It's a girl, and Jesus is her Mother.

Clearly, things are going to be lively with Bishop Schori in the Chair. In her very first sermon, delivered this morning at GenCon,she has managed to say: "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation and we are his children." She then goes on to say it is time to give up fear. Well if she was looking for a way to provoke fear, she has found it, although it doesn't frighten me. After I stopped laughing, I just began to feel just a little tired. I can already see tomorrow's headlines, and envisage the shape my working life is going to take over the next nine years of her primacy. Sometimes, I just wish The Episcopal Church were not so predictable. What's it going to be this Christmas in America. Christamass? Anglican Mainstream has posted the full sermon. And of course she is within the current doctrine of The Episcopal Church, as my posting on the recent "Pray to Mother Jesus" liturgy demonstrates amply.

James Bone's report in today's paper has all the details of latest news and I wrote an accompanying commentary, as well as a light-hearted piece for T2. I was particulary proud of this piece, because after 19 years on The Times, I finally managed to get what I think is the longest word in the English language, antidisestablishmentarianism, into the paper. Of course I could only ever have succeeded in that enterprise in an article about Rowan Williams. And can anyone out there send me a picture of one of those pink "it's a girl" buttons? (Photo now up by Michael G Daley of Anglican Essentials. Also, Louise from All Saints Pasadena is crediting none other than Gene Robinson for the pink buttons. ) Meanwhile, Philippe Naughton from Times Online has emailed me saying: 'Please don't accuse me of floccinaucinihilipilification, but didnt you mean disestablishmentarianism?' Oh dear, I think perhaps I did. Proud no more, just fallen....

*Update Thursday: See latest news from me and James in the paper, and also, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster on abortion. Thank goodness for the Catholics returning us to reality and lifting us back out of the weird alternative virtual universe of The Episcopal Church, a strange world nonetheless welcomed by my colleague Mary Ann Sieghart. Jonathan Petre has written a lively report although I wouldn't quite agree that Anglicanism is in its death throes. He must have been taking reading Damian Thompson's article and taking it too seriously. More links to other stories again in Thinking Anglicans.

  Here is the "mind of the house" resolution which has now been approved by both bishops and deputies. The resolution and the actions of General Convention were immediately repudiated by Network bishops, whose statement can be read on the American Anglican Council website. Thirty progressives also dissociated themselves from the resolution, making it clear they had no plans to call a halt to gay consecrations. Live blogger Matt Kennedy is giving all the details on these and other developments as they emerge. Dr Rowan Williams' own statement is at the end of this post. He is clearly relieved but also appears to recognise the resolution might not go far enough. It should serve to rescue The Episcopal Church from immediate exile and secure their tickets to Lambeth 2008, but which bit of The Episcopal Church will go is not at all clear. There now appear to be two Episcopal Churches in the US. The Global South primates have responded quickly, hinting at a "structural" response when they next meet in November.

The resolution states: "Resolved that 75^th General Convention receive and embrace the Windsor Report invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation and call upon standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the larger church and will lead to further strain on the communion."

Incidentally, the mug pictured here, one of many being distributed around GenCon by a bishop, bears the slogan: The Episcopal Church: Inclusive as hell.

So even Frank Griswold was worried. He told the GenCon that if some kind of Windsor-friendly resolution is not passed, Rowan Williams will have great difficulty inviting their bishops to Lambeth 2008.

The motion was passed rougly 70-30 by the bishops and then by the deputies. Before the vote, Bishop Schori described the situation as a church with two minds. "We've seen lots of stories in the news about separating conjoint twins. Ethically one can not separate two conjoint twins unless we are certain that both can live separately. We are not certain that the two could live separately. The original is the best we can do. It has to leave the door open for reconsideration in the very near future." That point about "reconsideration" did not go down too well. Minutes after the resolution was passed, and went to the deputies for consideration, all the orthodox bishops walked out. Meanwhile, there is fury among the deputies who feel they are being railroaded into going against their principles. A suspension of the rules surrounding the reconsideration of resolutions was shouted through. "We are a pregnant church and Jesus bears us," groaned one deputy.

