February 28, 2017

March 9, 2013

Anglican Endgame: Queen Takes Bishop

Even if Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby were inclined not to extend the church’s blessings to homosexual unions, one has to think this would put a serious damper on those plans:

In her first public appearance since she had hospital treatment for a stomach bug, the Queen will sign the new Commonwealth Charter and make a speech explaining her passionate commitment to it.

Insiders say her decision to highlight the event is a ‘watershed’ moment – the first time she has clearly signalled her support for gay rights in her 61-year reign.

The charter, dubbed a ‘21st Century Commonwealth Magna Carta’ declares: ‘We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.’

The ‘other grounds’ is intended to refer to sexuality – but specific reference to ‘gays and lesbians’ was omitted in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



This is a matter of civil law, not Cof E law.

[1] Posted by A Senior Priest on 3-9-2013 at 10:30 PM · [top]

But you know that the British Government is going to let the courts force this on the CofE and then say “oh, but we didn’t think they would.”  My prediction is that it will be virtually impossible for the Established Church to fend off gay “marriage” once it is enshrined in civil law.  It’ll take a few years for sure, because the thought police need to wait and make sure of their base before they strike.  But strike they will.  If the British government says “there is no rationale other than bigotry to oppose gay marriage, but we will let the state church act bigoted” you know that something just isn’t adding up.  When the CofE eventually faces this challenge and will have to decide whether to cave or resist, well, see Sarah’s post on the likelihood that leaders will stand firm (”...there just aren’t that many people out there with both conviction and courage, and we mustn’t expect it of people, either.”)

[2] Posted by jamesw on 3-9-2013 at 10:40 PM · [top]

I believe The Queen is tightly constrained by her government’s decisions, but I wonder if Her Majesty received any advise to the contrary from her putatively Christian bishops. Up to this time she has always held the moral high ground. Or so it seems to this aging, deeply disappointed, former Episcopalian in CA.

[3] Posted by off2 on 3-9-2013 at 10:59 PM · [top]

It might be worth waiting 24 hours to see what Madge actually says and does.

[4] Posted by MichaelA on 3-10-2013 at 03:14 AM · [top]

Let me remind everyone that for the entire duration of this post-Robinson crisis in the Anglican church, one of the few reeds to which we’ve clung is the suspicion - and for many people the assumption - that Her Majesty was at wort indifferent to the gay issue, and likely quietly opposed to it. Now we see that that’s not the case at all.

I suppose it’s possible that her pronouncement will include some asterisk about how the church’s teachings should remain unchanged, but my expectations for that approach zero.

[5] Posted by Greg Griffith on 3-10-2013 at 07:13 AM · [top]

I am puzzled by her advocacy. The ‘or other grounds’ bothers me because it is a stealth reference to the GLBT group. If it can’t be said, it should not be included.

[6] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-10-2013 at 07:55 AM · [top]

Meh—first off, I haven’t clung to the idea that the Queen was opposed to blessing same sex sexual activity, as she’s never had any power anyway over any of it [despite the breathless protests of a few conservative Anglicans who do a lot of wink wink, nudge nudging with no evidence of any power on her part.]

And second, as always with a press that seeks a story and also is in the propaganda role itself, I lay 50 50 odds that it goes either way when, as MichaelA says, we actually see what she said.

[7] Posted by Sarah on 3-10-2013 at 08:44 AM · [top]

Poor thing! She probably just needs a little more time to consolidate her power since her recent accession to the throne, before she saves us from her wicked advisors who rule in her name.

[8] Posted by paradoxymoron on 3-10-2013 at 09:55 AM · [top]

Oh, I believe this heart and soul.

Look, if her Majesty was ever going to stand up for Christians, the family or ‘Old England’ she would have done so by now. She has done nothing to stop the crushing of the old ways. 

She has been silent as virtually all leaders in the UK have first been silent and then, when they did speak, they decalred their new alligiance.

Christians have no friends in either Government or it’s institutions.
Yeah, the Queen’s going down on this.

Bear in mind that when God is rejected Satan takes over and Satan has a nature.  So, with the UK explicitly and repeatingly telling GOd “We don;t want you” Satan gets more influence and drives the populous.
Every single atheistic society has been a tyranny.  Well, the UK is about as atheistic as you can yet. There is no credible resistance and all institutions in the country are now pretty much compliant.  The point of no return was crossed along time ago - specifically with the Sexual Orientation Regulations in 2006.  So British leaders of all kinds are just going to get more and more mad.  Now anyone who is in the public gaze - including her Majesty must declare their allegiance to Baal.  They will do it willingly!

