relationship.

“He then said, ‘so the relationship with Oscar didn’t begin until the August of 2018?’” This was after Oscar had left his partner. “I said, ‘Yes, that’s right.’”

Because no sex had been disclosed in the hearing, the complaint centring on the relationship itself was dismissed in 2019 due to insufficient evidence. But because the Church of England doesn’t recognise same-sex marriage, it also doesn’t recognise same-sex infidelity anyway, so the diocese told Hollow they couldn’t sanction Riba-Thompson for that either.

This makes no sense to Hollow (Oscar’s ex-partner). “It’s really odd that gay married priests can have affairs when straight married priests can’t, when the Church of England disapproves of gay sex and gay marriage. It’s nuts,” he said. “It just shows the crazy knots that the Church of England has tied itself up in about same sex marriage.

It also leaves a loophole for gay priests, said Hollow. “If they wish for an equal opportunity to marry, gay priests must accept equal accountability for breaking church rules about sex and relationships.”

Relieved at the case being dismissed, Riba-Thompson continued his work as a local vicar, which included supporting his elderly and vulnerable parishioners throughout the pandemic. He also continued his relationship with Oscar. But if Riba-Thompson had said during the first tribunal that they were having sex, “the penalties would have been devastating at the time”, he says. He believes this because of what happened next.

“This time last year, it all kicked off again,” says Riba-Thompson. In 2022, more than two years later, the diocese investigated again, with further evidence of the affair supplied by Hollow, alleging that Riba-Thompson had not provided the tribunal with all the necessary information [ cf.

“It’s true,” the reverend says, “the tribunal did not have all the facts, because I did not give them all the facts.” In other words, he didn’t tell them about his sex life. “It really all centres around sex. I chose not to incriminate myself.”

For Hollow, this is unacceptable. “Priests should not make misleading statements,” he told i.

When asked by the church officials in charge of the process if he had previously provided the tribunal with all the facts, Riba-Thompson admitted he had not, knowing that to do so would now mean being punished.

“I cut the process short,” he says. He applied for what’s called a “penalty by consent” where you concede that what is alleged is true, thereby stopping the tribunal. The bishop is then left to decide what that penalty should be.
.
.
.
Last month, the Bishop of Southwark, handed down the penalty. It banned Riba-Thompson from any ministerial duties for five years, and forced him to retire early, reducing his income and his pension. Had the vicar disclosed everything at the first tribunal five years ago, he fears he would have been fired for the charge of “conduct unbecoming”, and lost the last five years of salary too, which would have also had significant impact on his pension.

As it is, the Church of England has taken more than his career away. “They pull the plug on your vocation — what you believe God is calling you to do is stopped,” he says. “We’ve had some very dark moments since the ‘penalty by consent’, because that was a really bitter pill to try to stop this process.”
.
.
.
Jonathan Hollow believes the outcome was just. “I am pleased and relieved that, as a result of Geoffrey Riba-Thompsons’ own admission, he has received a serious penalty.” But the process is flawed, he said, making it too hard for complainants to navigate ecclesiastical law, and having Bishops in charge of what should be an independent process, as you have in employment tribunals.

On that, he and Riba-Thompson agree. The priest feels punished for falling in love and not revealing its sexual dimension. “I don’t think it’s Christian,” he says. “Where’s the Christian compassion?” His parishioners are also upset.[What does this cretin know of Christianity?]

“They are angry, they are confused, they cannot see who’s meant to benefit from this. They are aware that they are losing a priest who they appear to love and respect and "value"" [but he hadn't provided the Tribunal with all the necessary information - see above - so just a hypocrite in any event.]
.
.
.
There is no doubt that Oscar and I do regret any pain and distress that we have caused to our exes,” he says, adding that they are sorry for that — but being in love and forging a healthy relationship means he cannot regret finding Oscar. “We still believe we were doing the right thing” [he can't distinguish right from wrong].
 
Last edited:
In the interest of impartiality, I feel I need to make some further points.
_____________

First the above article appeared in a staunchly pro-LGBT newpaper, and is portrayed as the CofE being hypocritical over LGBT rights (which I tried to de-emphasize in my post).
Secondly, the reporter, one Patrick Strudwick, who wrote the article writer, is also staunchly pro-LGBT and not a Christian.
Thirdly the clergyman concerned is/was a free-riding atheist with no faith.