It is with some relief that I learned then from a source in the US that The Episcopal Church was not as careless about its Anglican Communion membership as its actions over the past few days might have implied. Indeed, there is apparently great concern that the new Presiding Bishop, Katharine Schori [pronounced Shorry, not Scorri] should be able to take her seat alongside the other 37 male primates at the next and all subsequent Primates' Meetings. And that she should be invited to the next Lambeth Conference in 2008. (If indeed there is a next Lambeth Conference. Kent University is booked but the invitations haven't gone out yet, so who knows? That would be one  way of avoiding an unseemly scrum, to cancel the whole thing altogether. We must never underestimate the Archbishop of Canterbury's sense of humour.) Not all deputies are however happy with any attempt to remain in what remains of communion.

Of course all those invitations are in jeopardy if The Episcopal Church is regarded, after all this, as till having stuck two fingers up at Windsor. "I don't think we are thumbing our noses because that would require enough coordination to get our hands to our faces," writes Jim Naughton in daily episcopalian. More reaction and links as usual at Thinking Anglicans.

So the resolution above represented a desperate, last-minute attempt in the US today to get something past the bishops and deputies that allows Bishop Schori to take her seat on the world  Anglican state.

Thus, in an extraordinary way, the election of a woman might have actually saved the Anglican Communion from schism, even if it failed to save The Episcopal Church. Had it been a man, they might not have cared so much. They really, really want to see Bishop Katharine up there, alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury. And actually, I have to admit, so do I. The thought of real schism happening now in the Anglican Communion is utterly heartbreaking. For some reason, if The Episcopal Church schisms off into two as it now looks like doing, I don't mind so much.

Naturally there are concerns that the resolution was only a PR stunt designed to get Bishop Katharine and the rest to Lambeth. In the debate in the House of Bishops last night, the orthodox Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh said “What I would like to ask of the house is honesty as we make whatever decision we make. In this church this is the one assembly that can speak. In particular the honesty of the situation we are in. I think we have seen that we cannot agree to do what we have been asked. To take the route of a mind of the house resolution seems to be provide some kind of a cover in the rest of the world, but is it truthful? It is ironic that one of the houses having spoken we would speak in the opposite way suggesting to the world that it is not true.”

The subsequent falling apart illustrates how quite a lot of people were angry about the fact, that after all the hours spent arguing and talking about Windsor, it came down to a mind of the house motion being written by one bishop. "This is not democracy in action – it is the paralysis of democracy which is taken over by tyranny because the will of the leaders has been frustrated," said one source.

Bishop John Chane of Washington DC, a prominent church liberal who officiates at the National Cathedral in the US capital, immediately announced he would not heed the call to block gay bishops. "I will defy the resolution by consenting after prayer and careful consideration to any person duly elected by a diocese in this church," he said. The 20 dissenting liberals backed him with a statement of their own, in which they accuse the Church of attempting "to limit participation of those perceived to be inadequate for full inclusion in the ordained ministry."

Nevertheless, it does appear to have been the only way forward that gives Bishop Schori a hope of going to the Primates' Meetings and to Lambeth. And the statement from Lambeth Palace that came soon after the vote indicated gratitude and relief.

Dr Williams said: "I am grateful to the Bishops and Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) for the exceptional seriousness with which they have responded to the request of the Primates of the Anglican Communion that they should address the recommendations of the Windsor Report relating to the tensions arising from the decisions associated with the 74th General Convention in 2003.

“There is much to appreciate in the hard and devoted work done by General Convention, and before that, by the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, in crafting the resolutions. This and the actions taken today show how strong is their concern to seek reconciliation and conversation with the rest of the Communion.

“It is not yet clear how far the resolutions passed this week and today represent the adoption by the Episcopal Church of all the proposals set out in the Windsor Report. The wider Communion will therefore need to reflect carefully on the significance of what has been decided before we respond more fully.

“I am grateful that the JSC of the Primates and ACC has already appointed a small working group to assist this process of reflection and to advise me on these matters in the months leading up to the next Primates’ Meeting.

“I intend to offer fuller comments on the situation in the next few days. The members of Convention and the whole of the Episcopal Church remain very much in our prayers.”

