I intend to make a complaint to the Charities Commission about the Church Army. The complaint has direct relevance to the Trustees. I take the view that the Trustees of the Church Army have failed in their duty of adequate oversight. I've already contacted many of the Trustees to bring the matter to their attention. There are also matters which affect the Trustees but which aren't the subject of a complaint.
For example, John Whitfield, one of the Trustees, is involved in Hope Valley Messy Church. He's a Treasurer for the Church Army and was Treasuer of Hope Valley Messy Church. In the column to the right, the second column of the page, financial information about the Messy Church, making it clear that the Messy Church was an abject failure. Hope Valley is an area of Derbyshire not far from the border with Sheffield. I'll be contacting him with a request for a response, obviously, only a preliminary response. There's a considerable amount of material still to be added to this page on Messy Churches, the Trustees of the Church Army, including John Whitfield, the Treasurer, and my complaints against the Church Army, to the Church Army itself and to the Charity Commission. There's already material on Messy Churches in the third column of the page.
I've informed the Trustees of the Church Army I've been able to contact that I'm dismayed that I can find nothing on the Church Army Website about the procedure for making complaints. Ways of informing the Church Army about alleged abuse are covered, but not there seems to be no provision at all for complaints about other deficiencies. This is a serious omission, surely.
From the page
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/
5a7c99d0e5274a7b7e3218a0/rs11text.pdf
material which was published a long time ago:
[People in the charitable sector] have ... called for charities to recognise their responsibility for dealing with complaints transparently and effectively. For instance, the national Code of Governance for the Voluntary and Community Sector was launched in June 2005. This said that charities should have “a procedure for dealing with feedback and complaints from stakeholders, staff, volunteers and the public ”. Even the smallest charities were advised to“set up fair ways of dealing with complaints and disputes. Make sure everyone knows about the procedures and how to use them ”. The Charity Commission’s Independent Complaints Reviewer has also recognised complaints management as an area of concern in her recent Annual Reports .
Before I give any more information about the complaint and my reasons for making it, information about a much smaller matter. From the regulatory body, the Charity Commission
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/226226/trustees
Trustees are the people responsible for controlling the work, management and administration of the charity on behalf of its beneficiaries. Generally trustees are treasurer, chair, board member etc. The trustees are responsible for keeping this list up to date and can do this by updating their details as they happen through the online service
This is the List of Church Army Trustees on the Charity Commission Website:
Guli Francis-Dehqani, Rt Rev Chair of Trustees
Barlow, MatthewForster, Rt Rev Andrew James
Hayes, Amy
Muthalaly, Rev Malayil Lukose Varghese
Preston, Mark
Russell, Patricia
Webb, Karen
Gidoomal, Ravi
Osagie, Dr Solomon
Slater-Carr, Rosie
West, Karen
Payne, Andrew
Whitfield, John David
It seems that the Church Army has failed to inform the Charity Commission about changes to the list. The Church Army Website presumably gives up-to-date information concerning its Trustees, although this cannot be taken for granted. According to the Website, Rt Rev Andrew James is no longer a Trustee. Jude Davis, the Church Army Director of Chaplaincy and Vocations and a member of the 'Senior Leadership Team,' is now a Trustee.
Now to the complaint. In fact, my complaint to the Charity Commission concerning the Church Army will involve the problems of making a complaint concerning the Church Army to the Church Army. The Charity Commission Website page
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
complaints-about-charities/complaints-about-charities
gives very reasonable and constructive advice concerning complaints against a charity:
'The trustees of a charity are responsible for the running of their charity and it is fair and appropriate that you raise your concern with them first. It gives the trustees the opportunity to explain misunderstandings or to put things right if something has gone wrong.'
The circumstances in which a complaint to the Charity Commission is justifiable includes these:
where a charity’s independence is seriously called into question
other significant non-compliance breaches of trust or abuses that otherwise impact significantly on public trust and confidence in the charity and charities generally.
In mid-December of 2024, I contacted the Church Army by phone. I made it clear that I intended to make a complaint against the Church Army but that I could not find anywhere, including the Church Army Website, any information about the methods to be employed for making a complaint. I would like to receive a complaints form or information which would enable me to make a complaint. My request hasn't been answered.
The most obvious and useful method of contacting the Church Army about these matters, by email, was unavailable to me, as Tim Ling, the 'Director of Organisational Learning,' who 'provides oversight for the work of the Research Unit' and a member of the Church Army 'Senior Leadership Team' had taken the very drastic step of blocking emails not just to him but, it seems likely, to all Church Army email addresses.
