Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:30:38 +0000

<

All Common Purpose "graduates" have been corrupted and are totally untrustworthy. Some of these "graduates" are "useful idiots" who do not realise just how evil Common Purpose is.Those Common Purpose "graduates" who are public servants breach ALL the Seven Principles of Public Life as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.The Seven Principles of Public LifeThe Committee has set out 'Seven Principles of Public Life' which it believes should apply to all in the public service. These are:SelflessnessHolders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.People become Common Purpose "graduates" for career advancement and to be part of a secret, Masonic-like society for careerists. This is not the action of a selfless person.IntegrityHolders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.Being part of the Common Purpose network brings those in public service under pressure to do favours for other Common Purpose "graduates". The lack of integrity and probity of Common Purpose police officers is particularly disturbing.ObjectivityIn carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.Being part of the Common Purpose network will bring them under pressure to do favours for other Common Purpose "graduates" rather than to act impartially and objectively.AccountabilityHolders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.There is a strong resistance amongst Common Purpose "graduates" towards giving out details of their Common Purpose membership and the activities they engage in. Common Purpose itself operates according to the Chatham House rules which effectively means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability. Fish rots from the head.OpennessHolders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.There is a strong resistance amongst Common Purpose "graduates" in public office towards giving out details of their Common Purpose membership and the activities they engage in. Common Purpose itself operates according to the Chatham House rules which effectively means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability. Hardly a recipe for "Open Government".HonestyHolders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.Many Common Purpose "graduates" in public service deliberately hide their membership of Common Purpose. This leaves them open to accusations of dishonesty, corruption, favouritism and under-the-counter dealings.LeadershipHolders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.Common Purpose "graduates" are incapable of leading by example because those people who have found out what they are up to do not trust them at all.

www.stopcp.com/cpbreachesthesevenprinciples.php

www.public-standards.org.uk

I’d like to mention tonight that there is a new book on the Thirty-Nine Articles now available, by Dr. Gerald Bray (director of research for the Latimer Trust and research professor at Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham) and titled The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles.  In our day sound teaching on Anglican doctrine is often hard to come by and this book should be one we can all look forward to reading!

The introduction to the book can be read here, and I believe Dr. Bray is “spot on” when he writes:

The Articles of Religion have not been revised or supplemented, but if anything they have suffered an even more drastic fate – they have been sidelined and ignored instead! It is true that official church statements continue to make occasional references to them, but these are for the sake of form more than anything else. Few people, even among the clergy, have ever read them properly and almost nobody who is now active in church life has ever studied them seriously. Historians pay attention to them, as they must, but others tend to dismiss them either as antiquated relics or as inadequate statements of the church’s beliefs – or both! The fact that they are less comprehensive than the Westminster Confession of Faith (which was originally intended to be a revision of the Articles) is used to argue that the Church of England is not a confessional church and that its doctrine must be sought elsewhere – notably in the Book of Common Prayer! There is little understanding, even among those who support the retention of the Articles, of what they are or of why they matter for the church. This book is intended to show that, despite their apparent shortcomings, the Articles are indeed the church’s confession of faith and that they remain indispensable to its mission and identity in the world. It is possible to argue that they should be supplemented by further doctrinal definitions and to regret that they were effectively fossilised in the early seventeenth century for largely political reasons, but that does not mean that they can simply be ignored by modern Anglicans.

I welcome this new addition to our theological texts and look forward to acquiring a copy – for this is indeed something much needed in our time.

Share this Post