OK, I’ve left the UK so maybe I am a disgruntled ex-pat but… I got used to being betrayed by those who were supposed to be on our side a long time ago and gave up expecting any favours a long time ago.  I also found I got a much better prediction score when I assumed “We’re going to be abandoned.” 

We’ll be abandoned.

[9] Posted by jedinovice on 3-10-2013 at 11:11 AM · [top]

In her dotage, The Queen has probably been overtaken by the influence of persons on whom she has become dependent for advice and services and these may have begun to influence her thinking….such as her chef, hairdresser, milliner, couturier, shoemaker, make-up artist, masseur, interior designers, historians, archivists, film and museum directors.  Then there is the media’s slow, constant propaganda, the mind-shaping and conditioning to which even a Queen might sucumb.

[10] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-10-2013 at 11:19 AM · [top]

Sorry, I don’t for one minute believe in “evil advisors”.

[11] Posted by Br. Michael on 3-10-2013 at 11:53 AM · [top]

More likely, it’s “Bishop takes Queen.”

The former ABC, Rowan Williams, was ever so fond of piteous pleas full of phrases like, ‘gay folk’ reinforcing the idea that one’s sexual urges made one a separate kind of human, a victim, a martyr and a folk hero. 

That folk paradigm was invented by the sexual activists.  It is a Tolkein-esque ‘faerie tale’ with all kinds of new invented words and concepts that exist only within their fantasmagorical story - ideas like, sexual identity, gender/straight, orientation and the most diabolical of all: sexual rights.  These words and ideas were floated into the public consciousness one by one, drip by drop, over the decades, until people have swallowed their carefully administered propaganda and believe them as truth. 

People now believe that to deny or be denied one’s ‘true orientation’ is a fate worse than death.  Sexual gratification the way one prefers has become a civil right.  Anyone who disagrees is a ‘hater.’  The campaign has evolved from piteous cries of victimhood, to screeches of ‘hate’ to accusations of ‘homophobia’ and now have grown into demands for sexual and marriage ‘equality’ ‘justice’.

The sexual politicians have employed Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals all the way to near victory over media and minds of the Western world.

The Queen may have succumbed to Rowan’s deep mellifluous voice intoning the nuances of The Body’s Grace that obscures the sexual, moral and relational chaos that follows.  She would have been better served to stick with Joe Friday’s “Just the facts, Mam.”

CDC, police, coroner statistics, science research, clinical medicine and Scripture tell a far different story than Rowans, Robinsons and Spong’s…a story of despair, depression, suicide, disease, decadence, violence, addiction, early death that has a greater incidence in areas where deviant sexual practices are approved.  The overwhelming evidence shows that sexual freedom and license are not healthy, happy or holy at all.

It’s been 10 years since VGR was made the worst excuse for a Bishop next to Raymond Lahey, and a little longer since Williams was enthroned, but it’s still a mystery whether Rowan Williams believes all the incoherent, meaningless effluent he mouthed at every opportunity during his ‘reign’.

It’s obvious KJS is a true believer (the way Ahminedjihad and Kim Jong Un are true believers) and will stop at nothing to achieve her goals.

Is the Queen a true believer, a politician, or has she been pressured or influenced, or has she been listening to the sounds and songs of the age herself?  Perhaps all of the above.

[12] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-10-2013 at 03:22 PM · [top]

So at what point do the Faithful finally acknowledge the Titanic IS going down? That the death throes are irretrievably here and the grand old lady called Mother Church is dying? Doesn’t a decision such as the Queen is purported to make tomorrow signal the need to put down the life boats and move ahead with realignment and de-coupling from Canterbury? We have known for some time that Prince Charles would likely be an apostate Supreme Governor upon his accession; now we know that time has already arrived in the form of the present monarch. I look at this development and see GAFCON and realignment with the Global South as now the ONLY viable option for Orthodox Anglicanism. If people see other options, let me know; I’m having a hard time seeing them right now.

[13] Posted by old believers on 3-10-2013 at 03:59 PM · [top]

By nature, both the COE and the monarchy are conservative institutions, in the sense that they are resistant to change.  While TEC may be a “leading indicator” of cultural change in the US, the COE and monarchy are more of a “lagging indicator”. But the history of both institutions suggests they cannot get too far away from cultural trends.  Granted, within the COE, there are orthodox voices. But, an established church, even with empty pews, is not going to be a countercultural church.

