Saturday, January 05, 2013

Homosexuality is an issue blown out of all proportion


Here we go again. Just as His Grace was getting into the swing of preaching the Gospel and introducing much-needed democratic and synodical reforms to church governance, his agenda has been hijacked by an ill-timed announcement by a group of bishops. Their report did nothing but reiterate what has long been the case: sexual activity for senior church leaders is reserved for the context of marriage; the un-married must remain celibate. But that's not what the mainstream media have read into it, and neither is it what the polarised wings of the Church of England have gleaned from it.

So, ex cathdra, His Grace would like address both the progressive liberals and the conservative traditionalists within the Anglican flock. Specifically, he would like to have a mature chat with both Changing Attitude and Reform, and exhort both not to swing for each other via the broadcasting airwaves or print columns, but to reflect very carefully on the primacy of the mission of salvation to which we are all called.

Dear brothers and sisters, homosexuality is not an issue worthy of schism: it is simply not of the order of the sort of debate that used to divide the Church: the divinity of Christ, for example, or the nature of his humanity – the great controversy at the Council of Nicea in AD325 – or even over liturgy or the transforming nature of infant baptism. The issue of homosexuality affects only a tiny minority of its adherents: it is of distinctly secondary, even peripheral, scriptural importance.

The role of the Bible in addressing the modern question of the place of the homosexual in the church is complex, not least because where it is mentioned in Scripture, the authors give little sustained consideration of the issue as it manifests in the modern world. The nature of a biblical perspective will invariably be affected by the questions posed of the Bible, by the particular hermeneutic employed, and by the unavoidable perspective which each scholar brings to his or her reading of the Bible. While some may have an instant negative reaction, others seek to understand the debate in the different and changing circumstances in which we now live. Still others, who may identify themselves as homosexual Christians, struggle to express either their feelings or their thoughts on the issue. They are themselves divided into those who acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and therefore a call to celibacy, and those who assert that they also are made in God’s image and therefore seek to express their sexual desires in an intimate, monogamous relationship.

That God established an objective, moral order in creation, and continues a work of re-creation through Jesus, is a source and standard of all that it beautiful, good and true. If such a moral order means anything, there may be no via media on the issue of homosexuality. Accepting theological diversity is not the same as tolerating all beliefs and practices, because ultimately the Church is called to be holy because God is holy (Lev 19:2; Mt 5:48). We cannot as Christians just give way to ‘you believe this, I believe that’ approach to being together, or moving apart, in the Church. Nor even can we be content with the rather cheap model of ‘reconciled diversity’, meaning benign tolerance, which many Christians find an easier option to the costlier pursuit of real, ‘visible’ unity. We need to continue to struggle together for the truth, to find the right and godly balance between the call to solidarity and the recognition of difference. Presently, nowhere is this more important – especially in the Anglican Communion – than in the area of sexuality.

But His Grace is persuaded that the whole issue may really be a non-issue because the wrong question is being asked. It may be readily observed that the modern era is sex-obsessed: we live in a consumer society, and there is little that is marketed without a glance, a wink, a flirt, a breast, or allusions to sexual intercourse, because ‘sex sells’. If one were to judge by the media (which is more frequently a mirror to society than a catalyst for change), the fascination with people’s sex lives is now more important than politics, religion, philosophy or even Mammon.

Jesus may have had to address the latter as the dominating idol of his era; his judgement was that one may not serve both God and Mammon (Mt 6:24). But he did not enter into discussion on the fiscal minutiae of cash, credit, bonds, shares, loans or interest; a macro-warning not to be obsessed with Mammon was sufficient. If one were to apply the same principle to the modern idol – ‘Eros’ – it is doubtful that Jesus would address its sub-divisions (gay, bi, straight, oral, anal, tantric); he would most likely directly challenge society’s obsessive fixation with Eros, and by so doing confront both those who prioritise issues of sexuality and those in the church who presume to judge them.

His Grace is, of course, aware of the apparent hypocrisy of his devoting yet another homily to this matter while criticising those who seem to make it the fulcrum of their mission in the church. But he is attempting to address something deeper than the most recent 'event': he is speaking into a chronic underlying situation.

By devoting so much time and effort to the ‘gay issue’, instead of challenging society by deconstructing the question or focusing on poverty and wealth (for example), the church is simply showing itself to share the same obsessions as the world. St Paul allowed no compromise on the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual, monogamous marriage. But such an ethic seems almost utopian to our sex-besotted age, in which it appears at times that one’s identity is made to reside in one’s sexual organs and their untrammeled exercise. The issue for the Church of England is that this debate has been blown out of all proportion; it is neither a battle for the soul of the church, nor an issue worthy of schism. It is a question utterly peculiar to this era, and those on both sides of the divide – both politicians and theologians – might consider toning down the rhetoric and the apologetics, and instead preaching a message that, contrary to society’s thinking, sexual expression is neither a necessary line of inquiry in every human interaction, nor an essential component in human fulfilment.

368 Comments:

Blogger graham wood said...

Thank you Cranmer for a very wise and much needed perspective on the whole issue - which has become obsessional, and sadly, a distraction away from the central theme of the NT, namely the Gospel of Christ.
Can we hope that the current bench of Bishops accept and digest these sentiments?
Blog comments, I suggest, need little more than the restriction of a 'yea' to what has been observed here, and, to use the cliche, 'move on'.

5 January 2013 11:08  
Blogger Tim said...

It would be great if those Christians in the media spotlight would moderate their language instead of writing articles in national newspapers about 'disobeying unjust orders' etc.

5 January 2013 11:35  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I agree that the reaction to this by the media does show how they obsess over sex, but I think it is also a real issue that needs to be addressed. Here is what I said on Peter Ould's blog on the matter:
"But could this not be death by 1000 cuts? Things used to be really clear, but people broke the rules. Now, rather than disciplining the bishops and clergy who broke the rules, the HoB have decided to change the rules slightly and muddy the waters some more. This doesn't help anyone and as good as says "Being a practicing homosexual is theologically fine" because everyone knows that, whilst they mention celibacy, civil partnerships are designed as a supporting legal framework for those in homosexual relationships that, almost certainly, include a physically sexual dimension.
People will claim celibacy, and some may well actually be celibate, but given that so any have lied/withheld the truth about their sexuality in the past in order to become priests or bishops what is to stop them lying now?
And, getting back to my starting point, we are now at a point of saying civil partnerships are not a problem. It is not a huge step to then say that actually, some physicality in a civil partnership is fine. Then, eventually, you will have a fully sexual civil partnership being fine and then practiced homosexuality becomes fully accepted by the CofE.
If this step is acceptable, where do we draw the line? For me the line is already behind us.

5 January 2013 11:38  
Blogger John Thomson said...

I'd agree if the problem was that the church kept focussing on homosexual sin in society. Then your point would be well made.

However, the issue is sin in the church and the agenda is set by those who promote it. I do not believe Jesus would view opposition to homosexual sin in the church as lacking perspective, though I believe he would expect us also to oppose divorce and remarriage where without biblical mandate too.

5 January 2013 11:46  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

It is very difficult to say this is not a matter worthy of schism whilst a) there are those hell bent within the the church on normalizing homosexual relations, and b)there is lack of strong leadership to insist on addressing the wider issues as you suggest, and bringing people into line.

5 January 2013 11:51  
Blogger Flossie said...

Another lovely post from His Grace. What a pity the job has already been taken.

All it really needed was for the Church of England bishops to stand firm on human sexuality when gay activists started attacking from within as well as without. But they did not stand firm on divorce (remarriage after)and are weak and wobbly on many moral issues, which really opened the door for the present situation.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not seem to have any problem with standing firm, and yet they do not seem to attract the same amount of contempt from the public at large.

But I don't think it's fair to bracket those organisations trying to shut the stable door - admittedly after the horse is halfway down the lane - with those who have caused so much damage - the revisionists.

I blame the bishops, past and present.

5 January 2013 12:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

Another lovely post from His Grace. What a pity the job has already been taken.

All it really needed was for the Church of England bishops to stand firm on human sexuality when gay activists started attacking from within as well as without. But they did not stand firm on divorce (remarriage after)and are weak and wobbly on many moral issues, which really opened the door for the present situation.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not seem to have any problem with standing firm, and yet they do not seem to attract the same amount of contempt from the public at large.

But I don't think it's fair to bracket those organisations trying to shut the stable door - admittedly after the horse is halfway down the lane - with those who have caused so much damage - the revisionists.

I blame the bishops, past and present.

5 January 2013 12:16  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

My compliments to Yr Grace on such an insightful article.
It is also worth pointing out that Blessed Paul where he does mention homosexuality does so in the context of many other sins ALL of which are given equal weight [including disobedience to parents]
Read
I Corinthians 6: 9-10
Romans 1: 18-32
I Timothy 1: 10

Very often the especial singling out of homosexuality from this list by many others causes this presbyter to wonder what personal naughtiness they may be covering up whilst [metaphorically] hurling the rocks.

It is time the Church remembered that there are SEVEN deadly sins and not just the fraction of Lust that some homosexual behaviour represents.

5 January 2013 12:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentlemen

This is remarkably easy to sort out. Determine what is expected of a priest and his / her conduct. Centre it around not ‘bringing the ministry in disrepute’.

So, perhaps we’ll have not being a member of far left / far right organisations. Let us have not being in possession of indecent material. No paedophile activity. No drunkenness or sloth. No taking the Lord’s name in vain. Believing in God and Christ. No taking part in sexual activity with members of your gender.

There you have it. Write it into the terms and conditions of employment, and be done with it.

The ‘sexual activity...’ bit causing a problem ? Why the hell should it ? One presumes believing in God is no problem, or do a mere 1.5% of priests who don’t believe feel they are losing out on ‘equality’, whatever that is ? They’re both part of the package. If you can’t agree with upholding the package, you don’t become / remain a priest. It’s oh so damn simple.

Right, get to it then !

5 January 2013 12:17  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

OIG, you'd think it would be. But these rules you suggest we're more or less there and yet we find ourselves in this current mess. It is, I believe and as I have said above, death by 1000 cuts. All it takes is a suggestion that modern society has it right in some small facet, along with the ruling bodies not taking action against it, and you have the thin end of the wedge. More pushing the wedge with little resistance leads us to where we are now and the wedge is nowhere near it's end yet!

5 January 2013 12:28  
Blogger Martin said...

Except, of course, the Christian is called to be as holy as God. That is the minimum standard and the standard for ministers of the gospel is higher still. They must have no air of wrong doing about them. So the concept of being a homosexual Christian is a contradiction in terms.

5 January 2013 12:29  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Martin, do you mean a homosexual Christian (inclination) or a practicing homosexual Christian?

5 January 2013 13:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

One of those rare times when I must disagree..."Unity Wherever possible but Truth at all costs" has been the standards since the reformation, however poorly we have failed to live up to it since.
Our Wonderful Saviour Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life." He also said, "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.

Truth is not optional, unless you are a modern day Sadducee. It is central. Indeed, if you believe that the Truth is unnecessary you are already deceived and able to deceive others unwittingly.
If you believe that knowing the Truth is impossible or unimportant, you and others are already deceived.
If you believe that knowing the Truth takes second place to anything in the Christian walk, you and others are already in danger.

