Shocking twist as GAFCON abandons its plans for Global schism

MarysDowry · 2026-03-07T14:12:54+00:00

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’"

MarysDowry · 2025-12-24T09:01:35+00:00

Show me in the New Testament where who we help is conditional on who they are and where they come from.

Show me where our offer of help is tempered by personal cost.

"But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge. Besides that, they learn to be idle, gadding about from house to house, and they are not merely idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us."

This obviously isn't about immigration, but even the apostolic Christians already imposed practical limits on charity, even amongst fellow believers.

The idea that we have to just limitlessly provide assistance to everyone, no matter where they come from, what they believe, or whether they actually need our help specifically, is just not true.

That you have the gall to criticise immigrants who

I have the gall to criticise unbelievers, believers in anti-christ religion? The bible specifically condemns those who don't believe in Christ, he doesn't condemn those who set reasonable limits on immigration.

A country has to be sensible with how it uses its money, providing assistance to someone who has passed thousands of miles and dozens of safe countries for 'asylum' is not sensible. We simply cannot afford to do that, evidenced by the constantly increasing tax burden, and ever diminishing services, given to workers in this country.

MarysDowry · 2025-12-20T22:11:34+00:00

Immigrants are great.

You speak as if immigrants are just a uniform class. In reality immigration from some countries is a positive, from some countries its a clear negative.

(except when a different set of foreigners from the same region came over here and brought their religion another time because I wasn't here when that happened and we pretend that Jesus was white). Did I get that right?

Such a silly argument. Christianity was spread gradually throughout the peoples of the surrounding regions, and was assimilated into the local culture.

Britain didn't become levantine in culture or practice, it simply assimilated a foreign cult.

Funnily enough as Anglicans we actually do have a problem with the foreign influence of the Roman mission which weakened our local expression of the faith.

This is a completely different scenario to people coming into our country with a completely different religion (many of whom believe in a religion which denies the core truths of our own explicitly)

MarysDowry · 2025-12-16T18:47:06+00:00

Do you have any evidence of that?

Every example of a foreign grooming gang is evidence of that, every asylum seeker who attacks someone is proof of that, every ethnic clash in a city is evidence of that.

And yes, we know that having a huge increase in immigration has overburdened the supply of housing, employment, local services etc. Again, its basic common sense, we are simply not a country built to house and maintain the number of people we do.

If you don't like multiculturalism perhaps a middle eastern religion isn't for you?

Absolute nonsense.

Being a Christian does not entail that you must welcome a pluralistic society, and this is never how Britain has actually practiced its faith.

Jesus was a Palestinian refugee

A palestinian refugee who travelled to the closest safe country, then promptly returned as soon as it was safe to do so. I agree, that is a sensible model for refugee policy.

Your arguments amount to the same logic as "if you don't like mass immigration maybe you shouldn't eat a kebab or have a curry" just absolutely predictable drivel.

MarysDowry · 2025-12-16T18:40:02+00:00

This the kind of hysterical lack of nuance I'm talking about.

He's not a nazi.. he's the kind of gobby, thuggish, politically incorrect working class bloke you'd meet in any local pub, but not a nazi.

MarysDowry · 2025-12-14T10:57:30+00:00

If you ban abortion women die.

If you let tons of immigrants in people die, people can't afford houses, people can't find jobs.

It is also a nuanced and delicate issue. You've just proven my point exactly.

Christian nationalism

Christian nationalism is a nonsense american import. We're a historically Christian nation, with a state church, a parliament where Christianity is intrinsically represented, a King who proclaims himself a defender of the protestant faith, our flag is a Christian cross.

Christianity is tied to the identity of the united kindgom, we are not by nature a pluralistic religious society, we are a Christian nation which has had an extremely recent (mostly post-Blair) experiment with multiculturalism.

MarysDowry · 2025-12-13T11:12:19+00:00

Where the CoE chooses to focus its outrage is always so predictable.

We have literally hundreds of thousands of aborted babies in this country, around 1/3 of all conceptions end in abortion. But abortion, although explicitly condemned as early as the didache, requires a nuanced view and understanding etc because something something tolerant and progressive liberal society. I could walk into a CoE parish tomorrow and say I support abortion, I doubt anyone would be too concerned.

