Evil dressed up as Good

The Wickedness of Archbishop Williams

The Archbishop of Canterbury is writing a book in which he lambasts the government for shrinking the State.  In its current ‘shrunken’ form, the state accounts for around half of the UK economy.  This is evidently sinful.  It should be bigger, presumably like the economies of the former communist countries of Eastern Europe.  Anglicanism has become extremely political.  The Archbishop's Council has just reprimanded the government for vetoing changes to the EU treaty last December and warned them not to think of leaving the EU.  In his speech at the St. Paul’s service to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee, the Archbishop cursed bankers and said we ought to look after the environment and be less greedy.  A short while ago the churchmen were expressing support for the posh anti-capitalist demonstrators outside St. Paul’s. 

It is not just any old politics the church embraces.  It is the big State, high tax, green, protectionist, Keynesian politics of the left and fascist right.  But as many people have pointed out, once the sanctimonious veneer is stripped away, these polices have been shown not to be in the interests of ordinary people. Socialism promised to liberate and enrich the masses, but it was discovered long ago that it did the exact opposite.  Indeed so many of the bishops’ rants seem to be directed against the interests of the world’s poorest.  The E.U. (so beloved of the bishops) is a protectionist club which, it is well known, has caused untold misery to African and Asian farmers, and has also raised the cost of food enormously for everyone in Europe (needless to say, the poorest are hardest hit).  The green bandwagon, onto which the bishops have jumped with such fervour, is clearly directed against the world’s poorest people on so many fronts – preventing them from using DDT to keep malaria at bay, preventing them from using inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides and GM crops in order to grow more food, preventing them from using the cheapest forms of electrical generation in order to join the modern world, and so on.    

The policies of these churchmen are clearly not designed to help the poor.  They reflect the views and are designed to please the Statist-middle class intelligentsia to which Williams & Co belong. Archbishop Williams stood up there in the pulpit, slapping the Queen on the back for doing such a great job and sucking up to the royal family, while telling the rest of us off, the wickedly "aspirational"  hoi polloi, for being so materialistic …. all those greedy people looking for a nice house (or even just a house) …. all those greedy people wondering if their plundered pensions would be enough to support them … all those greedy farmers in Africa wanting to sell their food to Europeans … all those greedy Third Worlders wanting to build cheap coal-power plants so that they can have electricity.

As a Christian, I must sit in church listening to these oafs preach to me about global warming and the terrible materialism of modern society.  I am a sinner, they tell me, because I am not green.  I am a sinner because I believe ordinary people are quite right to want more for themselves and their families.  Christ, I think, was infinitely wiser than the arrogant Archbishop.  Unlike the bishop, He resisted attempts to politicise his message (Give unto Caesar).  

The Archbishop plays the part well.  He has adopted all the trade-mark slow, aloof mannerisms and body language of an earthly saint. Those absurd bushy eyebrows are there to tell us ‘I am thinking thoughts too lofty to notice stuff like facial hair’. He is so wise. So good.

But don’t be fooled.  He is neither.  He is another in a line of hard-boiled anti-capitalist churchmen.  Remember those old reactionaries Thomas More and Thomas Malthus who both loathed trade and free markets. They said, like the greens do today, that such things were causing the lower orders to be paid too much (making them materialistic).

Under the influence of worldly men like Rowan Williams, the Church of England has got itself into a terrible mess. Thank God he's going.




Comments (10)

Okay, I'm conservative and

Okay, I'm conservative and monarchist, with an RC flavour, but I'm also an Australian who grew up in a society where lack of cheap energy, living space and roast lamb were regarded as the Old World's shame. Now, thanks to our Green Betters and other sophisticates, Australian pensioners shiver through the winter, unwilling to turn on their heaters. All of this, and yet we waste our resources by refusing to modernise our coal power industry. To pay for green idiocy, we export coal desperately and in massive quantities, to be burnt in the same atmosphere as the one I'm breathing now. Go figure. Time to expose Environmentalism as anti-conservation, anti-human and life-negating.- and you seem to be doing a good job on that, Martin. For some reason, I forget to pop in here, but I'm always rewarded when I do.

Three things. Firstly that

Three things. Firstly that Williams was known to my sister when he was a student. He was a twit then and he is a twit now.
Secondly, the reason Williams is a twit is that he does not believe in the authority of Scripture as (eg) laid down in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In short, he is at best an apostate and at worst a luke warm Laodician theologian.

Thirdly, the origin of the green movement is to be found in Nazi Germany and eugenics. It is very very anti God, anti truth and deceptive.

Yes, thank God - literally -

Yes, thank God - literally - that there are still people like you, Martin, who SEE the rubbish we are so often fed (?) from the pulpit. My heritage is Methodist, like one of your previous contributors, and I ceased attending the Methodist Church about 20 years ago, because I became fed up with listening to the individual clergyman's take on political issues, when he should have been preaching the gospel. I knew about the political issues of the day, from a weekly dose of broadcast news and daily newspapers. I did not go to church to hear about the follies of the world. These are only too clear to most of us.

One attends church services certainly to worship God. But one also attends expecting a message from the pulpit which deals with the human condition, not with current social and political trends. We know of the foolishness of the world, because we live in it and encounter it on a daily basis. What we need to know is that ultimately, we as individuals are offered salvation for our own souls, and such an awareness of the goodness and grace of God that we understand that the world is a passing show.