There are thousands of professing Christians today in our nation who are convinced that as long as UNITY is preserved, they are on the right track, its all tickety boo. They will grab out of the Bible verses that tell us that unity is God’s will, and they translate that to mean, "unity at all cost." Thus, if we preach the essential of uncompromising Truth, these people will accuse us of dividing the Body of Christ. They will say that you are, "judging." They will make us out to be the 'bad guys/gals'.

They will grab verses and passages out of the Bible that encourage unity. But the problem is not that they need to preserve or obtain unity. The problem is that they have no Truth.

There is nothing more vital, essential, and central to walking with and OBEYING Jesus Christ than is the Truth (unbelievers do NOT have to but we MUST). To say anything else is a LIE and goes against our faith in Him.
When we read the gospels and the epistles we find a continual contention by Jesus and the apostles FOR the Truth. In the end, it cost them their lives (Jesus, that He was our ONLY means of reconciliation to God and paid the price for us on a cross on a hill 2000 years ago and the apostles unwillingness to compromise this eternal truth to Jew or Gentile). Truth matters. Indeed, Truth is everything.

"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," (1 Cor. 1:10).
When Paul teaches that we should all have the same mind, and say the same thing, he means THE TRUTH. He doesn’t mean ERROR. CofE resembles the church at Corinth more than any other of the NT churches!
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Mat 10:34-39)
There have always been groups and churches throughout the church age who enforce unity with religious laws, rules, and legalism or condescension or accusarios of bigotry by the Body. Sure. You can force unity by establishing, "accountability principles," and fear tactics, and peer pressure and Ad Hominem rather than address The Truth and our relationship to it. But none of it will be REAL. Real unity is in Christ – in the Truth.

Blofeld

5 January 2013 13:22  
Blogger Philip said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2013 13:25  
Blogger Philip said...

Wouldn't we all prefer to focus on the mission of salvation rather than homosexuality. The Bible doesn't say much about homosexuality but what it does say about homosexual acts is negative as we know. It’s the revisionists who are seeking to move the church away from scriptural teaching on this, who are keeping the issue going.

5 January 2013 13:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Wouldn't we all prefer to focus on the mission of salvation rather than homosexuality." How can two walk together if they are divided on the central message of what is wrong with our lives from all perspectives and why God demands repentance not sacrifices?

"The Bible doesn't say much about homsoexuality but what it does say about homosexual acts is negative as we know." Jesus did NOT need to restate the Law to the Jews regarding homosexuality as there was sufficient under the Law to state this..It would be like a doing a refresher course in addition for a maths professor however Paul has plenty to state to Gentiles especially (he was 'their' God ordained apostle) as they knew NOT the Laws of God, revealed only to Moses and the Israelites at mount Sinai!!

Blofeld.

5 January 2013 13:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Youthpasta. That’s not the only thing in place...

Suffragan bishop
Archdeacons
Rural Deans
Priests in charge

Not to mention

Cathedral Dean
Canons

All there to maintain that awful word ‘discipline’ !


5 January 2013 13:44  
Blogger Corrigan said...

This is what comes of "reaching out" and "inclusivity", all things to all men. We don't get any of that rubbish in the RCC. I am what I am...

5 January 2013 13:46  
Blogger Philip said...

Blofeld, I agree. Especially your 2nd para - indeed that's the answer to those who try to use the argument that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality to justify departure from Scriptural teaching. I agree with your 1st para as well if you mean that part of the message of salvation includes repentence from everything God says is wrong (inc homosexual practices\relationships). My comment was based on the proportion of Scripture specifically dealing with homosexuality cp to the Bible's overall theme: the gospel of salvation.

5 January 2013 13:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Philip

We are truly in 'Unity'! Bless you, my boy.

Blofeld

5 January 2013 14:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Well, well, I find myself agreeing with Mr Blofeld and Tiddles (a very Happy New Year to you both).

I'm afraid this post exposes what is wrong with the Church of England. No 'via media' on this issue - just avoidance of the issue. No single authority proclaiming the Truth of God's word - just a fudge.

If "homosexuality is not an issue worthy of schism" then neither is divorce, abortion, contraception or women priests and bishops.

And if the bible is unable to address these issues because we live in a different age to its authors we deny the universality of the Holy Spirit's message.

And this demonstrates why 'sola scriptura' is wrong, wrong, wrong.

"The nature of a biblical perspective will invariably be affected by the questions posed of the Bible, by the particular hermeneutic employed, and by the unavoidable perspective which each scholar brings to his or her reading of the Bible."

Surely the reason why we have been given leaders and a Magisterium by Our Lord with Divine authority to resolve these issues?

There can be no via media between Truth and Falsehood. If God's moral order means anything, there may be no 'via media' on sin.

5 January 2013 14:45  
Blogger Avellanos said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2013 15:22  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

I'd respectfully disagree.

The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family: “If I profess, with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle fields besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” (Often attributed to Martin Luther).

I'd also note that homosexuality is just a smaller issue within the broader topic of gender and sexuality- the world is also attacking Biblical views manhood and womanhood. If the field is abandoned on homosexuality you will have ceded this entire ground.

5 January 2013 15:26  
Blogger Gary said...

It seems to me that homosexuality is key - it is where the battle lines must be drawn. Romans 1 is perfectly clear on this point: homosexuality is a sign of rebellion against God (in fact, it is one of the worst sins of all!). It is a perversion that must be repented of, and any church that accepts it (or promotes it) as normal is doing the devil's business and not Christ's.

5 January 2013 15:51  
Blogger McLeanj said...

It is purely an issue of Pride - as in Vanity! I simply cannot see why someone feels they are entitled to change an institution because of their individual preferences.

If being Gay and Christian is something that affects a substantial number of people and these people feel that they should belong to a church that accepts practising homosexuality as being within the message of Christ, let them form their own church. What would be the problem? We already have numerous denominations each based on a particular theological view. I am not a Jehova's Witness because I don't subscribe to their theological views. But I don't set about demanding that they change to suit me...I go somewhere else.

5 January 2013 16:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Todays gay man is proud and assertive and demands acceptance. At least he does until he tests positive. Goes rather quiet after that...

...the reason ? He is rejected by his own community. The gay scene is terrified of AIDS...


5 January 2013 16:26  
Blogger Tim said...

I wonder if Giles will listen to Your Grace's words before he contributes on the wireless.

5 January 2013 16:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

No, he won't. He has already announced on Facebook that he is angry. And when Fr Giles is angry, there's no reasoning to be had.

5 January 2013 16:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Todays gay man is proud and assertive and demands acceptance."

Actually, I expect justice rather than demand acceptance. Acceptance tends to follow justice, as we have seen over the last 45 years.

5 January 2013 17:15  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It seems the homosexuals wont let us put the subject of sexuality - in particular THEIR sexuality- aside to concentrate on more important issues and so it must be confronted and dealt with.

My concern is how can people accept moral guidance on other areas in life after we have taken away the boundaries to homosexuality which is a sin.

As we have civil partnerships/unions those clergy in them are naturally going to practice their sexuality even though it is sinful, how then are they able to insist on credibly teaching and preaching all the other morals and values that are in the Bible without being open to enormous ridicule?

The Church to me is the brakes and reins on societies excesses and indulgences so those that are preaching to others have to be above reproach.

5 January 2013 17:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Archbishop Cranmer writes:

homosexuality is not an issue worthy of schism: it is simply not of the order of the sort of debate that used to divide the Church:

He is very, very wrong. Allow me to read between the lines. If homosexuality is an issue worthy of division, then the CoE is inevitably going to divide. The two sides aren't actually debating. They are maneuvering to achieve dominance. There isn't in fact any theology that needs to be done. There are no studies that need to be performed. There are two very different anthropologies based upon two very different conceptions of the authority of Scripture and two very different understandings of the nature of God. All three of of those subjects constitute essential Christian doctrine.

So the question in play becomes "How important is the continued viability of the CoE?" If homosexuality should cause division then the CoE must divide. In practice, this means the conservatives will leave, because the leadership of the CoE is already shot to hell. That means the viable portion of the CoE is eventually going out the door, and the Institution that is the CoE is doomed to bankruptcy and dissolution. If you value the tradition that is the CoE, you will find that an alarming prospect. And so you will argue that homosexuality should not cause division. For the sake of tradition, you might plead "Can't we all just get along?"

No, it is not possible. It's fast coming time for people to choose: the Church in England or the CoE? Which is more important?

carl

5 January 2013 17:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "The Church to me is the brakes and reins on societies excesses and indulgences so those that are preaching to others have to be above reproach."

Well, that's the Roman Catholic Church completely stuffed.

5 January 2013 17:26  
Blogger Harry Hole said...

@carl...totally agree

5 January 2013 17:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, there was a time when all the gay community wanted to do was to live their lives in peace – and that aspiration had everyone's blessing. You probably don’t remember that far back. Now, we have demands for ‘justice’ and dreams of ‘acceptance’ of all things. Where does justice come into it. You have a handicap. Learn to live with your handicap and you will have justice running out of your ears. But know this, we can’t put a ramp in to deal with your handicap, not when with a bit of discipline, you can walk it !

Incidentally, if anyone who isn’t married goes to a priest and asks them what, under Christianity, are his / her sexual options. The priest will say there aren’t any. What is so special about LGBT and since when have you crowd become uber people ?


5 January 2013 17:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You have a handicap."

It's no more a handicap than having black skin. If there's a handicap then it belongs to homophobes and those with off-piste religious beliefs.

5 January 2013 17:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What does the term ‘unrealistic expectations’ mean to you ?

5 January 2013 17:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I think you're wrong Danj0 the RCC deals with its sinners and has recently had a shake up as we all know. They don't knowingly employ them unlike the CofE !

5 January 2013 17:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "What does the term ‘unrealistic expectations’ mean to you ?"

Would an example be the requirement of celibacy for priests?

5 January 2013 17:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I think you're wrong Danj0 the RCC deals with its sinners and has recently had a shake up as we all know. They don't knowingly employ them unlike the CofE !"

I was thinking of the arguably more significant immorality of that organisation trying to hide the issue for self-interest and self-preservation purposes.

5 January 2013 17:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. Unrealistic expectations. Examples thereof. The soldier confined to a wheelchair after Afghanistan, and wanting to stay in the army. The dwarf who wants to be a beat policeman. The bishop in a gay relationship who wants to remain a bishop. The man who wants to stay at the WYCA. The habitual drunk who wants to get his licence back.

5 January 2013 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The religious trying to force the rest of society to adhere to their ungrounded and anachronistic religious beliefs?

5 January 2013 18:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Not quite. In this threads context, the religious ASKING the self interested and self obsessed to obey the rules. Good institution is ‘rules’. Stops anarchy breaking out...

5 January 2013 18:15  
Blogger Tim said...

The main reason people argue about this sort of stuff is because they think their own ideas are bigger than God's ideas.

