Saturday, February 15, 2014

House of Bishop's same-sex dog's breakfast


"..quite amazing how (the Church of England) can preach honesty but produce this masterclass in doublespeak, obfuscation and internal contradiction," tweets John Bingham, Social and Religious Affairs editor of the Daily Telegraph. And when you read the statement issued on same-sex marriage by the House of Bishops, you may wonder at the depth of duplicity which underpins the theology, and the breadth of naïvety which surrounds the politics.

Essentially, for those who can't be bothered to read the Pastoral Letter (which His Grace always exhorts, for secondary comment is no substitute for primary cognisance), the Bishops have decreed that gay and lesbian couples who get married (in accordance with and by the definition of the law of the land) will be permitted to ask their local vicar for special prayers of thanksgiving (not blessing).

However, if your vicar happens to be gay (or lesbian), and he (or she) is in a relationship (with a person of the same sex), they will be prohibited from getting married in accordance with and by the definition of the law of the land.

His Grace has only a few things to say (for he is thoroughly sick of this subject, and is mindful that people are starving, children are being euthanised, and souls are being lost):
i) The Bishops of the Church of England have not pleased all of the people all of the time since 1534: this via media holding statement is not a new religio-political device, but it is particularly inept. If priests and bishops are free to be contracted by civil partnership (provided they remain celibate), it is inconsistent and unsustainable to prohibit them the (new) institution of marriage.

ii) It is not, however, un-Christian, un-loving or un-compassionate to prohibit priests from entering into a covenant relationship which is permitted to the laity: it may not be very Anglican or Reformed, but it is perfectly Catholic.

iii) There are Roman Catholic priests who are in same-sex relationships: most are illicit, but a few are apparently quite open about the fact. Homosexual acts are not uncommon (and some say ubiquitous) among seminarians. His Grace is also aware of gay imam (in a relationship) who is (covertly) pushing at the boundaries of Islam to minister openly to young gay Muslims, and others are fighting to be acknowledged and accepted. Hypocrisy and inconsistency abound, but so do grace, dignity and respect.     

iii) The political naïvety of this statement is that it ensures the unending frolicking of the (homo)sex-obsessed media: the story will now run and run and run as one-by-one gay (and lesbian) vicars decide to get married (in accordance with and by the definition of the law of the land). And so martyr after martyr will be disciplined by their bishop, who will himself (or herself) be crucified between the thieves of lenience and laïcisation. In a sense, this document is theologically bungling and spiritually vacuous: it is not what Canon Law prohibits in theory but how the bishops handle disobedience in practice which will determine and define the Church's theology on same-sex marriage.

iv) The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has already observed that the Church is "viewed like racists over homosexuality". However histrionic, inaccurate or unjust, this perception is undoubtedly the case: there are many who equate the horrific persecution endured by gays with the appalling treatment of slaves; and many more see little difference between sexuality and skin colour. The Archbishop is not endorsing such views: he is simply recognising the sociological reality. But it is hard to see how the House of Bishop's statement mitigates or modifies this view.
His Grace is all for relationships of mutuality and fidelity, and desires that these virtues be encouraged and extended in society - in cohabitation, civil partnership or holy matrimony. But there is absolutely no point Christians pretending that the institution of marriage has not changed: Parliament has deliberated, debated and redefined. This 'battle' has been lost: the law will not be repealed. Our task is to preach the truth of Christ and Him crucified; to minister in love and compassion to the sick and dying - physically and spiritually. That is the Christian vocation. Those who expend all their energies dissecting this dog’s breakfast are depriving humanity of its daily bread.

249 Comments:

Blogger Corrigan said...

It is quite true that homosexuals have all but destroyed the Church; however, those of us who hold to the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 take comfort in His promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against us. The Church will not fall because He will not allow it. I'm pretty sure the rest of you are screwed, though.

15 February 2014 at 11:09  
Blogger Anglican said...

Surely it must be emphasised, again and again, that the new definition of marriage by the government (which of course it denies has happened) has removed all the boundaries of marriage. Traditional marriage has been made to conform to the different requirements of homosexual unions. It can mean anything or nothing. The belief that all that matters is ‘love’ (or emotion) must soon allow polygamy and incest. As all Christians know, or should know, love – the highest of the theological virtues – can be distorted or directed towards the wrong ends. Dante’s Inferno is full of people who had a distorted view of love.

The new definition of ‘marriage’ passed by parliament, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals, should rightly be called state-recognised civil partnerships. The only type of traditional marriage will take place in churches (and indeed in the religious centres of other faiths). Soon it will be time – before they are made to – for churches to stop performing state-sponsored civil partnerships. Couples will have to have a state-recognised civil partnership contract registered in a register office before having a proper marriage ceremony in a church.

15 February 2014 at 11:28  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Cranmer said: "But there is absolutely no point Christians pretending that the institution of marriage has not changed: Parliament has deliberated, debated and redefined. This 'battle' has been lost: the law will not be repealed. Our task is to preach the truth of Christ and Him crucified...Those who expend all their energies dissecting this dog’s breakfast are depriving humanity of its daily bread."

Very interesting. Marriage has not been redefined. Marriage cannot be redefined. We are now living under a legally enforceable illusion. Will the particular law be repealed? No. But man-made law itself will be done away with. In the meantime, revealing a lie is a powerful way of revealing the truth. When the going gets tough...

15 February 2014 at 11:52  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

The Trojan horse lies well within the battlements. The citadel has been will infiltrated. There are naive and gentle parts of the C of E who believe in a substantial % of same sex faithful couples who are unfairly discriminated against. They never see, because they do not want to, exactly what goes on, the lies told, the different definition of fidelity, the affairs, the rate of violence, the unhealed attitudes to women, anger against mothers and so on, nor even in some cases the wives and children abandoned.

Lust is and always will be one of the seven deadly sins, and always will be. And yet here is the Church ambling like an amiable and naive village idiot towards the wolf of divergent lusts, which are bedfellows with all kinds of SM, TV, VD, promiscuity,exhibitionism, coprophilia and various other gross "philia" before we even look at its attendant love of male youthfulness, and dressing it in sheep's clothing, saying that it is all about love, when there is no necessary interlap whatever

What they wilfully choose not to see will destroy what they love and their foreparents built up. I feel weary, despairing and tired and can say no more except that thank God I believe in church as ekklesia for in that sense it can never be destroyed, and the New Wine will always when absolutely necessary new wineskins. Until then we mostly stay and fight.

15 February 2014 at 11:58  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

When there’s madness about, the sane fellow will just walk away and have nothing to do with it. Let those that are afflicted gnash their teeth, pull their hair and dribble away in the corner. There is the business of salvation to be done, no time for the indulgence of ‘special cases’...

15 February 2014 at 11:59  
Blogger Nick said...

The true meaning of marriage will never change, whatever legal contrivance politicians and activists may come up with.

The truth is that gay "marriage" is not marriage except in the delusions of certain people. It never was marriage and never will be, becuase such people do not understand what marriage is except by their distorted frame of reference.

Of course it is a dog's dinner, but that is what happens when the church abandons God in favour of social trends.

"It will not be repealed". I do not share YG's pessimism on this. If gay marriage here is as unpopular as it is with gays in the Netherlands, nobody is likely to miss it anyway. Once the high profile gays have tied the knot on television in order to make their point, we'll probably find most of them don't bother, especially as fidelity is a dirty word these days.

It's a farce of globabl proportions that will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.

15 February 2014 at 12:04  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy @ 11:58

Quite agree. Wilde made a magnificent speech about "the love that dare not speak its name", but the mundane reality of the trial came down to sex with stable boys and faecal contamination on a sheet.

15 February 2014 at 12:09  
Blogger Nick said...

Lucy Mullen said

"And yet here is the Church ambling like an amiable and naive village idiot towards the wolf of divergent lusts,"

Lucy, I think the comparison is being a little unkind on village idiots :-)

15 February 2014 at 12:11  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

"It's a farce of global proportions that will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity."

Finally, someone speaks the truth about Christianity.

15 February 2014 at 12:15  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Did anyone honestly think there was a chance of the Pilling report being rejected?! I wonder what the Bishop of Birkenhead will do now. This is when it will get interesting down at our C of E school. After years of trying to get school to uphold marriage as the Gold standard and being told that school couldn't possibly talk about marriage as it upsets children from broken homes, suddenly I find the word 'marriage' is cropping up in all sorts of obscure areas of the national curriculum...traditional, real meaning at the moment. Nobody seems to be worrying about the children's backgrounds any more and marriage is being promoted as a desirable - even essential - stage on the journey through life. The teachers seem to think I'm crackers when I tell them that they have been trapped and that they will have no option in the near future other than to convey the government's meaning. Sometimes their faces are a giveaway though - but of course for most of them , it's more than their job's worth to agree with me, yet alone consider making a stand.

15 February 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

There was consternation at synod today when signs of leadership from the church hierarchy were detected. The room was immediately cleared and delegates were advised to seek out a place of safety and to stay there until the issue could be resolved.

More to follow, when this man returns from the great (and damp) outdoors...

Greetings BeelZeeBub, long time since you were last here. One hopes your career in cardiology is progressing smoothly . Oh for spring and a gay heart, what !


15 February 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anglican: "Couples will have to have a state-recognised civil partnership contract registered in a register office before having a proper marriage ceremony in a church."

I think so too now. Or rather: we have a marriage contract under the law for everyone, and a marriage ceremony under whatever religious rites people like, the second layered over the first, for those who want it. It's clear, tidy, and fuss-free.

15 February 2014 at 12:52  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Marriage is a centuries old word and a centuries old concept. It celebrates the biological complementarity, fertility, and complementary nurture of both the unborn and the born child. the mother bears the child in her womb, the father (being physically stronger) protects them both.) Only obdurately entrenched stupidity could ever think that could be equal to sodomy. Why do idiots think women have 3 passages where men have 2, and why do these fools think that 3=2? The human revulsion to faeces is rational, strong, and related to health and cleanliness. and the passage for expulsion of same is not designed for giving birth or for penetration and thus not for significant stretching!! When used inappropriately all kind of health problems ensue, in the scores. It is entirely clear that semen are intended for fertilisation of eggs, and in 200 years people will look back at the Church thinking we were exceptionally thick for ever debating this.

Because the relaxation in sexual ethics, and the lowering of consent which seem to be the fast train we are on will one day create a pendulum swing of enormous power and a disgust with their forebears as children demand angrily to know where they came from, who their parents were, and why they have sexualisation thrust on them at such an early age that they cannot grow up unmolested and carefree.

15 February 2014 at 13:09  
Blogger Martin said...

Perhaps His Grace should realise that homosexual behaviour, & hence 'marriage', is of a kin with euthanasia, child or otherwise, in that it is the the outworkings of a society's rejection of God, as described in Romans 1:18-32.

15 February 2014 at 13:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace states;

"Our task is to preach the truth of Christ and Him crucified (but for what was He crucified for exactly, if we deny sin is sin and make 'excuses' then our 'sin' He or His Apostles define are simply impulses hammered out by mankind's “evolutionary, jungle-istic past” or his so-called “reptilian brain”, that modern man understands better than God); to minister in love and compassion to the sick and dying - physically and spiritually (The Bible teaches that Christ came to seek and save the lost (Luke. 19:10). Unless a person is aware of being lost in sin, he/she will see no need whatever for Christ as a Savior).

That is the Christian vocation (The Son of God made no apology for his declaration and neither must we:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John. 14:6).

There is simply none other in which salvation is to be found:

“there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

If that sounds narrow and requires obedience from us, so be it!