I haven't been able to contact by email Matt Barlow, the Chief Executive Officer of the Church Army, to bring to his attention by email my intention to make a complaint or to make available to me information about how to make a complaint. I haven't been able to email Jude Davis, another member of the Senior Leadership Team and the 'Director of Chaplaincy and Vocations.'
I haven't been able to contact Fay Popham by email, yet another member of the Senior Leadership Team, the 'Associate Director of Organisational Learning' From the page
https://churcharmy.org/be-inspired/infocus/23q2/infocus-meet-our-hr-team/
Faye leads our HR function to make sure Church Army is a good place to work. She works closely with the senior leadership in developing and ensuring a healthy culture within Church Army. Faye also leads Church Army’s safeguarding work along with the two deputy leads, together making sure that work is a safe space for everyone.
If there are concerns about a safeguarding issue, it's essential that no unreasonable restrictions should be in place which make it difficult to reach an organisation - an organisation which values its reputation, obviously.
I have a page Security, safety, safeguarding, survival which makes it clear that my view of safeguarding issues is a very broad one. Like other people, I regard the issue of sexual and other abuse of vulnerable people by clergy and other church members as abhorrent. I also see it as very important that churches and church organizations should ensure that everything possible is done to minimize other risks.
I provide information about these matters in detail, at various places in the site but I provide a very brief summary here. I contacted Dr Ling of the Senior Leadership Team and the Church Army Research Unit and Lu Skerratt-Love, at that time a researcher employed by the Research Unit, to inform them of some concerns about the proposal to set up a Garden Church in some allotments near to my own. Lu Skerratt-Love was a Founder Member of the Garden Church, referred to as a 'Forest Church' at that time. Garden Churches and Forest Churches were examples of 'Fresh Expressions,' ways intended to promote evangelism by means other than the traditional methods of evangelism making use of church buildings. I felt certain that the material I made availble should be relevant and useful to the work of the Research Unit, which had made known its interest in 'Fresh Expressions.'
I found reasons for concern in the projected Garden Church. Like many others at the allotment site, I had personal experience of some acute problems, to do with intimidation, aggression and damage. I pointed out that the setting of the Garden Church, well away from the road, in a gloomy place (the height of the hedges was immense, blocking light and making worthwhile growing impossible, unless the hedges were drastically pruned - but they never were pruned.)
I pointed out that there had been a murder in allotments not far away - a boy was stabbed with a garden fork.
I pointed out that there was a very, very large pile of fly-tipped rubbish inside the site of the Garden Church, almost 10 metres in length. This presented hazards for wildlife - animals could be trapped in the pile of discarded plastic, metal and other rubbish - and there were also hazards for children and adults attending Garden Church events. The pile might attract vermin, possibly giving rise to other health hazards.
Dr Ling made it clear that this contribution from an outsider - not a member of the Church Army, not a Christian - was unwanted, resented. He made this completely clear by failing to give any response which took the form of addressing the points I'd made, the evidence I'd given. His response was to block all further emails to himself, to block any emails to Lu Skerratt-Love and to block all emails to members of the Church Army, it seems.
I have the evidence tha Lu Skerratt-Love has never received a single email from me. The only email that reached the Church Army was a single email to Tim Love himself. When I attempted to send an email to Kinder and Gina Kelsey of the Church Army Centre of Mission at Darnall and Attercliffe, Sheffield, concerning the lack of any Safeguarding policies and named person with responsibility for Safeguarding, again, I found that the email was blocked. Again, I have the evidence that this is so.
I take the view that the Church Army has been deficient in its oversight of the activities of the Darnall and Attercliffe Centre of Mission. The material on the page
includes the evidence I provide that Kinder Kalsi, a Church Army Evangelist, has been engaging in attempted mission activities in land not owned by the Church Army, fixing items to trees in a way which presents potential hazards and with the potential to create litter in the woodland. Other mission activties in Sheffield streets again have had the potential to create litter. He seems to have insufficient appreciation of legal constraints.
Lu Skerratt-Love seems to have insufficient appreciation of legal constraints too, as I explain next.
This is disturbing enough, but a new development began on 15 February 2022. This is an extract from the first column of my page Church Integrity:
Community Protection Notice: WRITTEN WARNING
From the WRITTEN WARNING 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.'
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].'
Lu Skerratt-Love was ordained at Liverpool Cathedral in June 2024 and is now Revd Lu Skerratt-Love, a Curate at the Team Parish of St Luke in the Liverpool Diocese.
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, 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. 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.
Issuing the Notice and Warning document to me was a waste of police time. Two police officers spent an hour at my house. At this time, my mother, who was 96 years old, had been very ill for a very long time. A few weeks after the document was issued, she died.
This is an issue which still hasn't been resolved.