God's biggest idea is Christ, and when we threaten to pull apart his church because of our own ideas we have truly lost sight of Christ himself.

5 January 2013 18:32  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Here in Salisbury we had a Canon of the Cathedral (now retired) in a civil partnership and despite numerous letters to the then Bishop, he refused to answer these letters seeking confirmation that the said Canon and his so called civil partner were sexually celibate. One can draw one's own conclusions- that they were not and that the Word of God was being held in contempt. I doubt it would be any different under the current Bishop, Bishop Nicholas.

5 January 2013 18:44  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
How do you know that the RCC knew of all the immorality that went on? I don't think the RCC was complicit as those types of people hide their tracks so well.
And there are other organisations too that have attracted immorality, the BBC, children's homes, hospitals, schools.

Well said Inspector at 18:05

5 January 2013 18:44  
Blogger John Magee said...

Once again the C of E wants to try and please everyone. How long can this national church survive with this attitude?

All it took to make the Reformation Churches irrelevant on their approaching 500th anniversary was homosexuality, feminism, and the lack of will to defend the strict moral teaching the Reformers once taught and used the state to enforced.

Modern liberalism destroyed the Reformation.

RIP

@ Inspector

The modern Gay movement and their in your face attitude is all about politics. The left is using them as it uses gender, race, and ethnicity to get votes and gain power.

Our societies gives gays total freedom and even privilidged treatment in job hiring and what do the Gay radicals want? They demand we change or traditional moral codes and some "churches" will accommodate them.

The Vatican and the Eastern Orthodox Churches must look at stories like this and shake their heads in disbelief.

Muslims read stories like this and rub their hands with glee and smile.

5 January 2013 18:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Thomas Keningley ... excellent post on The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family:

.." Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle fields besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” @ 15:26

How very true and homosexuality IS where the battle now rages for the spirit, soul, faith and righteousness of this Nation. The Church of England is doomed.

5 January 2013 18:50  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

The religious trying to force the rest of society to adhere to their ungrounded and anachronistic religious beliefs?”

No Danj0 it's the other way round, you're forcing yourself on us. Why are you homosexuals so desperate to join the ungrounded and anachronistic religion?

5 January 2013 18:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Naomi King

How very true and homosexuality IS where the battle now rages for the spirit, soul, faith and righteousness of this Nation.

I think the battle is fundamentally being fought over the principle of autonomy. Modern man looks around himself and sees not God. What then remains to him of the vanity that is his life? He can find no purpose or Truth outside himself and so he is condemned to look inside. There he finds nothing but the ability to act and experience. And so he declares that the Greatest Good is his own freedom to act. It is his own little declaration of divinity - his assertion that he is free to define good and evil based upon his own authentic desires. He even defines justice as the freedom to act on those authentic desires. He defines injustice as the suppression of the ability to act on those authentic desires. Really it is nothing new under the sun. It is simply man saying of himself "I shall be like the Most High."

He calls it progress as he staggers further and further into the dissipation and degeneracy and license that he has made of his liberty. And yet there are objective consequences to his behavior. He can declare himself the moral autocrat of his own life, but he cannot change the nature of the world in which he lives. He can only escape into his fantasies for so long before the bills come due and the money runs out.

Then what will he do in the end?

carl

5 January 2013 19:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "How do you know that the RCC knew of all the immorality that went on?"

I doubt all of it is out yet, and that's ignoring the adoptions scandals. How do I know the organisation knew? It's a matter of public record now.

"Why are you homosexuals so desperate to join the ungrounded and anachronistic religion?"

Desperate? Marie, I'm an atheist. I have no wish at all to join either the CofE or the Roman Catholic Church. I'd rather walk over hot coals. Have you had a knock on the head or something since we last exchanged facts?

5 January 2013 19:10  
Blogger Preacher said...

Like it or not, Sin is Sin. All have sinned & will one day be judged.
The ONLY plea is the Blood of Christ, received after acceptance of the fact that we are guilty & deserve God's judgement. accept it or reject it.

No individual or Church has the right to amend or change God's decree.
To do so makes US guilty of the fate of the lost on the day of judgement by not warning them.

5 January 2013 19:10  
Blogger John Magee said...

Naomi King

The battle was over before it began. The C of E will collapse and agree to every demand made by homosexuals. This will be done in stages and not all at once. There will be no "middle way" when it comes to the views of the traditionalists within the Anglican Church I promise you.
When the Episcopal Church in the USA consecrated an openly Gay Bishop and continued to live with his male lover Canterbury, so far as I know, said nothing. After that event the writing was on the wall for the C of E. and how it would react in the future to homosexual demands. This need to try and please everyone is great in theory and sounds wonderful too. But is suicide for a any church. How can anyone take the C of E seriously when it's leaders talk about evolving to adapt to the changing moral standards in society?

Not long ago the C of E had the same strict view on divorce the RC's still have. In 1936 a King of England had to abdicate his throne over the issue of his marrying a twice divorced woman. Now divorce is almost normal in the eyes of the C of E, even in it's Royal Family.

5 January 2013 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Magee: "How can anyone take the C of E seriously when it's leaders talk about evolving to adapt to the changing moral standards in society?"

It seems to me that Colin Coward is arguing about the Church's understanding of sexual morality, saying that it isn't in line with his experience of his god. That is, he seems to be saying that society has changed to be more in accord with his god's view of homosexuality, albeit unintentionally.

5 January 2013 19:18  
Blogger len said...

Homosexuality is the 'thin edge of the wedge'(or at least part of it ) attacking the' established Church.'The World wants to enter the Church and to destroy it from within.(It has been partially successful in this already)

The homosexuality or SSM issues are intended to 'divide and conquer'those within the Church and to render the Church useless for the purposes of preaching the full Gospel of Jesus Christ.'Issues' are held up for the Church to conform to as the World has already crumbled under the 'Politically Correct brainwashing process'.

Compromise will kill the Church Satan knows this even if his 'shock troops' don`t.

Compromise will eat away consuming the church by degrees until there will be nothing(of God) left in the church.By then the church will be a 'Socially acceptable 'impotent vassal of the State.

The Church needs to get radical and to uphold the Word of God against all who come against it.

5 January 2013 19:19  
Blogger Owl said...

Marie,

One aim of our socialist brothers and sisters is to destroy religion and the gay movement is a convenient blunt instrument.

Useful idiots is the term generally used.

HG is quite right in his accessment, he just may not have gone quite far enough.

5 January 2013 19:26  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
No damage to head, but you are jumping up and down about having justice on this thread too so you are obviously arguing for the Christian homosexuals here even though you are not one.

5 January 2013 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah, no. That was just a little tangent with the Inspector about gay people in general demanding acceptance. It's up to gay Christians in the CofE how they approach this. It's of most interest to me because they appear to have similar things to say about their experience of god as straight ones. Are they deluded? Also, of course, the CofE is the established religion here in England so I have a stake and an interest in what happens. It seems inevitable that the conservative Christians will huff off at some point fairly soon the way things are going.

5 January 2013 19:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

John Magee

There's a really good article you might like from A. N. Wilson in the Daily Mail today about where the sexual revolution has brought us and that in hindsight it wasn't such a good idea after all. He concludes that he hopes we see the light and arrest the damage.

5 January 2013 19:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

"I'm an atheist. I have no wish at all to join either the CofE or the Roman Catholic Church. I'd rather walk over hot coals."

Well do so!

Why on earth are you trying to influence a debate amongst Christians about how the Church should regard active homosexuality? It has absolutely nothing to do with liberal notions of 'justice' but is about an understanding of God's moral order - something you dismiss.

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved"


A clear and uncompromising teaching from the Catholic Church which the Church of England would do well to accept.

5 January 2013 20:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Ernst. Happy New Year.

5 January 2013 20:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2013 20:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Why on earth are you trying to influence a debate amongst Christians about how the Church should regard active homosexuality?"

You claim to be a Roman Catholic so it's as much my business as yours what the CofE does. So, jog on, preferably taking your foreign religion with you.

5 January 2013 20:16  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

What do you think about the C of E making a real move to adapt to the modern world we hear it talk about all the time and disestablishing itself? Maybe if it took this bold step it could at last discover itself and take a firm stand for something and not waste time jumping through these hoops year after year we read about in this article trying to please everyone.

I read years ago that Eire, The Republic of Ireland, didn't have an official state church. Even so, since Eire is probably 90% Roman Catholic, there was a claus in it's Constitution recognising the Roman Catholic Church as having a special place in society. I would be totally against that too if I lived in Eire.

My personal experience in life is living in a secular society where there is no state church. Believe it or not I share most of your views about church and state. I'm with the atheists about religion keeping it's nose out of politics were a church or even a synagogue have special privilidges. But I'm not against religion using it's influence to change policies. There is a thin line between the two.

However, each country has a right to decide if it wants a secular society, or one with a state church. Personally I would not want to live in a country with a state church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. Nor would I like to live in a country where atheism was the state philosophy. The fomer USSR is an example.

Inspector was right not long ago when he said most Gays simply want to live their lives in peace and don't want to wreck society.

Gay "marriage" is totally against my personal relgious beliefs (but I support Gay civil unions).If the majority vote for it I will have to accept it as law. This happened in three USA states in the last election. Colorado, Maine and Washington. Oddly enough these three states are mainly rural, white, and usd to be thought of a conservative places.

5 January 2013 20:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 20.16 said, 'So, jog on, preferably taking your foreign religion with you.'

Is atheism domestic or foreign?

5 January 2013 20:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Magee: "What do you think about the C of E making a real move to adapt to the modern world we hear it talk about all the time and disestablishing itself?"

As I regularly describe myself as an advocate of a secular State, I think the answer to that ought to be pretty obvious.

"Inspector was right not long ago when he said most Gays simply want to live their lives in peace and don't want to wreck society."

I certainly don't want to wreck this society as I actually live here. I also want to live my life in peace and want others, including up and coming gay people, to do so too. When same-sex secular marriage is legislated for and the religious realise the sky didn't fall in this time either, we can all just get on with our lives again. As the headline says: homosexuality is an issue blown out of all proportion.

5 January 2013 20:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Is atheism domestic or foreign?"

It's the same as not-playing-golf-ism is, I expect.

5 January 2013 20:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo and Bluedog and Len and others.

Happy New Year chaps.

It looks like 2013 has started off more challenging for Christians than 2012 ended. It appears we have the makings of a coming struggle that some people are saying is not theologically important but will end decided in the justice courts, for certain?!

It appears that any sin is not really based on an absolute moral that has been revealed to us, merely a modern symptom of historic guilt based on the choices of others, that can at best be ignored or at worst even celebrated as a virtue in society, should we (the majority) so have to agree with the wisdom of the minority.

TallyHo!!

Blofeld

5 January 2013 20:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

"You claim to be a Roman Catholic so it's as much my business as yours what the CofE does. So, jog on, preferably taking your foreign religion with you."

Very erudite!

Christianity has no nationality, you silly chap.

Really, what business is it of yours what the Church of England decides to be the Law of a God you deny exists?

5 January 2013 20:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo; "Christianity has no nationality, you silly chap."

