https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/4-october/features/features/if-you-kneel-down-in-the-woods-today

I realize that only certain matters can be referred to Peter Rouch, your Chief Executive Officer, but I think that the matter I raise is of sufficient importance to justify the use of his time. I think it also justifies a decision on his part. It may be that the matter has already come to his attention.

My Website www.linkagenet.com has a very comprehensive page
www.linkagenet.com/themes/christian-religion.htm
The newest material on the page (in the column on the far right of the page) is material concerned with the Church Army and specifically the recent action of Tim Ling: the blocking of emails from me to any members of the Research Department. I argue that the action can't possibly be justified and that it may well be damaging to the reputation of Tim Ling and even the reputation of the Church Army. I think that the Chief Executive Officer should make a ruling. Is the ban to stay or be lifted? If it's lifted, I've no reason to contact the Church Army and I don't intend to contact the Church Army but I have the assurance that the channels of communication have been opened - to close them in this case amounted to a major blunder.
Best Wishes,
Paul Hurt


A SIGNIFICANT moment in the formation of Forest Church was the conference "Reaching Out in Mind, Body and Spirit", run by the Church Army's researcher in evangelism to post-Christian culture, the Revd Steve Hollinghurst.

https://churcharmy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/the-day-of-small-things.pdf


The Day of Small Things: An analysis of fresh expressions of Church in 21 dioceses of the Church of England

George Lings  Nov. 2016

As a Church we find ourselves once more at the edge rather than the centre of society, at its margins rather than in power or control.

https://www.westyorkshiredales.anglican.org/sites/default/files/files/Forest%20Church%20Paper%20-%20Draft%207%20Booklet%20versione.pdf

Karin Shaw Fresh Expressions Adviser

https://www.churchofengland.org/about/fresh-expressions/could-now-be-moment-forest-churches-grow

As a Church we find ourselves once more at the edge rather than the centre of society, at its margins rather than in power or control.

Corus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otVFDo9YSM

 

In this section, I give answers to some possible questions concerning my work opposing the use of allotments by the Forest Church. I was successful in that the venue was changed. The event took place at the Scout Field of a Sheffield Church. I regard the material below concerning the blocking of my emails to the Church Army by order of Tim Ling as very important. I make every effort to avoid exaggeration and hyperbole but his action amounts, not to suppression of free expression as such but completely unwarranted interference with the channels of free expression.

Do the concerns I raise have relevance to the Church Army?

Amongst the documents I've consulted is 'The Day of Small Things: An analysis of fresh expressions of Church [fxC] in 21 dioceses of the Church of England' published by the Church Army in November 2016. The author is George Lings.

https://churcharmy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/the-day-of-small-things.pdf

I can find no mention of Forest Churches in the text but since the publication of the document, forest churches have become more prominent. It can be taken that forest churches amount to one of those 'fresh expressions.' Your view would seem to be that people who are not Christians and not members of the Church of England shouldn't make critical comment on these or other 'internal' matters. I don't share this view at all.

The Environmental Engagement Officer in the Gloucester Diocese, Cate Williams, has written a document with the title, 'Could now be the moment for 'Forest' churches to grow?' (18/03/2021)

https://www.churchofengland.org/about/fresh-expressions/could-now-be-moment-forest-churches-grow

Forest Churches, like other 'fresh approaches' to evangelism, are not just a matter for the Church of England. Non-believers may be affected by them. In the new section, I'll be including a discussion of blatant evangelism by members of a garden church at an allotment site. Allotments are not the place for proselytizing - a statement which will need to be clarified and expanded in the new section, like everthing else here which I state.

What has been the tone of my email messages to Tim Ling and Lu Skerratt-Love?

There is very little robust language in any of the emails I've sent on the matter, to any recipient. There's strong language to be found, but only in connection with the 'hideous, hazardous heap of discarded garbage' to be found at the projected site of the Forest Church. This is an extract from an email I sent to Lu Skerratt-Love but not received by her:

'If you take issue with some things, find some things unfair to you, or have other reasons for feeling aggrieved, do contact me by email and it may be possible to make changes or remove material if I think that your arguments are valid - but I think it's very unlikely you will contact me. Most likely, you'll assume that I'm simply wrong about Christian belief and wrong about environmental action. (In fact, in my own practice I'm an 'environmental purist').'

In my first email to Tim Ling and Lu Skerratt-Love and a very small number of other recipients - at St Marks Church Broomhill and St Johns Church Ranmoor I simply presented argument supported by evidence, in a matter of fact tone, explaining my view that to hold a Forest Church event in the venue planned would be problematic and in some ways very risky, with legal and security issues.

This is the whole of the text of the second email sent to the same recipients, with the image of some of the heap of discarded rubbishe omitted:

'I've now added a new section to my page www.linkagenet.com/themes/christian-religion.htm  You'll find that it includes material concerned with the Church Army. This is one of the 'graphic images' which introduce the section, explained and discussed in the text, of course:

[Image omitted]

'The new section will be revised and extended. I'll mention a different matter: I had to transfer the contents of a hard disk from a faulty computer to a new computer.  I used a specialist transfer program but many pages of the site were left with formatting errors, including this page.  It will take time to resolve the problem but in the meantime, formatting flaws don't affect the readability of the page.'

Was Tim Ling justified in blocking my emails not just to Lu Skerratt-Love but to himself and all members of the 'research staff?'

I'm unsure if Tim Ling proposes a lifetime ban on communications from me to Church Army staff. A look at the Home page of my site will show that I have many, many interests, that I write about many, many topics and am involved in many, many forms of practical work. I had not the least intention of communicating often or at all with Church Army staff or members, once I had brought my small campaign to do with the Forest Church to a successful conclusion.