Lu Skerratt-Love's complaints to the police and approaches to the police have been intended to make me remove material from my Website. The Human Rights Act of 1998. Article 10 protects the right to hold opinions and to express them freely without interference.
My Website www.linkagenet.com is a very extensive Website, an established one. Lu Skerratt-Love, like Tim Ling, like other Church Army staff I have contacted, has never at any time attempted to address the very extensive evidence I provide on the pages of my site. There is a complete disparity between the mass of material I provide and the complete absence of any counter-argument and counter-evidence from the Church Army. The only tactic that has been attempted by the Church Army, or certain members of the Church Army, past and present, is suppression, together with ignoring of evidence they obviously find very inconvenient. I find this very, very significant.
Lists, with further information and comments
The lists I'll be including in this page will include further lists of Trustees of Churches and Church organizations. I make it clear that my view of Trustees in general isn't the same as my view of Trustees of Churches and Church organizations. There are innumerable secular organizations which thoroughly deserve support (and very many secular organizations which deserve no support at all.) In the case of organizations which deserve support, the Trustees play a very significant part in their work. The people who act as Trustees in these organizations deserve recognition and praise. For reasons made clear in many pages of the site, I don't have the same view of Trustees of Churches and Church organizations. I'll be providing comment on some of these trustees on this page, but not very frequently. In some cases, the comments will amount to profiles. My page 'About this site' gives my policies on the profiles of the site, amongst other things, including situations which would justify removal of profiles.
St Mark's Church, Sheffield
List of PCC members, who are also trustees, from the St Mark's Website Charity Commission page
PCC Members 2024-2025
James Oliver (Churchwarden)
Dilys Noble (Churchwarden)
Rebekah Hampson (PCC Secretary)
David Armstrong (Treasurer)
Chris Ware (Deanery Synod Rep)
Robyn Vesey (Deanery Synod Rep)
Rachel Baseley
Katherine Tattershall
Nana Nyarko
Martin Godley
Briony Tayler
Frances Gray
Jane Padget
Boyd Morgan
Anne Padget
Joy Straits
Michael Hunt
Shan Rush (clergy)
Beth Keith (clergy, Diocesan Synod Clergy Rep)
Beth Keith is the new Vicar of St Mark's Church. She was a member of the Research Unit of the Church Army. There's material on Dr Keith on various other pages, including the page Church Donations, in the left hand column.
The 2021 Accounts of St Mark's Church give the information that Lu Skerratt-Love was given money by the PCC:
'A grant of £600 from the Stamper Bursary Fund was paid to Lu Skerratt Love to assist theological studies at Durham. This is third of 3 annual grants. Note the individual is a member of PCC but was not involved in discussions relating to this grant.'
For more on Lu Skerratt-Love - as a member of St Mark's Church, not as a former staff member of the Research Unit of the Church Army, or as a complainant or an ordained Curate in the Diocese of Liverpool, please see the material in the first column of the page Church Documents.
Church Army: Research Unit, more
List of Team members. From the page
https://churcharmy.org/our-work/research/who-we-are/
Dr Andy Wier, Research Team Leader
Dr John Tomlinson, Senior Researcher
Dr Edd Graham-Hyde, Senior Researcher (Effective Evangelism)Dr Bev Botting, Senior Statistical Advisor
Elspth McGann, Researcher
Dave Lovell, ResearcherDan Ortiz, Researcher (Qualitative)
Siobham Bradshaw, Data Analysis Intern
Dr Elli Wort, Honorary Research Associate
Andrew Wooding, Research Administrator
Dr Tim Ling. 'Tim is Director of Organisational Development at Church Army. He provides strategic oversight for the work of the Research Unit.'
From the same page:
Our research and consultancy services include:
- Customised survey design and analysis, including surveys and audits of fresh expressions of Church
- Project and programme evaluation
- Qualitative research methods including the use of interviews, focus groups and creative research methods
- Designing and supporting Participatory Action Research
- Bespoke dashboards to support and inform mission planning
- Conducting research with children and young people
- Strategic missional reviews of dioceses or other organisations
- Training, facilitation and project accompaniment
From my page on the radically flawed Church Army Centre of Mission in the Darnall and Attercliffe area of Sheffield, run by Church Army Evangelists Kinder and Gina Kalsi.
https://www.linkagenet.com/themes/church-army2.htm
'How many people in total have he [Kinder Kalsi] and Gina Kalsi converted to Christianity since the Mission was established, to the best of his knowledge? Thousands, hundreds, a few, next to none or none? I've found plenty of claims about little things, very little things, but nothing about major successes - successes for them, that is.'
