|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, 29 Edengrove Park, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AZ, Northern Ireland Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net Quick Links - Home - Assorted Articles - Audio/Video - Ministry Newsletters - Words of Wisdom |
Suspended
Anglican Bishop, Peter Broadbent,
‘had
a pop’ at ‘Take Heed’ in 2009
The recent announcement
of the engagement of Prince William to Kate Middleton brought great joy to most
people in the United Kingdom and consequently they in turn are looking forward
with eager anticipation to the Royal Wedding planned for Friday 29th
April 2011 – a day that has been officially designated as a national holiday.
Although the
announcement was overwhelmingly welcomed by the majority of citizens there were
not unexpectedly a few dissenting and critical voices from the usual
anti-monarchy sources.
However, one particular
criticism was most unexpected and it really struck a sour note as was reported
in The Church Times of 26 November 2010 on http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=104605 – part of that report stated –
On Thursday of last week, the day after the royal engagement was
announced, Bishop Broadbent wrote on Twitter, the social-networking site: “Need to work out what date in the spring or summer
I should be looking for my republican day trip to France.” The Twitter
message was automatically posted on to his page on Facebook. In another comment
on Facebook, the Bishop wrote that he had “managed
to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain
Doll” (an apparent reference to the Prince
and Princess of Wales). In other
postings, he said: “I give the marriage
seven years,” and: “But their marriage is their business. I don’t know
them, and have no part in celebrating it. I just wish we weren’t paying for
it.”
Some of Bishop Broadbent’s comments were reported in newspapers such as
the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. In a Facebook response to
this on Saturday, the Bishop wrote: “Pathetic
gutter press now trying to make this [comment] thread into a story. But watch
their hypocrisy when they go for the Royals later on.” Later that day, he also noted, with reference to
the “gutter press”: “You can bet your boots
they won’t quote anything I’ve said about their responsibility for persecuting
the Royals.”
Needless
to say these comments came as a great shock and offence to many, especially as
they were coming from ‘a man of the cloth’. His own Anglican superiors were
less than impressed also and the result was, as The Church Times reported –
THE Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Richard Chartres, this week
asked the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, “to withdraw from
public ministry until further notice”.
The same
report then also stated –
On Monday, Bishop Broadbent issued a statement apologising
“unreservedly”. He said that he had “conveyed to Prince Charles and to Prince
William and Kate Middleton my sincere regrets for the distress caused by my
remarks”. He wrote that he recognised “that the tone of my language and the
content of what I said were deeply offensive. . . “It was unwise of me to
engage in a debate with others on a semi-public internet forum and to express
myself in such language. I accept that this was a major error of judgement on
my part. I wish Prince William and Kate Middleton a happy and lifelong
marriage, and will hold them in my prayers.
Mr Broadbent would
appear to be a man of almost schizophrenic mood-swings based upon his initial
comments and his then speedy reversal of thinking in his apology. Was this just
a one-off aberration – well I’ll let you the reader judge that as I draw
attention to something I wrote in an article back in 2009.
The article was
entitled ‘Synagogues of Satan’ that
is located on http://www.takeheed.net/Assorted_Articles/Emerging_Church/Synagogues_of_Satan.htm
and in it I examined the questionable theological
pedigree of various speakers taking part in ‘Christian’ festivals such as ‘Green Belt 2008’, Spring Harvest 2009’ and
‘Summer Madness 2009’.
The
section relevant to Bishop Peter Broadbent related to my comments on ‘Spring Harvest’ 2009 and so what I
plan to do now is to reproduce that section of my article – it read as follows–
Whilst 3 different
‘Christian’ festivals are listed in the title to this article, the article itself
will for the most part concentrate on the upcoming Spring Harvest 2009 festival
scheduled for 4th – 19th April 2009. I will be focussing
on the ramifications of their willingness to include a certain individual
amongst their invited speakers and this ‘invited speaker’ is actually the
common thread linking in the other 2 ‘Christian’ festivals, Green Belt 2008 and
Summer Madness 2009 to this article.