The spiritual message which the church has to offer is rarely nowadays offered at all, and certainly not by the "mainstream" hierarchy. Do they EVER read verses of scripture like "My Kingdom is not of this world"? If they do, what do they make of them? Are they aware that our Lord tells us "The poor you will always have with you..."? And no, that is not a reason for ignoring the poor, but it is a very good reason for not supposing that any system we can devise will eliminate poverty.

And why do I have to go back to my childhood in the early 1950s to remember a sermon preached on the words: "In this world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have OVERCOME the world"?

It was in the early 1960s, I think, when the World Council of Churches delivered itself of the statement: "The world sets the agenda"...and the truth of that has become increasingly evident ever since. In their desperation to be "trendy" and "with it", the ecclesiastical heirarchy has married the spirit of the age - and is rapidly finding itself becoming, if not a widower, certainly a "leadership" with fewer and fewer followers. Frankly, it seems like perfect justice, to me. If the church has nothing to offer but more of the same confused, illogical and dogmatic schemes we already get from politicians, then it deserves to wither away - it seems to me to be well into its death throes now.

Joan Northam

The COE is dead - and

The COE is dead - and Williams killed it. Ten years ago I was called homophobic for opposing mixed marriages, then a new women minister told me she the reason she did not minister to homeless people was that she was afraid of them (even though others were in constant attendance as we opened a tempory shelter in the church basement) and we then a female bishop who spouted similar environmentalist dogma. I am in process of conversion to RC - where there is strength, purpose and courage to the bible, faith and God. Not this namby-pamby rubbish.

I have to agree with your

I have to agree with your comments and those of your correspondents 100%. Dr Williams tends to speak 'Opaque' rather than plain English and I was severely taken to task by 'her inside' when I suggested that his sermon on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee was given at the wrong time and in the wrong place. (Declaration of interest: I am a Churchwarden, for my sins, and a monarchist...)
I am glad to report that my Rector does not preach on 'global warming'. Even though he regularly 'spikes' the articles I write for our Parish magazine we actually see eye to eye on more issues than not.
I had some dealings with David Shreeve who used to edit the 'Parish Pump' with which I used to have some sympathy; he did publish some quite useful stuff when I received the magazine. I did not realise that he was a member of the ArchBishop's Environmental Council. (Memo to self: look out old copies of the mag to see where he and I diverged in our opinions!)
Please keep up the good work!
Pax tecum

Well said Martin, I agree

Well said Martin, I agree with all you have said. Theological studies ill equips churchmen to comment authoritatively on many aspects of our modern life yet it never seems to inhibit them. That they often get things wrong is reflected in their diminished following and increasing irrelevance.

I have always had a big issue when those that purport to support our spiritual needs believing they understand our material needs. I would have thought by now that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have grasped this. I would have thought a large part of his studies that he has undoubtedly completed on the path to the pinnacle of his chosen profession has involved understanding the human mind and what motivates us. That he has not taken on board what even first year management students study is reflected in the dross of his utterances.

We expect our politicians to talk rubbish and be ill prepare for almost all that happens, but we expect churchmen and women to be reflective and understanding of the needs of those that chose to follow them. The Archbishop of Canterbury is neither.

I couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree more. Although I wonder how much of his arguments are from a point of prinicple rather than a need to feel relevant. The church appears to follow the media-set agenda of the day, but then again you do illustrate that it does have history in this area. It appears to - wrongly - assume that by following the liberal agenda of the day will make it popular but they'll always be part of what the chattering classes would consider the enemy.

The church, as you state, should follow Christ's example and teaching rather than its own vanity-driven, rather pathetically needy wish to feel important. If it did then it would always be relevant - you'll always have the poor (remember).

Martin, As a Christian and


As a Christian and CofE member, I can only echo your thoughts. Originally, I thought that man's emissions were damaging to the planet, but have come to understand that the green path is very very anti-Christian, and it's aims are an anathema to Christians. It preaches 'earth first & man second', it wants policies that positively harm people, through poverty, homelessness, starvation, hypothermia, isolation, injury and even death! I wrote in the comments of another blog (Real Science), "Gaia worshippers [greens] reject God, so are against him. They reject his creation is good. They reject that the earth can sustain even today’s population. They reject that we should build the infrastructure and harvest the natural resources, God’s good creation, for our benefit, and that those will sustain us.". I wrote that God views fossil fuels as "good" as they are part of his creation, which he described as such in Genesis, but Dr Williams and the CofE, especially in it's Archbishop's Environmental Council (led by a chap called David Shreeve) denies this, and are wedded to the "CO2 is bad" tag line in their 'Shrinking the Footprint' campaign. I've challenged Mr Shreeve on a number of occasions, but have never received any cogent reply.

I firmly believe the Christian church needs to re-evaluate and change it's stance on the climate issue, so I'm looking to set up a major debate within the Christian church, predominantly the CofE, but also the Methodists (my heritage), etc. I'm hoping the debate will be in a church based venue in London with key speakers from either side of the argument. All thoughts and ideas regarding this would be welcome (offline?).

I count myself as a

I count myself as a "Churchman" being a life long "Anglican" but I completely agree with your article. I served in East Africa for ten years and can testify to the immense misery caused by malaria. Since DDT was banned the very sharp rise in this deadly disease has caused millions of uneccesary deaths. We now know that DDT only has a very slight impact on the environment, but still its use is banned, and hundreds of thousands of people, mainly children, continue to die.

Boy, did all that need

Boy, did all that need saying! The man has nauseated me for years.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subscribe to articles

Short Thoughts

Comments (7)
Comments ()
Comments (3)


  • cover picture of The Naked Pilgrim