The political organisation that is the Roman Catholic Church does though, old man.

"Really, what business is it of yours what the Church of England decides to be the Law of a God you deny exists?"

What business is it of yours? Moreover, what business is it of yours whether I make a comment on it here?

5 January 2013 21:17  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Religion can encompass a nationality, and indeed often does. There's a clue in the name - Church of England. Until the church is disestablished, it remains the business of every soul in the realm what that church says and does.

5 January 2013 21:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Laurence Boyce

Until the church is disestablished, it remains the business of every soul in the realm what that church says and does.

A fair argument, and a fairly sound reason for dis-establishment in and of itself. But I am surprised to see you using the word 'soul' since you would deny there is any Ghost in the Shell. Nothing more than an elaborate exchange of chemical bonds that somehow (don't ask 'what' or 'how' let alone 'why') became sentient.

carl

5 January 2013 21:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2013 21:29  
Blogger Asa said...

DanJ0,
The Roman Catholic Church has been present in England longer than English has been spoken there.
The Roman Catholic Church is not a political organization.
My only problem with you commenting here is that your comments are tedious and predictable because not well informed.

5 January 2013 21:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Both the CofE and the Roman Catholic Church have involved themselves in our national politics as lobby groups pushing hard for the primacy of their special interests over secular ones. As such, they're fair game for comment and criticism and ridicule and so on just like any other political group, like trades unions, the BNP, UK Uncut, New Labour, and so on.

5 January 2013 21:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Asa: "My only problem with you commenting here is that your comments are tedious and predictable because not well informed."

Feel free to not read them. If you need any more simple solutions to first world problems then just let me know and I'll see what I can do for you.

5 January 2013 21:34  
Blogger Asa said...

DanJ0,
Well, what is the "first world" and what are her problems?

5 January 2013 21:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

'Asa', the term 'first world problems' is an internet meme. Google is your friend.

5 January 2013 21:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

You seem to be in a particularly spiteful mood.

*Partner* troubles is it?

5 January 2013 21:45  
Blogger Asa said...

DanJ0,
What's Google?

5 January 2013 21:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You seem to be in a particularly spiteful mood."

Does it make you all tingly in your old-man Y fronts?

5 January 2013 21:48  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Cranmer: "homosexuality is not an issue worthy of schism"

Only to a body in which everyone agrees that moral principle is unimportant.

Homosexuality is the shibboleth that the establishment has invented, knowing that it is utterly wrong, to crucify the church. It is precisely the same approach as the Caesars made, with their demand that Christians sacrifice to idols, burn a "pinch of incense". And when the Christians refused, those making the demand jeered at them for it: "what's the harm?" they sneered at those they proposed to crucify for not conforming.

It's an issue chosen in the knowledge that no Christian -- no person of any moral principle, indeed -- can accept it. That's why the establishment is doing it.

It's happened before, it will happen again.

After all, if you're willing to say this doesn't matter, just what is the point of the Church of England?

5 January 2013 21:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

How puerile!

I've told you before, its Kalvin Klein boxer pants - nice new sets too for Christmas. Would you like me to send you a pair of my older worn ones for your collection?

(It is *partner* trouble, isn't it? You poor thing.).

5 January 2013 21:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, apologise to Mrs Dodo for me (if she actually exists) as I expect the poor woman is probably going to have to endure your fumblings again later, what with the excitement of your finally getting a response after your all recent attempts to get to this point puts some lead back in your pencil.

5 January 2013 22:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Kalvin Klein"

They'll be the dodgy market-stall fakes then, I guess.

5 January 2013 22:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0, it's Saturday night. Shouldn't you be out somewhere all dressed up *enjoying* yourself? Instead you sit at home in with your laptop and pontificate at Christians (mainly elderly gentlemen), proclaim your sexual deviancy and atheism. What do you hope to achieve?

I mean, its just so, so sad. Really it is.

5 January 2013 23:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie 1797

Thank you for that tip. Excellent article everyone over 60 should read it because they know it's true from personal experience and everyone under twenty should read and HEED what A N Wilson says in it as a warning:

"I've lived through the greatest revolution in sexual mores in our history, the damage it's done appals me"

Daily Mail January 4, 2013

Partial quote:

"The wackier clerics of the Church of England, the pundits of the BBC, the groovier representatives of the educational establishment, the liberal Press, have all, since the Sexual Revolution began, gone along with the notion that a relaxation of sexual morality will lead to a more enlightened and happy society.

This was despite the fact that all the evidence around us demonstrates that the exact opposite is the case.

In the Fifties, the era when people were supposedly ‘repressed’, we were actually much happier than we have been more recently — in an era when confused young people have been invited to make up their own sexual morals as they went along.

The old American cliche is that you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube; and it is usually a metaphor used to suggest that it is impossible to turn the clock back in matters of public behaviour and morality."

PS

I confused A N Wilson, who I knew nothing about but do now thanks to you and will investigate his writings, with Ian Wilson who's several books about the Shroud of Turin, and others about Reincarnation, and Life After Death, Jesus, etc I really enjoyed back in the 1970-1990's long before I became an RC. I sill reread a few of them.

5 January 2013 23:34  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

If the topic is so unimportant, wouldn't it be wiser to avoid writing about it yet again?
I remember one very good line in the film "Gladiator" when the animal dealer (Oliver Reed I think) meets a dissatisfied customer who complains that his "pair" of giraffes have not mated and refuse to breed. "You sold me queer giraffes!"

5 January 2013 23:34  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

The witty and erudite A.N.Wilson is one of the best-known writers of our time, author of a dozen light novels, some biographies and a Life of Jesus that is worth reading. He was one of Private Eye's original young Fogies and is now a Grumpy Old Man. I don't know if he is still a Christian.

5 January 2013 23:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0: “It's of most interest to me because they appear to have similar things to say about their experience of god as straight ones. Are they deluded? “

Well not necessarily deluded but they seem to be ignoring what God says about homosexuality and its practice and the fact that it isn't mentioned much means it's been acknowledged as existing and sinful, but it does not belong in the mainstream nor contribute to the functioning of a prosperous healthy society. It's something to overcome or refrain from practising, end of story.

I don't think the conservative Christians will huff off, at some point someone has to try and uphold moral values.

Owl
I agree a great post from His Grace and we mustn't allow the destruction of the Church. Stand firm.

5 January 2013 23:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What do you hope to achieve?"

Huh? I'm doing you a favour! You put quite a lot of effort into getting to this point again so I'm donating my time so you can feel better about yourself again. This is exactly how you want it, right? I checked enough times down on that thread.

5 January 2013 23:47  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2013 23:48  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2013 23:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Well not necessarily deluded but they seem to be ignoring what God says about homosexuality and its practice and the fact that it isn't mentioned much means it's been acknowledged as existing and sinful, but it does not belong in the mainstream nor contribute to the functioning of a prosperous healthy society."

On the contrary, they interpret the various passages in a different way, focusing on the historical context as far as I can tell. Colin Coward, for example, would probably argue that a committed, loving homosexual relationship is not at all sinful, focusing on the love aspect rather than biological function. The curious thing is that one might think the Holy Spirit would incline Christians to a common view. Afterall, this is the Lord of All Creation which apparently maintains the very fabric of our universe moment by monent. It ought to be a breeze. Yet people like Jeffrey John can seem quite godly at times, really, despite being at odds with other Christians on this particular topic.

"I don't think the conservative Christians will huff off, at some point someone has to try and uphold moral values."

Isn't it pretty much inevitable now? I'm not sure of the figures but I thought they were a small minority in this country. The conservatives will form a church their worldwide brethren and the CofE will go its own liberal way. Can it really be otherwise now, despite the article above?

6 January 2013 00:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Gasper: "We are not talking mild personality disorder here, it is the full, chronic schizophrenic brain fever."

Given your ID swap up there at 23:34 and 23:39, you really ought not to be saying that. ;)

6 January 2013 00:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0, no, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.

All I do is track your pathetically transparent attempts to draw people in debates which invariably descend into personal abuse. It's you who gets your rocks off with this.

Now run along and we'll say no more; there's a good little chap.

Mwwah.

6 January 2013 00:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Do you need me tomorrow too, Dodo? Or can you get by on tonight's satisfaction? Just let me know in good time.

6 January 2013 00:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 January 2013 00:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Old Ernst has re-read your comment again as He cannot believe what you have stated and therefore has a problem reconciling this with the express meaning of the epistles and sexual immorality.
1st Corinthians 5 deals with the behaviour of an unnamed christian who Paul address with the ancient Greek word Porneia (refers to all types of sexual activity outside of marriage (including homosexuality) and “must be understood in its utmost latitude of meaning, as implying all kinds of impurity.” (Adam Clarke's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 5:1).

Porneia nearly always appears first in New Testament “sin lists” but not because the first Christians had a lot of “hang ups” about sex as seems to be implied by liberal 'Christians' towards traditional adherents to the whole counsel of God nowadays. However, it is because the area of sex was one of the most dramatic places where the ethics of Greek culture clashed with the ethics of Our Saviour Jesus Christ. Sexual immorality was an accepted fact of life for the common person in Greek culture, but it was not to be so among the followers of Jesus as Paul states continually when addressing sexual immorality with the churches.

Their response to this sin was noted that they ,,,"are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you."
It seems the Corinthian Christians were probably allowing this 'live and let live' lifestyle in the name of “tolerance.” They probably were saying to themselves, “Look how loving we are. We are accepting this brother just as he is. Look how open-minded we are!” or as you say 'Dear brothers and sisters, homosexuality is not an issue worthy of schism: it is simply not of the order of the sort of debate that used to divide the Church: the divinity of Christ, for example, or the nature of his humanity – the great controversy at the Council of Nicea in AD325 – or even over liturgy or the transforming nature of infant baptism. The issue of homosexuality affects only a tiny minority of its adherents: it is of distinctly secondary, even peripheral, scriptural importance.” It appears then that St Paul was risible in putting the unity of believers at risk by saying this to the Corinthians or others regarding any sexual immorality? Silly old pharisee coming through the epistles rather than the enlightened 'ones' of today.

You say "The role of the Bible in addressing the modern question of the place of the homosexual in the church is complex, not least because where it is mentioned in Scripture, the authors give little sustained consideration of the issue as it manifests in the modern world." Then why did Christ visit Abraham with two angels that went on to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if homosexuality is not a No-No but now verily has His blessing and He even wants to make priests and Bishops out of them...V V Strange?

Blofeld

6 January 2013 00:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Then "They are themselves divided into those who acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and therefore a call to celibacy (You seem to forget that sin first originates in the thought then the deed, which are both condemned as sin, the inward more so..The sins of the Pharisees?..they can no more have no sexual thoughts as homosexuals than we can have as hetero's..are they going to throw themselves into the preaching of the gospel as Paul did, thereby crucifying these thoughts, temptations and tendencies. I DOUBT IT! They will merely do the act as they are living with civil partners that are now deemed acceptable to the church.. WE are now the hypocrites NOT them, in their eyes), and those who assert that they also are made in God’s image (What has God's image got to do with our sinful nature that deemed it SOOOO necessary for Him to dies for us because it (that image) had been made corruptible by sin?) and therefore seek to express their sexual desires in an intimate, monogamous relationship (I may want to seek a monogamous relationship with my mother, sister or daughter and as with homosexuality only a moral law stops us...but the same revulsion that once was once for homosexuality has now been rendered clean by man's law, has it not!...There is NO moral law in evolved nature only victors/survivors, only what man says is now relatively moral, in his eyes".

