Attribution: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Above, Coronation of King Charles III, with attendant clergy.

 

King Charles III is the Patron of the Church Army. The information is on the page

 

https://churcharmy.org/be-inspired/infocus/24q2/patron/

 

which contains this:

 

Addressing faith leaders in September 2022, King Charles said: “I am a committed Anglican Christian, and at my coronation I will take an oath relating to the settlement of the Church of England. At my accession, I have already solemnly given – as has every sovereign over the last 300 years – an oath which pledges to maintain and preserve the protestant faith in Scotland.” And at his Coronation he promised to “maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the gospel.”

 

From the page

 

https://churcharmy.org/be-inspired/infocus/24q2/patron/

 

'Responding to the news, Peter Rouch, CEO of Church Army [now replaced by Matt Barlow] says: ‘For many years Church Army UK & Ireland has been honoured by the patronage of the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom ...

 

‘In the midst of many demands and in the context of a changing world this is a decision of some significance for us. I believe it reflects the breadth of impact of our mission, its benefit to society at large, and the centrality of the Christian faith in our continuing wellbeing across these islands. 

 

‘We are delighted to hear this news, and I invite you to join me in prayers for King Charles and Queen Camilla, for health, wisdom and fulfilment in all that they do in service that touches not only the UK but also the flourishing of those of other nations and allegiances.’

 

The expectation, or hope, that if members of the Church Army and other people  pray for the King and Queen God is more likely to give them heath, more likely to give them wisdom - as well as fulfilment in everything that they do - is ridiculous.

 

The 'Christian faith' is peripheral, not central in 'these islands.' When the Christian faith was central, there was torture and burning alive of heretics, torture and execution of women accused of being witches, homosexuals were often hanged and slavery flourished for century after century. Peter Rouch believes that of the people helped, supposedly, by the Church Army, only the ones who act upon the gospel teaching of the Church Army or some other means will be saved. The mass of clients with problems won't be helped in the least by people praying for them or by their own prayers, if they fall for the Christian nonsense.

 

If, let's say, members of the Research Unit of the Church Army find that they receive some courteous information by email, they are liable to ban, block and censor - or the banning, blocking and censoring is accompanied by prayer.

 

Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is the President of the Church Army. He has described Church Army as a 'gift to the church.'  The information is on the page

 

https://churcharmy.org/who-we-are/our-team/

 

And now for another aspect of the multi-faceted King.

 

King Charles III is well known to have a very strong interest in growing, farming, environmental causes. The King is not only the Patron of the Church Army but the Patron of the National Allotment Society, which includes this on its Website:

 

Our Patron - His Majesty King Charles III

 

We are proud to have the support of His Majesty, King Charles III as our Patron. His deep passion for gardening, commitment to environmental causes, and steadfast dedication to preserving the UK's rich traditions make him an invaluable advocate for The National Allotment Society.

 

 I'm not a member of the National Allotment Society but I used to be. I received, of course, 'The membership magazine for the National Allotment Society.'  Issue 2, 2023 of the magazine has a very impressive, well designed cover,' with these words in a circle surrounding the crown: King Charles III. Coronation. 6th May 2023.

 

Inside the magazine, there's a long article on Pages 8 and 9, 'King Charles and gardening.' Inside the same issue, on Page 41, there's an article written by me, 'Greenhouse Creation,' illustrated with two photographs of the exterior and one of the interior.

 

I didn't have the space to give very much information about the massive environmental advantages of the greenhouse I designed and constructed, but I was able to mention some of them.

 

The greenhouse is just one of a series of environmental projects I've undertaken at these allotments. A few others, a large pond, planted with native aquatic plants, marginals, submerged, floating, bog plants. The plants include the water lily Nymphaea alba. Frogs mate in the spring, the pond has abundant tadpoles and large numbers of young frogs emerge, benefitting not just the land I rent but the whole allotment site. The pond attracts dragonflies. I saw a dragonfly flying in a straight line along a road in the area. It's very likely that it visited this pond at some time or other and perhaps very often. I've designed and installed water collecting surfaces of various kinds, including one very large one, which directs the water from the area between two rows of hazel trees to the pond.