The central objective of the Church Army is not to change people's perception of Christian belief, to make them better disposed towards Christia belief, but to convert them - to give them the claimed benefits of Redemption. According to the Church Army, there is a clear-cut difference, a massive difference, between the redeemed and the unredeemed. The vast majority of the people the Church Army helps, or claims to help, belong to the group of the unredeemed, with a very different destiny from that of the redeemed, such as the members of the Church Army Research Unit (presumably.)
The Research Unit hopes to measure the success of the Mission work of the Church Army. The number of people converted to a faith in Jesus as Saviour is a clear-cut measure of success. Kinder and Gina Kalsi report all kinds of action. I mention some of them in my page Church Army 2. They don't claim a single instance of an individual who was a non-Christian but is now a Christian redeemed (allegedly) by Jesus, after encountering their evangelism.
I comment on Dr Tim Ling in many places on this site. It will be obvious that I have a very low opinion of him. I contacted him about concerns to do with security and safety at a proposed Garden Church and the action he took was drastic, completely unjustified and has had serious and damaging repercussions. These include serious and damaging repercussions for the Church Army, but not only for the Church Army.
The research methods employed by the Unit seem to me to be systematically biased. They seem to me to take hardly any account of the wider world, the world beyond the 'safe space' of Christian faith, a world which is often chaotic, grotesque, difficult or impossible to change - but the 'safe space' of Christian faith is also chaotic and grotesque, although not impossible to change. I take the view that fortune telling isn't impossible in the case of the Christian Churches, using 'fortune telling' to refer to responsible estimates of the future. I take the view that the Christian Churches will continue to decline, that more and more people will recognize the irrelevance of the Churches and the harmfulness of the Churches. The majority of people will view the Churches with indifference and will overlook the evidence for the harmfulness of the Churches, although with very significant exceptions. For example, there are large numbers of people in France, Germany and Ireland who recognize the extreme harmfulness of the Roman Catholic Church in matters to do with abuse. The harm includes indifference on the part of Church authorities. The situation in the Anglican Church has similarities but the scale of the problem goes largely unrecognized..
Below, the naive and superficial response of the Bishop of Leicester to the 'fresh expressions movement.' Before that, comment on my use of photographs. From the extensive material in my page New Creations:
The photographs of church people which already
appear on the site are ones which don't infringe
copyright. I feel that the relative scarcity of these
photographs in the public domain, compared with ones
protected by copyright, amounts to a kind of unfairness.
The unfairness doesn't lie in the copyright protection
but in the fact that the people whose photographs are
publicized in this way are in the minority, the ones
whose photographic identity isn't in the public domain
are in the majority. This is a situation, obviously,
where in most cases the church member would rather have
anonymity than publicity. I view a wider range of
photographic examples as fairer. The people whose
photographs appear are likely to view things
differently.
'I believe that the fresh expressions movement is one of the most significant developments the Church has experienced over the past few decades. This report contains multiple areas of learning about fresh expressions of Church and other pioneering missional activity within the Diocese of Leicester. It contains a distillation of more than eight years of research the Diocese of Leicester has undertaken in partnership with Church Army’s Research Unit, as well as significant areas of wider diocesan learning about pioneering. The results of this research have not only helped us better understand those pioneering missional activities which fit the Church Army criteria for fully formed fresh expressions of Church, but also to gain insight into where God is at work in other pioneering contexts in the diocese.
The fresh expressions movement has been so significant for a whole host of reasons - freeing lay people to be leaders in mission, encouraging risk-taking for the gospel, taking contextual evangelism seriously and reaching out to those outside the orbit of “normal church.” The conclusions drawn by the Church Army’s Research Unit on the basis of their work with the Pioneer Development Team in Leicester further highlight the vital role that fresh expressions and pioneering now occupy in the mixed ecology landscape, which is going to be vital for the church’s mission in the 21st Century.
I commend this report, and pray that it will be a helpful contribution as we continue to wrestle with what it means to be a Christian presence in every community at this point in history.
The so-called 'fresh expressions' are, in fact, stale expressions. They take for granted the 'truths' of orthodox Christian belief - the Trinity, the claim that Jesus has brought redemption (to a small minority, the acceptance of miracles, all or most of them or a selection, and others, taking no account of objections and difficulties. I give the evidence on other pages of the site but advocates of 'fresh expressions' never present fresh ways of defending their beliefs. Fresh expressions are expressions of doctrine in different settings.
I give a great deal of evidence that one particular attempt at a fresh expression, a Garden Church on land near to the land I rent, took no account of security and safety and various other practical considerations. The Church Army, or God's representative Tim Ling, decided that this was a case calling for outright suppression.
Where is the evidence that 'fresh expressions' are succeeding in 'reaching out to those outside the orbit of "normal church?" Where are the new converts pouring into the churches, or the new converts, the 'New Creations' living the redeemed life outside the 'normal churches?'