(ps if anyone wants to see what is being said about correspondent 'James' on other blogs, start by looking at MadPriest. rg)

Comments

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Alaistair

I was just going to write to you privately to say how much I admired your factual piece on the 7/7 blog regarding Scotland.

[Alistair McBay]

Irene

Your remark to Robin is intellectually dishonest. I am disappointed in you.

And Robin is right - we don't all need to have been slaves before we can condemn the practice of slavery.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Only 'touchy': it'll be 'hysterical' next.

Those pesky women: they really aren't one of the lads, are they!

I mean: the idea that they should actually dare to put us in their place with facts. And see through all our metaphors and analyse our motivations.

Whatever next: they'll be telling us we need a psychiatrist soon.

Never mind: I'm off for another gin.

[Robin Bather]

Irene, you are touchy today, but then you often are.
You of course were not referred to as a cancer, but figuratively Israel was.
The meaning behind my comparison was, I think, quite clear; we all are entitled to our opinions not just people with first hand experience.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Robin, I am not an Israeli yet.

And I know you enjoy getting your kicks out of rubbishing quite a number of things.

But don't you think that comparing me to a cancer is a bit extreme, even for you?

[Christopher]

Ruth did you see this? I sent it earlier:

But Alan, the Church of England itself within England, leaving aside Africa, the USA and the rest of the world, is not of one mind on these issues, as the Slee letter witnesses. And as for reinterpreting "the plain meaning of key texts", the much vaunted plain meaning isn't necessarily there for all to see, let alone agree on. Richard Burridge Dean of King's wrote an excellent book Four Gospels, One Jesus? where he explains that reading an ancient text is like looking in through a window. In reading a text there is always something between you and the world you are looking in on. And as when you look through a window there is a degree of reflection so some of what you see in the text is a reflection of yourself.
Robin is correct about the Catholic Chrurch - it is much better home for people like yourself who want the kind of theological certainty and conformity, not to say authoritarian leadership, you will never get in the Church of England. But even the Catholic Church has its divisions between the extremist "Radio Marya" types like Barbara Kralis who accuses many bishops in the US of heresy and the liberal We are Church movement.
You are right, it is a fact of life that internal conflict is bound to arise when one group believes another takes positions that "contradict the foundation documents" as they see them. But that is the history of Christianity - Jesus's prayer that they all be one proved abortive from the outset and Christianity is the most fissionable of the religions on the planet. In fact when an ideology is based on very little conclusive evidence and almost completely on faith, custom and tradition. It is by definition bound to be riven with disagreement.
The biblical archaelogist Professor James Taylor in his investigation into the life of Jesus and the true origins of Christianity argues that far from setting himself up as the Saviour of the World and founder of a new religion, Jesus saw himself as a descendent of the royal house of David whose aim was to establish himself and his family as the rightful rulers of Israel. Forget Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code then....you may still have got it all wrong.
Posted by: Christopher at Jun 30, 2006 6:28:48 PM

(chris, this one didn't show up when you first sent it, sorry, don't know what happened. rg)

[Alan Marsh]

Thank you for alerting me to this, Alistair. You may be surprised that I agree with you. The bishop's actions ought to be challenged.

[Robin Bather]

Dr. Lancaster believes that criticism can only be accepted by those who have first hand experience, especially when it comes down to criticism of Israel.
A convenient point of view which would allow her and other Israelis to opine but not me.
As wiser people than me have said "You don't need to have cancer to know how to cure it".

Am I now expected to keep quiet about Israel's latest excursion into a neighbouring country and the kidnapping of many of its elected cabinet members and MPs?
Previously the Palestinians were labelled "terrorists" because their target was the Israeli civilian population, but now that a soldier has been captured, I wonder what spin Mark Regev will put on the mass kidnapping and collective punishment which is being savagely applied to the civilian population of Gaza?

I could continue but I don't want to have flung at me "You're like a drunk at a party. Shut Up!"

PS
Did everybody see on TV the Caterpillar bulldozers all nicely lined up ready to destroy homes of the Gaza residents?
Boycott, anyone?

[James]

"They currently dictate that I cannot choose when to die if I am suffering from a terminal illness..."