"It may be readily observed that the modern era is sex-obsessed: we live in a consumer society, and there is little that is marketed without a glance, a wink, a flirt, a breast, or allusions to sexual intercourse, because ‘sex sells’." Go back to the culture of ancient Greece or Rome and be 'astounded' that nothing has changed except our once christian country..WE are reverting not advancing!!!

"The issue for the Church of England is that this debate has been blown out of all proportion; it is neither a battle for the soul of the church, nor an issue worthy of schism." Things that are at the heart of scripture are ALWAYS a battle for the soul and worthy of schism...Wheat and tares and all that!!

Blofeld

6 January 2013 00:41  
Blogger John Magee said...

ASA

"Roman Catholic Church has been present in England longer than English has been spoken there"

You are correct. There is no doubt converted Roman soldiers were sent to Britain, some posibly with their Christian wives and children from what is now Italy, within a few years after the death of Jesus. There is even the slight chance a few of them saw Jesus during His lifetime if they had been stationed in Palestine before 33 AD. So the Eucharist, Holy Mass, was almost certainly said in London by Catholic priests from Rome and other parts of what is now Italy as early as 40-60 AD and at that in towns and Roman villas spread all over the English countryside. Without a doubt they made converts of druids although that would have been risky.

It's hard to imagine today that Londinium (London) back then was a thriving city founded by the Romans and the language spoken by it's citizens was Latin.

@ Dodo

Isn't it possible Dan JO is here searching fo something and I don't mean trouble? In spite of his often negative attitude I think he is a good person at heart and he is trying to find something to fill that empty hole atheists have. He needs our prayers. Dan JO is an intelligent and thinking person and let's face it. He has a hard row to hoe in life.

6 January 2013 00:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"@ Dodo

Isn't it possible Dan JO is here searching fo something and I don't mean trouble? In spite of his often negative attitude I think he is a good person at heart and he is trying to find something to fill that 'empty hole' atheists have. He needs our prayers. Dan JO is an intelligent and thinking person and let's face it. He has a hard row to hoe in life."

Dear fellow

Do you really need to pass the 'double entendre' bullets to others, they will use them, have no doubts. Ding dong!

Blofeld

6 January 2013 00:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Blofeld

Dear boy, now that was naughty! Funny but naughty, you old rascal.

Your post to our host was well written. I was wondering whether he was being satirical as he sometimes is.

The issue of homosexuality and acting on this disorder, is critical. Should any church ever accept such behaviour is not sinful and actually legitimatise it, or ignore it, then all is lost to it.

How could a church continue to condemn adultery or fornication, or any other sexual sin, and not condemn homosexuality. It can say nothing on all sin, than: we are human, we all have needs and temptations; however, with His help, we should live by God's laws; when we fail, as we will, we must turn around, repent and resolve to avoid future illicit deeds or thoughts.

Concede on homosexuality and all the Christian message is conceded.

6 January 2013 01:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Thanks so much but no, I've finished with you for now. From time to time I might pass an observation or two on your conduct. I trust you have no objections. Run off now and bother someone else and have fun.

Mwah.

6 January 2013 01:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr Magee said *chuckles and chortles and sniggers*

"..So the Eucharist, Holy Mass, was almost certainly said in London by Catholic priests from Rome and other parts of what is now Italy as early as 40-60 AD and at that in towns and Roman villas spread all over the English countryside. Without a doubt they made converts of druids although that would have been risky."


It is well known that the first Mass was proposed by a Benedictine monk named Radbertus in the ninth century.
It then was adopted as an official part of Roman Catholic theology in 1215 at a Lateran Council presided over by Pope Innocent III.
This doctrine was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Central to the Mass is the idea of transubstantiation, i.e. the complete change of the elements used in the Mass (the bread and wine) into the actual body of Christ. Teaching on this change of substance received its first creedal mention in the creed of Pope Pius IV in 1564. Another significant development occurred on June 15th, 1415 at the Council of Constance when it was decided to prohibit the people participating in the communion cup. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Mass was permitted to be said in the language of the people. Until then it had to be performed in Latin.

All this indicates that the Mass, as its is practiced today by the Church of Rome, was something entirely unknown to the church for more than 1000 years, including the early church fathers.

Best laugh of the year but it is still early, what?


May old Ernst recommend http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.html..the history of the christian church..for historical veracity purposes?

Blofeld

6 January 2013 01:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Dear boy, now that was naughty! Funny but naughty, you old rascal."Oh my poor fellow..Did old Ernst snatch the bullets out of your hands. Think of it as a kindness to DanJo and a restraint on yourself by yours truly, to start the new year well and with no unnecessary bloodshed.*chuckles*.

"Your post to our host was well written. I was wondering whether he was being satirical as he sometimes is." My bird, it maybe that he is being satirical but Ernst was not. The words of St Paul are meant to be seminal and hold Christians in no doubt as to what it means in living a pure life and what we must aim for despite the pitfalls of life.

"Concede on homosexuality and all the Christian message is conceded." indeed and we are united on this key element if old Ernst would not quite badger them on this blog as you and OIG sometimes are prone to. Ernst says it and walks away...you will not change someone from their opinion unless they are ready to hear good news.

Ernst my bird.

6 January 2013 01:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"The issue of homosexuality and acting on this disorder, is critical." Ernst must disagree on this specific sin being called a 'disorder'. It is a willful life-choice as would be incest or bestiality or necrophilia, fornication or adultery.
Sin is sin, no matter how we may want or try justify it to ourselves or others, else how can we be held accountable by a Just and Holy God?

Blowers

6 January 2013 01:39  
Blogger Peter Simpson said...

His Grace wrote, “The issue of homosexuality ... is of distinctly secondary, even peripheral, scriptural importance”.

Because of the promotion of homosexuality by the liberal secular establishment the definition of marriage for every one in society is about to be changed. Children will henceforth have to be taught in schools, ‘You can have either two mummies or two daddies’. Christian teachers who refuse to comply may find themselves facing dismissal.

Respectfully, such a situation is not secondary, but a grave assault upon this nation’s Christian civilisation.

His Grace wrote, “It is doubtful that Jesus would address Eros’s sub-divisions (gay, bi, straight)”.

Courteously, Jesus did explicitly address these subdivisions in Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude v7, Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10, for it is the Spirit of Christ, one of the designations of the Holy Spirit, who inspired Moses, Paul and Jude.

His Grace wrote, “The role of the Bible in addressing the modern question of the place of the homosexual in the church is complex, not least because where it is mentioned in Scripture, the authors give little sustained consideration of the issue as it manifests in the modern world”.

Very politely, is not this saying that the Bible is an insufficient guide for the unique problems of the modern world, and that God’s word therefore has a deficiency in relation to the present age? This is not a position that the Protestant reformers such as Cranmer would have taken.

Why should consideration of homosexuality be any different today than in 1st century Corinth? Sinful human nature is the same in every generation.

The Church of England, as the latest statement re gay bishops shows, is in profound error by making a false distinction between homosexual orientation and practice.

In February 2007 the General Synod resolved that “homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life ... and (we) acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England participating in the listening process as full members of the Church”.

This statement represents a rejection of Biblical teaching, because the Lord Jesus Christ asserts in the Sermon on the Mount that orientation to sin (a harbouring of sinful thoughts), as well as the practice of sin, renders one guilty in God’s sight (Matthew 5:22, 28). Such a repudiation of God’s word by the national church cannot, with courtesy, be called a peripheral matter.

The Christian shows his love for his homosexual neighbour by upholding the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, by teaching the seriousness of sin, and by proclaiming that God’s mercy is free and abundant upon true repentance.

Yours in polite discussion, Pastor Peter Simpson.

6 January 2013 02:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ernsty
"Ernst must disagree on this specific sin being called a 'disorder'."

So little for us to disagree on. I meant a disorder of nature, a moral disorder which is what all proclivity towards sin is, after all.

Rev Simpson
Surely an 'orientation' is not sinful? Aren't we all orientated towards one sin or another?

Surely it is the encouragement of sinful same sex attraction through lustful thought or actually acting on this impulse that is sinful?

6 January 2013 02:38  
Blogger John Magee said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...
Mr Magee said *chuckles and chortles and sniggers*

Blofeld

You may chuckle, chortle, and snigger until you gasp for air over what I said, which I hope does not happen, but you can't deny the very first Christians in the early Church had the Seven Sacraments. This fact is in any history book about the history of Christianity or of that period at your local public library and on millions of web also about that era on the internet.

Everyone knows the story from history of Nero burning Rome in 64 AD and how he blamed the Chrisians for starting that fire and had them rounded up and burned, some attached to poles in his garden and covered with grease and set on fire at night for "entertainment" at one of his "parties", for causing the fire he himself ordered started. What reason did he give for the lie the Christians burned Rome and use as his excuse to kill them?. Nero claimed the Christians were "cannibals" who ate Roman citizens and the hated the Emperor and deliberately set fire to the city. This rumor was circulating by pagans at this date, 64 AD only 31 years after the Crucifixion of Jesus and His Resurrection, was that Christians ate human flesh and drank blood at their secret rituals.

What does this sound like? It sounds like a gross and perverted misinterpretation of the events at the last supper and the celebration of Eucharist by the pagan Romans to me.

You can't deny that Roman soldiers and civilians were without a doubt the first Christians in Britain at least a decade after the death of Christ after the Romans invaded Britain for the 2nd time in 43 AD 10 years after Jesus's death on the Cross.

Please look up the image on your search of the beautiful painting by the English Pre-Raphaelite painter William Holman Hunt titled "A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Priest from the Persecution of the Druids" painted in 1850. This dramatic painting depicts the terror of a Celtic Christian family in Druid Britain sheltering a Christian priest in their simple home while a Druid mob in the background hunts for him with clubs wanting to kill him. Scenes like this probably did happen after the Romand conquest in 43 AD.
The painting is at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford so if you live near that famous city it's worth a visit to see it and many others wonderful paintings there too.

Blofeld. I like you because of your enthusiasm for your Christian beliefs here. Most of which we share.

All the best in 2013 for you and those you love.

6 January 2013 07:01  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

It is good to see this concern for Scriptual Morality, but this presbyter wonders why the same level and degree of fulmination is not given to fornication and adultery [which in the mind of the Fathers DOES include the marriage of divorced persons] as well as general naughties such as thievery, lying, letting lady female persons speak in Church etc., all of which are practiced far more than homosexuality.
There used to be an attitude in the Church that everyone was automatically a sinner in something and that it was a personal matter to be left between him and his "ghostly counsellor" unless he was a "notorius and evil liver" in which case there were appropriate sanctions AND reconciliations when "he had amended his former naughty life."
This, I think was much better than these modernist concepts of "structural sin and transparency"
As the man says
"If WE say we have no sin, WE deceive ouraelves"

6 January 2013 08:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

I have to give it to you Blofeld, you are so right on this issue.
O for the luxury of time.
So much good stuff here.