Before proceeding any
further I want to give some insight into the main heading for this article – ‘Synagogues
of Satan’? The Lord Himself used this expression when He wrote to the
Church in Smyrna. He was referring to a group of people in that area who
clearly claimed to be God’s people but He said of them that they were “the
synagogue of Satan” [Revelation 2:9]. They were a group that rejected both
the Divine Person and the Redeeming Work of Jesus Christ.
Matthew Henry
comments on this expression –
‘As
Christ has a church in the world, the spiritual Israel of God, so the devil has
his synagogue. Those assemblies which are set up in opposition to the truths of
the gospel, and which promote and propagate damnable errors -- those which are
set up in opposition to the purity and spirituality of gospel worship, and
which promote and propagate the vain inventions of men and rites and ceremonies
which never entered into the thoughts of God -- these are all synagogues of
Satan: he presides over them, he works in them, his interests are served by
them, and he receives a horrid homage and honour from them. For the synagogues
of Satan to give themselves out to be the church or Israel of God is no less
than blasphemy. God is greatly dishonoured when his name is made use of to
promote and patronize the interests of Satan; and he has a high resentment of
this blasphemy, and will take a just revenge on those who persist in it.’
The Westminster
Confession of Faith also has occasion to use this expression. In Chapter
XXV paragraph V that deals with ‘The Church’ we read this –
‘The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ but synagogues of Satan’.
The warning is that any
group, that either openly opposes the Divine Person and the Redeeming Work of
Jesus Christ, or supposedly pays lip service on the one hand to the Divine
Person and the Redeeming Work of Jesus Christ but by doctrine and proclamation
on the other hand then proceeds to deny or to welcome as believers those who
deny some aspect of the Divine Person and the Redeeming Work of Jesus Christ,
then these are to classed as ‘synagogues of Satan’.
Bearing that background
to this expression in mind let me proceed now to how it can possibly apply
firstly to Spring Harvest 2009. To do that I need to go back to the
run-up to Easter in 2007 when a service was broadcast on Wednesday 4th
April on BBC Radio 4 that was conducted by the [gay] Anglican minister Jeffrey
John. During that service Mr John said the following –
‘St Paul explains, crucifixion was the method of execution which, according to the Law, was the special sign of God's ultimate punishment, his absolute curse: "Cursed be he that hangs upon a tree". On the cross, says Paul, Jesus took the place of all those who were supposed to be punished according to the Law. "God made him into sin who knew no sin". "He became a curse for us". But hang on – you may well say - what exactly does that mean – ‘Jesus took our place’ ? Does it mean, then, that we are back with a punishing God after all, and that the Cross is somehow to be understood as God’s ultimate punishment for sin? That’s certainly what I was told in my Calvinistic childhood. The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him. Well, I don’t know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster. Well, I haven’t changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn’t work, though sadly it’s one that’s still all too often preached. It just doesn’t make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven. Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate. As he said, ‘Whoever sees me has seen the Father’. Jesus is what God is: he is the one who shows us God’s nature. And the most basic truth about God’s nature is that He is Love, not wrath and punishment… The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us’
In the wake of that broadcast a Press Release was
published by Spring Harvest and part of that Press Release said the
following –
‘Speaking
at this year's Spring Harvest Word Alive, Bishops Pete Broadbent and Wallace
Benn were united in their dismay over the recent statement by Jeffrey John
that… that the cross is not about anger or wrath or sin or atonement, but only
about God's unconditional love. There is, he says, nothing to understand in the
cross which is anything to do with sacrifice or Jesus dying for our sins – and
we say No. You've got it wrong.' The Very Reverend Jeffrey John, Dean of St
Albans, was speaking on a Radio 4 Lent Talk broadcast this week on Wednesday,
in which he attacked the Church's teaching that Christ died to make atonement
for the sins of the world and said that being forgiven because of belief in
this is 'repulsive as well as nonsensical.’
The Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, Bishop of
Willesden and Team Leader of the Spring Harvest Leadership Team, stated in
response; 'You cannot read the Old Testament and New Testament .. and blank out
an entirety of language and concept and understanding that means that we are guilty
sinners, we need our sins to be paid for and we need Jesus Christ to die for
us. That is what the Creeds say, it is what the Bible says and you cannot
rewrite them. You cannot understand Jesus Christ without understanding Old
Testament atonement material.' The Rt Revd Wallace Benn added that 'the truth
that Jesus died as our sin-bearing substitute carrying the punishment for our
sins on the cross is the glorious heart of the Gospel. It displays the love of
God: Father, Son and Spirit, for us. To deny or vilify that is a tragic denial
of the power and heart of the Gospel. I hope Jeffrey John will speedily
reconsider and repent of his attack on apostolic Christianity.'
That was certainly a
very robust defence of ‘Penal Substitution’ or ‘Substitutionary Atonement’
– the names by which this biblical truth is known. However in another Press Release published by
Spring Harvest just a few days later on 8th April 2007 they
reported as follows –
‘Two
and a half thousand people gathered on Minehead beach at 7am Easter Sunday
morning for a Sonrise/Sunrise service to celebrate the Resurrection. Led by the
Reverend Steve Chalke, MBE, the crowd sang, prayed and listened as the sun
rose. Steve Chalke founded the Oasis Trust, which works across the globe in
education, healthcare and housing; Parentalk (an organisations that equips and
inspires parents), and the Faithworks movement which is dedicated to helping
individual Christians and local churches get involved in their local
communities. He has presented his own television series for both ITV and BBC,
has written over thirty books, and received the MBE in the 2004 New Year's
Honours list for his services to social inclusion’.
Well, anyone who is
familiar with Steve Chalke’s views of ‘Penal Substitution’ or
‘Substitutionary Atonement’’ [He refers to such a belief
as being the equivalent of ‘cosmic child abuse’ – you can read my
challenge to these views in articles located on these links –
http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/DECEMBER2004.htm
http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/MARCH2005.htm
http://www.takeheed.net/News_From_The_Front/JUNE2006.htm]
will perhaps understand
why in my opinion Spring Harvest were sending out confusing signals on
this issue of ‘Penal Substitution’ or ‘Substitutionary Atonement’.
In the first Press
Release they were arguing very much against the views of Jeffrey John, saying
at one point - 'the truth that Jesus died
as our sin-bearing substitute carrying the punishment for our sins on the cross
is the glorious heart of the Gospel’ but then in the second
Press Release they are enthusing over the Easter Sunday service conducted by
Steve Chalke who holds basically the same ‘Penal Substitution’ or ‘Substitutionary
Atonement’ denying views as Jeffrey John. In the light of these Press
Releases I sent the following email to Spring Harvest on 1st
March 2009 [the date on which I came across them] –
Dear Spring Harvest,
I was
looking on your website at 2 press releases dated 4 April 2007 and 8 April
2007. In the first one there is a defence of 'Substitutionary Atonement' by 2 Bishops
and this defence was to counter the views to the contrary of Jeffrey John and
it was made, according to the press release, at 'this year's
Spring Harvest Word Alive'.
In the second
press release there are details of a sunrise service conducted by Steve Chalke
- Steve Chalke would hold views similar to Jeffrey John namely he
also rejects 'Substitutionary
Atonement'.
In the light of
these rather confusing press releases could you please let me know the official
Spring Harvest position on 'Substitutionary
Atonement' - do you accept it [as the 2 Bishops do] or do
you reject it [as Steve Chalke does].