---

Wouldn't it be better, Alistair, if the government just allowed and helped anyone to commit suicide who wants to? I think in Holland they're considering that - as long as you're over 16 yrs. of age. All those depressed people and teenagers - they could finally find peace.

James

[Alistair McBay]

Alan - my final word (honest!)

In today's Daily Mail is this story:

"The Church of England Bishop who called on Prince Charles to apologise for his adultery before he wed Camilla was at the centre of controversy yesterday for marrying his divorced son in his own cathedral.

The Rt Rev David Stancliffe, Bishop of Salisbury, was accused of putting himself in a 'foolish' position at a time when the issue of divorcees marrying in church remains a source of bitter disagreement among the clergy."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392372&in_page_id=1770

Don't you think that this "one rule for you, a different rule for me" attitude deserves to be challenged?

[Alistair McBay]

Thanks for the invitation, Irene, and 'bonne chance' on you move. Live long and prosper, as Spock would say.

I too will now withdraw to a safe distance, but I owe Alan an answer to his last post, so here goes.

Alan asks "Would you consider it wrong for the Church not to permit someone engaged in an adulterous relationship to be ordained as a bishop?" Well, it seems to be prepared to let to permit someone who engaged in an adulterous relationship become its future head, does it not? So why not a bishop?

On a wider note, Alan, the world's assorted religons try to force me to believe what they want me to believe. They want to dictate to me what plays I can watch, what cartoons I may or may not draw or watch, what art I can produce and what exhibitions I can visit, what books and films I can see, what I may or may not write about. They currently dictate that I cannot choose when to die if I am suffering from a terminal illness, and dictate to women the "choices" they must make over their own bodies.

Organised religion doesn't want me to go shopping or to the gym on Sundays, or to go to the Western Isles of Scotland on that day, in case I disturb "their" lifestyle (public gyms and shops closed, by the way). Organised religion also wants to dictate to me with which other adults I may have sex and for what purpose, whether I use contraception and to which schools my children are allowed to go. It wants to dictate to me that I must not in any way discriminate against it, while it reserves the right to discriminate against me (should I be female, or gay, or gay AND female, or an atheist). In extreme cases it dictates to me that I must have a beard, must not listen to music or fly a kite or watch television. It wants to dictate to me that its beliefs about how the world was created should be taught in science classes, against all available and contradictory evidence.

I could go on in this vein, but.........

......do you seriously expect to be able to force all this stuff on me without me resisting, especially when religion demands that its rights trump basic human rights?

[Christopher]

"If I felt nauseated at someone's picking his nose all the time, that would make me a bigot?"

The comparison doesn't really work, does it, James? And anyway because something nauseates you doesn't make it wrong. I may be nauseated at the thought of you huffing and puffing on your wife but that doesn't make what you do wrong, even if it is not a very pretty sight; it would be none of my business.

No, what nauseates you, James, is what goes on entirely in your own head, what you suppose that gay people get up to in bed, which in any case is also none of your business....unless, of course, you go straying down red light districts or go on gay websites. Oh, but then I was forgetting, you have already told us you do.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Alistair, thanks for making your position abundantly clear. For the record, I was very much against the new religion hatred legislation for some of the reasons you cite.

Meanwhile, I am arranging to host my Manchester newsagent, Mohammad and his wife, at my place in Haifa when I am sorted out there.

Because he has just told me that he has always wanted to visit 'that wonderful country', but didn't know anyone who could show him and his wife around.

'It has always been my dream to visit it', he said to me just now, as I went to pay the monthly bill for The Times and the Jewish Chronicle.

Alistair, you would also be very welcome to visit if you wish.

Because I totally agree that legitimate criticism of any country, including this one, is perfectly acceptable, but only when based on first-hand experience.

And bearing in mind the last posting by Robin, I think I shall now beat a dignified retreat.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair,

Would you consider it wrong for the Church not to permit someone engaged in an adulterous relationship to be ordained as a bishop? Someone who is unmarried and visits night clubs in search of casual sex? Someone who can see no wrong in stealing, driving dangerously, or campaigning for euthanasia?