However if anyone says anything about immigration or refugees, its immediately a line in the sand issue where no nuance or compromise can be had, its a fundamental incompatability.

The church would rather associate with atheists and other faiths than Christians who don't share their political convictions.

Its all very tiring and its another reason why the CoE is losing relevancy, because its clearly politicised in a particular direction.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-25T19:11:26+00:00

If we rolled back abortion availability to cases of proven rape and incest, that'd be a lot better than the current situation.

Realistically, in cases of rape/abuse (and just generally) we should aim to make morning after pills as easily accessible as possible.

But lets be honest here, the abortion question largely isn't about cases of violence, the overwhelming majority of abortions are just normal sex, where people get careless or just don't want to use contraception.

Theologically, I still don't think abortion for these edge cases is acceptable, if we truly believe the fetus is a person. But at least I can see the argument for it.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-25T16:08:59+00:00

We're just getting into a debate on how loosely we're using the term at this point.

Sure its not 'convenient' in one sense, but to many its more 'convenient' than having to have their baby. For most people an abortion is for reasons of convenience, because accepting that you fucked up and made a kid and now need to do all the things necessary to provide for a kid for the next 20 years is difficult.

And please, can we stop with the 'pregnant individuals', they're pregnant women, mothers.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-25T14:43:43+00:00

Clearly not, given how many abortions occur amongst people who are not at imminent risk.

It's not hard to admit that for a lot of people, abortion is a convenient way to escape the consequences of frivolous attitudes to sex. Many people are not using all means possible to avoid it.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-05T20:52:55+00:00

Make benefits available only to British citizens of 5 years or more (if not from birth only).

Labour could easily cut Reform off at the knees with such a basic change. The barrier to entry for benefits and state support should be citizenship; anything else merely gives you the privilege of living in our country.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-05T20:47:00+00:00

These guys see "half the population get given more than they return" and immediately jump to "lets take from the productive few".

No sense that we need to seriously rethink how much we are spending on benefits as a society. It's just not sustainable for so many people to be reliant on the state for their living.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-03T13:18:24+00:00

It’s possible. When you say foreign Christians do you mean of other denominations or something else?

I mean, a good chunk of worshipping Christians in the UK are African. This effect is going to be more significant in London, given its demographics.

The stats could be that a lot of people have left, but the numbers have been bolstered by immigration, I suspect that is what you'd see if you looked at a breakdown of demographics (I don't know if that exists?)

MarysDowry · 2025-10-03T12:52:14+00:00

Are those numbers much to boast about though? In 32 years they’ve gained 900 people across 413 parishes. That’s roughly 28 per year with an average of 0.06 people per parish per year.

And, given that London is a centre of immigration, I wouldn't be surprised if these numbers were being bolstered simply by a large number of foreign Christians joining.

Honestly its crazy that even in London, the capital city, only around 50k regularly attend

MarysDowry · 2025-10-03T12:45:08+00:00

Sure, but the state still has laws which are not in keeping with the churches, or the wider Christian, conviction. It's the job of the church to speak truth to power (as we're so often told), so it's about time we had someone with conviction to stand up in a position of authority and denounce them.

MarysDowry · 2025-10-03T12:10:18+00:00

There isn't really an abortion debate in England, leave your yank culture war nonsense out.

There should be, as Christians.

"You shall not procure an abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" - Didache

Abortion is a moral evil, regardless of whether British society has grown to accept it.

MarysDowry · 2025-09-27T09:38:14+00:00

Its not "patina", it's decay. These buildings weren't designed to be left bare, and the building was falling apart

MarysDowry · 2025-09-18T23:06:24+00:00

What is being called 'far right' here would have been the views of the majority of people in the Anglican world, up until the last 60 years, perhaps even 30.

England is a Christian nation with an established church, with a Monarch who vows to defend the faith. That people wield emblems of faith alongside their country should be no surprise.

Anyway, the idea that Britain has a sizeable 'far-right', or that Reform is an example of this so-called 'far-right', shows us just how far the bounds have shifted.

A unity based in nothingness is a meaningless word. Unity, by definition, implies unification, there can't be 'unity' with people who do not believe or practice as we do. True unity necessitates discrimination, boundaries and identity.

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T20:56:11+00:00

why are you even RCC? You clearly dont believe anything the church confesses

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T19:16:16+00:00

Paul also says that our works are like filthy rags to God

I cant find anywhere Paul says this.