The question is not one of bigotry ( "The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has already observed that the Church is "viewed like racists over homosexuality"."), but one of truth.
Are the claims of Christ dying for ALL our sins true? Will the evidence support such from scripture?
That is what it all boils down to YG; and that is why it is OUR job to bring men to the Savior!).

Those who expend all their energies dissecting this dog’s breakfast are depriving humanity of its daily bread.(But if we fail to understand what Christ was crucified for, we purpose to establish our own righteousness, ignoring the righteousness of God, we stand with those people of old who crucified Him. )" They are starving but refuse to eat and we wonder why the confusion?

We still are steeped in sin, seeking to gratify our craving and lusts, justifying them through earthly means such as a false view of love and forgiveness, having little thought of others who need to hear the Good News and what Christ commanded of us to preach and stand firm.

All those therefore who reject Christ, mock Him. They make little of his suffering for them.
They show contempt on all He did on the cross.

Oh, yes, every person who claims to know Christ as Savior, yet lives in sin or justifies sin, continues in sin and states it is equitable for themselves and those who love their sin, mocks Jesus as He suffered, 'meaninglessly', for them.

Blofeld

15 February 2014 at 13:24  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

It would not be difficult for the House of Bishops to unravel the contradictions in what you call their 'dog's breakfast' statement:

1). Clergy should not be allowed to enter into civil partnerships at all.

2). All communicant Anglicans whether lay or ordained should be expected to commmit themselves to lives that are consistent with the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord. None of us should be admitted to Christ's Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper - and note they are His Sacraments not ours - without a commitment to repentance.

3). The House of Bishops should make it clear that the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is not to be thanked when we choose to adopt a life-style that His Word Written in the Bible says is displeasing and dishonouring to Him.

15 February 2014 at 14:00  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack read the Pastoral Letter and ended up very confused.

The letter seems to be saying the Church of England hasn't quite made up its collective mind whether active same sex relationships are sinful or not - yet. A prayerful conversation is needed.

It also suggests that what is seen as sin can be changed as the church develops its teaching, guided by the Holy Spirit. What was sinful yesterday may not be sinful today or tomorrow. And then, even if active same sex relationships is sinful, a person practicing this can still be in full communion with the church without trying to change. Yet the bible tells us receiving the Eucharist unworthily is a very serious sin.

Priests must behave and be treated differently. No appeasement here. They should live a life that emulates Christ, set a good example and follow current church doctrine and canons.

Jack says this all very muddled. We are all called to live a life that imitates Christ. And the bible is pretty clear, to Jack anyways, that homosexuality is a very bad sin and must be resisted along with all other sexual sins. God cannot change His mind and cannot put a different meaning on His word. And surely the Holy Spirit does not contradict itself down the ages?

This is Jack's reaction after a first reading so he may have misunderstood the letter. But it did strike him as appeasement to sin for the sake of satisfying everybody.

15 February 2014 at 14:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

No one will disciplined under this guidance.

This is the age old tactic of talking with the right hand while acting (or in this case, failing to act) with the left. The formal teaching will remain but its violation will be discretely ignored. Those with the temerity to point this out will be referred to the formal teaching. It won't be too long before sympathetic Bishops start attending the Gay weddings of vicars under their charge.

I would think that some friendly Bishops would be selected first. It would be beneficial to get a dozen or so marriages on the books in dioceses where the bishop can be trusted to look the other way. Or better yet, a traditionalist who is too timid to act. All that is required is that the bishop knows and is given a reasonable amount of time to act. Then you target a Bishop who would invoke discipline. If that traditionalist bishop does nothing, the teaching is effectively dead. If that bishop disciplines on the basis of church teaching, then he must explain why other Bishops have already acquiesced.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the End Game is fast approaching for the CoE. The Bishops wanted to kick this issue into the tall grass for two years but it doesn't seem they will get their wish. Gay marriage is coming fast. People on either side will be expecting unambiguous outcomes that the Bishops are unable to provide.

carl

15 February 2014 at 14:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This 'battle' has been lost: the law will not be repealed.

This law will be repealed. It's simply a matter of 'when' and 'by whom.' The sexual antinomianism at the foundation of Gay marriage cannot sustain a civilization. When things get bad enough, someone will come along to offer a solution. It won't be a very attractive solution in terms of present day standards, and it won't even be remotely Christian. But it will be effective. And ruthless. And malignant.

A nation that won't obey a light task master will be committed to a more severe task master.

carl

15 February 2014 at 15:01  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Carl

You are all too accurate about traditionalist Bishops who look the other way. I have heard tell of gay couples in Cathedral closes where the Bishop was staunchly traditionalist but was either too busy and tired to notice, had no proof, and/or preferred to think the best.

Or even worse I have heard of an instance- under an apparently traditionalist Bishop where a layman who had once been in a gay relationship but had turned from it openly and wished to remain celibate was hounded whilst clergy higher up the food chain in gay relationships seemed to have "get out of jail free" cards.

There is lots of hypocrisy, muddled thinking, overworked Bishops and inefficiency. Communities need clear boundaries. Unclear ones lead to massive extra muddle and workload; please could the C of E stop signing its own death warrant; some of us love her.

15 February 2014 at 15:06  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
You really disappoint me, this 'battle' has been lost: the law will not be repealed.
What will be the next thing that you accept as inevitable? That Jesus was just a good man and that Mohammad is the True Prophet?
I for one and many of those above will not follow you if this is your stance. Yes, the Gospel of Salvation is vitally important and the poor and suffering really matter but if you lose sight of the truths of God just because a few evil types in Government got it wrong, we are all lost.
Who cares if a few men and women live with their own kind? And then demand that their relationship be called something that it's not, that is not what is important.
The main issue is that the mechanics of Homosexuality should not be taught in schools to vulnerable and susceptible children and Gay couples should not inflict their lifestyle on adopted children.

15 February 2014 at 15:09  
Blogger Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 February 2014 at 15:09  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Integrity

I think His Grace meant with the present political elite, unless there is a sea change. However we would all agree that if a tide disappears far out into the horizon and an eery unnatural still falls, then a tsunami is gathering power out in the ocean, and will come back with great force and vigour and overcompensate in the other direction. Which hopefully we would also lament.

I am sure His Grace can remember that not long ago this legislation would have been unthinkable. Indeed if you look at the great sweep of history down the centuries and across the world we are now either exceptionally enlightened in this matter or a ridiculous laughing-stock; and sadly we know which. The ridicule we mete out now to the Victorians covering piano legs, or to the gin palaces, will belong to our generation in a hundred or so years time if not before.

15 February 2014 at 15:50  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

I agree with Carl and Julian but I have a better solution

Ask outright who in the CofE Clergy is sympathetic to this

Suggest that we ship them them off to Uganda where they can be martyrs to what they believe the Bible tells them is OK. (As Christians this should not be an issue as they should feel confident about their salvation)

Phil



15 February 2014 at 16:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 February 2014 at 16:04  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Lucy

I completely agree with you that God designed men to stir the honeypot not poke the dunghill!

We need to be vocal at every level in the Anglican Church saying as much.

Directly, using words (like above) that people can understand exactly what we mean.

Phil

15 February 2014 at 16:04  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Perhaps at long last it is time for Anglicans to get angry with their leaders and chase the money lenders out of the temple so to speak.

Being nice and understanding is not working!

If you think about it never has worked.

The alternative is to say nothing and leave the moneylenders in our temple but we go and build another.

That seems kind of weak. Too easy. So not Biblical.

Phil

15 February 2014 at 16:10  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"the law will not be repealed"

Yes it will. When things do wrong Gays will be the scape goat for a failing society.

The only question is how long it will take. My guess is 20 years.

Phil

15 February 2014 at 16:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Directly, using words (like above) that people can understand exactly what we mean."

People like you never talk derogatively about two young women licking the honey from each other's honeypots though.

15 February 2014 at 16:15  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

Funny that isn't it?

Cannot think why that is...

Phil

15 February 2014 at 16:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Funny that isn't it? Cannot think why that is..."

Well, quite. This is why I say that when people focus on the mechanics of a particular type of sex between males, it is usually indicative of a homophobia borne of a rather more earthy response than of adherence to some kind of teleological ideal.

15 February 2014 at 16:43  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...



DanJo

You have made a fair point that men that men have understanding for/are not repulsed by lesbian relationships and females seem to have far more understanding for Gay males.

That does not make any of them right of course and it is not how we "feel" about the individual activities that is the issue here.

Phil

15 February 2014 at 16:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

"homophobia borne of a rather more earthy response than of adherence to some kind of teleological ideal."

It might surprise you that I get on with gays quite well. I have a colleague who I regularly work with who (seems strangely unaware of my homophobia that seems so obvious to you!) I would regard a a good friend and colleague.

He knows my views, despite this he invited me to his C.partnership "wedding" (I declined)

Who knows I might even come across as a nice enough homophobic bastard!

Phil

15 February 2014 at 16:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "That does not make any of them right of course and it is not how we "feel" about the individual activities that is the issue here."

Oh I agree. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on sexual behaviour are understandable and entirely coherent within its own paradigm. I daresay the more 'conservative' parts of the CofE hold much the same sort of understandings. None of that is homophobic in itself at all, and it's a shame that it gets called that at times.

15 February 2014 at 17:08  
Blogger Owl said...

It sometimes makes me sad that some men are not able to enjoy a relationship with a good women and for those who are lucky, the joys of children and grandchildren.

I accept their preferred lifestyle but I feel that they are missing out.

I do not accept a redefinition of marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, basta.

Cameron didn't ask my opinion or anyone else that I know of. I do not accept his redefintion and do not recognise any SS, so called, marriage as valid.

I consider adoption of children by SS couples a crime against defenseless children and humanity.

If I am now unlawful, then so be it.

I take my stand for what I think is right. I can do no other.

15 February 2014 at 17:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "It might surprise you that I get on with gays quite well."

Hey, me too with most religionists, including a Jehovah's Witness and a devout Muslim at work. The former declines the invite to the office Christmas party, and the latter declines our invites to the pub. We offer each time anyway because we're inclusive. :)

15 February 2014 at 17:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Of course men are going to have a more visceral reaction to male homosexuality than to Lesbianism. The effacement of masculinity is direct. It's like wondering after why a man would have a more visceral reaction to an adult man seducing a teenage girl as opposed to an adult woman seducing a teenage boy. Emotional reactions are not necessarily a good indicator of the nature of the act.

It's also true that most men intersect with Lesbianism through fantasy world of pornography - where it is moulded and shaped to appeal to the heterosexual men who consume pornography. It's deliberately fashioned to re-affirm male sexual desires. Go to a WNBA game and meet real Lesbianism up close. Then you will see men with a reaction more consistent with a teleological ideal.

carl

15 February 2014 at 17:21  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“ Parliament has deliberated, debated and redefined. This 'battle' has been lost: the law will not be repealed.”

Nobody who was opposing it asked those who stood there bleating of inequality and unfairness in the proper definition of marriage WHY they thought it was unfair and unequal? Nobody stood up and said that there are many things in nature and life that are unfair and unequal in order for their survival, a fact that was not hammered home to those short sighted and blinkered idiots shouting for marriage redefinition.
That was the problem with not having enough time for proper debate. Now there has been a can of worms opened up. It has to be repealed.

“Our task is to preach the truth of Christ and Him crucified; “
I don't see how the Church can anymore with any credibility?