 

According to the grotesque, completely unfair 'Community Protection Notice: Written Warning' issued to me on 15 February 2022, 'your conduct is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality and the conduct is unreasonable ... By this Written Warning you are required to cease this conduct immediately. If from this time and date, the conduct is still having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those in the locality, you will be served a Community Protection Notice. It is a criminal offence not to comply with this Notice ... '

 

Not a single example of a 'detrimental effect' on the quality of life of those in the locality was mentioned in the document. The 'Details of the conduct' which did mention supposed offences was false from being to end. I could refute all the claims very easily but what wasn't easy in the least was getting South Yorkshire Police to rescind the document. It hasn't proved possible to persuade the complainant, now known as Revd Lu Skerratt-Love ,to recognize that carrying on complaining won't stop me from acting in my own defence. 

 

The article and the greenhouse -

 

There are six large, sloping polycarbonate panels making up the core of the structure, in a triangular arrangement - one which has great structural strength. with the panels in place, the panels can act as water collecting surfaces. When gutters are installed at the base, the water collected can be transferred to water storage containers and to ponds. The design will reduce reliance on mains water for watering crops inside the greenhouse or in other growing areas.

 

Panels can easily be removed - one, two, three, four, five or all six. When most or all have been removed, the crops inside the greenhouse can be watered with natural rainwater (or other precipitation, of course.)Again, this reduces the need for mains water and conserves water.

 

Removing panels will also reduce the temperature inside the greenhouse. The system gives great flexibility in ventilating the structure. In the article, I mentioned the fact that the temperature outside reached 40 Celsiues (very briefly) the year before.

 

I mentioned aesthetic advantages of removing panels: 'Plastic coverings don't enhance the appearance of a site, for most people. When polycarbonate sheets aren't needed, then no sheets need be visible.'

 

After the article was published, I removed one of the panels permanently. I had planted a grape vine just outside the main greenhouse structure, in one of the two roofed extensions. The grape vine grows inside the greenhouse, along the roof area, and outside. It has climbed up to the roof area and now grows on the roof - a 'green roof.'

 

In the extension at the other end of the greenhouse, there's a wildlife pool, inhabited by frogs, and also a solar composter, which speeds up the production of compost by the greenhouse effect. In the summer months, it's used for growing French beans.

 

The complainant, Revd Lu Skerratt-Love was employed at the Research Unit of the Church Army. Dr Tim Ling of the Research Unit took the decision to block emails from me to the Church Army, preventing any emails from reaching Lu Skerratt-Love. He himself received only one email, a courteous one pointing out security and safety issues in the disused allotments chosen to be the site of a garden church and promoted by Lu Skerratt-Love.

 

I'm complaining about the behaviour of Revd Lu Skerratt-Love under the Clergy Discipline Measure. I've taken steps to begin a complaint against the actions of Tim Ling but there's a difficulty: the Church Army has procedures in place for Safeguarding but seems not to have procedures for general complaints about the behaviour of staff.

 

Other material on this page, and wide-ranging material on other pages, gives my reasons for viewing the Church Army as a very, very flawed organization, one which shouldn't be endorsed by the King. In my experience, it shows absolutely no interest in legitimate freedom of expression. I object to the doctrines which underlie its work, most of all, the doctrines concerned with 'redemption.' Unfortunately, the King believes in the same doctrines, if his beliefs are orthodox or even semi-orthodox.'

 

At his coronation, to “maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the gospel.'

 

Could the King be more specific - or would that be against his religion?

 

Does King Charles III believe that all his subjects, all the people over whom he reigns, are condemned to eternal separation from God - except for the minority who accept Jesus as Saviour?

 

What Laws of God does he accept, what Laws of God does he not accept?

 

This is a 'Law of God, according to 'Bible teaching':  'Put to death any woman who practices magic.' Exodus 22: 18, in the translation of the  'Good News Bible!