6 January 2013 10:26  
Blogger len said...

Hi Ernst , nice to see you back, happy New Year.

Dodo seems to have taken on a new persona a 'vulture' I think?, also I seem to remember 'Chantry Priest' being one of his ?.

New Year, same **** I think.... all the best.

6 January 2013 10:32  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Chantry Priest:

I'd imagine it's because most of us aren't guilty of having same-sex sexual relationships. It makes it a "safe" sin to criticize, because there's no question that we have done it.

It's well worth interogating many of the most strident voices in the debate as to the other sins you describe. I know, for instance, that the Archbishop of York has a very laid back attitude to pre-marital sex. I don't see how he can justify a relaxation of one whilst criticising a relaxation of the other.

Back in 2002 when the CofE first officially allowed divorcees (not in the case of adultery) to be remarried there were plenty of people who warned that we would end up in the unthinkable position of justifying other sexual and marital irregularities. Naturally the fuss and the coverage was substantially less - from both the faithful and their enemies.

Those commentators who see SSM as the beginning of a slippery slope are late to the argument: we're not at the beginning of one, we're near the bottom of one.

But thus has it always been: God's relationship with man was never an arm outstretched across an infinitely small distance, it was God come down, into the depths of our moral squalour to reclaim man from the cess-pit of a reality he has enthroned himself in. It didn't start in 2002, it didn't start in the 1960s, it didn't start in the hypocrisy of Victorian brothels: it starts with the human race choosing its own will above God's.

6 January 2013 11:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB
Catholic commentators at the time warned the decision by the Church of England in 1930 to license contraception would result in a general liberalisation towards other sexual sins such as pre-marital sex. Sexual love was seen as good in itself and restricting the size of one's family was too. Sanctioning abortion was sure to follow. As was divorce. No one for saw homosexuality being approved but, with hindsight, it is a logical extension. Satan is cunning indeed.

len
I know you have a visual impairment, amongst other *issues*, but do look closed at my avatar. A vulture indeed!

6 January 2013 11:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Your Grace,

The viewpoint expressed by the bishops on this issue seems to be perfectly logical if you take the view that gay sex is the issue, rather than with gay people themselves (albeit a very generous interpretation).

If it were me and I were a Bishop I would have a pastoral concern, though, that if you were gay and in a civil partnership, you'd be thrown into turmoil by temptation.

And of course the other concern would be clergy being subject to witch hunts about their sexual activity (which naturally wouldn't extent to single straight vicars).

But on the other hand, I guess that if you believe you have been called by your deity to service him in the capacity of priest, that you need to have slightly more than an ounce of integrity, so surely it would come as granted that in that position, to uphold your church's belief?

6 January 2013 11:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "I'd imagine it's because most of us aren't guilty of having same-sex sexual relationships. It makes it a "safe" sin to criticize, because there's no question that we have done it."

Years ago, I exchanged letters with a Christian woman through the letters page of a regional newspaper. She was advocating the Silver Ring Thing and she had lots to say, in a very outraged, disgusted, and self-righteous way, about sexual immorality. It wasn't until a couple of years later that I found out she was actually asexual. Properly, I mean. No sexual desire at all. It's quite rare I believe. Her letters and tone made much sense when viewed through that prism. I expect she was bewildered why sex seemed to preoccupy people so much and found the whole thing revolting.

6 January 2013 12:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 January 2013 12:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

One of the 'issues' on the Big Questions this morning was quite interesting. It was "Can the Holy Spirit move you?" Dr Evan Harris, one of the blog owner's would-be nemeses, was on and actually came across quite well I thought. On his side was another bloke called Professor Jeremy Carrette, Head of Religious Studies at Kent University, who talked about psychology, neuroscience, and interpreting experiences.

6 January 2013 12:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I agree with you Miss Gasper 23:49
Well put and an obvious deduction.

However not everyone would agree with you e.g Blowfeld a.k.a Ernsty or the commode hugger thinks Danjo is a nice person,intelligent and has a hole in himself which he is filling with a lust for Dodo and his underpants rather than a belief in God. Yes...I know , I know!LOL

6 January 2013 12:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see the scratters are gathering again now that Dodo has reopened the door.

6 January 2013 12:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There was a young couple. No children, so they bought a dog. The dog was very much a loved member of the family.

It came that the wife was expecting, and gave birth to a child. The child was the future. But the dog was annoyed at the attention the baby was getting.

The parents bought a manger for the baby. This really irked the dog, for his bed was only ever a couple of rags in the corner of the room.

The family went out one day, but left the dog behind. When they returned, the dog was in the manger and refused to get out.

The parents were at a quandary. Should they upset their beloved dog, or put the baby on the rags in the corner.

In the end, they physically ejected the dog. The dog was sore about that, but in time came to understand it was still beloved, but had to make way for the baby. Because the baby was the future, and one day the dog would be no more....

6 January 2013 13:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

That term describes you perfectly.
You reopened that door- not Dodo . I do not see why he should have to tolerate your filthy personal attacks. Besides the other sickos on the site support you so why not
perv on their underwear!

6 January 2013 13:05  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...




"But on the other hand, I guess that if you believe you have been called by your deity to service him in the capacity of priest, that you need to have slightly more than an ounce of integrity, so surely it would come as granted that in that position, to uphold your church's belief?"

You would like to think so.

However,

Just take Gene Robinson.

"Before being named bishop, Robinson deserted his wife and children to take up with a homosexual lover"

Nice...

Phil




6 January 2013 13:05  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This is a wake up call for the CofE/CinW.

If we don't act soon.


http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Home-Page-News-and-Views/Why-is-the-Episcopal-church-near-collapse.aspx?p=1

Rip the Church to bits? I really don't think that they care.

Phil

PS the Giles Frazer mentioned is not "our" Rev Giles Frazer as far as I know.

6 January 2013 13:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

the above comment is for that nice intelligent well mannered polite person who has a hole!

6 January 2013 13:10  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

13:03
Say man, that's real deep!

6 January 2013 13:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, the dog is a metaphor for the Church and the hay in the manger is a metaphor for secular same-sex marriage? Right? Just call me Aesop. ;)

6 January 2013 14:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's no need for the people to throw out the dog, it just needs to shown its place and settle itself in the comfy box in the corner.

6 January 2013 14:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts

I am not sure your comparison is correct here, as the article was regarding already openly gay priests in celibate civil partnerships.

Also, I did look up Gene Robinson, as I was going to say that if he had done something wrong it would be adultery (something which gays and straight couple can do).

However, having researched this Bishop, it seems that he did not commit adultery, because he 'came out' as gay during his marriage, which seemed to have been ended on an amicable note. He then met his male partner later. It is also public record that he is still friends with his former wife and close to his daughters.

6 January 2013 14:18  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

What is not "nice" Phil, is to crucify Gene Robinson in this self-fulfilling manner. Robinson knew he was gay before he got married. But he nevertheless attempted to live up to the standard of orthodox Christian morality for 13 years, before realising that the said morality was a cruel sham in which he and his wife were essentially set up to fail.

And then you jeer at him. Really not nice.

6 January 2013 14:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hannah

It seems that he did not commit adultery, because he 'came out' as gay during his marriage ...

It is simply not a credible story to suggest that Gene Robinson woke up one morning, decided to divorce his wife, and only then enter the world of homosexual relationships. There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that he 'sampled the menu' prior to his coming out. To become a bishop, he had to create a facade of sexual fidelity.

... which seemed to have been ended on an amicable note.

Which is totally irrelevant. He made a covenant that was never in his power to dissolve. He violated that covenant by his sexual sin. The violation is objective. It doesn't require that the offended partner claim offense.

He then met his male partner later.

But what was he doing in secret before then? No reasonable juror would believe his story unless he was predisposed to believe it beforehand.

carl

6 January 2013 14:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Laurence:

The essential problem with Gene Robinson is that he has argued many times that gay couples should be treated as having parity with heterosexual couples. His argument, and the argument of many of the straight liberal Christians who support him is that one can advocate sexual fidelity and monogamy in an identical way to "normal" marriage, only between two people of the same gender.

However, if this is truly the case, it is difficult to see how Robinson can avoid the charge that what he does now is adultery especially if he believes gay marriage is absolutely the same as heterosexual marriage. As far as we know neither he nor his wife committed adultery. Christ taught that except where adultery has occurred, a divorcee commits adultery by remarrying. Consequently, if Robinson's position is upheld, and gay marriage is permissable, he nevertheless commits adultery against his wife. And if not, he commits a sin by being in his present lifestyle which cannot be recognised as marriage.

The only way he can proceed is to essentially reject the authority of Christ's quite specific and unambiguous teaching on divorce, which rather puts paid to his argument that recognising (his) gay marriage is simply an extension of Christian sexual morality.

I'm sure that you'll wish to heartily endorse such an act - but to my mind, why bother pretending that what's needed is simply a "gay" form of Christian sexual morality? If God really can be changed to suit oneself, and Jesus' teachings are only worth listening to when they suit, one has a Christian-flavoured form of atheism where it is man and not God who decides what is right.

For the avoidance of doubt, Laurence, I also refer to you some of my earlier posts above. Robinson is by no means the only hypocrite on sexual morality, nor the only bishop to discard the elements that do not suit him. I am under no illusion that hypocrisy is limited to one side.

6 January 2013 14:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 January 2013 15:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

DanJ0:

I've been thinking about the two elements of your reply.

On the neuroscience stuff - I haven't had a chance to listen to Big Questions, but I have been interested in an amateur way with developments in the field. I've never really had a problem with wanting to find out what the brain does during prayer or when someone is speaking in tongues etc. Expanding the relatively embryonic knowledge we have about how the brain (best to leave the mind out of it) works is always welcome. I'd imagine the usual argument that numinous experiences can be explained neurologically was raised. Quite so: I imagine they can. But if this was advanced towards the question of the existence of God by Dr Harris and friends, I should be quite surprised.

I'll try and get a listen on it this evening.

As to your correspondence with the asexual woman, do you see this as symptomatic of commentators on sexual morality, or merely one of life's little stories? I admit to partly having read it in the context of your exchanges of fire with the Inspector, not quite being certain whether you genuinely suspect him of being homosexual by inclination, or are merely matching ad hominem with ad hominem.

(managed to fudge the link, hence the delete)

6 January 2013 15:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "But if this was advanced towards the question of the existence of God by Dr Harris and friends, I should be quite surprised."

I need to watch it again really as I was doing something else too at the time. Some of the people on that side of the room were pointing out, as I do, that people of all religions experience things like religious ecstasy. In as much as it tends to generalise the nature of the experiences, one might question whether they are valid experiences of god rather than just experiences of the world interpreted and given meaning by each person differently.

"As to your correspondence with the asexual woman, do you see this as symptomatic of commentators on sexual morality, or merely one of life's little stories? I admit to partly having read it in the context of your exchanges of fire with the Inspector, not quite being certain whether you genuinely suspect him of being homosexual by inclination, or are merely matching ad hominem with ad hominem."

