Friday, 7 November 2008

still more about that London church service

Further to the recent announcement reported here, today Martin Dudley has a letter to the editor published in the Church Times. The original is subscriber-only at present, but it has nevertheless been reproduced in full by other websites and so can be read here, and is further copied here.

Martin Beckford has written about it on his Telegraph blog under the title Gay wedding: Dudley insists there was no apology and no frank discussions.

Martin Dudley was also nominated for the Stonewall Hero of the Year, but didn’t win. He did however get his picture taken with the winner.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 7 November 2008 at 11:30pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Yet another example of the antics where souls have purported to have discussed and agreed to positions. And claims made that they have agreed and signed papers that they haven't.

Shades of the conference held in Tanzania's Dar es Salaam.

Ezekiel 13:10-14 "“ ‘Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall... I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare."

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Saturday, 8 November 2008 at 12:28am GMT

Hilarious. You know, since leaving Christianity, the sheer hypocrisy and cant of the church becomes all the more plain. No surprise that it is evidence here, given who is representing the London diocese!

Posted by: Merseymike on Saturday, 8 November 2008 at 12:23pm GMT

I'm confused.

Pete Broadbent said there were a series of frank discussions.

Martin Dudley says there weren't.

Which one is lying?

Posted by: JBE on Saturday, 8 November 2008 at 9:15pm GMT

Which one needs to make out that these discussions have taken place to keep face and his conservative evangelical constituency quiet?

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 10 November 2008 at 9:13pm GMT

"Which one needs to make out that these discussions have taken place to keep face and his conservative evangelical constituency quiet?"

1. I love that you use "make out" instead of "pretend". I thought our dialects were the only ones that did that.

2. What's wrong with keeping the Consevos quiet? They already believe a whole pile of things that aren't true, what's the harm in one more? Besides, what gain is there in getting them all fussed up, other than the sheer joy of knowing that you got them all fussed up and the entertainment of watching them buzz around the lights? That's gotten boring, for the most part. All the same, it can be a bit of fun on times to drive a stick into a hornet's nest.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 13 November 2008 at 11:24am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.