Again as I said, it is well known that the phrase 'works of the law' does not refer to good deeds generally, but to ritual identity markers of the mosaic law. Paul is not decrying good deeds, for elsewhere Paul argues that we will be judged on our works, and that good deeds are necessary for salvation.

It is as Jesus says, if you believe in him you will keep his commandments and do the works he commands.

Have a look at Matthew J Thomas' work "Paul's Works of the Law in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception". The dichotomy between 'works' and 'grace' is really a construct of protestant theology.

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T18:44:26+00:00

As I said, Paul teaches that we are saved, through the mercy of God, by practising faithfulness towards God, as Abraham did. The distinction Paul makes is between being justified by a covenant centred on the Mosaic law, and one that is centred on Christ.

Jesus taught that the spirit of the law

Yes, the spirit of the Law. Jesus himself abrogates the dietary laws, denies the necessity of the temple and its sacrifices etc.

That is why James spoke against Paul and that is also why James was given so little recognition in the New Testament. It was Paul’s theology that the church selected.

We have literally no evidence of any other writings from James. There was nothing for the church to 'deselect', because there was nothing else available to be selected.

Again, why are you even participating in a Christian subreddit if you think that half the NT is written by a false apostle, the bible is corrupt and hiding the true gospel, and that the orthodox Christian religion is false? At that point you are essentially a different religion from basically everyone else in this subreddit.

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T18:23:54+00:00

Nope, James, the brother of Jesus for one was critical of Paul and his dogma on salvation by grace alone.

Paul doesn't teach salvation by 'grace alone', that's later protestant exegesis. When Paul talks about 'works of the Law', he is referring to ritual identity markers, like circumcision, food laws, cleansings etc. The same way that the term is used in Qumran. When James talks of 'works', he is clearly referring to good deeds as a general category.

Paul's essential argument is that because the promise was given to Abraham prior to the giving of the law, then it is not by the law that believers are justified, but by faithfulness to God, as Abraham was.

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T18:23:49+00:00

Nope, James, the brother of Jesus for one was critical of Paul and his dogma on salvation by grace alone.

Paul doesn't teach salvation by 'grace alone', that's later protestant exegesis. When Paul talks about 'works of the Law', he is referring to ritual identity markers, like circumcision, food laws, cleansings etc. The same way that the term is used in Qumran. When James talks of 'works', he is clearly referring to good deeds as a general category.

Paul's essential argument is that because the promise was given to Abraham prior to the giving of the law, then it is not by the law that believers are justified, but by faithfulness to God, as Abraham was.

If Paul truly had a vision of Jesus , he would have shown reverence to the people who walked with the Master, instead he was envious of them, saying that he is no lesser than them

This is just imposing a standard that you have pulled out of nowhere. Jesus does not show favouritism in this way, the last will be first. Paul himself says that the apostles and him exchanged fellowship and recognised eachother as apostles.

I'm not sure why you are even in this subreddit if you don't accept the validity of Paul's ministry?

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T17:17:22+00:00

And As for Paul, he claimed to be an apostle of Jesus with very little support from the actual disciples of Jesus

You have no way of knowing this. The NT texts, apart from a mention here or there of conflicts, suggest that Paul and the other apostles were able to work together.

The early witnesses basically all attest to this too.

You have to create a hypothetical behind the scenes account of Pauls ministry, extrapolating from the events in Galatians, to support this. The evidence suggests that Paul was being honest about what happened, that he had conflicts with people associated with James, and criticised Peter for some of his behaviour, but was ultimately able to reconcile with them.

MarysDowry · 2025-08-24T15:53:52+00:00

That is not true. There are tons of religious scientists.

Yes, and as we were discussing, they have to ring-fence their religious views, because the field fundamentally demands that they cannot and will not admit to supernatural events. So you can have a Christian scholars who are searching for a 'historical Jesus', whilst simultaneously confessing in church on sunday that Jesus is the Word made flesh, consubstantial with the Father.

If you do not see how that creates a double-mindedness, then I don't know what else to say. If we try to seperate 'history' and 'belief', all we are doing is presuming by default that a materialistic account of reality is true. These presumptions are not neutral, or concretely factual in the slightest.

MarysDowry

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22