It was just an anecdote though it has stuck in my mind and no doubt influences me at times when I see certain similar behaviour. I'm not saying that all or even most people who make comments about sexual morality are bringing personal issues to bear. Undoubtedly there's a philosophical/theological position one can argue in its pure form. It's just that I see lots of examples of the other. As I said quite recently, I think having a religion gives people permission to feed their own issues through if they so choose as feel they're justified.

As for the Inspector, I wasn't thinking of him specifically at all when I commented but I'm afraid I do genuinely think he's conflicted and that's not to cause trouble with him here. If I'm right then I actually pity him in the benign sense of that word because I'm sure it would be quite personally destructive. If I'm wrong then it applies in the same way to those many examples who have very strong reactions beyond the normal and turn out to be what they despise in the end.

6 January 2013 15:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Speaking of anecdotes, I think I have been quite influenced by a local-ish vicar (now retired) too. He used to write in the local papers on an almost weekly basis saying that homosexuals and Muslims would burn in hell. He also believed that there were local covens of witches trying to attack him with magic. I think he suffered from sleep apnea, or perhaps acide reflux, but he interpreted it as spiritual attacks by Satan's minions. He also thought the Kegworth air disaster was caused by the same witches. There were some dead black crows hanging in trees in the flight path, you see.

6 January 2013 15:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Good day to you and Happy New Year Cressida! It's good to see you back and in such good form.

I have somewhat graciously offered a set of used and worn underpants to DanJ0, if he wants them, Kelvin Klein too. Sometimes, as Oscar Wilde observed, the only way to overcome a temptation is to give in to it.

6 January 2013 15:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Did you get some "Hugo Bass" aftershave from the wife too this Christmas, Dodo? If so and you're inclined to present it to show how trendy you are despite being an old duffer then I'm afraid I have some bad news.

6 January 2013 15:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Unlike Kinderling, who posts unintelligible waffle, the Inspector gives you all an explanation.

The dog is the homosexual act. The couple, humanity, didn’t need to buy it, the dog was always there. Over in the corner, largely out of sight. The baby is the Word, as passed down through the generations. The manger is the church. The couple go out, as in the morals of humanity have largely gone out in the last fifty years. On returning, they find that homosexuality is in the church asserting itself and refuses to move.

This is where we are today...

The dilemma is this, the dog is quite comfortable there and we all love the dog. Do we sully the word by associating it with the homosexual outlook.

The most profound part follows. Nothing is going to break the tie, unless you take positive action. You have to eject the homosexual influence from the church and return it to the corner. It’s no stranger to the corner. It lived there until of late.

The other solution is to have the baby and dog sleep together. Which is unacceptable.

Or you could let the dog stay in the manger. The baby goes to the corner, away from mainstream life, and in time the manger starts to resemble a dog basket.

So DanJ0 is correct when he says There's no need for the people to throw out the dog, it just needs to shown its place and settle itself in the comfy box in the corner.

6 January 2013 15:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

DanJ0:

I certainly think one should always keep in mind the log in one's eye. My understanding of Christ's teaching is that it requires us to always examine our consciences before our justifications, but that in order to do the former one must accept God's justification to call us to account.

Curiously, it's been my experience that the churches which present the most scepticism towards religious ecstasy are the charismatic ones. I've sat through several sermons/talks regarding the danger of relying on feelings, or the way in which we can manipulate our feelings or be manipulated through music, group events etc. But then, my experience of charismatic churches has been an almost universal preference towards putting things to the test rather than jumping to conclusions. One particular project at my last church underwent a period of testing and prayer amongst the church members for nearly 5 years before it was taken up. The emphasis is always on long-term devotion, consistency, and integrity based on following God's Word.

Funnily enough my first "crisis of faith" in the halycon first few months of becoming a Christian was precisely that I had stopped "feeling" close to God. I was gently advised that Christianity is not the pursuit of feeling, but remaining steadfast. I have since found that, as with so many things, C.S. Lewis has the best phrase to describe the Holy Spirit:

He is not a tame Lion.

6 January 2013 15:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "Curiously, it's been my experience that the churches which present the most scepticism towards religious ecstasy are the charismatic ones."

I've probably told you about my going to see another local-ish vicar from the pentecostal tradition when the so-called Toronto Blessing was exciting people.

6 January 2013 16:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, As for the Inspector, I wasn't thinking of him specifically at all when I commented but I'm afraid I do genuinely think he's conflicted and that's not to cause trouble with him here. If I'm right then I actually pity him in the benign sense of that word because I'm sure it would be quite personally destructive. If I'm wrong then it applies in the same way to those many examples who have very strong reactions beyond the normal and turn out to be what they despise in the end.,

For anyone not in the know. The lad genuinely believes that if a bachelor can devote much of his time in coming to understand LGBT community, it follows he must be gay himself. A bit like someone who is lucky enough not to need a car is thus virulently anti car.

Anyway, it did cause some indignity at first, but if he truly holds this belief, well there you have it. It just goes to show that when you are a youngish homosexual man, you do nothing in this life unless it involves your own sexual needs somewhere along the line...


6 January 2013 16:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The lad genuinely believes that if a bachelor can devote much of his time in coming to understand LGBT community, it follows he must be gay himself."

To be fair, it's the rants and the personal cirsumstances together. You have to admit that it's a bit stereotypical. But hey, it doesn't really matter on a forum as no-one knows you in real life. I rarely mention homosexuality or Christianity away from forums, you know.

6 January 2013 16:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ditto !

6 January 2013 16:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Now you want to know about my deodorants and aftershave? Is there no end to your preoccupation with me and Mrs Dodo?

Please try to stop obsessing and prying into my personal affairs. I'm afraid I may have inadvertently encouraged this by revealing my brand of under garments.

6 January 2013 16:38  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

By the way . . .

I totally reject the main thrust of this post which is that the church is "showing itself to share the same obsessions as the world." I don't see that modern society is any more or less obsessed with sex than it always has been, that is to say - quite a lot. Yes, we are obsessed by sex, but it's not hard to see why.

A Christian might tell you that the central purpose of human existence is to love and worship God, but of course that's nonsense. The central purpose of human existence is to breed - much more banal and earthy. Of course there's no obligation to fulfil that purpose, but nevertheless, that is the purpose.

Given that we are here to breed, it is hardly surprising that a powerful force exists - sex - to help bring about this outcome. And it is no surprise that we spend a lot of time ruminating over the sex act, and relating so much of what we do towards sex.

But the church is obsessed with sex in a much more outdated and illiberal fashion. It has always sought to police the sex act and deem that it may only take place under carefully controlled circumstances. To open windows not just into men's souls but into the bedroom - that most private area of anyone's life. Needless to say, these intrusions are invariably accompanied by great wagon loads of hypocrisy.

Of course sex can be harmful - we really don't need some religious hypocrite to tell us that - but even more harmful has been all the needless guilt and unhappiness which the church has heaped upon the sex act over the centuries. And then the Church of England comes out and says that gay bishops are fine but must be celibate, showing that they have learned absolutely nothing.

6 January 2013 16:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Dodo, one requests you less the ad hominem old chap, lest the blog grinds to a halt again...

6 January 2013 16:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

He was warned enough about the provocation on that other thread yet wouldn't stop so this is clearly exactly what he wants. But we already knew that, it was just a matter of when.

6 January 2013 16:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


One is sure that knowing the displease of the Inspector, who has renounced ad hominem, will be an influencing factor...

6 January 2013 17:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Blofeld

"It is well known that the first Mass was proposed by a Benedictine monk named Radbertus in the ninth century.
It then was adopted as an official part of Roman Catholic theology in 1215 at a Lateran Council presided over by Pope Innocent III."

Your statement defies history and is even more amazing because so many Protsestants try to rewrite early Church history claiming the Mass started with Constantine after the Council of Nicea or some other rediculous nonsense that has no historical basis whatsoever. The Eucharist, or the Mass, dates to the first days of the early Church the name "Mass" originates about 200 AD when the priest said in Latin at the end of the Eucharist service "Ite missa est", Go,it is dismissed". The essential parts of the Mass are still there today from the early Church. Until the Latin Mass was changed to the vernacular after Vatican II the Kyrie eleision, Christe eleison (Greek for Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy) were still part of the Latin Roman Catholic Mass. This was a remnant frome the time in the first centures when the Eucharist was celebrated by the Latin Church in Greek. Until 1964 the Roman Catholic Church still had Greek words as part of the Latin Mass. I remember the Kyrie well from the times I attended Latin Mass at Christmas with my mother.

Tell me why the Church of England slavishly copies the Roman Catholic Eucharist service today if it was invenetd by some monk in the 800's AD?

It is regretable that you misunderstood my olive branch held out to Dan JO and twisted it into a double entendre it was never meant to be. Perhaps that indicates your mind along with a few of the other Bible quoting moralist's here isn't always on scripture?

Here was my post and I meant it EXACTLY as written and not a some sleazy double entendre you and another amatuer theologian suggested . I have hurt Dan JO in the past and regret it. I totally disgree most of his views but he is here for a reason and maybe we can help him to know Christ. I apologize to him for any pain I may have caused him here in the past and offer him my apology. If he does not accept my apology I pray for him.

For a change how about a little less Bible and a lot more Christianity here. Ganging up on people is a nasty business. I give my opinions here as best I can and make no apolgies for my views, however, if I have hurt anyone I apologize.

If anyone here hates me because of the following post which was misinterpreted by some I don't know what to say other than: Matthew 25:40 ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me"

This is the post verbatim:

@ Dodo

Isn't it possible Dan JO is here searching fo something and I don't mean trouble? In spite of his often negative attitude I think he is a good person at heart and he is trying to find something to fill that empty hole atheists have. He needs our prayers. Dan JO is an intelligent and thinking person and let's face it. He has a hard row to hoe in life.


6 January 2013 00:47

6 January 2013 17:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Brothers and sisters...

This humble man, the Inspector, prostrates himself before you and begs your forgiveness for ad hominem past.

He now stands and testifies, halleluiah !

Testifies that what he did was bad, so bad, halleluiah !

Free yourselves from ad hominem, my brothers and sisters

This man has seen the light, he has seen the truth of his misdemeanours, testify with him, brothers and sisters...

...and birds !


6 January 2013 17:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Amen!

6 January 2013 18:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Point of clarification ...

Does this new found spirit apply universally, without exception?

6 January 2013 18:14  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Lawrence/Hannah

It is good to go away for an afternoon after making a point and when I return it has been essentially answered.

The point I would make is that it is especially important for Christian Leaders to model what it says in the Bible how God intends us to live our lives and in a homosexual relationship is not how God intended us to live our lives.

Let me say that it is not just homosexuality that could be your problem. It may be that you are fighting against all kinds of sin. Pride is the most common, but you can probably think of greed, gluttony etc etc.

However, sexual sin is also mentioned, homosexuality along with adultery.

It is not true that all homosexuals are going to hell, (and it certainly is not true that all heteros are going to heaven) because it is the acceptance of Jesus as saviour that gets you to heaven.