 

The presidency of Rowan Williams is a gift to the Church Army, a reassuring presence, in particular, reassuring potential donors that this is an organization which thoroughly deserves their support. I show that this is an organization which doesn't deserve their support in the least. If Rowan Williams values free expression, then he won't want to have anything to do with the Church Army. This is an organization which goes in for banning, blocking, outright censorship - or attempts to censor. These have had far-reaching effects.

 

By agreeing to become Patron of the Church Army, King Charles III in effect endorses an organization whose claims are many and varied but whose practice falls far short. On this site, I don't in general give prominence to my personal experiences but in this case, I need to do just that, to show just how bad the practice of the Church Army can be. My view is that the Church Army is a discredited organization, one undeserving of support, financial support and other support.

 

The Church Army, like the Church of England, has vast resources available, financial and other. They employ very large numbers of people. They can easily challenge my arguments and evidence and easily overcome them, if they want to - but only if their case is strong, if they're able to present their own counter-arguments and counter-evidence. I don't think it's likely in the least that they'll want to do that or are able to do that. These are massive organizations, the Church of England obviously more so than the Church Army, which are very, very weak in crucial respects.

 

The Website of Church Army has two sharply contrasted faces. It can be described as 'two faced.' The more prominent face is about its range of 'philanthropic' activities, many of which aren't what they seem. The  less prominent face is the face of Christian orthodoxy, the Church Army's promotion of a theology which divides humanity into two, the saved and the damned. The supposedly philanthropic side, such as 'poverty alleviation' (which is overwhelmingly the business of the state, through benefits and other measures, and the economy, through wealth creation which does infinitely  more to alleviate poverty than the negligible efforts of Church Army) is a cover-up. Giving money to the Church Army would be - is - badly mistaken. Some of the money donated may go to useful or moderately useful projects, but the context is inescapable. Most of the money is directed to 'Mission,' based on Biblical foundations, if these rickety, contradictory texts can be called 'foundations.'

 

 For Church Army, no other issue can be compared with issues to do with salvation by faith in Jesus. 'Family work,' 'Recreation activities,' 'Mentoring,' Schools work,' 'Building community,' 'Youth / Kids' and other activities may keep the donations coming in - the section of the site 'Ways of Giving' is on a lavish scale befitting its importance for Church Army - but so much of the money received by Church Army goes to attempts to convert 'the lost,' saving 'the lost.' The Research Department, statistically minded but in most respects clueless, , produces world-class dross, grotesquely misguided attempts to show that converting most people (or all people) to faith in Jesus Christ is a realistic objective.

 

This is the section, 'My Favourite Bible Verse ...' the choice of Andrew Horton, the Church Army's Head of Communications and Digital Engagement:

 

'A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to pleas their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life ... '

 

This doesn't in the least imply that bad people go to Hell and good people go to heaven. It means that people who have accepted Jesus as Saviour go to Hell and all the others go to Hell (or some form of eternal separation from God), including devoted parents, the Jews who died in the Holocaust ...

 

This is from my page Church Donations, the first part of a much longer section.

 

The belief that non-believers go to Hell (or are separated from God for eternity) is common knowledge. Vast numbers of Christians, at vast numbers of churches, have this belief, and not just  Conservative Evangelicals.   Not nearly so common now: the belief, held by 'St' Augustine (of Hippo)  that deceased babies who never receive baptism go to hell, that baptism is essential for salvation.

 

Not discussed anywhere in the Bible, the fate of non-believing children - and babies. No age limit for redemption is mentioned in the Bible. Can very young children and even babies share the fate of adult non-believers?

 

So far as I know, I'm the first person to draw attention to this massive, shocking problem for orthodox believers.  This is a problem for 'liberal' Christians and 'progressive' Christians as well. They have some explaining to do.