15 February 2014 at 17:23  
Blogger Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

15 February 2014 at 17:49  
Blogger Anglican said...


DanJO 12.52
“we have a marriage contract under the law for everyone, and a marriage ceremony under whatever religious rites people like”

No. What the State will provide in future, for all, is a civil partnership contract. It will not be marriage, because the essence of marriage cannot be redefined and denuded of meaning by state decree. The state cannot make the meaning of words be whatever it wants them to be, like Humpty Dumpty. It may think it can, but this is just a further example of the State’s belief that it can legislate to change human reality.

15 February 2014 at 17:50  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

the law will not be repealed

Take heart, Your Grace. The progressives who gave us gay marriage have also given us the Third World communities who, when they come to power, will feed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act into the shredder.

15 February 2014 at 18:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Johnny R:

And possibly the same sex couples, along with the act.

Very true. Part of PC incoherence is that it has given victim status to groups that are incompatible with one another.

When one PC victim group victimises another PC victim group, PC does not know what to do. PC cannot cope when real life impinges on theory dreamed up by those safely remote from real life.

15 February 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger Martin said...

One has to wonder why anyone would think that connecting an output to an output or an input to an input would achieve anything of value.

perhaps our electronic devices need to be relabeled.

15 February 2014 at 18:32  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Right then, where were we from earlier...

Ah yes, a danger of leadership breaking out in the CoE, rather than everyone pulling at the steering wheel, as one once read of an incident where several toddlers managed to take the brake off a car and set it rolling, all sharing said wheel as they’d seen their dads do.

One way to avoid further timewasting on frivolousness such as on the the tiny percentage of people who have trouble with the boy / girl thing, and who are really after what they see is equality more than anything else, is to formulate a Statement of Intention for the Church. All simple stuff, mind, nothing to go and consult a lawyer about it’s interpretation.

Anyway how about “The purpose of the Church is to facilitate the worship of God, and to continue to pass Christ’s down mission through the generations. This demands that the focus of the Church be directed towards participants of holy matrimony, and the fruit resulting thereof. It does mean that the single individual and others in non traditional relationships, including cohabitation, must yield their own interests for the sake of the greater purpose”.

That should get the buggers frothing at the mouth, so here comes the inevitable codicil for those that scream they no longer wish to be ignored...

On Sexual Orientation. “It is not the business of the Church to be concerned with an individuals sexual preferences, or whether said individual is a vegetarian, come to that. There will be no consideration given for anything other than traditional marriage set ups, and it is expected that none be sought. Sexual orientation remains where it always has been. Between the individual and God. The Church regrets that our creator has not made it public why he has cursed the afflicted in this way, and we for our part do not wish to press Him on it. So we can’t help you, but then, neither can we help the alcoholic who finds his bottle empty. Or the paedophile in search of a child. Or the drunk driver searching for his car keys. It’s just one of those things. Live with it – savvy ?”

God Bless You All.

Brought to you by order of the Inspector General on behalf of that nice Mr Welby.

15 February 2014 at 18:56  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Explorer (18:28)—If we do end up a majority Muslim country, gay men who are out will hurriedly get back in again. Either that or, as you say, the shredder.

15 February 2014 at 18:59  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

It is Happy Jack's experience that it is a common reaction to be repelled by certain behaviours that go against our inbuilt sensibilities and moral codes. These can become dulled and blunted. Or, certain people can have a unusual desires and a distorted sense of right and wrong.

Nowadays, we are being exposed more and more to conduct that repelled earlier generations - including women engaged in sexual acts.

The availability and acceptance of explicit pornography desensitises us. We have also been re-educated to see sex as mainly for enjoyment and to use contraception to avoid "mistakes". Abortion is there if all else fails - and now post-birth abortion is being discussed.

Claiming faithful homosexual behaviour is 'good' for society, with the state giving it the same status as heterosexual unions, means children have to be instructed in the practices. Otherwise its discrimination.

And sex is dangerous nowadays - fatally so for some - homosexual and heterosexual. So safe sex has to be a part of the school curriculum and all the ins and outs and whys and wherefores have to be discussed.

15 February 2014 at 19:05  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I am surprised that permission for "prayers" for SS couples has been given in advance of the start of the "facilitated conversations" ( indoctrination sessions ). That is a bolder, and earlier step than I was anticipating. The direction of travel is unmistakable, intentional and downwards, away from Christianity.

I shall not be attending any such "conversations" as Scripture and Tradition could not be clearer, whilst emerging Reason, in the form of science, whilst acknowledging the complexity inherent in us all, lends considerably more weight to the Judaeo-Christian ancient wisdoms than the recent, politically led experiments.

The overall position now is of course one of total incoherence, intellectually and theologically. Also, because of that incoherence, it is unstable, which again is probably intentional.

There is little of comfort here for traditionalist protestant Anglicans such as myself. It makes me wonder rather more strongly than before, as to where my direction lies. For how long can such a conflicted organization endure, with ever widening cracks that riven it from top to bottom ? As, I believe, (?) Lucy Mullen @ 11.58 implies, the true "Church" and its members, are known only to God, so in that comforting sense, it is invulnerable, beyond human assault.

15 February 2014 at 19:16  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer @ 18.28

You make very good points regarding the inevitable clash between wildly dissimilar "victim groups".

PC thought has an internal self-dissolving, or rather self-destroying, quality, due to its total internal incoherence. It amazes me that its adherents refuse to see this !

15 February 2014 at 19:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "The progressives who gave us gay marriage have also given us the Third World communities who, when they come to power, will feed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act into the shredder."

If that happens then they will also do it to the establishment of the CofE, women's rights, and general freedom too, I expect.

15 February 2014 at 19:32  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Marie1797

Your comment sounds as if nobody had the courage to speak. But let us be frank about this, NO defence of traditional marriage was allowed at any time. There was NO debate.

The HOB said:
"These conversations will involve ecumenical and interfaith partners and particularly the wider Anglican Communion to whom we rejoice to be bound by our inheritance of faith and mutual affection. They will include profound reflection on the meaning, interpretation and application of scripture to which we all seek to be faithful. They will involve particular attention to the lived experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people."

What is missing from the conversation is the chance for those who believe in marriage to speak about the abuse they have endured and the reality they now face of being labelled "homophobic" automatically by organisations, including government, until they manage to prove themselves to be decent, faithful people who are not homophobic at all but simply believe that marriage is about procreation (as proved by the law being retained for the limitations of relationship allowable when a woman marries a man).

15 February 2014 at 19:56  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (19:32)—No ‘expect’ about it. It’s a certainty. I don’t foresee gay men living in fear of their lives under a caliphate, though. I’m currently pinning my hopes on the French to vote in large numbers for the Front National. Yes, they—and all the other nationalist parties in Europe—are not the kind of people you personally would invite round for tea but, elected to government, they would preserve our way of life. Yours included.

15 February 2014 at 20:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

We praise fidelity in marriage (or we used to), but is fidelity always praiseworthy, regardless of the object to which it is given?

Would we praise the fidelity to received ideas of one who believed the Earth to be round like a plate, despite convincing evidence to the contrary that included photographs from outer space?

The 9/11 bombers had fidelity to the group of which they were members; and fidelity to their destructive cause.

15 February 2014 at 20:25  
Blogger JCF said...

Is this a parody site (w/ commenters playing along)? I can't tell.

I keep reading loony-tunes things like "It is quite true that homosexuals have all but destroyed the Church", and think it MUST be parody (I'm slow on the uptake re these things).

Out in unironic land, homophobia has all but destroyed the CofE. Over here in North America, we'll carry on the Anglican tradition Mother Church seems to be abandoning, in evermore appalling fashion. God being merciful, "a remnant will return."

15 February 2014 at 21:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Yes, they—and all the other nationalist parties in Europe—are not the kind of people you personally would invite round for tea but, elected to government, they would preserve our way of life. Yours included."

Such as the Golden Dawn party? I doubt it. I think most people know what we and they would be in for afterwards. People saw it in the 1930s and 40s.

I was just warning people to be careful what they wish for. It might be nice indulging in a bit of advance schadenfreude [1] here to make oneself feel better but hey.

[1] A great word. I bet the Germans wish they had a word for that.

15 February 2014 at 21:06  
Blogger Martin said...

HJ

You have hit on the very thing that is spoken of in Romans 1

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” (Romans 1:18 NKJV)

And of course the one thing they do suppress is their knowledge of God.Indeed, we all train our consciences to forget those sins we love.

15 February 2014 at 21:14  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your communicant can see it now, Your Grace.

A cathedral somewhere in England, the solemnisation of matrimony at the high altar, officiated by a CofE bishopette for her gay vicar son and his gay vicar partner.

Just a matter of time.

Somehow your communicant doubts that the ecstatic congregation will be showering the happy couple with flowers, rice and confetti as they dash from the church to a peal of bells towards the waiting car, 'Just Married'.

15 February 2014 at 21:23  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Good post Bluedog. It’s the consequences of what apparently must be that are of greatest concern. With the church in the grip of feminist gayism, what will become of the CoE schools which offer the best of starts for children. Will we see parents determined to see their valuable offspring that they hope one day to carry on the line REFUSE to risk them being subjected to the thoughts of the new regime, and not send them to one...

15 February 2014 at 21:32  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

From what people are predicting - a Islamist State or a right wing, neo-fascist dictatorship - Putin's Russia is becoming very attractive.

Где находится ближайший Посольство России?

15 February 2014 at 21:33  
Blogger Philip said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 February 2014 at 21:36  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Home from CoE school...

Mummy, we learnt all about Alan Turin today

Oh, yes, the famous code breaker

He was a code breaker Mummy ? Really ?


15 February 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger Philip said...

"there is absolutely no point Christians pretending that the institution of marriage has not changed: Parliament has deliberated, debated and redefined."

I could not disagree more, YG. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. Full stop.

It is Parliament that is pretending, and it has legislated to enforce belief in a lie. And has, at least potentially, put those who uphold and declare belief, at least publicly, in the truth as to what marriage is, on the wrong side of the law. And once the ECtHR has struck down the churches 'opt-outs', that presumably will be the end of the hundreds of years' tradition of church weddings, or vicars and pastors heading for jail or fines.

For too long have we been subject to the wishes of a vocal and well-organised minority who have employed government and increasingly now the law and the police, to enforce their views and suppress those whom dare to express the traditional view. For reasons of truth and the importance of (true) marriage in society, and also for liberty of religion and conscience etc, just rolling over and saying the battle on gay ‘marriage’ is lost cannot be an option. However long it may take, repeal must surely be an aim.

Btw, any 'obsession' with homosexuality is not from Christians who would much rather talk about other things, and do talk about other things most of the time, and is entirely the result of those who seek to force acceptance and affirmation of their activities which have long been seen as sin. I expect Justin Welby would rather talk about other things, such as mission. But it would surely be more helpful if, rather than compromising waffle, he would clearly state Biblical truth about the matter, i.e. the only place for sexual activity is between a man and a woman in heterosexual marriage, however unpopular that may be with some, deal with those in the church who're trying to force a move away Christian teaching on this, and then move onto more edifying things – such as evangelising the nation.

15 February 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Happy Jack

The other day it was Hebrew, today it's Russian. Learning a new language is what Happy Jack does when it's too cold or too wet to go out busking? Congratulations!

15 February 2014 at 21:43  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Martin, Happy Jack agrees "Indeed, we all train our consciences to forget those sins we love."

Yet, it seems to Jack a whole generation is now being raised to collectively suppress and ignore God's Will for us. Our consciences are being dulled. And worst still, the damaged soul of man is becoming incapable of hearing and understanding the Gospel because it is not being preached.