Martyn Snow has been carried away by his rousing language, like so many others. He is mistaking clarion calls for actual success in reversing the trend. There are no signs of resurgence, except, perhaps, in certain parts of certain churches. The ones which have the most success, as measured by dreadfully inadequate criteria, seem to be those which stress grossly simplified beliefs - although all Christian doctrines are deficient. Where there's complexity and apparent sophistication, the reality is that this is apparent, not real. Philosophical and Biblical academic theology often fool people. Practitioners of philosophical and Biblical theology can be easily fooled.
Martyn Snow, like the Church Army, like vast numbers of others, has this obvious certainty, complete confidence that he knows what God is doing, where God is active. Naturally, the Church Army and Church Army apologists and supporters, believe intensely that God is working to guide and support and endorse Church Activties, including the misbegotten activities of the Research Unit.
They implicitly believe in a form of favouritism. The evidence that God has been working to fulfil his purposes in the war in the Ukraine is surely non-existent. The evidence that God was working to fulfil his purposes in the gruelling and hideous struggles of the Second World War or in the Thirty Years War of 17th Century Central Europe is non-existent.
John Whitfield, Church Army Trustee, is an advocate for Messy Church, which I'd call 'Churches in a Mess.' Church Army is a Church Organization in a Mess. He belongs to the Hope Valley Messy Church. The Hope Valley, which I know very well, isn't enhanced by the ramshackle outfit but doesn't need it. This is part of an infantile PRAYER produced by the outfit, from the page
God, thank You for being the perfect definition of love. [A hideous, twisted version of love: love which consigns most of humanity to hell, the allegedly perfect being who created a world with such phenomena as earthquakes, plagues, deadly parasites - but the list is practically endless, of course] I am so grateful that You demonstrate what love looks like. Today, please show me how I can protect, trust, hope, and persevere. [The ability to protect is often impossible, generally very, very difficult and often depends upon specialized knowledge or skills or abilities which the believer can never acquire, certainly not 'today.' At least the phrasing, though stupid, isn't as stupid as it would be if it had been, ' ... please show me how I can protect, trust, hope, and persevere NOW.']
The slogan of 'Messy Church' is 'Church, but not as you know it.' In fact, the doctrines and beliefs it promotes are standard stuff, standard and stupid stuff, standard and stupid and stupifying stuff.
From the 'Financial Statements and Trustee Report – Year ended 31 December 2022'
of the Charity Commission:
Activities During 2022, as in 2021, there have been no activities – the
charity has been dormant. Although some Messy Church activities have started
in Hathersage, the Trust received no applications for grants. Discussions
are underway to start a new initiative centred in Hope, which would apply
for and be eligible for a grant.
Income Grants Received Other Donations Total Income nil
Expenditure on Charitable Activities Project Work - Fees and Expenses Gift to Project Worker from donor Total Expenditure nil
(Shortfall) / Excess of Income over Expenditure nil
Hope Valley Messy Church Trust Financial Statements and Trustee Report – Fifteen months ended 31 March 2024
Structure, Governance and Objectives Hope Valley Messy Church Trust (The “Trust”) was set up on 29th November 2016 as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation to oversee the use of funds provided by the Methodist and Anglican bodies to help establish Messy Churches in the Hope Valley, working with local church volunteers. Oversight of the activities has been provided by an Operating Group; the Trustees ensure the proper use of the funds. The Trustees and the Operating Group were nominated by the supporting Anglican and Methodist groups. Close management was provided by local clergy and advised by the trustees and others involved in church activities in the Hope Valley.
Activities During 2023, as in 2022, there were been no activities – the charity was dormant. In early 2025 the Trust paid a grant of £500 to help support Hathersage Messy Church. The monies have been held as a restricted fund by St Edmunds Church, Castleton. That church now receives interest on its deposits, and allocated £110 of that interest to the Trust Winding up the Trust Apart from the grant to Hathersage Messy Church. the Trust has been dormant for some years.
Income and Expenditure Account (accounted for on a cash basis) 15 months ending 31st Mar 2024 Year ending 31st Dec 2022
Income Interest received 110 - Total Income 110 nil
Expenditure on Charitable Activities Grant to Hathersage Messy Church 500 - Total Expenditure 500 nil (Shortfall) / Excess of Income over Expenditure (390) nil
In the column to the right, there's material produced as a Messy Church activity - hideous material.