 

Does King Charles III believe in the standard, orthodox Church of England doctrine that there are the saved and the damned? Does the King believe that all the people over whom he reigns will never achieve 'salvation,' and that the only people who will achieve salvation is that small minority who have accepted Jesus as Saviour? The same questions can be put to Rowan Williams. It wouldn't take him long to answer such questions? Would he be willing to answer them?

 

 

Below, an extract from my page Church Integrity on the Community Protection Notice: Written Warning issued to me by South Yorkshire Police following complaints made by Lu Skerratt-Love, who was ordained at Liverpool Cathedral and is  now Revd Lu Skerratt-Love.  No attempt was made to contact me before sending out two police officers to my house to deliver the document. They stayed for an hour - not at all a good use of police time. At the time of these events, Lu Skerratt-Love was a member of the congregation at St Mark's Church, Sheffield, a Trustee of the Church and a member of the Parochial Church Council. She was employed be the Church Army in their 'Research Unit.' Dr Ling is  the  'Director of Organisational Development at Church Army. He provides strategic oversight for the work of the Research Unit.' My view is that he took disastrously misguided decisions during this case, ones which have had far-reaching effects.   

 

This was at a time when my mother, who was 96, had been seriously ill for a long time. I coped with the stress of this grotesque episode, but one particular morning, I felt very poor, so much so that I went to the main South Yorkshire Police station in the city centre and unburdened myself to the woman at the desk - who acted very well, with great sensitivity. From the police station, I went straight to the hospital, and found that my mother had died a short time before. My brother had already arrived, my sister arrived a short time later.

 

Our mother died, then, a few weeks after this WRITTEN WARNING was issued to me by South Yorkshire Police on 15.02.2022.

Pursuant to Section 43 Part 4 Chapter 1 (Community Protection Notices) Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

' ... your conduct is having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality and the conduct is unreasonable.'

'If from this time and date, the conduct is still having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those in the locality, you will be served a Community Protection Notice. It is a criminal offence not to comply with the Notice ... If found guilty you could be fined up to £2,500.'

 

[I can easily show that I've done everything I can to enhance the neighbourhood. Images on the  of the site will make that clear. Many of them show the work I've done in the land I rent in the locality - growing food, and in large quantity, encouraging native plants, implementing water collecting and new composting methods and a large number of other environmental projects, such as designing and installing swift boxes, constructing a large wildlife pond which attracts dragonflies, frogs and other wildlife.

 

Perhaps the warning was about a different matter, such as playing music loud? It can't be that. I'm a musician. I studied with the Hungarian violinist Rudolf Botta, celebrated in a violin concerto which received its world premiere at a Proms concert at the Royal Albert Hall - this was a work which included text to accompany the music, and I contributed some of the text, on an aspect of violin technique - but I don't play the violin and viola any longer. There were too many demands on my time. I still play recorded music - the classical repertoire mainly - symphonies, concertos, string quartets and the rest - but never loud enough to have a detrimental impact 'on the quality of life of those in the neighbourhood.'

 

This was the section 'Details of the Conduct' which accompanied the WRITTEN WARNING. I've detailed evidence to  show conclusively that the section 'Details of the Conduct' is false and grossly unjust in every respect.

 

'The police have become aware of you contacting Lu Skerratt-Love via email and hand delivered letters. You have also been contacting her work colleagues via email and letter regarding her. In some of these correspondences you make mention of her personal faith. When you write these emails and letters it causes great upset to Lu and her colleagues at work. This is not fair and certainly not right to do so. It is important that you realise how much you are upsetting / distressing Lu with this conduct. You would not wish for such conduct for your loved ones. We are willing to help in anyway [sic].'

 

I show that Lu Skerratt-Love never received any emails from me. A single person at the Church Army, Tim Ling, received a single email from me. Both received a letter from me. I give the content of the email and the letter, both completely courteous. I contacted the Church Army to express concern about a proposed garden Church, for reasons to do with safety and security. Lu Skerratt-Love was involved in promoting the garden church. Garden churches are one of many projects called 'Fresh expressions of Church.' The Research Unit which employed Lu Skerratt-Love publishes 'research' on these Fresh Expressions. The difficulties I pointed out were completely relevant to the work of the Research Unit and the Church Army as a whole.