Jack is not a monergist and he believes people can be helped or hindered in responding to God's Grace and also in sustaining a relationship with Jesus.

15 February 2014 at 21:46  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Uncle Brian, Happy Jack says he is writing in tongues.

15 February 2014 at 21:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Grumpyoldcl 19:56
"Your comment sounds as if nobody had the courage to speak. But let us be frank about this, NO defence of traditional marriage was allowed at any time. There was NO debate."

Not so much lacking in courage, more too polite or didn't think to ask for justification. They were silenced by those who were in favour of ssm. Maria Miller stood there firmly lecturing about it all being unfair end of story, and Chris Bryant shut the opposition up by saying it simply was unequal and that homosexuals and lesbians should be treated with the same entitlements. There were some good points raised by Gerald Howarth and some others on that side, but you[re right there was no debate and there were no Bishops present much either!

15 February 2014 at 21:51  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed, Inspector @ 21.32.

How could a CofE school, with a bishopette on the Board of Governors, resist an information session in the assembly hall on such distasteful matters? One suspects some of the parents (Busy Mum?) would drown out the talk and frog-march the bishopette away from the innocents.

There was a time when the customer was always right. PC legislation has overturned that premise.

15 February 2014 at 22:08  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Marie 1797. Happy Jack asks if: "homosexuals and lesbians should be treated with the same entitlements", will there now be greater attention to other protected, 'excluded' groups?

Perhaps a Muslim bishop or two? Or what about more with mental health issues? Perhaps there are enough already? How about more physically disabled bishops and those with learning difficulties too?

If its all about 'entitlement' and achieving 'equality' and 'diversity', then why not these 'marginalised' groups too?
Christianity needs no protection at all.

15 February 2014 at 22:33  
Blogger DannyEastVillage said...

you mean the way it is in France...

15 February 2014 at 22:35  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

HJ

The blind surgeon is on his way!

Look what society is doing with women, how the subject of women in the board rooms, in politics on the front lines etc.. etc.. is never ending. They are determined to shove people into roles to satisfy God only knows what perverted minds who dream all this up, probably feminists.

But women aren't really suited for the army front lines and are doing what they do naturally namely getting pregnant and leaving.
I read the article somewhere- in DM or it could be DT, can't find it now- about this

15 February 2014 at 23:07  
Blogger Meledor said...

Your Grace,

Your concern for lost souls and that we should preach the truth of Christ and Him crucified is admirable. And such a concern must surely be rooted in what the Bible says on such matters. It is therefore a shame that your four points in response to the bishops’ statement are not similarly informed by scripture.

The way out of the mess is not for the church to bless that which is sinful and contrary to the Bible. If such immorality is so publically and officially accepted by a church how can it with any conscience suggest that it has within it the message that can save people for eternity when we are clearly told that those who keep on flagrantly persisting in sin are lost and will not enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10)? If the truth of Christ - that he saves us from the wrath to come - is spurned, in our continual acceptance of sin, how can we crucify him again and subject him to public disgrace (Heb. 6:6) and not expect God’s judgement to fall?

You are right to highlight the inconsistencies in the bishops’ thinking. But this has been building up over 20 years – different standards for clergy and laity with a permissive approach to sin by the latter and then later allowing clergy to enter civil partnerships. The Pilling Report is now the death warrant for the Church of England and the facilitated conversations will deliver the expected conclusion, the result of which its ability to offer hope to lost souls will be destroyed.

15 February 2014 at 23:12  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

The Inspector is loathe to repeat himself, but in this exceptional time, he must.

If the CoE embraces homosexuality having been impressed by “sincere and committed” gay partnerships, it must by definition take on ALL that is the gay way of life. ALL of it, and it is not a pretty sight. There can be no other way. The militants of the ilk will not allow any such compromise whereby ANY of them are excluded. The church will continue to be seen by them as homophobic – organised Gay will see to that.

There is much talk of the CoE taking the middle way, whatever that is. Is it to spare itself controversy ? The so called middle way is thus an illusion. There is only what is right, and what is not right.


15 February 2014 at 23:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Meledor

"keep on flagrantly persisting in sin"

When does sin become flagrantly persisting?

Is there some sort of line you cross over?

If so how will you know you are a flagrant rather than an ordinary sinner?

You say that they are lost... are they lost because they sin?

So if I try really hard then God will let me into Heaven and if I don't try hard enough, then I am "lost".

Question.. How will I know that I have tried hard enough?

and... did Jesus only die for the non flagrant variety of sinner?

Or for all sinners?

Phil

15 February 2014 at 23:42  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 February 2014 at 23:54  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Inspector

“sincere and committed” gay partnerships"

I think we need an CofE Inspector of the “sincere and committed” CofE gays.

Ofsted have a model. The Inspectors can follow them around for a week ticking boxes and then giving them an overall grade of sincerity and commitment.

It could be outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate.

Except.....What is the point? They are Gays! You are completely right, they will want the whole lifestyle package.

It is like in the life of Brian "fighting for HIS right to have babies". It is a pointless exercise pretending that gay and hetro marriage have any similarities.

Phil

15 February 2014 at 23:55  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Mr Welby has hinted that the churches stance on homosexuality risks being considered akin to racism.

Well sir, have you heard of something called ‘Grindr’. No ? Understandable.

It’s a phone app. It’s popularity with young gay men cannot be understated. Here’s how it works. You are sitting in a public house for example, and you activate the thing. By use of global satellite positioning, it locates the nearest fellow who also has his thing turned on in the vicinity. It’s good to a metre, apparently. It could be the man whose just sat down on the other end of the table. Next comes the meet, and then that leads to ‘stranger sex’ which is thrilling to the young gay.

Funny old world, what !

16 February 2014 at 00:03  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Marie 1797, Happy Jack says he agrees "The blind surgeon is on his way!". The one eyed surgeon is already with us.

Phil R, Happy Jack believes the question nowadays is whether people think trying to resist sin and evil is necessary at all. As a concept of offending God and harming ourselves, it seems to have become redundant.

16 February 2014 at 00:05  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Phil, this man has studied the gay for nearly three years now. If the godly types who attend synod knew even half the truth, they would throw up in extremis (DanJ0 likes that word) or at the least, have an attack of the vapours...

16 February 2014 at 00:08  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, was that study at undergraduate or postgraduate level?

16 February 2014 at 00:32  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Alas Jack, the Inspector never attended a university of brick. His is the university of life. And what’s more, he is all the better for not hearing the words of fools in his younger years which have wrecked so many lives. One is thinking of women here, easily impressionable as they are, bless them. You see, many of them sacrificed their womanhood for an education. An artificial assertion of themselves, if you will. They are here today - childless. No man in his senses will take them on – successful insemination being a difficult procedure. {AHEM}

Anyway, one digresses. Thank DanJ0 for this man’s interest in all things Sodom. He’s quite remarkable in what he comes out with, and expects the rest of us to concur thereupon as if it was the most natural of things...


16 February 2014 at 00:49  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Let's get it over with and move to disestablishment. A pilgrim Church and a pagan State. Then we'd all know where we stood and folks could choose between yoof opinion and the word of God.

It's coming anyway. Lizzie gave up any moral right to be called a Christian monarch when she signed for SSM.

'Via media '......as in Laodicea. 'Because you are neither hot nor cold I will spew you out of my mouth.' Revelation chapter 3.

16 February 2014 at 00:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (21:06)—What we saw in Britain in the 1930s and 40s was a Christian nation defeating the horrors of atheism. What’s not to like?

16 February 2014 at 00:59  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Shame on you, seed. Don’t give up an inch....

16 February 2014 at 01:05  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

IG in O

Sir you are off course there!! What in the name of sanity do you mean by "an artificial assertion of themselves". As one who benefited from an (admittedly mostly non-brick) university course and also married and had several children & more- grandchildren I just recognise none of it. Tutors and parish clergy were not fools but solid orthodox Christians whose words provided a solid and sensible foundation. (And yes I am also a decent cook.) How on earth can using and extending those faculties the Almighty gave one be termed sacrificing womanhood or artificial assertion? What is so great about having a poorly equipped and organised brain? Or burying your talent like the servant who was roundly told off by Jesus? Merely in order to function adequately as a parent at school parents' evenings you need a modicum of analytical capacity!

I have met women who do the " I am a little helpless woman and you are a big capable man" act. I find it rather nauseating and distinctly parasitic. So would my husband were I fool enough to try it on him! While women for instance are less likely to know all their car mechanics, to be deliberately ignorant of the basics is just plain dumb.

Man, get a grip!

Tootlepip old thing!

(keeping it "quaint" for the US chappie)

16 February 2014 at 01:20  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Calm down Lucy, you’ve gone off on one there. (The Inspector will say no more less he be re-accused of misogyny...)

You are a successful exhibit, are you not, with husband and family. Do spare a thought for those gals who failed, and have an addled mind as a result of further education.

Men and women are wired differently. It was even a recent news item.

Would that this man could take you in his arms and comfort you as you weep...


16 February 2014 at 01:31  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Phil

Totally agree about the myth of committed partnerships. I have observed that while many are willing to give that front to the world fidelity in the male gay world means coming back to the same house and retaining a relationship with the other gay man, and very very rarely involves exclusivity. Frequently one partner becomes HIV positive but the other doesn't.

Naive and gentle people who wish to be PC often believe in this myth but whereas female sexuality adds a grounding towards fidelity and monogamy in male-female relationships in male-male the male bias towards experience is multiplied without check or balance, and competition and attraction instead of being separated live within the same house.

16 February 2014 at 01:34  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Lucy, by the way. You have to understand the Inspector, a bachelor, is totally reliant on a pamphlet “Understanding women” issued to him by Lieutenant General Baden-Powell.

It states, “Should the dear thing go critical, embrace her body. She will not like it, but it will calm her down”.

16 February 2014 at 01:57  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Having now studied the pastoral letter I will now write to my bishop to explain why I have quit for a Sola Scriptura church.

Weasel words worthy of Blair. The process of decision making as well as the decisions themselves reveal a divided heart and a terror of displeasing the cultural left that will delight the enemies of the Gospel.

16 February 2014 at 04:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny:"DanJ0 (21:06)—What we saw in Britain in the 1930s and 40s was a Christian nation defeating the horrors of atheism. What’s not to like?"

The enemy was a fascist State obsessed with nationalism and the notion of entitlement based on blood and soil. It also used Christianity as a political tool when it suited it to do so. The parties you are promoting sound quite similar to me.

16 February 2014 at 06:31  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear DanJ),

"The enemy was a fascist State obsessed with nationalism and the notion of entitlement based on blood and soil. It also used Christianity as a political tool when it suited it to do so. The parties you are promoting sound quite similar to me."

Let's bring this up to date a little...

The enemy is a fascist creed obsessed with the notion of entitlement and victimhood based on religion. It also uses the Left when it suits it to do so...

Hmmmm, who could they be?

16 February 2014 at 08:48  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Mrs Proudie

I hope you have warned Mr Slope to stay well away from cranes?

16 February 2014 at 10:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mrs P: "Let's bring this up to date a little..."

I have already brought it up to date: Golden dawn and the other comtemporary parties we're talking about. They even adopt some of the symbols and gestures so that the link is obvious.

16 February 2014 at 10:48  
Blogger Meledor said...

Phil Roberts

We are saved by faith not works, but if your faith is without works how do you know you have faith?
By ‘flagrant’ I have in mind unrepentant hypocrisy (claiming to know Jesus but not keeping his commandments, refusing to confess and receive forgiveness – 1 John 1:5-2:6)
I think also the following from 1 John 3 answers your questions, but do come back if you think I need to explain more:
See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practises lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practises righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

16 February 2014 at 10:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Go to a WNBA game and meet real Lesbianism up close."