It’s been quite a progression.  Just look at the last fifteen or so years.  I recall spirited debate over what the US leadership would do, and predictions from some that if the US church went too far the Anglican Communion would kick them out.  Then there was spirited debate over what Rowan Williams would do.  Surely in the end he would help enforce discipline (remember that phrase?). Then when Rowan’s direction became evident to all, there was some talk that the Queen would, somehow, use her ceremonial authority to bring order to the house.  Surely, she could be relied on. And if the Queen didn’t act, just wait until the Global South began exercising control over the Anglican Communion.  Perhaps the covenant would finally provide a basis for future discipline.

It was never to be. 

We so desperately want to “win”, or to at least be accepted, when we should desire nothing other than to serve Christ. 

As an ACNA member, I see disturbing signs that we have not learned that lesson.  If our plans are in any way tied to what happens, or we hope will happen, at Canterbury, we will simply fade away as has most other splinter organizations.

[14] Posted by Going Home on 3-10-2013 at 04:16 PM · [top]

The only thing that is certain is that the Queen will be signing a new Commonwealth charter tomorrow that prohibits discrimination based on gender, race, color, creed, political belief, or “other grounds.” There has been no statement from Buckingham Palace or from any Commonwealth government that “other grounds” means (or even includes) sexual orientation or gender identity.  It could just as easily refer to discrimination based on things like age, disability, ancestry, tribal affiliation, or even location inside a uterus.

The notion that “other grounds” refers to sexual orientation or gender identity appears to have originated with the Daily Mail. Most of the reports I’ve seen from other news organizations cite the same article in the Mail that Greg has.

The Mail hasn’t always been a completely reliable source on matters involving the royal family, so this article should be taken with several grains of salt.

[15] Posted by Paul Powers on 3-10-2013 at 05:00 PM · [top]

A little caution may be in order.

First, probably worth reading the charter itself [pdf] to see the actual words.

We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds

It’s hardly a breathtaking statement. The “Queen supports gay rights” line that the Daily Mail is (quel surprise) running is one parroted as a talking point by Stonewall. It’s what they want it to be saying, not what it actually says.

So everyone take a deep breath, her majesty has not sold us all out.

Second, we ought to always remind ourselves that the British Monarchy are essentially powerless. Where the Monarch ever to oppose the government openly there would be a constitutional crisis that would quickly result in their removal from position. The entire system rests on the commonly understood agreement that the Monarchy has sovereign power and yet never exercises it and hasn’t done since Queen Anne’s time.

[16] Posted by David Ould on 3-10-2013 at 06:15 PM · [top]

“We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”

Of course.  But if you actually read this statement it means that you approve of everything.  It can even be read to approve of genocide, because to oppose it is to discriminate against those who favor it.

[17] Posted by Br. Michael on 3-10-2013 at 06:40 PM · [top]

“or other grounds” is a blank check. It is like “other duties as assigned’

[18] Posted by Fr. Dale on 3-10-2013 at 07:02 PM · [top]

Sounds like the “baptismal covenant.”  Wide enough to drive a 747 through.

[19] Posted by Bill2 on 3-10-2013 at 10:16 PM · [top]

Thank you David for injecting some common sense. 

The gays are certainly not rejoicing about this - they tend to recognise that the original proposed inclusion of a prohibition against discrimination on sexual grounds was vetoed by a number of Commonwealth states who have anti-homosexual legislation, and intend to keep it. 

I am also trying to get my head around what a Commonwealth Charter will actually do.  It will not have any effect in Australia unless (a) our government ratifies it as a foreign treaty and then (b) implements it.

Finally, the gay activist Peter Tatchell sourly notes:

“Indeed, in her 61 years on the throne, the Queen has never publicly uttered the words lesbian or gay. She is a patron of hundreds of charities but none of them are gay ones. Not once has she visited or supported a gay charity.

For the last four years, I’ve been pressing Buckingham Palace over the Queen’s failure to acknowledge the existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people - and got nowhere”

Remember, if you read something in a British tabloid, it just HAS to be true…  cool smirk

[20] Posted by MichaelA on 3-11-2013 at 08:13 AM · [top]

If Williams, Welby and Her Majesty would read science and the latest (March 2013) CDC statistics, they would understand what is harming and persecuting the poor gay victims most: Themselves.