Strudwick implicitly wanted to write a hagiography of Riba-Thompson. But as the belfrybat.blog points out:

______________

A heterosexual priest would have faced the same penalty – in fact many have been given prohibition for life for similar offences [Riba-Thompson was therefore treated leniently].

And in many dioceses, Riba-Thompson would have faced a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure for entering a same-sex marriage [at all]. Under Church of England law, the place for sexual intimacy is marriage; and marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.

Gay clergy are allowed to enter civil partnerships, but must give an assurance to their bishop that they are living within the Church of England rules about sexual activity. But they are not allowed to marry because marriage implies a sexual relationship.

Strudwick argued that the case shows how far the Church is from society [an argument that only an atheist could make - cf. the Bishop of Oxford]. Yet .... if a heterosexual priest had acted in the same way with a person of the opposite sex, they too would have been prohibited.

[The belfrybat.blog concludes] "Strudwick’s article .... portrays a disgrace[ful] priest who hasn’t learned, thinks he has done no wrong, and has no understanding of the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics" [and has no faith].

______________

However I find this belfrybat.blog itself a little naive in attributing integrity to the CofE:

First, in 2016, it was made public that the Church of England had consecrated Nicholas Chamberlain, Bishop suffragan of Grantham, knowing he is gay and in a long-term same-sex relationship. Chamberlain, who is a suffragan bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln, is the first Anglican bishop in England to come out as gay. That heterosexuals seem to be treated more severely than homosexuals shows not only double standards as between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but full-on engagement with the occult by sections of the CofE hierarchy.

Second, the CofE is also operating double standards in remaining in communion with the Episcopal Church of America and the Scottish Episcopal Church which have both legislated for same sex marriage.

Thus the CofE is wide open to allegations of double standards, and it is this trait that is being exploited by people like Strudwick and English Parliamentarians to demand the CofE embrace the atheism of the age.

The future of the Anglican communion may lie with GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference). Often described as an international fellowship of orthodox Anglicans, it is the international ministry of the Anglican Church of North America – a group of Christians who left the official Anglican church in the America over disagreements about sexuality. GAFCON and their “branches” around the world like to give them impression that they are part of the "Anglican Communion". Gafcon and its supporters are seeking the end of the Anglican Communion led by the CofE.
 
Last edited:
Welby & Co should listen to the Pope and his Cardinals (including Cardinal Burke), who face an issue in Germany where renegade Catholic bishops have taken it upon themselves to bless same sex unions.

Cardinal Burke summer it up succinctly when he insisted:

“Whether it’s a departure, heretical teaching and denial of one of the doctrines of the faith — or apostasy in the sense of simply walking away from Christ and from His teaching in the Church to embrace some other form of religion — these are crimes.”

They are certainly heresies, but perhaps too in their vaunting ambition and relentless repudiation of the faith, they are crimes against Christ and his Church.


[Catholic Herald]
 
CofE is in big trouble fracturing..the hierarchy is going to side with the world and its church will wither on the vine. God is stll working however throigh many believing CofE churches .
 

The CofE is in an interesting position. It has for some time been discriminating against believing clergy (ie John Parker) and continues to do so..it is now faced with withdlholding of funds from many churches and may soon end up pretty much just an lgbtqi affirming community with a sort of jesus whom most non-believers would like to see.
 
I dont know whether you are UK based cjab, but the believing vicars are getting bullied and harrassed.
 
I dont know whether you are UK based cjab, but the believing vicars are getting bullied and harrassed.
Yes, I read that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the "Most Rev." Justin Welby says he suffers from depression, the same malady as infected Saul, the one who famously rejected God's word, and was himself rejected by God (1Sa 15:26). Saul became a vicious persecutor of David, who did have God's word.

"Welby opened up about his depression and praised how the drugs help him in a series of lectures at Canterbury Cathedral to mark Holy Week. This is the same cathedral that now has a partnered homosexual dean, causing the Global South bishops to erupt in anger and disappointment." [source]

As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun." The CofE has a history of persecution instigated by politically aligned Archbishops. So it doesn't surprise me that Welby, having thrown in his lot with atheist politicians, has now turned to persecution - although in actuality, he has been persecuting the church ever since he took office by his incessant liberalism. A more dis-graced archbishop there has scarcely been.
 
Back
Top