We come in all shapes, sizes, and personalities, you know.

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/ellen-page-comes-out-video

16 February 2014 at 11:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Meledor

Thank you for the Bible verses

If you keep all of his commandments then you are the only person in all of history bar one, that has managed to do so!

You will definitely break his commandments today, probably even in the next hour. Are you going to repent for every one of them?

God loves us and sent Jesus who died for our sins Meledor. God does not love us because we follow his commandments and do good works. He loves us in spite of our disobedience. The Good News is that the price is paid for these sins by Jesus.

Good works on their own are not a measure of a person's love of God and their salvation. They could be, as you point out, but whether they are or not would entirely depend on what the motivation for these Good Works were.

Phil


16 February 2014 at 11:31  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Mededor

You see it irritates me that people state that this person or that person cannot be a Christian because they are not like me and behave like me.

You see the woman caught in adultery was sinful. Jesus asked those without sin to cast the first stone.

Are you good enough to cast a stone Mededor?

Phil

16 February 2014 at 11:49  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (06:31)—The parties you are promoting sound quite similar to me

An overheated imagination—blessing or curse? Discuss.

Nationalism is humanity’s default setting. We feel most empathy for those who are most similar to us and the nation is that empathy writ large. Contrast the nation we were with the divided, multicultural hotchpotch we have become. You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh.

16 February 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger Albert said...

If priests and bishops are free to be contracted by civil partnership (provided they remain celibate), it is inconsistent and unsustainable to prohibit them the (new) institution of marriage.

Well quite. Since gay "marriage" does not require consummation, it follows that Anglican clergy entering one would not be violating the position on civil partnerships provided they remained celibate. And since a gay "marriage" without consummation isn't a marriage, but a civil partnership, it follows that any gay clergy entering such a relationship while remaining celibate would be doing nothing different from what they are allowed to do now.

But there is absolutely no point Christians pretending that the institution of marriage has not changed: Parliament has deliberated, debated and redefined.


The institution of marriage has not changed, since it is not within the jurisdiction of the state to change it, since it is not possible to form a valid marriage without consummation, and since marriage is only between persons of opposite genders. A gay relationship cannot be a marriage any more than a square can be a circle, and no amount of half-witted legislation can change that.

16 February 2014 at 12:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 12:00

'Consummation' as defined by my legal dictionary is "any one act of sexual intercourse involving full penetration and a sustained erection."

Think of that in relation to two men or two women, and one can see why the legislators shied away from making consummation a requirement of gay marriage.

16 February 2014 at 12:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 February 2014 at 12:18  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 February 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Lucy

I think what the Inspector may be referring to above is what my wife found when she was bringing up our Children.

At one time there were 6 children at home aged from 16 to 4. One evening out she was asked what she did and she explained that she has 6 children etc.


Then one of the women asked, in all seriousness. "but what work do you do?"

Apparently this was not an unusual occurrence and it was always other women who seemed to suggest that being a mum at home to 6 kids was not work/worthwhile.

Phil

16 February 2014 at 12:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Think of that in relation to two men or two women, and one can see why the legislators shied away from making consummation a requirement of gay marriage.

Exactly, and in so doing, they shied away from making gay marriage - and rightly so. Pity they didn't notice.

16 February 2014 at 12:23  
Blogger Meledor said...

Phil Roberts
“You see the woman caught in adultery was sinful. Jesus asked those without sin to cast the first stone. Are you good enough to cast a stone Mededor?”

Did I give you any suggestion that I was? Please re-read my posts and the scriptures referred to.
But if the CofE should accept that adultery was acceptable, would you point out that those who continue to commit adultery will not inherit the kingdom? Paul said that some of the Corinthians had been adulterers, but having been justified in Christ they were now being changed. If we have been saved from sin should we not cry out when the CofE condones it?

16 February 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "An overheated imagination—blessing or curse? Discuss."

Is that you or me you're talking about? You're the guy extrapolating demographics with a straight line, predicting cultural disasters, and waving parties like the Golden Dawn about as the solution. You might as well run with it now.

16 February 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger Len said...

The main problem with the modern man(I am assuming here I am on the same thread as when it started bit difficult to determine sometimes)
is that he has no way to determine what sin actually is (in a biblical sense)so the Gospel makes no sense to him at all.

The way man can find all about his sin nature is to try and to obey God`s Law.The harder he tries the more he realises that he cannot succeed on his own he is in fact a slave to sin.
So man either turns to God for a solution to his sin problem , becomes a hypocrite or just gives up .
Modern man does not have anything with which to measure his true [fallen] nature as the secularists have made their own 'moral code' which is totally opposed to God`s.
So most people reckon themselves (by their own estimation]to be 'good people'.

I think the only way people can have their fallen natures fully revealed is by facing adversity and that seems to be the direction we are heading.

As Watchman Nee said if a man is incredibly clumsy the only way to reveal that fact is to ask him to do something and that will reveal His true nature, all the time he is sitting doing nothing that fact will not be obvious.

Times of adversity bring out the best and the worst in people.We no longer have any viable idols to follow so what happens in the future will reveal what each of us really value.


16 February 2014 at 14:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

We come in all shapes, sizes, and personalities, you know.

My comment wasn't about shapes and sizes. It was about fantasy vs reality. There are obvious if ignoble reasons why men would react differently to male homosexuality than female homosexuality. The visceral nature of the reaction is not a necessary measure of the moral judgment of the behavior.

Sin entices. There are all sorts of things that might entice me that I know are wrong and shouldn't do. It is my moral responsibility to choose moral behavior despite the pleasant appearance of that which entices me. It's not a matter of "Oh, that is wrong, so it must be revolting." That isn't how the world works.

carl

16 February 2014 at 15:16  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

I do sometimes think that if someone who knew nothing about Christianity studied the papers in recent years, he could be forgiven for thinking that Christians talk about nothing but the sexual sins in general, and homosexuality in particular. I was rereading C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity recently, and came across a passage I'd forgotten.

"The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the center of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind."

I started thinking. When was the last time I saw a Christian leader - RCC, C of E or any other, speaking on the sin of pride? I couldn't remember. Yet I could easily find a dozen references to homosexuality.

For curiosity's sake I went back and reread the chapter in the same C S Lewis book dealing with sexual morality. And found this.

"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred."

If he's right, there's plenty of people out there who comment on blogs (and I would include myself in that number) who may have a lot more to worry about in the final reckoning than we think.

16 February 2014 at 16:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

The Inspector confessed: You have to understand the Inspector, a bachelor, is totally reliant on a pamphlet “Understanding women” issued to him by Lieutenant General Baden-Powell.

Do quickly double-check your source, Inspector; it might have been one of his manuals on reconnaissance and siege-craft. Might work just as well, though.

16 February 2014 at 16:33  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 February 2014 at 16:52  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 February 2014 at 16:52  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Mededor

Sister Tiberia explains it better than me above at 16 16

We rush to judge. Especially homosexuality, because it is an easy sin to judge. It is probably the one sin that most of us are not tempted by at all!

That does not mean that we are closer to God's Kingdom/better Christians. It means we are full of pride and want this an easy sin to condemn and feel self justified.

At least we are not as bad as those gays! etc.

Now other sins that we may feel tempted by are more difficult for us to condemn. Because if people/themselves fail now and again, We feel it is perfectly understandable that they do and say to ourselves, I am sure that God understands etc.

The gay sin makes us feel good about ourselves and our own morality and so we feel can be condemned with a clear conscience!

Phil

16 February 2014 at 16:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

While Lewis is undoubtedly right about chastity not being the centre of morality, he was writing in a time in which sexual immorality was much less tolerated. Now it is the norm, and apparently the centre of modern secular "morality" - hence the right opinion has to be legislated for. What Lewis is probably referring to is people occasional falls, not the complete breakdown of family, with the resulting sufferings which are endured by children which we see day by day, for now.

As for this question of pride and the popes, I think you are mistaken. As far as possible, popes will try to speak of the positive virtue that is being ignored. Thus, popes don't tend to condemn pride (it sounds wrong), they promote humility. Google "Pope" and "humility" and you will find a quite different picture from what you are talking about.

So why not do the same with sex? They used to. Popes used explicitly to promote chastity. Now they can't. The whole concept of chastity has disappeared, so it is not a language understood any more. If people have any concept of chastity, it might be celibacy or else only having one partner at a time. But chastity is not necessarily as austere as the former, nor as lax as the latter.

So it seems to me that you have been wrong to judge the popes on the question of pride!

16 February 2014 at 16:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Having said all that, I agree wholeheartedly with Phil @16.55.

16 February 2014 at 17:00  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

I don't recall judging any individual on the subject of pride, Albert, other than pleasding guilty to it myself. My point was that if for the sake of argument in the last week (and these are random figures), there are ten references to homosexuality in public discourses by Christian leaders (all leaders, including bishops and elders of any Christian faith) and one reference (if that) to pride/humility then I am curious on what basis the weighting of the sins is discerned.

16 February 2014 at 17:37  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Enshrined in this pathetic display of spineless living of course is the notion that romantic love elevated on a pedestal and an expanding philosophy of human rights as understood by contemporary society should govern all secular theological considerations. How will the bishops then argue for denying people the right to form loving polygamous marriages with rights to social services and other welfare state conveniences and children the right to a rich, loving relationship with an adult three times their age? These are issues which have been seriously discussed for decades, often by the same philosophers behind SSM. My guess is that they'll have little to say, that as soon as comparisons to racism and slavery and who knows what else are brought up, they'll fold like a cheap tabloid. The sad thing is, at the pace things are going, I'll probably be still alive and nominally sentient when that battle ensues. Well, raging and spitting at the TV set in the old folks' home common room is not a bad way to get exercise.

16 February 2014 at 17:39  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Sister Tiberia and Albert, an interesting exchange of opinion but Jack considers the rejection of sexual morality a manifestation of pride.

What was God's very first command to mankind? It was. " ... be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”

Nowadays we have the complete opposite of this in secular 'teaching' on sexual ethics.

What is 'Gay Pride' all about?

Phil R, this comment cannot be universally applied to everyone who condemns the active practice of homosexuality as sinful.

"The gay sin makes us feel good about ourselves and our own morality and so we feel can be condemned with a clear conscience!"

It is often used as a way of silencing people ("who am I to judge?") or reducing the gravity of what is a chosen, habitual and inherently sinful lifestyle.


16 February 2014 at 17:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Avi:

Polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, polystyrene (for the really kinky!), polly parrot...

What's the basis for saying no to any of them?

16 February 2014 at 18:02  
Blogger Meledor said...

Phil Roberts

We are talking about same-sex sexual activity as a sin, not because it makes us feel good about ourselves, but because that is the particular sin the Cof E is in the process of making acceptable. We could be talking about any sin if the church were to be condoning it. To go back to my initial post it is damaging because it undermines the gospel - that through Christ we can be saved from the power of sin – except by accommodating this sin the church has to redefine what sin is.
This is not about me or anyone else feeling good or self-righteous (I am too well aware of my sins and temptations for that). It is about saying that God is not mocked; there comes a penalty with all this, and contrary to what His Grace wishes, the CofE’s witness to the lost will be impacted.

16 February 2014 at 18:07  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Avi,

And, as you suggested, Pollyanna.