 

I made every effort to have removed a very large pile of hazardous rubbish which was on the land used by  the Garden Church. The Community Protection Notice  WRITTEN WARNING claims that I have harmed the neighbourhood. The facts are very different. The images in the first section of  the Home Page include images of my gardening work in land near to this house, in the neighbourhood. This is enhancing the neighbourhood, not damaging it. I have never contributed to noise nuisance in the neighbourhood.

 

This is an issue which still hasn't been resolved. The complainant, Lu Skerratt-Love, was ordained at Liverpool Cathedral in June 2024 and is now a Curate, part of the Team Ministry of St Luke in the Liverpool Diocese.

 

Tim Ling swiftly blocked all emails from me to the Church Army. My emails are still blocked. I'm not able to bring this material to the attention of the Church Army by the most convenient method, an email.

 

From my email to Lu Skerratt-Love but never received by her.

Dear Lu Skerratt-Love,

'I write in connection with this post on the St Marks Website:

'SHEFFIELD FOREST CHURCH – SATURDAY 11 SEPTEMBER AT 2.30PM

'After a summer break, we’'re back! Join us for Forest Church on the theme of Creation at the Garden Church in Walkley (Walkley Community Garden, Morley Street S6 2PL) for time to be and worship in God’s creation. Bring a drink and a snack for after the service! Our services are intentionally all age and LGBTQ+ affirming, so whatever stage of life or journey you’re on – you’re so very welcome! For more information, you can find us on facebook or email

 sheffield.forest.church@gmail.com

'I have two allotments on the Morley Street site in Sheffield. I was dismayed to find that the Forest Church is planning to hold this event at Morley Street this Saturday.

The plan is  disastrously misguided, surely. These are some objections:

'The place where it is planned to hold the event is rented land. These are Sheffield Council allotments and as such, are subject to allotment law.  The allotments are rented by Lower Walkley Community Group (LWCG). The group's decision to give permission for the Forest Church to hold the event was very misguided but I have evidence to show that throughout, the use of the land by LWCG has been incompetent.

'[You are] seemingly unaware of the legislation applicable to allotments which is intended to protect the safety of the public and the issue of legal liability. Allotments do have hazards, and in the event of injury to a member of the public attending the event at the 'Forest Garden,' there could easily be severe legal consequences.

 

'According to information I've received, a fundamental disagreement concerning access to the Community Garden precipitated dissension within the group, leading to members going their separate ways and the neglect of the garden, which lasted for many years until this year, when some work has been done, although hardly any of it to do with the growing of food plants. There was a short period when access to the garden was restricted, by a locked gate, but for most of the time, anyone who wanted to enter the garden was able to.


A very striking , and very off-putting feature of the garden is the very large heap of rubbish, very long as well as high - discarded plastic, rubbish of many, many kinds, with further rubbish in some Council Wheelie bins. If it's assumed that this was all left by fly tippers, it can't be the only explanation. I think these must have been left by the Group itself. [I've since received information from a reliable source, a person who has an allotment near to my own allotments, that the fly-tipping was the action of a member of the Community Garden Group. Amongst the discarded plastic containers are ones which once held organic seaweed fertilizer. 

'I've been informed that youths have sometimes gathered in the LWCG garden and been involved in solvent abuse. I can't verify this but an open garden obviously carries security risks. The  LWCG garden is some distance from the road, down the long and gloomy heavily path by the side of the Walkley Bank Allotment Association hut. The garden itself is shielded from view. It may not be likely that the church members would meet trouble but if they ever did, this isn't the kind of place where it would be easy to get help quickly. I don't think this is being too alarmist. About thirty years ago, there was a murder on an allotment site in the Rivelin Valley. Three youths were sniffing glue in the allotment. Two of them turned on the third and stabbed him with a garden tool. In the time I've had my allotments, there have been some troubling incidents affecting allotment holders, including threatening behaviour directed at them. The Forest Church has ignored the serious problems to do with security.