Everyone sins and all sins can forgiven but as a Christian leader you cannot openly say that sin (It is almost always the sin that they doing -- they often condemn other sins that they do not do themselves) is acceptable. This is really the issue that most Christians have with Gene Robinson (and leaders of the Church in homosexual relationships.)

I personally find it unacceptable that the CinW that recently a Bishop caught in adultery was thrown out whilst clergy are able to live in reasonably open homosexual relationships

Phil

6 January 2013 18:19  
Blogger michael north said...

People should read Newman. No doubt what the earliest Christians did, (before they called themselves Christians) was naive, in the context of later theology, but they knew what they were doing, and many were willing to die to make that plain. If what we now call the Mass was offered in Roman Britain (which seems entirely possible, given the multicultural nature of the Roman empire) it makes no difference if the nature of that sacrifice was developed by medieval theologians, opening avenues to new aspects which no one in the first century would have imagined. We can only think with the concepts provided by the culture we inhabit. Any Christian taking Communion is absolutely in touch with someone in the first century, no matter how much more sophisticated his understanding of the sacrament may be.

6 January 2013 18:45  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Lawrence

"A Christian might tell you that the central purpose of human existence is to love and worship God, but of course that's nonsense. The central purpose of human existence is to breed - much more banal and earthy. Of course there's no obligation to fulfil that purpose, but nevertheless, that is the purpose."

This is a I'm right and your wrong statement.

"Given that we are here to breed, it is hardly surprising that a powerful force exists - sex - to help bring about this outcome. And it is no surprise that we spend a lot of time ruminating over the sex act, and relating so much of what we do towards sex."

Christians have a view that marriage mirrors the sort of relationship we should have with God. (That is why extending it to homosexuals is so offensive)

"It has always sought to police the sex act and deem that it may only take place under carefully controlled circumstances." How on earth is the Church going to Police it? In my view it rarely occurs under carefully controlled circumstances (quite the opposite). Is it different for gays? I suspect not.

"And then the Church of England comes out and says that gay bishops are fine but must be celibate, showing that they have learned absolutely nothing"

Completely agree with this statement but for probably very different reasons.


Phil

6 January 2013 18:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

michael north


You made my point. There hasn't been a day or even a moment since the first days of the Church that the Eucharist, the Mass, isn't being celebrated somewhere in the world. Today the Mass is essentially the same today as it was in the early Church. of course it has evolved from the first days when it was a very simple celebration because Christians lived under persecution and in hiding so they seldom had the opportunity to have a public Eucharist.

Jesus left His life, death and resurrection as witness and left His teachings as a guide. However, Jesus did not establish the Church's structures, leaving that to the Apostles and first disciples and their successors.

Jesus left the Eucharist, the actual consecration of bread and wine into His Body and Blood. He did not leave details of the service within which this consecration might take place.

The format of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Mass, developed over time. The earliest Christians, organised in scattered house churches, celebrated with a joyful agape followed by 'the breaking of the bread'.

Agape as you know comes from a Greek word, agapao, meaning love or charity.

Unselfish caring for others, especially strangers , is the highest form of love know to humanity.

Jesus said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agape) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agape) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?

—Matthew 5:43-46, RSV

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16

6 January 2013 19:19  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"Christians have a view that marriage mirrors the sort of relationship we should have with God. That is why extending it to homosexuals is so offensive."

Great non sequitur.

God is generally depicted as being male. Jesus is certainly male. So if you love Jesus, aren't you in fact being a bit gay?

6 January 2013 19:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

18:14
Good point. Probably not.

Happy New Year Dodo sweet old duffer:) Do I detect a softening towards you from the obscene mouthed Danjo?Suppose it is better than your usual moral degenerate label. Well I see you are trying to usurp my position as the site nemesis. Fat chance...I'm back.

6 January 2013 19:40  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"God is generally depicted as being male. Jesus is certainly male. So if you love Jesus, aren't you in fact being a bit gay?"

Eros and agape old chap. If you can't imagine the difference between the two, I'd say there's definitely grounds to question your ability to assess whether anyone's obsessed with sex.

But of course you know perfectly well that there's a difference, and just want to be crude and provocative.

In the spirit of your posting of entertaining and educational videos, allow me to return the favour.

6 January 2013 19:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressie, my dear woman, no one could usurp your unique role on this august blog!

Poor DanJ0 is all a hither and thither at the moment and best left alone to recover.

And in response to John Magee's pleas, and the Inspector's urgings, I am a 'born again' Cranmerite.

Join me sister, join me do, as we sing together:

Shall we gather at the river,
Where bright angel feet have trod,
With its crystal tide forever
Flowing by the throne of God?

Leaving ad hominem behind us
Being tender souls for Christ
To peacefully share and discuss,
Yes, even with mean little feist?

Yes, we’ll gather at the river,
The beautiful, the beautiful river;
Gather with the saints at the river
That flows by the throne of God.

6 January 2013 20:13  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Yeah but thingy said that "marriage mirrors the sort of relationship we should have with God." Do you see? It wasn't me that said that? So what are we saying now? No sex ever?

6 January 2013 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This thread stinks of mocking fool, what !

Now, where’s that whisky, tis time...

6 January 2013 20:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

*hic*

6 January 2013 20:58  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

20:13
Giggles.._ I'll join you brother at the river. Don't forget to shine your boots, bring your shotgun for the hee hah party afterwards.

When we are gathered at the river
we will be baptised by being submerged under water by the Pastor. You will have to learn to swim before you become a born again cranmerite. I'm a strong swimmer- will rush out tomorrow and buy a new snorkel set and bikini for the occasion.
Oops ..faux pas..Catholics are permitted to wear bikinis-maybe these repressed sects don't allow flesh display..will check.

6 January 2013 21:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Poor DanJ0 is all a hither and thither at the moment and best left alone to recover."

Hardly. I see you've attached to the misanthrope now. How nice.

6 January 2013 21:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Why DanJ0, welcome.

How has your day been? Pleasant I trust?

6 January 2013 22:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Miss Misanthrope to you. No one is attached to me unless I permit it!

Dodo- Danjo is spoiling for a fight. It would be unwise to engage him. It will only result in his usual onslaught of obsceneties. He is joyless and
does not know how to banter in a fun way. Blowers and Magee are convinced he is searching for a deeper meaning to his life on this blog. You should really dissuade him from thinking it lies in your underpants by not engaging him unless absolutely necessary.

6 January 2013 22:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

I was, of course, being metaphorical (or is it allegorical?) and so no actual physical gathering or submerging in water is involved. I was alluding to a turning in intent.

I have resolved, so far as I am able, to be polite and courteous to all bloggers from henceforth. Of course, I will fail from time to time but then I'm only human.

6 January 2013 23:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

You are so baaaddd!

6 January 2013 23:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Yeah reckon!

6 January 2013 23:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"And she's bad, bad Cressida de Nova
The baddest gal on the whole damn blog
Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog"


But we luv yah.

6 January 2013 23:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo. I hope you realise that if you attach yourself to me that you will be required also to live out Carl Coucou Calvin's fantasy of me shaving women's head with garden shears. These people are not normal are they?:)

6 January 2013 23:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

... in an agape sort of way ...

6 January 2013 23:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl is normal, Cressida.

Unfortunately his theology, aligned with his military background, gives him a bleak and very narrow understanding of God's Good News.

He also fails to understand people and the spiritual and natural struggles they face. With him its all about discipline, discipline, discipline and blind obedience to a written text that needs Divine imagination and inspiration to fully comprehend.

Plus he has a very under developed sense of humour and fun.

6 January 2013 23:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

... read that stuff on satan.

6 January 2013 23:37  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

No need to stress agape. I never think of your underwear ( well hardly ever that is :)

I know, I know this will be misunderstood - that they are humourless and will not understand that this is joke.
Tant pis!

Plus Carl le coucou has a streak of feline viciousness and a desperate need for male peer approval which is odd for a heterosexual fella of that age and supposed status.I have never understood your choice of communicant allegiance but nevertheless we and strangely enough the mad inspector bear the mark of the Catholic or the mark of Satan as len and a lot of others would would have it!:)

6 January 2013 23:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Yes I have skimmed it but will read properly. You know a person who leads and examined life with life experience would find that there is a lot of common sense in this stuff about Satan. I knew it before I read it. In fact there is a lot of common sense in Catholicism which I was never aware of before I joined this blog- only because of the comparison with other protestant sects that I had never encountered before with their very different belief systems. We have a lot more freedom than the harsh repressed groups that broke from the original Church of England.
Interesting but a bit scary!

7 January 2013 00:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 00:30  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 00:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 00:54  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 00:56  
Blogger John Wycliffe said...

Homosexuals are worthy of compassion; but should not be leaders of the Church. Both laity and clergy must submit to God's condemnation of such activity and character. This postmodern expression of social justice and inclusion; will bring the Church to unfortunate proportion.

7 January 2013 00:56  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Unfortunate proportion you say? Sounds terrible. But what does it mean?

7 January 2013 01:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

The ball is in your court now.

I took the first step by handing you an olive branch. I stuck out my neck in order to try and diffuse this never ending personal bickering here and will pay a heavy price for doing so.

It's your turn now. What are you going to do with this peace offering?

Atheist's are honorable people too. Now's your chance to prove it.

7 January 2013 01:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo wrote:

Plus he has a very under developed sense of humour and fun.

Did someone from Britain just accuse me of having no sense of humor? Where's Avi? I need my Canadian straight man to prove this charge false.

carl

7 January 2013 01:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr Magee

You are a noble fellow, indeed. You'll suffer no grief from me on account of this, I assure you. When it comes to matters of the Catholic faith that you profess, and yet appear to know little about, it might be a different matter.

7 January 2013 02:02  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 02:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Ditto. Why is Magee being so paranoid about paying a heavy price?Honestly you would think this blog was inhabited by a ruthless viper ready to stab communicants in the head with garden shears before shaving their heads!

When you extend the olive branch Magee there is no guarantee that your apology will be accepted.You have done your bit now put it out of your mind.

7 January 2013 02:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 04:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 04:39  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 05:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 05:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Lawrence Boyce

The central purpose of human existence is to breed - much more banal and earthy. Of course there's no obligation to fulfil that purpose, but nevertheless, that is the purpose.

Not unlike the most common ordinary virus. What a pitiable view of life. It does however occur to me that if the purpose of human existence is to breed, then the homosexual has by definition no purpose. He would be pointless. Unnatural.

What a tangle of logic your world view presents.

carl

7 January 2013 06:11  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 06:13  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 07:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 07:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 07:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl has a sense of humour ???

When did that happen...

7 January 2013 07:53  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

It's not my world view Carl. Just a sobering reminder of why we are really here. But I shouldn't worry about gays not having children. At 7 billion and rising, we're not about to die off, except possibly from over population.

The contradiction, it seems to me, lies with religions which on the one hand declare the natural world to be fallen and sinful, and then on the other hand invoke "natural law" as a guiding principle for what is permissible. Very confused.

7 January 2013 09:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older