16 February 2014 at 18:08  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Explorer,

Pollyana sounds like potentially attractive...for a bachelor. Forgot to mention that polygamy and pre-puberty age of consent have an even better rationale than SSM; one is common the world over and was practiced in most cultures, the other one was the norm even in the West less than a century ago. The old dears should have an easier time with these and might be able to skip big synods and grand poo-bahs. Mind you, by then the only ones left in their flock will be legions of mendicants too busy sopping up the last of the charity trust funds and the clerical and administrative employees and ritirees, who won't care much unless the bonuses and benefits are threatened.

16 February 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Happy Jack: "What is 'Gay Pride' all about?"

DanJ0 posted a link earlier which demonstrates what it is ultimately about. DanJ0 says it is worth watching even though there are no honeypots being licked in it. Feel free to applaud at various points.

16 February 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Polyatomic could be an explosive relationship if consummated.

*chuckle*

16 February 2014 at 18:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (14:13)—I merely relay the findings of demographers, Islam is a disaster wherever its seed takes root, and nationalism is the inevitable future for Europe. Loath though I am to intrude reality on your imagination, it is highly unlikely that Islam will abandon its thousand-year disgust with homosexuality and become gay friendly.

16 February 2014 at 18:30  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Polymorphism is probably the ideal as it would allow all sorts of switching during relationships.

*double chuckle*

16 February 2014 at 18:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack @ 18:36

I wonder if Polyphemus doesn't cap the lot.

One-eyed perspective.

16 February 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

Phil Roberts wrote:

"--It is probably the one sin that most of us are not tempted by at all!"

You have the heart of it.
An excellent post, along with that of Sister Tibs

16 February 2014 at 18:56  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Phil. I can understand how your wife feels, and know what it is to be asked "But what do you DO?" by a childless woman. One needs to answer with tact (they may not wish to be childless), dignity and speedy delivery, though frankly the question is over-asked and the self-employed, carers, or those balancing a portfolio career often hate the question too, as well as spies!! I think that parents of six children need just about every bit of education that they possess to be effective and responsible parents, especially in these days. AtB in your endeavours.

As for not judging well maybe those who have taken wrong paths did not have the people praying for them that I did, is what I think, and there but for the Grace of God could have gone many of us. As it turns out all 3 of my godparents were committed Christians and 1 prayed for her godchildren every day. Her prayer life was better than mine, and the other 2 prayed too. What of those who did not have this? Or who have never come across a lively church, or a godly vicar?

However we can, however feebly, hate the sin and love the sinner, and even get better at doing that as time passes. What sticks in the gullet is people brandishing wrong behaviour with pride, and equating good and the twisting of good into its shadow. And saying that the sacramental scorning of the other sex is an act of love. Too much real love is impossible. This phenomenon is borne from too little love.

16 February 2014 at 19:01  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Well, Mr Cameron could have appointed my Lord to the see of Canterbury and then I would have put things right. Oh the missed opportunities ...

16 February 2014 at 19:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

I don't recall judging any individual on the subject of pride

I didn't say that you did, although I was teasing slightly.

My point was that if for the sake of argument in the last week (and these are random figures), there are ten references to homosexuality in public discourses by Christian leaders (all leaders, including bishops and elders of any Christian faith) and one reference (if that) to pride/humility then I am curious on what basis the weighting of the sins is discerned.

But surely that is just because, in the CofE particularly, homosexuality is being discussed and more widely the issue is high in the discussion stakes of society. No one is discussing whether to say pride is no longer a sin, or whether those of us who regard humility as a virtue should be called pridophobes, or whether the clergy can be allowed to pray for specifically proud relationships.

Moreover, it is any remark on sexuality that gets reported, comments made about other things (say humility) don't get reported. So you get a kind of confirmation bias. Factor in all the sermons preached etc. and I am sure humility will be mentioned far more than homosexuality. When was the last time you heard a sermon on homosexuality? The last time I am I sure I remember hearing homosexuality mentioned in a sermon was on the lips of Robert Runcie in the early 1990s, and he was condemning homophobia!

16 February 2014 at 19:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, the principle Cyclopes? A gigantic, insolent, lawless race, who ate people!
They had no laws or political institutions, lived in caves and ruled over their wives (er, partners) and children with arbitrary power.

"On a similar note I must confess to you, I'm giving very serious thought... to eating your wife."

Fava beans and a nice chianti, anyone?

*Chuckle*

16 February 2014 at 19:48  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Albert, clearly you haven't been following many of the American bishops recently. Not to mention some frightening stuff coming out from Uganda, plus the Russian Orthodox Patriarch...

16 February 2014 at 19:48  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Lucy M, Happy Jack agrees with this:

"However we can, however feebly, hate the sin and love the sinner, and even get better at doing that as time passes. What sticks in the gullet is people brandishing wrong behaviour with pride, and equating good and the twisting of good into its shadow."

16 February 2014 at 19:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

No, I haven't been following all that in any detail, but I know I don't like what I have heard. But that doesn't address my point, you claim seems to be that there will be 10 comments about homosexuality to every 1 about humility. The fact that you are able to cite quite a lot of examples of comments about homosexuality does nothing to defend that claim, for the reasons I have already given.

16 February 2014 at 19:58  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Albert, I've never convinced you with anything yet, so I doubt I'll start here. But try googling the words "homosexuality 2013" plus the name of any major Christian religion. Then do the same with the words "pride 2013" with the same. Then "humility 2013" with the same. Then do the maths.

16 February 2014 at 20:05  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Also please note my quote was

"My point was that if for the sake of argument in the last week (and these are random figures), there are ten references to homosexuality in public discourses by Christian leaders (all leaders, including bishops and elders of any Christian faith) and one reference (if that) to pride/humility then I am curious on what basis the weighting of the sins is discerned."

I stated these are random figures. Frankly, I suspect if I could be bothered to do the count, it would be nearer to 20:1

16 February 2014 at 20:10  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Jack

"reducing the gravity of what is a chosen, habitual and inherently sinful lifestyle"

We all have this lifestyle...

That was Jesus' point to the crowd about to stone the adulteress.

It is true however, after nobody was left to stone her. Jesus did not say "well since they have all gone I guess it is OK for you to go back to your boyfriend(s)"

It seems to me that we all remember that she was told not to sin again, but miss the main part that we are as guilty as the woman in the eyes of God.

Phil

16 February 2014 at 20:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Sister Tiberia, what was wrong with what Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church said?

He was saying that violating God’s laws by legislating in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ is a threat to human civilization.

"We are offered to justify the sinful ruining of this life by laws ... Never in the history of mankind have state laws been used to justify sin. Even the pagans did not do that, although the pagan understanding of what sin is like was very vague ...

God gave laws to humankind, whose violation is leading to a destruction of human civilization ...

If we are to live on as a nation, as a society and as a human civilisation, we must not venture to challenge the God-given laws."

16 February 2014 at 20:25  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

"Never in the history of mankind have state laws been used to justify sin."

Really?

Frankly, I doubt it would take me long in the history of the 20th century to challenge that. Although the sin would probably be judicial murder if it was the Russian penal code I was looking at.

16 February 2014 at 20:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Sister Tiberia, Happy Jack agrees that bit was wrong but Patriarch Kirill was referring to the state laws and intimate relationships and not just any law.

What about this bit:

"God gave laws to humankind, whose violation is leading to a destruction of human civilization ...

If we are to live on as a nation, as a society and as a human civilisation, we must not venture to challenge the God-given laws."

16 February 2014 at 20:43  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Then I would ask why he considers gay marriage to be a greater threat to civilisation than State-sanctioned mass murder, and on what evidence.

16 February 2014 at 20:46  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Sister Tiberia, presumably because Christians know and all agree that is wrong and a clear breach of the commandment "Do no murder".

The same could and should be said about abortion. He is equally strident in his opposition to this.

Patriarch Kirill started his remarks by saying it is possible to argue that laws are needed "to avoid discrimination against anyone in anything ... But the next moment one realises that it is not civil, political, economic, or cultural discrimination that is meant here, but something that has never been seen as discrimination at all. What is meant here is a person’s intimate life. We are offered to justify the sinful ruining of this life by laws."

Phil R, Happy Jack does not disagree in principle. Imagine if the sinner before Jesus was a homosexual woman. He wouldn't have said, "Carry on. I'll see to it you can become High Priestess one day and have a word with the Sanhedrin to see if they'll permit in same sex marriage."

Jack believes some sins should remain in the private domain and not be encouraged or condoned by the church or the state, let alone be given protected status.

16 February 2014 at 21:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

No, you're not likely to convince me with that argument. As I have said, comments about homosexuality get over-reported, comments about humility get under-reported. You cannot work out a ratio by only knowing the numbers of one side - that's no me being stubborn, that's just how ratios work.

16 February 2014 at 21:30  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Albert, as I said I've never convinced you of anything anyway, so I didn't expect to start here :)

16 February 2014 at 22:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

With no love lost for the old USSR or the new Russian crypto-empire with its corrupt government and Church, it nevertheless tickles the cockles of my heart that the darling of the Left has crudely (as crudely as only Russia can manage) kicked the LGBT support sector smack in the groin with the heavy Russian winter boot. The shock of the abandonment is palpable everywhere as city halls hoist rainbow flags and celebrities paint their nails in rainbow colours. Not only that, but the Obamamessiah and his vassals abandoned the shell-shocked parties by dismissing the idea of boycotting the Holy Olympiads.

What a mess. That will rattle things up pretty deep and for a long time. But it's amusing that the Gay-critical philosophy is emanating from a KGB mug and a black market cigarette billionaire in the shape of Patriarch Kirill. Still, there are bigger things at play here than vices and theology; the question is, will Russia impress their potential Mohammedan clients enough to kick-start their arms industry before the Chinese corner that market too.

16 February 2014 at 23:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Avi, Happy Jack appreciates your suspicions about Russia. However, he prefers the approach being adopted there to a threat from Islam.

The Russian church and state is aware of the demographics of low birth rates caused by contraception and abortions. They are anxious about them being out numbered by Muslims soon.

There is a movement there to address these matters. Abortion is legal up to 12 weeks in Russia. Some want the mother to have to wait a week and during this time to watch a scan of the baby and see its heart beat and to consider all other options.

In addition, they want:

- The family to be fully and unconditionally identified with heterosexual marriage;

- Having children being seen as the purpose of marriage and encouraging children being born;

- Respect for parental authority as the foundation of the family;

- 'Unorthodox' families (single-parent families, families with illegitimate children, families with divorced parents, single generation families, etc.) should be openly discouraged;

- State policy should promote attitudes towards life long, monogamous and faithful relationships;

- The availability of divorce and abortion should be decreased; and

- Participation in the Russian Orthodox Church should be seen as positive to family life.

Like it or loath this approach and the key players in Russian life, Jack sees merit in it.

17 February 2014 at 00:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So Avi

I see you are still alive. Were the nurses in the trauma center friendly? Have you recovered your memory yet?

carl

17 February 2014 at 01:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy Jack, yes, we know, Russia is firmly settled into its normal state of fascism...never really having departed for long... and is now sailing full steam ahead, but I hope you won't be disappointed when the Kremlin chucks all that piffle and quietly takes in the Big Gay the moment it finds a way to control the billions the Gay economic engine will flood onto the unprepared marketplace. It's only a temporary pause, you see, a show of Putin muscle, a way to make sure this financial newcomer will play by the rules and with the approved oligopolies. Another Breguet watch, perhaps one from the Classique Complications collection, will calm the good Patriarch Kirill enough to shut him. Maybe Hyek's replica of the Marie Antoinette time piece; it's not easy to impress a fellow who's squirrelled away between 2-4 billion.