'A Christian event at an allotment site would set a very troublesome precedent. Allotments are primarily places for growing food but they have other uses. From the introduction to 'Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book:'

'In my most optimistic moments, I see every town ringed again with small gardens, nurseries, allotments, greenhouses, orchards, as it was in the past, an assertion of delight and human scale.'

'Allotments  should not be places for Christian evangelism or Christian worship. Christians have many other venues available for that. There is no need to use allotments at all. Allotments are not the place for the singing of hymns  for preaching or for public prayer. 

I hope that this conveys some of my reasons for disagreement'. 

Best Wishes,

Paul Hurt.

The 'Details of the Conduct' section of the WRITTEN WARNING mentions 'letters.'

The 'Details of conduct' mentions 'letters.' There was just one letter, and this is it. I delivered it to the Church Army building in Sheffield, one copy for Dr Tim Ling, one copy for Lu Skerratt-Love and one copy for Dr Andy Wier.

 

8 October, 2021

Dear Dr Ling,

There are matters which I need to bring to your attention, and the attention of Lu Skerratt-Love. I can't use the most convenient method, for me, email, since you've blocked my emails. This is simply a short preliminary note. I don't discuss in any detail these matters

Instead of using paper and envelope, buying a stamp and using the post, I've chosen instead to call at the Church Army building and deliver this
note in person and I intend to use this method whenever I can justify a further communication to you or to Lu Skerratt-Love. [I've never made any further communication with Tim Ling, Lu Skerratt-Love or anyone else at Church Army Sheffield. This was the only letter they've received.] I've decided further to make use of 'open' communication, without enclosure in an envelope. The matters I need to bring to your attention aren't confidential.

Banning, blocking and attempts at blatant censorship should be avoided by people in any organization which values its reputation. Your decision to block emails from me was completely unjustifiable. All I had done was to send emails to a few people and organizations to inform them of my concerns about the proposal to set up a garden church at the Morley Street Allotment site. The reasons I gave and the evidence I gave were to do with matters of allotment law, security and safety. I've documented the issues in detail and published them on my Website. The documentation will be extended to take note of future developments. The people and organizations who received my emails - few in number - could be expected to find the issue of a garden church relevant, for example, St Marks Church.

 

Lu Skerratt-Love had publicized the issue on the St Marks Church Website.The tone of my emails was courteous. I used Lu Skerratt-Love's Church army email address because I had no alternative. This was the only email address I could find.I felt at the time that it was unwise of her not to make available an alternative email address.

Lu Skerratt-Love's decision to complain to the police, her attempt to have me remove material from my own Website, was disastrously misguided, like your decision to block my emails. Lu Skerratt-Love's twitter page is full of complaints against the police but she chose to turn to the police (as an alternative to prayer, perhaps, or to supplement prayer). This, to me, was wasting police time. I don't claim that it
was wasting police time in the strict legal sense but if people demand action from the police for the flimsiest of reasons, or no good reason at all, or for thoroughly bad reasons, then the police have less time available for all the other issues, far more important issues, which they have to deal with, such as doing something to curb the excesses of Extinction Rebellion, rape, violent crime, and many more. [I don't equate the excesses of Extinction Rebellion with rape or violent crime, of course. This is a short list with examples which are very different in their degree of seriousness.]

I don't make demands myself, although I think that an apology is due from Lu Skerratt-Love and yourself. If you find the arguments and evidence I've put forward on my Website unpersuasive, then by all means let me have - better still, publicize - your counter arguments and evidence.

As I say, this is only a preliminary stage. I've already spent a great deal of time and effort on these matters and I'm willing to do far more. Any necessary communication with you or Lu Skerratt-Love will be by personal delivery of a note. [I didn't deliver any more notes/letters.]

I hope you will be able to bring this note to the attention of Lu Skerratt-Love. [In the event, I provided a copy for Lu Skerratt-Love.] Obviously, you're free to bring it to the attention of other people as well.