Bishop of Leicester: Rt Revd Martyn Snow
Bishop of Loughborough: Rt Revd Saju Muthalaly
Bishop's Chaplain: Revd James Pickersgill
Archdeacon of Leicester: Ven Richard Worsfold
Richard Worsfold: Standard stuff on his appointment
as Archdeacon, just words on the page: 'He is a
passionate supporter of the Diocese of Leicester’s
strategy Shaped by God and said “I am excited to serve
in a Diocese with a strategic focus of growing
increasing numbers of committed followers of Jesus
balanced with our loving service for the community and
world around us.' And this, from the man himself:
'We are a Diocese in which there is much change that is
happening.'
Archdeacon of Loughborough: Ven Claire Wood
Archdeacon's Coordinator for Parih Engagement: Phil Leech
Director of Education: Carolyn Lewis
Advisor for Pastoral Assistants: Revd Kim Ford
Bishop's Advisor on Deliverance Ministry: Rt Revd Peter
John Fox
Environmental Offficer: Revd Andrew Quigley
Spiritual Direction: Revd Liz Rawlings
Dean of Leicester: Revd Canon Karen Rooms
Canon Pastor: Revd Canon Alison Adams
Canon Precentor: Revd Canon Emma Davies
Marketing and Branding Officer: Andrew Radford
Above, the Bishop of Leicester, Martyn Snow
Above, the logo of Messy Church
This is from the column to the left, quoting the Bishop of Leicester, Martyn Snow.
'I believe that the fresh expressions movement is one of the most significant developments the Church has experienced over the past few decades.' Below, more on the Bishop of Leicester, with comments on my use of this photograph of the Bishop.
In all the columns of the page, I provide information about and comment on 'Messy Church,' one of the many 'Fresh Expressions.' I give reasons for my view that 'Fresh Expressions' convey Stale Doctrines in a way that isn't fresh at all. Countless Churches and church organizations, including the Church Army, try to give an impression of complete confidence, of constant progress, ever onwards, ever upwards - although there are increasing signs of alarm, faced with diminishing returns, diminishing congregations, diminishing members, increasing criticism of their actions.
Messy Churches, like other so-called 'Fresh Expressions of Church,' like the churches in established church buildings, often fail, go under. One example is the Hope Valley Messy Church in North Derbyshire. The Treasurer was, and perhaps still is, John Whitfield, who is also Treasurer of the Church Army. Another example, I'd claim, is the failed Attercliffe and Darnall Centre of Mission in Sheffield. Its dire state is outlined on the page Church Army 2.
Below, an example of a Messy Church activity, a piece with the title 'Authorized Mess - PHILEMON' which is disgusting.
A shorter example, which introduces the issues, from the page
https://messyworship.com/would-you-rather/
'The book of Philemon is only one chapter (25 verses) long. It’s a short, personal letter from Paul to his friend Philemon on the subject of forgiveness. Paul pleads with Philemon to forgive their mutual acquaintance [Onesimus] and treat him with brotherly love instead of serving up retribution ... Paul also offers to take care of any of the outstanding hurt that Onesimus may have caused.'
Philemon is the slave owner. Onesimus is his slave. Onesimus the slave has run away. Runaway slaves - slaves who tried to obtain their freedom, abused slaves and others - could be flogged, treated barbarically and executed when caught. There were next to no safeguards for slaves in the Roman Empire. And Philemon is the one expected to forgive! It should be Onesimus the slave owner who should have asked for forgiveness! What hurt caused by Onesimus could possibly have been compared with the hurt caused by Philemon?
All this is disastrously misguided.
More on this subject from 'Authorized Mess - PHILEMON.'
https://www.messychurch.brf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/11/
Authorisedmess_philemon.pdf
The Church: Princetown Church, Dartmoor, Devon. From the 'Theme of the Session:' 'A fair affair? There is no discrimination in the Christian Church - all are children of God.
An extract from the piece:
Authorised Mess — PHILEMON
[Toxic: 'very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way']
Celebration suggestion
Song: 'If I were a butterfly' (I just thank you, Father, for making me 'me').
Story: A retelling of the letter from Philemon's point of view—this does not need to be learned by heart but practise several times so you can deliver it rather than read it out. Philemon is holding papers (the script) as if he's just received Paul's letter; vaguely Biblical costume can be worn.
Oh… hello. I'm Philemon, how do you do? I wonder… have you ever lost something that cost you a lot of money? And then you've found it suddenly when you weren't really looking for it? Or had it returned to you unexpectedly by someone else? If you have, I guess you were really pleased! No! Delighted, ecstatic, 'dead chuffed', 'over the moon'—and all those other words we use to mean really, really happy.
[Soon revealed, the nature of the loss - but most people will know it already - not a hat or a stick or a coat but the slave Onesimus. Given the facts about slavery in Roman times, the jokey tone is unbelievable, in anyone with any sensitivity.]