17 February 2014 at 01:11  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Alright, Carl, I've avoided you long enough.. I knew you'd ask. Actually, the young lads did a splendid job on an idiotic script no one understands. With all their over-the-top acts, funny errors, forgotten lines and barely suppressed chuckles, they treated the play with the contempt it deserves. It kept us awake and entertained, actually. Still, no one understood why the staff picked this one.

17 February 2014 at 01:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

I've avoided you long enough.

So ... They turned the play into a parody of itself by playing it straight? And made it entertaining?? THAT'S NOT FAIR. MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. I HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF MY RIGHTFUL ABILITY TO GLOAT OVER YOUR MISERY. You march right back into that theater and you suffer.

[grumble grumble]

I just do not understand this modern stuff.

Very disgruntled carl

17 February 2014 at 01:32  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 February 2014 at 02:05  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Avi, seriously, how is what Jack has outlined 'fascism'?

Agreed, it may not be liberal-pluralistic-secular-democracy. Agreed, there is corruption in the Kremlin. But at least there is a recognition of threat imposed by Islam and the breakdown in traditional family values.

Are you saying it is all flannel?

17 February 2014 at 02:07  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Sister Tiberia. Those of us who find our consciences compelling us to oppose the spirit behind the Pilling report are only too aware of the tutting and finger pointing that will come our way. But the charge of being 'obsessed with sex, especially man on man sex' is unfair.

I can easily prove from my bank statements of the last 20 years that I am many times more concerned with the relief of poverty and spread of the Gospel than with campaigning against sexual sin (ratio of giving to TEAR fund and Bible Society to CARE. And even CARE campiagns not only on sexual issues but also against people trafficking etc). I am sure this is true of most believers.

The point is that the enemies of the Gospel are currently pursuing an active strategy to bully and blackmail the Church into saying that one particular form of sexual sin is 'love' and so blessed of God. To fail to resist this error is ultimately to surrender the divine commandment for the (current) opinion of the world and so to corrupt, weaken and surrender the Gospel of reconciliation.

The fact that taking a stand on this aspect of the sexual revolutionary agenda is likely to result in the kind of accusation you appear to be making vis a vis pride versus SSM only underlines the cleverness of the strategy we are facing.

He who is silent is deemed to assent. If the choice is between accepting the heresy and compromise of Pilling or being called bigots then we need to remember our Lord's words about being hated by the world and avoiding the broad and easy way that leads to destruction.

Get it?

17 February 2014 at 06:07  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Sister Tiberia, I Googled on 'homosexuality 2013 Methodist' and the 'Anglican' and if you do the same you will find the same as I. Immense pressure being applied from within and outside the churches to abandon their historic and biblical position on same sex genital acts in the name of 'love'.

We are being asked to bow to an idol here.

17 February 2014 at 06:25  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Rambling Sid, whatever you do don't bow down...you never know what may approach from behind...

17 February 2014 at 08:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

But at one level, I do agree with you. There is far too much talk about homosexuality. It's obvious what Christian teaching is and everyone knows it. The reason it keeps coming up and getting reported is because of everyone else's interest in it, not because it is particularly interesting to the Church. See how contraception became an issue of debate in the US when Obama tried to impose the funding of such vices on Catholic institutions. It's not because we're all obsessed by contraception, it is because society is obsessed by sex, and regards any alternative view as as heresy to be stamped out. The obsession is motivated by the sheer emptiness of the secular life, not by Christianity. Sex becomes a kind of idol and homosexuality is the key battle ground precisely because it is such an extreme version of the secular idolatry of making sex an end in itself.

However, I stand by my rejection of any claim that the clergy are talking about homosexuality more than humility. You have given no evidence for that, and all the evidence I have is quite the reverse.

17 February 2014 at 10:03  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Avi/Happy Jack:

Buchanan's 'Suicide of a Superpower', although about the USA, has horrifying statistics about Russian demographics.

The book is in storage (a refrain for me at the moment) but he says something like, "The Russians won't go down without a fight, and it won't be pretty."

As ugly, perhaps, as the recent Channel 4 documentary about the treatment of gays in Russia.

17 February 2014 at 10:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 10:03

Absolutely. The World is foisting its sexual preoccupations on us, and is furious to find dissenting voices.

Homosexuality must be defended, because it is the ultimate exoneration of the creed that the sex act is primarily about pleasure, not procreation.

Procreational primacy may be true for the animal world, but not for us. (Although it suits us to be animals in other contexts: evolution, for instance).

17 February 2014 at 10:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

And of course the reason it must be about pleasure and not procreation is because making it about procreation implies natural law. This is objectionable to the secular mind because it is about law, and it might even imply a creator. The one thing the modern thinks it believes in is freedom. But it opposes the freedom to discuss what freedom is for, lest it might have to face some obligations.

Your point about animals is very well taken. Consistency is not prized by the secular mind.

17 February 2014 at 10:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

America also has a demographic crisis, just a Russia does.

Homosexuality is not the cause; except insofar as it is the representation of an attitude.

Fifty million abortions are the cause: and an ageing population that needs immigrants to care for it in its old age, when there are issues more pressing than sex to worry about. Infirmity, for instance.

17 February 2014 at 10:54  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Albert, if you have conclusive evidence that the clergy are talking more about humility than homosexuality, please post it here.

If not, then I stand by what I said.

17 February 2014 at 11:03  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

But I will give you one point - that Pope Francis is a very good and notable exception to the rule. And I wish that some of the stupider American Bishops would follow his admirable lead.

17 February 2014 at 11:08  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"The Archbishop is not endorsing such views: he is simply recognising the sociological reality" - No, but the Abp is, presumably, saying that this fact should determine the Church's response and determine the (re-)creation of theology, belief and ideas on this and related subjects, that this "sociological reality", in a word, should be formative, and sovereign: and that fact is, I'm afraid, the difference between real Christianity and a bogus, purely-this-worldly post-Christianity.

17 February 2014 at 11:09  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, Happy Jack sees the Russian state is fighting back.

Last year it brought in a law that stigmatises gay people and bans giving children information about homosexuality. It was passed on a vote 436-0 vote with one abstention. This bans "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations".

It is all part of an attempt to promote traditional Russian values instead of Western liberalism which the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church see as corrupting Russian youth and undermining their society.

The state also passed another law that makes offending religious feelings a crime punishable by up to three years in prison. This was passed 308-2, after the Pussy Riot conviction for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" when they ran amok in a Cathedral.

Right or wrong? Jack does not really know for sure but it is certainly different to the approach in the EU and in the Western churches.

17 February 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack @ 13:49

I believe the B&B issue split the gay community here. Fear of a backlash if elderly married couples were perceived as being victimised.

In Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' feminism goes too far and provokes a "mannism" backlash: all bank accounts with women's names frozen etc.

I think what's happening in Russia could be duplicated in the West if/when the West wakes up to its own demographic crisis.

Don't know if you saw that horrible Channel 4 documentary? Some religious involvement, but the cruel stuff was being carried out by the irreligious, I would say, sensing social implosion and looking for scapegoats.

At least the Russians have realised that if they don't do something about their population crisis now, they face a massive problem in the future.

17 February 2014 at 16:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

The original claim was yours, so you must provide the evidence. All I can say is that I have repeatedly heard the clergy speak about humility, but - with the exception of Runcie I mentioned earlier, I really cannot remember examples of the clergy speaking about homosexuality.

Granted, this is not evidence such as you would be able to investigate. But I know it is a fair reflection, and in the absence of any evidence on your side, I think the position I am holding is more than reasonable.

17 February 2014 at 16:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

Pope Francis may not be insulting gays, but he is almost certainly insulting you:

http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults.html

17 February 2014 at 16:43  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Albert, why on earth would I bother? You dismissed my comment about the Ugandan bishops, Patriarch Kirill and the American bishops as anecdotal, pointed out that the statistical methodology of word searches on Google is flawed, but offer your own anecdote which doesn't even refer to the point I originally made (public statements of Church leaders of various faiths, not what your local parish homilies are on), and then inform me the Pope's insulting me. Honestly, you'd be thrown out of the Middle School Debating Society :)

But more seriously, do you think there's no insult in that list that applies to you as well? :) And just what do any of them have to do with the subject we were discussing.

Tell you what - and this is my last input into this. Take a look at the spectacular PR blunder in American known as the "Fortnight for Freedom" :) Bearing in mind that most Americans didn't have a clue why the Bishops called it that since "fortnight" is not a word commonly in American parlance. Now try to find any public discourse by any American bishop on the subject of humility during the six months before or after it.

And if you still can't find a chapter and verse reference, then lets just assume that neither of us will convince the other.

17 February 2014 at 17:13  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Happy Jack

Some of the anti-Russian hysteria is being fanned by paedo homosexuals who see the Olympics as a prime chance to pass round fresh meat or "chickens" as they horribly refer to these young boys as. I get this info from the Needleblog & Aangirfan. Of course people with these predilections, and those who are their PC naive stooges have leverage within certain sections of the media, and the rapacious regard these unholy "perks" as their right.

Putin, for all his faults, has made it clear that they will have next to no chance to mess with Russian children and there will be stringent repercussions - chemical castration or life imprisonment- for those who do. In that sense all power to him and I wish our leaders had the same protective ferocity in guarding our nation's children.

17 February 2014 at 17:14  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Let me add to the last comment

You say "I have repeatedly heard the clergy speak about humility, but - with the exception of Runcie I mentioned earlier, I really cannot remember examples of the clergy speaking about homosexuality."

I say that I have repeatedly heard the clergy speak about homosexuality in public - sometimes backfiring spectacularly coughcough Cardinal O'Brian coughcough but I have heard little to nothing about pride/humility.

Anecdote meets anecdote. No score draw.

17 February 2014 at 17:23  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Though I will grant you that my PP has never once given a homily on the subject. Mainly because he thinks the hierarchy pre Francis was obsessed with it and saw no reason to add to the problem. His words, not mine :)

17 February 2014 at 17:24  
Blogger Matt Lavaquar said...

So to summarize this thread -

The demographic crisis in the west and Russia is all the fault of the homo movement, nothing whatsoever to do with hetrosexuals not having babies!! Blame the gay! As Lucy Mullen has said, thank God for Russia, defending the world from the hoards of gays-pedos, even though they are 2 separate inclinations, let's not let fact get in the way of hate.

It does of course say in the Bible that homosexuality is the worst, indeed the ONLY sin! And sin is SIN! It MUST be condemned or they burn in hell bound fire for all time! If you don't toe this line, they you are a pufter liberal yourself or even worse a HERETIC !

Of course this rot started with women Priests and leadership in the Church. As the Bible says the woman's place is in the home to look after the children. If we got back to this state of affairs, women the home and gays in their place , the world would be a better place!

End.

17 February 2014 at 17:41  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

You forgot one bit, Matt.

"And for God's sake don't let the women post on blogs. It only leads to trouble ;)"

17 February 2014 at 17:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Matt @ 17:41

See my comment @ 10:54.

17 February 2014 at 18:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 February 2014 at 18:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Matt Lavaquar

The demographic crisis in the west and Russia is all the fault of the homo movement

The demographic crisis in the West is the fault of the sexual revolution. That revolution was fought under the banner of autonomy and presupposed that the defining feature of man is his ability to exercise his will; that to be oppressed is to have obligation imposed upon you against your will. And traditional social restraints on sexual behavior are all intended to enforce imposed social obligations. The sexual revolution deliberately sought to overthrow those obligations by severing the necessary connections between sex and children, sex and marriage. That way people could be free to indulge their sexual desires without care. One derivative outcome of that revolution was the normalization of homosexuality. But make no mistake. The two subjects are joined at the hip. Without the former, the later would never have occurred.