It's essential that free expression of opinion should be allowed and not censored, except where it can be shown that the disadvantages of allowing the opinion to be published or otherwise expressed far outweigh any advantages, as in the case of extremist Neo-Nazi calls to commit violent crime.

Tim Ling may disapprove of  what I write and other recipients of emails disapprove of what I write but their disapproval has absolutely no force. I exercise due care in what I write, without the need for policing and monitoring. I have been courteous but I see no reason to follow a form of prim etiquette.

As for etiquette, Lu Skerratt-Love or the members of the Forest Church in Sheffield who took the decision to change the venue from the Morley Street allotments to the Scout Field of St Timothy's didn't have the courtesy to inform me of the change. The issues I raised, the evidence I gave, must have had an effect, since the Forest Church event didn't go ahead in the place where it was intended to take place. I certainly would never have expected thanks for informing them about such matters as allotment law and the risks of holding the event in the allotments, but a message about the change of venue would have been appreciated.

Lu Skerratt-Love is a supporter of Extinction Rebellion or at least a sympathizer with Extinction Rebellion, which deliberately breaks the law, of course. That may not have anything to do with her work with Church Army but it's relevant to my work. Tim Long and other armchair critics forget that I'm not seeing things from the point of view of a member of the Church of England or a member of Church Army but from a very different point of view.

Tim Long's decision to impose blocking of my emails isn't a trivial matter. I'm not a sender of spam, I'm not an ignorant user of slogans, I have a well established Website with very high Google rankings for a wide range of search terms.

I tried to find an email address for Lu Skerratt-Love and the only one I could find was her Church Army email address. Throughout, I've felt strongly that it was and is very mistaken of her not to have a second email address at which she can be contacted. If you put the search term "Lu Skerratt-Love" email contact into Google, the only address to be found is the Church Army email address. Interestingly, the page of my Website, 'The Church of England: religion, remembrance, redemption' also appears on the same page of Google results.

Throughout this period of writing on the Forest Church, I've found that the channels of communication have been blocked or difficult. Many Christian groups use Facebook or Twitter. I won't join either, so I'm not able to send messages by using these social media platforms. Both have great disadvantages. The Wikipedia page on Facebook criticisms, gives a very comprehensive account of objections.

I'll be including a section later on Church Army research, with examples of publications, as part of revising and extending this section. To me, there's an obvious omission in the work of the Church Army. From what I can see, there is no attempt to address objections to Christian belief. The Church Army policy is to assume that Christian belief is what the Church Army claims it is, evading discussion of most difficulties.

I'm glad that the Church Army is willing to modify some established doctrines of orthodox Christian belief, such as prohibition of homosexuality, but I point out the fact on this page that this would seem in conflict with various Biblical texts.

I give an extended discussion in the second main column of text and images of this page, the one with the heading 'For God so loved the world ... ' it includes comments on John 3:16 and comments on the doctrines supported by 'Church Society:' the Conservative Evangelical group in the Church of England, which claims that

' ...  all people are under the judgement of God and his righteous anger burns against them.  Unless a person is reconciled to God they are under His condemnation and His just judgement against them is that they will be separated from Him forever in Hell. (Romans 1 v18, 2 v16, Revelation 20 v15)

 'Jesus will come back and the world will end, there will then be a final judgement where those who have not accepted Jesus will be cast into hell with Satan and his angels. Christians will receive new bodies and live in eternal bliss in the presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. (Hebrews 9 v27, Revelation 20 v11, 1 Corinthians 15 v51)

'The biblical way of salvation has often been attacked over the centuries, however it is stated clearly in the 39 Articles of the Church of England.'

I need to know what doctrines of salvation are held by members of the Church Army. This is a more cohesive group than the Church of England as a whole, which contains many different views on salvation.

I need to know if members of the Church Army believe, in accordance with John 3:16 that not all will have eternal life, or eternal life with God rather than in separation from God. I need to know if obtaining eternal life depends upon faith only and not works, according to the Church Army.  If so, members of the Church Army believe that of those who have died of coronavirus, not all will have the privileges of eternal life. Some - or many - or most will have an eternity of separation from God. Similarly for those who died whilst fighting against Nazi Germany. The discussion in some other sections of the page is much more detailed than here, with many more examples.

Whilst the research department of the Church Army labours on a wide range of issues, such matters as these, so important for the reputation of the Church of England, the reputation of the Church Army, are neglected.

I hope to find out more about Church Army doctrines in this area - soteriology - from whatever sources I find. Or perhaps Tim Ling would give me the benefit of his knowledge? He can rest assured that I will never block any emails from him, or anyone else for that matter.

These are important matters, matters which deserve to be publicized. I can only do so much to publicize them myself, of course. I think that many people in the Church of England, as well as other Churches, overlook some problems and difficulties in Christian belief. That's one of the reasons why I've spread my net quite widely. Only St Mark's Church Broomhill, St John's Church Ranmoor and St Timothy's Church Crookes have received emails from me, and I've contacted St Timothy's to assure them that the Church won't be mentioned in my page on Christianity (or anywhere else on the site.) I've already published a little on the other Churches, St Marks and St Johns, amounting to not much more than a mention, but will eventually be including more.

One more thing - the name 'Church Army' is obviously very well established and won't be changed, but to me, the inclusion of 'army' in the name is unjustifiable. The activities of the Church Army have nothing in common with the the experiences of soldiers in the Battle of the Somme or Passchendaele or campaigns in Afghanistan. The soldiers of the armed forces who face conditions of acute danger, acute hardships, are completely unlike the staff and members of the Church Army. Staff and members of the Church Army may face very great difficulties and great dangers in their ordinary life but if the recipients of my emails think my emails as a huge challenge, a massive difficulty, then I would say it is only because they find the arguments I present, with the accompanying evidence, very difficult to address.