I look forward to hearing from you
Cecil Andrews
Northern Ireland
Eventually on 26th
March I received the following response –
Dear Mr Andrews,
Thank
you for your email. I have visited your website, and I have no wish to enter
into correspondence with you, I am afraid. The sole purpose of your site
appears to be to attempt to vilify large numbers of your fellow Christians,
from Tony Campolo to Billy Graham, and Steve Chalke to Rick Warren. I have no intention of providing any
further fuel for your rantings. The theological position of Spring Harvest is available for you to read
here: http://www.springharvest.org/about-us-sh/our-beliefs-sh/module_index.php?id=6
All
our speakers speak from within that context. Thank you for your interest. In
the words of Oliver Cromwell, “I
beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Pete Broadbent
Spring Harvest & ICC working
together
bishop.willesden@btinternet.com
020 8451 0189 (Office)
07957 144 674 (Mobile)
My PA, Nikki Court has a separate email
address:
Well, as a well-known
saying goes – ‘you could have knocked me down with a feather’. However after
gathering my thoughts I sent the following response to Mr Broadbent who of
course was one of the 2 Bishops that put up the robust defence back in April
2007 of ‘Penal Substitution’ or ‘Substitutionary Atonement’ that
was quoted by Spring Harvest in their Press Release of 4th
April 2007 –
Dear
Mr Broadbent,
I
would confirm safe receipt of your most helpful email. I have read the
statement of ‘Our Beliefs’ that you directed me to and was particularly
interested there to read that ‘We believe in …The atoning sacrifice of
Christ on the cross: dying in our place [substitution] paying
the price of sin [enduring the
Father’s penalty for sin by offering Himself and His sufferings as a “ransom”
to redeem His people] and defeating evil so reconciling us with God’. Unless
I am mistaken a fairly clear affirmation of ‘Penal Substitution’.
Quite how you can then go on to
affirm ‘All our speakers speak from within that context’ is baffling and beyond the grasp of my understanding in
view of the publicly stated positions on this issue by the likes of Steve
Chalke and Brian McLaren who would certainly not be speaking ‘from within that context’.
It
is all the more baffling in the light of the comments attributed to I presume
yourself in the Spring Harvest Press Release of 4th April 2007 that
states –
The Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden and Team Leader
of the Spring Harvest Leadership Team, stated in response; 'You cannot
read the Old Testament and New Testament .. and blank out an entirety of
language and concept and understanding that means that we are guilty sinners,
we need our sins to be paid for and we need Jesus Christ to die for us. That is
what the Creeds say, it is what the Bible says and you cannot rewrite them. You
cannot understand Jesus Christ without understanding Old Testament atonement
material.'
Turning now to your personal
comments about me you have accused me of ‘vilifying’ (speaking ill
of) certain people. To take public statements and actions made and performed by
these people and to analyze them in the light of what God’s Word teaches is not
according to Acts 17:11 a ‘process of vilification’ but rather a ‘noble
process commended by God’.
‘Rantings’ according to the dictionary are ‘ravings in
violent language’ – I can only surmise that you view Paul’s inspired
words to the Galatians in chapter 1:6-9 similarly as ‘rantings’
and not as a warning designed for the eternal well being of those who would
take serious note of what he was saying about false teachers and their false
gospels.
I had been in 2 minds about
whether or not to pen an article about Spring Harvest and another ‘Christian’
festival where Brian McLaren is scheduled to speak but thanks to your email I
am now fully persuaded on the course of action to be followed.
Yours for Christ’s glory and true
gospel
Cecil Andrews
Northern Ireland
In the section that I
have just reproduced from my original article I have chosen to highlight in
red where Mr Broadbent ‘had a pop’ at
‘Take Heed’ when he referred to what he described as my ‘rantings’ and then I have also
highlighted my subsequent definition of that word as being ‘ravings in violent language’.
Am I wrong in thinking that Mr Broadbent’s unkind comments in the wake
of the engagement of Prince William to Kate Middleton bear all the genuine
hallmarks of ‘rantings’
– I think not.
The Anglican church
has seriously departed from the teachings of the Word of God on many issues and
the behaviour and language of Peter Broadbent in relation to the Royal Engagement,
coupled with his reaction to my legitimate concerns about his double-mindedness
on the question of ‘Penal Substitution,’ [on the one hand his defending
of it and then on the other his defending of Steve Chalke, a denier of it] suggest to me that Mr Broadbent is
clearly in the wrong job and perhaps his current suspension should be made
permanent.
Cecil
Andrews – ‘Take Heed’ Ministries – 15th December 2010