The normalization of homosexuality is a significant step because it unambiguously legitimizes sexual behavior based solely on the presence of authentic desire over against obvious structural boundaries. If authentic desire is the standard of moral behavior, then there is very little than cannot be justified.

carl

17 February 2014 at 18:17  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Matt Lavaquar, Happy Jack suspects you're winding people up.
Your "summary" of the thread was not accurate at all.

Carl, Jack agrees and tried to say as much earlier.

Explorer, did you know that normal sexual relationships are now being called “heteronormativity” by some?

Jack recently came across a blog that said PIV” (i.e., penis-in-vagina, or sexual intercourse to normal people) is rape!

"PIV is always rape, plain and simple.... Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape....

Men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence... inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women."


Touch of heteronormativephobia.

17 February 2014 at 18:42  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ matt

So how many people are to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, that horrid concept that sexual conduct should be unrestrained. We do not even think water should be unconstrained. Not because we think that water is not a fine thing. But it has its proper confines, and we do not appreciate it flooding our houses.

The sexaul instinct is a powerful one, and it is a moral imperative to channel that power effectively, and keep it within the riverbed of usefulness. This is actually so flipping obvious that it is almost unbelievable that it should become controversial. Of course morality applies to this large important area of life about which we feel so strongly.

I once watched a wonderful play of "Paradise Lost" which the authors claimed was originally written as a play until, they claimed, Milton had seen the repercussions. We only realised what they were when the second Act begun and Adam and Eve were stark naked. Now it was beautifully done, so that it challenged 21st Century shackling of smuttiness and sex- no mean achievement, and challenged the audience to purity. The first and last time I think I will see theological discussion between two naked people in verse! But I realised I saw Eve as competition and the one I identified with and ADAM as interest, when in lesser pure mode! For a male homosexual, all that would be focussed on the male, in a potentially fiery bitchy, violent competitive relationship, and the female would be uninteresting, set aside, almost irrelevant. And the other way for the female. Now I think that is part of the vitally important differences and why the Natural order should be followed; it involves everyone in mutually beneficient relationship potentially.

As for big sporting events attracting sexual predators that is just a matter of fact, as are the multiple partners and the sexual promiscuity of the male gay community.

17 February 2014 at 18:56  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Lucy M, that was very naughty of you. Jack hopes you only attended the play once!

*chuckle*

You are correct though and Jack agrees with what you say.

17 February 2014 at 19:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack @ 18:42

Thanks for that. Didn't know it, but no surprise: an inevitable outcome of treating all behaviour as normal.

Re the rape issue.

One of my favourite writers is J Budziszewski. (Convert to Catholicism after leaving the Episcopalians). In 'What we Can't not Know' (study of Natural Law) he quotes from a horrific medical article 'Is pregnancy really normal?

It is, of course, a disease. Fortunately, there is a cure. Guess what?

In the same book he examines the view that pregnancy is rape. The woman's womb has been violated by an unwanted intruder. Her space has been invaded.

17 February 2014 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "The sexaul instinct is a powerful one, and it is a moral imperative to channel that power effectively, and keep it within the riverbed of usefulness."

Why is that a moral imperative to someone who isn't a Christian?

17 February 2014 at 19:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Sr T,

I think the point I am making is that you have not been able to provide any evidence to defend your comment - it's the ratio that's the issue and the comment that the clergy don't talk about pride. I'm hardly denying bishops go on about homosexuality. I have simply provided evidence to the contrary of your position.

But while we're on that point, you said "Church leaders". Does not the title "Church leaders" include the local clergy? Now you are restricting the title "Church leaders" so as not to include what your local parish homilies are on. It's hard to keep up!

then inform me the Pope's insulting me. Honestly, you'd be thrown out of the Middle School Debating Society :) But more seriously, do you think there's no insult in that list that applies to you as well? :)

I suspect many of the Pope's insults are directed at people like me. Although I don't think I am open to the accusation of being an "old maid", nor (sadly) a "Renaissance prince".

just what do any of them have to do with the subject we were discussing.

Well you brought Pope Francis up as a very good and notable exception to the rule. I'm just pointing out that if he isn't insulting homosexuals, that seems to be because he doesn't have time after insulting everyone else! Sourpuss!

Tell you what - and this is my last input into this...Let me add to the last comment

I do so love arguing with you Sr T! :-)

17 February 2014 at 19:39  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, the article can be found here.

Pregnancy is described as a chronic condition with a morbidity and mortality risk which:

•is almost entirely preventable through the use of effective contraception, and entirely so through abstinence;

•when not prevented, is the individual result of a set of species specific bio-social adaptations with a changing significance for species survival;

•may be defined as an illness requiring medical supervision through (a) cultural traditions, functional or explicit, (b) circumstantial self-definition of illness or (c) individual illness behaviour;

•may be treated by evacuation of the uterine contents;

•may be tolerated, sought, and/or valued for the purpose of reproduction; and

•has an excellent prognosis for complete, spontaneous recovery if managed under careful medical supervision.

Made Jack shudder reading it.

And if you Google him you'll see the man has received many awards for pioneering "reproductive freedom" and he specialises in late term abortions.

17 February 2014 at 19:49  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Too much mention of homosexuality on this thread to be healthy, what !

Meanwhile, late arrivals have appeared at Cranmer’s ball...

“Ladies and gentleman, announcing Mr and Mrs Sect and their speech impaired gay son, Anuth”

17 February 2014 at 19:49  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo.

I agree that in some ways it is unfair to expect non-Christians to show or agree with Christian morality, especially as we in most areas of our own Christian lives are evolving in our capacity to improve. Actually as a libertarian I am in favour of the tares and wheat growing together, and a largely live and let live policy.

Where I object is when people say there is no difference when there patently is, and when they try to change the meaning of long-established words for no reason, or insist on rights to sexual congress in public or prowl around loos, or when they disrespect people of the opposite gender, or bully b & b owners.

Otherwise, male or female I get very angry when they rape or victimize people, use sexual violence, or coerce the young, the trusting, their pupils or vulnerable adults, or download thousands of pictures of others doing that.

I would guess you are as revolted by Ian Watkins as I am. An interesting point on this is in a Nick BEGICH film on www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-weather/

where he is talking about the frequencies of the mind and tells us that for children up to the age of 6 or 7 they are operating in a similar frequency to adults between sleep and waking; this affects their ability to operate in "reality" in the same way as us, [and then of course they emerge from this and then go into another strange state in teenage!!] All part of concern as to child development, right understanding of it, and where it impinges on ability to consent.

17 February 2014 at 19:54  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Matt Lavaquar. “...defending the world from the hoards of gays-pedos, even though they are 2 separate inclinations,”

Surly you mean ‘afflictions’ ?

Anyway, the more this man discovers about the gay mind-set, the more he is inclined to view both as the same animal. After all, you very own icon Tatchell would like to see a common age of consent of 14. What is particularly worrying is that he sees no shame in what he asks, and apparently puts the suggestion forward without expecting a storm of flack from heterosexual parents whose expectations from their children is to continue the line as nature intended, and not to provide playthings for homosexual men many years older...

17 February 2014 at 20:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Matt

It has been proven that pedophilia is between 20 to 70 times more common in those with homosexual rather than the heterosexual orientation

Lucy

"chemical castration or life imprisonment- for those who do. In that sense all power to him and I wish our leaders had the same protective ferocity in guarding our nation's children"

We had this debate some months ago. Glad you are coming around to a more workable and sensible viewpoint that may actually protect children.

Phil

17 February 2014 at 21:13  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

It has been proven that pedophilia is between 20 to 70 times more common in those with homosexual rather than the heterosexual orientation

Can we have a source, please?

17 February 2014 at 21:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

matt

Here is a link to give you an outline of the problem. If you Google it there are many more

http://www.rense.com/general24/reportpedophilia.htm

Phil

17 February 2014 at 21:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Albert

Try this one for starters

http://www.frc.org/issueanalysis/homosexuality-and-child-sexual-abuse

Gays tend to poo poo the evidence from the RDC rather than counter with any hard evidence


Phil

17 February 2014 at 21:42  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Albert matt etc

I am NOT saying that all gays are guilty of seeking underage sex

The vast majority of Gays find sex with children as abhorrent as hetros do

It is a largely unacknowledged problem and Gays (It is a 99.9% male issue) now that they are "mainstream" members of society need to acknowledge the problem and get their house in order.

Phil



17 February 2014 at 21:50  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Keep up the good work Phil. One is beginning to wonder whether some of these gay types log onto Cranmer to justify themselves, while waiting for their criminal filth to download...


17 February 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Albert, I do occasionally wonder why I bother posting at all :) Since the only end result is usually that an hour later my blood pressure is hitting the roof, my New Year's Resolution to give everyone the benefit of the doubt is bursting at the seams, and my keyboard has a dent from hitting my head on it. On the other hand, I do seem to keep coming back.

Masochism? :)

17 February 2014 at 21:58  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Sister Tiberia,

Blood pressure?

Your gracious comments invariably reduce His Grace's ash temperature, and are deeply appreciated. You are a welcome blessing, if apparently unappreciated by others.

17 February 2014 at 22:03  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Your Grace - I'm honoured. (And I really really need to learn not to wind up so easily.)

Take care and God Bless.

17 February 2014 at 22:06  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Sister Tiberia, Happy Jack
chuckled at your comment about denting your keyboard with your head. They can be expensive to replace - the keyboard i.e. and not your head.

Why not have a nice cup of tea and an occasional chocolate digestive biscuit to relax? Jack finds the plain chocolate ones most amenable to lowering blood pressure.

17 February 2014 at 22:29  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Sister T. This man swears by raw garlic, the continental cure all. He is particularly impressed by it being a natural fungicide that kills off yeast as found in home brew, which otherwise may cause {AHEM} ‘discomfort’...

17 February 2014 at 22:36  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ phil
Am not aware of any change of opinion there; I would have liked to remain, in many ways as ignorant about child abuse as I was before bringing up my children and being close to schools, and other institutions, and being thus acquainted with- in the last 14 years- no fewer than 10 paedos, possibly more. Now my parents brought up a similar no. of children but I am hard pressed to think of them knowing more than 2. That may be a statistical anomaly, but I feel it indicates something, and so did the very impressive policemen who interviewed me on 2 separate occasions about 2 different individuals when it was concerning one of my children's classmates. Nice schools they were, too.

17 February 2014 at 22:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy @ 22:39

An important point. Were the numbers the same in your parents' time and they were simply unaware; or have the numbers, percentage-wise increased?

Even allowing for instances like the young Marilyn Monroe (her complaint about being molested being countered with not to make up stories about the nice man) I think the latter.

Carl's analysis @ 18:17 might provide the explanation.

17 February 2014 at 22:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Sister T:

Here's an Anglican apart from His Grace who appreciates the spirit you bring to this Blog.

17 February 2014 at 22:53  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ the explorer

Yes, I think you are right. Being an optimist I think it can be turned around, in 5, 10, or 15 years. I can remember a preacher once asking a university congregation what was most important and thus god in their lives, and going through what different people might choose. One of them was sex, of course, and he said, from his own pastoral experience, "beware, the god of sex can very easily become a demon". Few still speak with such directness, and I become more aware of how much that is so each year, and how much it needs to be still said. Not that sex is not brilliant, life affirming and beautiful, but it can be horribly distorted and really damage people way inside their interiors.

17 February 2014 at 23:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older