Best Wishes,

Paul Hurt

 

Before the two members of South Yorkshire Police were sent to my house to deliver the 'Community Protection Notice: Written Warning,' there had been a whole series of events. A summary:

8 September, 2021. Email sent to Lu Skerratt-Love pointing out difficulties (mainly security, safety) to do with the proposed garden church at some allotments near to my allotments. Email not received by Lu Skerratt-Love. Tim Ling of the Church Army had decided to block emails from me to Lu Skerratt-Love. By 12 September he had blocked emails from to himself and all members of the Research Unit. Since that time, no members of the Church Army  received emails from me.

 

In the section at the end of this column, screenshots which show that emails from me to Church Army members were blocked, with the exception of a courteous email to Dr Tim Ling.

 

All Lu Skerratt-Love's complaints to South Yorkshire Police about alleged emails from me were made when she must have known that she had never received emails from me, are based upon falsification.

 

8 October, 2021. Letter from me to Lu Skerratt-Love and Tim Ling, quoted in its entirety in this column. After this one letter, no further letters sent.

 

22 November, 2021. Card received from South Yorkshire Police asking me to contact them. When I contacted them, told that Lu Skerratt-Love had complained about receiving unwanted emails from me. Told to stop this. I pointed out that Lu Skerratt-Love hadn't received any emails from me. They were blocked. Considered making a complaint but decided not to - I didn't want to cause any difficulties for the Police Constable who communicated the information.

 

15 February, 1922.  The visit to deliver the Community Protection Notice: WRITTEN WARNING.

 

The section 'Details of the Conduct' includes this:

 

'You have also been contacting her work colleagues via email and letter regarding her. In some of these correspondences you make mention of her personal faith. When you write these emails and letters it causes

great upset to Lu and her colleagues at work.'

 

From the page

 

https://churcharmy.org/our-work/research/who-we-are/

 

 

Dr Tim Ling

 

Tim is Director of Organisational Development at Church Army. He provides strategic oversight for the work of the Research Unit.

 

The research and consultancy services of the Church Army Research Unit include

 

1. Customised survey design and analysis, including surveys and audits of fresh expressions of Church 
2. Project and programme evaluation 
3. Qualitative research methods including the use of interviews, focus groups and creative research methods 
4. Designing and supporting Participatory Action Research 
5. Bespoke dashboards to support and inform mission planning  
6. Conducting research with children and young people 
7. Strategic missional reviews of dioceses or other organisations
8. Training, facilitation and project accompaniment

 

He has written a great deal about 'fresh expressions of church' - and he has obviously participated in, or taken a leading part in, 'surveys, audits, design, analysis of 'fresh expressions.

 

What are 'Fresh Expressions of Church?' They are designed to reach people not yet members of any church. By 'reach,' they mean 'convert to a faith in Jesus as Saviour.' The 'reaching' is achieved, if and when it is achieved, by means other than the traditional means, sermons in Church buildings, using traditional liturgy, and the rest.

 

Garden Churches are one form of 'Fresh Expression.' When I found that a Fresh Expression was being planned for land very near to the land that I rent, I found various problems, seemingly overlooked. The problems involved ones to do with security and safety.

 

Since The Church Army Research Unit had a strong interest in Fresh Expressions of Church and the Garden Church was a project which was being planned and which would soon be realized, I felt completely justified in contacting Lu Skerratt-Love, who had publicized the new project and was employed by the Research Unit. I tried to find a contact email address but the only email address I found was her Church Army address. I decided to contact Tim Ling as well, since he had shown that he had a strong interest in Fresh Expressions.

 

I found that the only comment they wanted was comment which reinforced their own views. I'm sure that comments from a non-Christian would have been accepted, provided the non-Christian seemed a suitable person for conversion and someone without any sceptical views.

 

The intolerance of these people wasn't in the least ridiculous. I found it vindictive. They obviously believed that they had a complete right to suppress a dissenting view, even though the dissent was expressed in a very mild form.