Wednesday, 2 May 2012

First Southwark, then England Throughout

Here we go. The entryists are now busy. They will organise a trust fund for so-called orthodox churches within Southwark. And the clever bit is:

The Trust is simply an alternative mechanism to funding churches within the Diocese.  Such churches will still pay their own clergy costs and still pay a contribution towards Diocesan and National Church central costs.

In other words, a contribution (after a deduction) is still paid to the diocese, presumably after a calculation has been made regarding the portion of churches that are 'revisionist' and therefore what to deduct.

The Church of England ought to sit on this one fast. It has never discriminated against internal parishes on the basis of churchship. Further the trust will pay out to pick up apparently failed parishes and fill them with their own so-called orthodox types.

Entryism does not promote its own sect, because that isn't strong enough. The Labour Party Trots in Militant were always friendly to other left wingers, who believed similar headline extra-doctrinal things, on a reciprocal back-scratching basis. What mattered however was that Militant still ran the show, using money and other means to direct the traffic. Its activists spread out and were eyes and ears, and then gathered together to decide strategy.

Southwark is only the most obvious, but it won't be the only place for this entryism. One approach then is money and siphoning some of it off to go under its control; the other is which bishop they choose to obey - either the one in situ or the ones they bring in for the purpose.


SouthwarkVicar said...

I think this is unfair.

The Trust makes clear that it will serve churches of any tradition.

All that is required is that people sign the Jerusalem Statement
(Scriptural authority; 39 Articles;
traditional sexual morality).

Everything else is adiaphora.

Grandmère Mimi said...

So. Is the Jerusalem Declaration a new creed? Is it a replacement for or an addition to the present Anglican creeds?

Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold) said...

It is not unfair. No one, bishop, priest, lay, is required to accept the Jerusalem Statement, the property and intent of one small group. It is set up in a known liberal diocese with a history of separatism (even from a Fulcrum point of view). It siphons off money for that group and for it to distribute. It describes an active part of Anglicanism as revisionism and excludes such funds. Entryism needs to be clearly identified and then it's up to the authorities to do something about it.