Another win - Rev B Randall

[IcakethereforeIam]

I know he's been mentioned in previous threads but I can't find any.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/21/banning-chaplain-who-said-children-could-question-gender/

https://archive.ph/r1B4O

He's still pursuing his appeal for unfair dismissal but the DBS are not taking any action against him which has to be helpful.

Thanks, cake.

The Telegraph have published an article with an interview with the Reverend

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/bernard-randall-religion-transphobia-christian-gay/

https://archive.ph/1npbH

I wish him well, although I admit he doesn't have my unqualified support. But I agree no-one should be forced to support any ideology and children should not be lied to that people can change sex.

Just came across this article, stuff has obviously been going on since January

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/12/justin-welby-wrong-blacklisting-gender-critical-chaplain/

https://archive.ph/DJzTe bypass paywall

I'm not sure how to describe the bind he's in. Kafka-esque often comes up in these cases, it's starting to feel a little overused but I can't think of anything better.

Thank you for the update. I think he's been treated very badly.

He lost his job as the chaplain of Trent College in Nottingham, was reported to Prevent, a terrorism watchdog organisation, and was ruled by the Church of England to be a risk to children.

At times like this it seems that the professional classes and the so-called Great and the Good have lost all sense of proportionality.

Thanks for highlighting this. I'm so grateful to all the brave people standing up for children.

It's a very dangerous situation if we're being asked not to think or question anything we're being asked to believe.

And on the same day this BBC report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2gj77pvwwo

Justme56 I was going to post the same thing! The C of E are a bunch of hypocrites.

And that's before we consider the knots they've tied themselves in with "men can't marry men" and "unless one of them has a piece of paper saying they are a woman".

Church involved in conversion therapy. Same old, same old.

It looks to me, entirely from what I read in the BBC article, that there were many people convinced that he posed a safeguarding risk, but tyere seems to have been a lack of conclusive evidence. It may well be that people's judgement was not great, but they had to take account of the legality of any action open to them. Having observed what happens when an organisation acts unreasonably against someone, I am uneasy about assumptions of guilt without clear evidence, but on the other hand it's hard to accept that good safeguarding practice was followed in this case.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic which article? If it's the BBC Hindley one, I agree with you. If it's the Telegraph one on Rev Randall, there seems to be no evidence of a safeguarding risk unless there'ssomething going on that hasn't been disclosed to the newspaper.

I have no opinion on the likelihood of success in his unfair dismissal case. However, it was always ridiculous to claim that he could be a risk to children purely on the basis of his sermon. Risk of "harm", no doubt,as opposed to the risk of actual harm of csa.

Sorry I wasn't clearer - I did mean the Hindley one.

On the Randall story, I feel he comes across as a bit of an awkward character, but that shouldn't affect the appraisal of the facts, and I have sympathy for him despite probably disagreeing somewhat with his stance. It doesn't sound to me as if he has said anything that is outside the bounds of reasonable free speech. I don't think it's OK to describe someone as a safeguarding risk on the grounds that they might not be tactful and supportive because they have expressed a controversial opinion. But that may not be what has happened here - he may have a justified reputation for putting his opinions across too bluntly, or he may not.

There is a rather blurred line between stating a philosophical or theological view strongly, and stating it in a controlling or abusive way. I have experienced both. It's like the very fuzzy boundary between a religion and a cult. The difference, as I see it, is that a religion permits you to have your own understanding, and to leave on good terms, and a cult tries to control your beliefs and make it unthinkable to leave. The difference is not always obvious to someone who is being abused.

Here is his interview on Gender a Wider Lens:

And a link to his sermon that was the issue:

https://christianconcern.com/resource/a-school-sermon-by-bernard-randall-competing-ideologies/

In case anyone would like to hear more detail of what happened

The CofE has wanted to be 'trendy' since the 60s. Justin Welby is a woke as anything and has made things worse. That the possibility of actual abuse is swept out of sight whilst telling children they cannot change sex (a biological fact) is considered a safeguarding issue does not say a lot for the people running the show.

Article on this by Jo Bartosch

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/15/the-church-of-trans-dogma/

Those of you who have reservations about the Rev, do you mind explaining why? My understanding of this case is that some pupils had come to him and asked "Do we actually have to believe this stuff we're being told in PSE?", a reasonable question for a teenager at a C of E school also being presented with contradictory beliefs under the same roof. He therefore gave this sermon saying that nobody had to believe anything, be it gender ideology, religion, or anything else. He simply spoke in defence of freedom of conscience. Is that your understanding too?

It's been that long since I started this thread tbh I'd forgotten what my reservations were. So I had a look at the original article

Yet at the same time he points out that his Church’s “good and wholesome” teaching does not permit gay marriage, or allow those in sexual relationships with others of the same sex to be priests.

I don't actually have a problem with him or the church following those rulings. I don't support them though. I have no disagreement, from a quick reread, with the rest of what he said. I may have overlooked something.

Thanks for replying, @IcakethereforeIam . I just found the full text of the sermon on a website called Christian Concern - not sure if I am allowed to post a link, but if you basically Google it, it will come up - the article is called "A school sermon by Bernard Randall - Competing Ideologies". I'm not sure where the "good and wholesome" quote came from, as it's not in the actual sermon, but yes, I think it's clear he thinks the traditional C of E positions have much to recommend them, while not pushing others to believe them. I think the sermon is a really nice example of how to explain and advocate for one's faith even when the topic is controversial.

Thanks @MixieMatchie I've just noticed the test of his sermon was linked upthread (by Dame Maud with the YouTube link which, I think, is why I overlooked it). He sets his reasoning out very clearly, both secular and Christian reasoning for not agreeing. I don't know if Welby or any of the other CoE bigwig have bothered to explain why their faith is bending the knee to this shiney new religion. Come to think of it I don't believe there have been any rational, coherent, testable explanations from the scientists (so called) as to why gender identity is a thing and biological sex isn't. Clown fish don't cut it.

Rev Randall has written an article in the Critic, it gives his side of the more recent shenanigans

https://thecritic.co.uk/when-will-bishops-be-held-to-account/

The CoE hierarchy really do not like explaining themselves. It's not just god who moves in mysterious ways.

The title of this thread, although correct at the time, hasn't aged well.

It's absolutely barking mad, isn't it? The church is persecuting him for defending the church's own teachings. You could not make it up. Nobody would believe it.

Sorry Mixie, for not responding.
Yes, I linked his sermon in my previous post.
I agree with you.
I think people often fail to look at source material to draw their own conclusions, which is why I posted it.

Rev Randall 's name is popping up in all sorts of places

https://thecritic.co.uk/anti-christian-bias-is-rife-in-employment-tribunals/