God has offered a Way out for ALL sinners.  He is able to save ANY KIND of evil or besetting sin.

[21] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-11-2013 at 10:30 AM · [top]


God has offered a way out for ANY KIND of evil or besetting sin.

[22] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-11-2013 at 10:36 AM · [top]

Am grate to commenters above who put the matter in better perspective. Also just read at http://news.sky.com/story/1063022/queen-cancels-westminster-abbey-visit , in the right hand column, a clear statement by
Tim Marshall, Foreign Affairs Editor

Updated: 2:26pm UK, Monday 11 March 2013

“The Queen is not signing a new charter “backing equal rights for women and gay people in every Commonwealth nation”, despite headlines to the contrary….” Worth reading.

God Save The Queen!

[23] Posted by off2 on 3-11-2013 at 11:02 AM · [top]

Her Majesty is bound by law, and Parliament runs the game.  She does what she’s told to do, and her personal opinions don’t matter.

[24] Posted by cennydd13 on 3-11-2013 at 11:18 AM · [top]

Rev. Ould:

In the phrase, “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”, the word *gender* is a PC code word for whatever ‘sex’ or ‘orientation’ you may subjectively perceive yourself to be.

AND, there are some weird new ‘genders’ and ‘orientations’ growing in popularity amongst the young people of today, such as ‘Cis’ (look it up).

Among the older people the same old sick sex is being promoted as ‘minor-oriented’ and inter-generational, inter-species and intra-familial orientations - which are nicer-sounding euphemisms for pederasty, bestiality and incest.

[25] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-11-2013 at 01:39 PM · [top]

I think that a person can unequivocally uphold the traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality and also support the basic human rights of gay people.  I can do both and I don’t see a contradiction in it at all.  Maybe some people around here object to creating a special category for sexual orientation? But the fact is that gay people do face discrimination for what they believe themselves to be.  I don’t want to see anyone have a hard time finding housing, or a job or being able to arrange their legal affairs as best suits their situation if they are otherwise law abiding and respectful of others.  I think, or rather I hope, that this is what the Queen is endorsing.  I can get behind that if so.

[26] Posted by StayinAnglican on 3-11-2013 at 10:22 PM · [top]

“the word *gender* is a PC code word for whatever ‘sex’ or ‘orientation’ you may subjectively perceive yourself to be”

In this context, I don’t think it is.  Gender has a well-understood meaning.  Most if not all western countries already have legislation against discrimination on the basis of gender.  So its difficult to see how the phrase in this Charter can make any legal difference at all.

[27] Posted by MichaelA on 3-12-2013 at 03:12 AM · [top]

I must disagree in part with 26 and 27. 

1.  “Uphold the basic human rights of gay people”  What does this mean?  The gays and liberal/progressives are past masters of twisting language and giving worlds a different twist when they use them.  For example marriage is a basic human right so gays can get married, they can adopt, etc.  In short they are equivalent to a heterosexual.  Just how does this skewed view of their sexuality fit into Christian teaching?

2.  How do you square this with the transsexual branch of GLBT which says that God did make a mistake and that one’s biological sex (they use the infinitely malleable word “gender”), which once was considered permanent and unchangeable, now exists in the mind of the beholder.  So that men who claim they are women must be treated as women even if they have all the male biological equipment.  Boys allowed to dress as girls and use girl’s bath rooms.

3.  Anti-Discrimination base on gender and sexual orientation are the legal sledgehammers that are being used to foist this sexual degeneracy on anyone who can see past the insanity and object.

4.  Sexual orientation, a completely made up condition with no scientific proof behind it, is used to transform “what I want to do” into something equivalent to skin color or national origin, and force you into accepting and approving of my behavior however sexually perverted it may be.

So no.  These are not harmless words and on their face do not communicate what their users mean.  We are well advised to question them and demand that their users give precise and detailed definitions as to what they mean.

[28] Posted by Br. Michael on 3-12-2013 at 06:02 AM · [top]

Let’s not forget the Queen’s Coronation Oath, in which she promised, when asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?’

[29] Posted by English Jill on 3-12-2013 at 06:20 AM · [top]

Br Michael,

You can disagree with me as much as you like, but what I wrote was correct.  You haven’t dealt with the point I made.

[30] Posted by MichaelA on 3-18-2013 at 04:51 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.