Well, something a bit like that has just happened to me. I 'lost' something that cost me a lot but wasn't actually much use to me and now I hear I'm going to get it back and I'm not sure that I'm all that happy about it. I'd better explain. I shouldn't really have said I'd lost 'something' and I am getting 'it' back, because 'it' is a person and he didn't get lost… he 'lost' himself. Well, ran away from me to be honest. Stole some of my money and, of course, slaves are expensive items you know. Don't look at me like that—everyone of my wealth and status owns slaves. Not that my money was well spent because he was a useless slave. Bit of a joke he was called Onesimus—it means 'useful' you see. But that was the last thing he was. He didn't listen to instructions, couldn't be left to do anything on his own or he'd mess it up, he took ages to do anything and basically couldn't be bothered and or trusted.
When he eventually ran away I was very annoyed but, if I'm honest, I didn't try too hard to find him or get him back. I didn't employ a professional slave catcher to find him but I did put up some public posters with a description of my escaped slave and offered a reward… but only a small one. No, I just wrote him off to experience and decided that I'd be a lot more careful next time I bought a slave—'Only one satisfied pre-owner' indeed!
And now I've just had a letter from my my friend Paul. That's usually a good thing of course. I owe a lot, well, everything, to Paul as it was because of him that I came to know and love Jesus and became a Christian in the first place… and he's been so helpful to me since. Sadly, he's in jail just now—always in some sort of bother is Paul, but if I know him he'll not only make the best of it but keep praising God and trusting him to turn it all to his advantage. But now Paul's put me in a bit of a spot because Onesimus has turned out to be there in jail with him (how, he doesn't explain). And he has also become a Christian and is apparently very useful to him. But Paul being Paul, he wants to do the right thing and is sending my property back to me. Reading between the lines I think he'd much rather keep old 'Useful-at-last' there with him. It's all so much to take in. Can Onesimus really have become a Christian, and his attitude and usefulness changed so completely? Has Paul been taken in?
I can't believe that… so… it must be true. But that's not all. Paul is sending him back but doesn't want me to treat him as a runaway slave should be treated—severely punished and branded on the forehead with the letter F, for fugitive ...
Somewhere else in the Bible, Paul says that when we become a friend of Jesus—a Christian—we are a new person! 'Anyone who belongs to Christ is a new person. The past is forgotten, and everything is new' (2 Corinthians 5:17, CEV). What an amazing thing! Paul knew Onesimus had changed and become a new person because Jesus was now at the centre of his life. He wasn't a thieving runaway slave any more—he was part of the same Christian family that Paul and Philemon belonged to. He was their 'brother in Christ'. We can all be brothers or sisters of Jesus—part of his family—when we put our trust in him.
In the Roman Empire, abuse of slaves - slave children, slave adults, sexual
abuse and other kinds of abuse - and torture of slaves were freely
permitted. Jesus will have known about this abuse and torture and will have
witnessed it. 'St' Paul will have known about and witnessed many more
instances in his travels in the Roman Empire. What did Jesus and St Paul
have to say about all this? Nothing.
In Church of England and Roman Catholic Church at the present time and before the present time, cases of horrific abuse have been documented and publicized.
In the Church of England, 'John Smyth' is a familiar and notorious name, but the extent of the shameful problem is far from being common knowledge.
The idea that slavery in Roman times was acceptable because Christian owners could be relied upon to treat their slaves well, whether the slaves were Christian or non-Christian, is a pious, grotesque evasion. Buying a slave, man, woman or child at a slave market was to support a degrading institution. Slave families could be broken up. There was no legal obstacle to removing a slave baby or child from its family and taking it to the slave market to sell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183
In modern, liberal democracies, horrific acts of abuse have been committed by clergy and church members. In the Roman Empire, we can be sure that the situation would have been incomparably worse. At that time, a slave owner who treated his or her slaves as John Smyth treated his victims would have been given free rein to do more or less what he wanted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183
Some 216,000 children - mostly boys - have been sexually abused by clergy in the French Catholic Church since 1950, a damning new inquiry has found.
The head of the inquiry said there were at least 2,900-3,200 abusers, and accused the Church of showing a "cruel indifference towards the victims"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c207ypx22ego
There were almost 2,400 allegations of sexual abuse in more than 300 schools run by religious orders in Ireland, according to a report commissioned by the Irish government.
The Education Minister Norma Foley said it was the first time the scale of abuse had been disclosed, and it was “truly shocking".
At a news conference, Ms Foley said the report found there were 884 alleged abusers in 42 orders which formerly ran schools or still do.
A fundamental criticism of Messy Churches and other 'New Expressions of Church also applies to church buildings, including church buildings which have beauty, architectural distinction.
A church building, beautiful or ugly, with some architectural distinction or none at all, is simply the setting. The activities inside the building, the claims made, the doctrines preached, the prayers offered, are a separate matters.
Churches and cathedrals have been the setting for prayers for the destruction of the Jews, the persecution of heretics, for whipping up frenzy before torture and execution of Jews, for torture and execution of heretics.
Pre-Reformation Churches and cathedrals were the setting for the teaching of doctrines not accepted by many, many Protestants, reviled by Protestants - the infallibility of the Pope, Purgatory, Prayer to Saints, the Real Presence - the doctrine that the bread and wine are transformed during Mass into the actual body and blood of Jesus, doctrines concerning divorce and many other matters.
It would be simple to arrange Messy Church events for Roman Catholics, events intended to bring people to the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines, although the sacraments of the Catholic church would not feature, unless a priest were present.
Messy Church events which make the participants feel better, feel more important don't guarantee in the least that the doctrines presented are ones free of stupidity and worse, much worse. Messy Church events can hide the realities of slavery in the churches, can give sentimental presentations, ones which distort, ones based on illusion and ignorance.
The pseudo-sophisticated research methods of the Church Army Research Unit don't in the least guarantee that the activities studied are free of sentimentality, active evasion and distortion, based on ignorance.
Generally, in fact almost always, the Research Unit bases its work on consulting Christians and people favourably disposed to Christianity and the findings follow. There may be disappointments, but far more common is confidence and exultation which haven't been earned in the least. The world outside these centres of illusion is a much harder, rougher world. The Church Army refuses to listen to, to pay attention to, people from very different worlds.
The complete confidence that God is guiding the Church Army, in every way, is never subjected to scrutiny, goes unquestioned. If Kinder Kalsi, Church Army evangelist, felt that God was guiding him when he fastened cardboard angels to trees in order to bring new people to Jesus, then nobody at the Church Army would be likely to disagree. Nobody would realize that woodlands have owners and that before doing this, he should have asked permission from the owners, which very likely would have been refused.
Legal constraints do matter to the Church Army and the Churches in general - if their interests are affected. Then, they may become legalistic and very, very concerned.
The Leicester Diocese is the subject of a Church Army publication
entitled
GOD AT WORK LEARNING ABOUT FRESH EXPRESSIONS OF CHURCH AND OTHER PIONEERING MISSIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DIOCESE OF LEICESTER
Of course, the Church of England likes to use - misuse - the word 'pioneering.' Stale activities, activities which have been used many, many times, activities which the Church certainly didn't devise for the first time, are described as 'pioneering.' The words flow so easily. This is language as reflex action, summoned up by a stimulus. Unlike the stimulus-reflex actions of the body, these routine acts do require some conscious thought, but hardly any. They are empty products of empty minds, or minds hardly brimming with fresh ideas.
These 'Fresh Expressions of Mission' include such 'pioneering' ideas as 'Messy Church' and 'Garden Churches.' They will do nothing to solve the problems of the Church, will do nothing to arrest its long-term decline, which is overwhelmingly likely to show in the short term - churches shutting up shop, vicars forced to shut up, no longer delivering vacuous sermons.
The Leicester Diocese produced this gem
It contains this:
The God At Work report shares learning about fresh expressions of Church (fxC) and similar initiatives within the Diocese of Leicester, which has been at the forefront of creative new approaches by the Church of England to serve local communities ...
It marks the end of a five-year project to develop its work in this area thanks to a £809,000 Strategic Development Fund award from the national Church of England in June 2014 which built on work to further develop pioneering in the diocese which started in 2011.
The report contains a distillation of results from more than eight years of work by the Diocese of Leicester and specially-commissioned research undertaken this year in partnership with Church Army’s Research Unit (CARU), as well as from significant areas of wider diocesan learning about pioneering.
£809,000! The Church still has masses and masses of money. See my page Church Donations for reasons why supporting the Church of England - or any other Church - is badly mistaken.
The piece is full of overblown language, claims to significance, claims to usefulness, such as the claim to 'serve local communities.' The Church of England is a self-serving organization, which in the majority of cases puts its own interests first. Maintaining and increasing the flow of gifts, the flow of money has priority. What can the Church offer local communities? The most important by far of the claimed benefits are benefits to do with eternal life in the company of Jesus, the other two components of the Trinity and the company of the 'New Creations,' people who have also accepted Jesus as Saviour, who include large numbers of Church of England bureaucrats and other functionaries, Professors of New Testament Studies, staff of the theological colleges, parishioners of the incorrigibly lacklustre kind - but not a high proportion of the people who do the work of the world, the people who take away the contents of refuse bins and other bins, who repair cars, or ordinary loving mothers and fathers. Not so much of ordinary and extraordinary humanity.