It seems to me that the basis of your argument is that Christians should not be permitted to express what they believe either in public debate or in the internal organisation of the Church.

The Church of England, through General Synod, has expressed its view (shared with the great majority of Christians past and present) that gay sexual acts are inappropriate for Christians, in the light of the teaching of the Bible.

Should it be forbidden to say what it believes or to act upon it when appointing bishops?

[Robin Bather]

There comes a time when some of us just retire from the debate due to the constant haranguing of one person who is like a drunk at a party and just won't shut up and continues spewing out his passionate thoughts on just about everything, especially homosexuals.
I never thought that I would be advocating censorship but there comes a time when you say to your wife "Let's go home".

[alistair McBay]

Irene

Why are you wilfully avoiding the issue I raised, which was not about whether anti-semitism exists, but rather who gets to say what is anti-semitic, or homophobic or whatever?

I have no quarrel with what you say about anti-semitism, and it matters not whether it is borne out of a religionist or racist perspective - it is profoundly wrong to discriminate (using the widest possible definition of that word) against anyone simply because of their race, or religion, or age, or sex, or (hold on to your hollihocks, James) their sexual orientation.

That is not what I was questioning at all, as I am sure you well know. The point at issue is about who establishes the boundaries for what is a "phobia" or an "anti". The point which you refuse to address is that I contend it cannot be the case that any one group in society, however defined, can demand that it, and it alone, will draw the lines over which everyone else must not step in order that it cannot be challenged, criticised or, mon dieu, offended.

For example, it has long been a problem with anti-semitism that legitimate criticism of Israel has often led to spurious cries of anti-semitism in order to avoid the challenge of responding. In the last five years in the UK, we have seen the same effect with Islam, where legitimate criticism of Islam has been shouted down by those crying Islamophobia.

When the Government proposed the incitement to religious hatred legislation, Sir Iqbal Sacranie at the MCB went on record as saying the law, if passed, would stop people referring to suicide bombers and those who crashed planes into tall buildings as "Islamic terrorists", an expression which he said heightened Islamophobia. At the time, the Prime Minister agreed with him, but has since changed his tune. (Can give the reference in Blair's speech this year if you are interested). This is the same Sacranie who claimed his defamatory remarks about gays didn't mean he was homophobic, nor did it heighten homophobia among the Muslim community! You only need to compare Sacranie's outbursts about gays and to the absurd Robin Kilroy-Silk to see the sheer hypocrisy at work. So should the MCB alone get to define Islamophobia?

We have now reached the stage in this country where organised religions are queueing up to see who can claim to be the most victimised and offended. Attempts to censor art shows, plays, musicals, cartoons, books and films through outraged screams of offence taken only serve to draw attention away from real crimes, like the local rabbi, or imam, or gay man like Jody Dabrowski getting their heads kicked in by neanderthals..

[James]

So, let's see, Christopher...

If I felt nauseated at someone's picking his nose all the time, that would make me a bigot?

James

[Christopher]

After the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub by the homophobic racist James Copeland I wrote to Lady Young of the Christian Institute to ask her how it felt to be someone who might have given encouragement to Copeland. The old woman was taken aback by my question but I think it made her think because she replied that she abhorred all discrimination against gay people. The only trouble was she continued to practise it....she couldn't or wouldn't see what she was doing because of her religious beliefs, was blighting the lives of many people, particularly the young who have to face ignorant prejudice at school, home then work. It is a luxury this government has been prepared to allow religious bodies over employment (and will do again when the Goods and Services anti-discrimination rules come in in October) whatever the cost to the victims, to continue their discrimination against gay people to salve their consciences because they believe "the Bible tells them so". That is why I have decided to join the National Secular Society which challenges religious privilege. Let James practise his superstition to his heart's content but don't let him force it on the rest of us.

[Christopher]

"C'mon, Alistair. Homophobia........"

OK then let's call it what it is, bigotry. It is not politically incorrect to be a bigot, it is worse than that because, however genteely expressed (and believe me, James, you are far from genteel in your expression....you positively revel in it) bigotry is in a line of causation that leads to what the Judge in the Jody Dobrowski murder trial called homophobic thuggery. This is what you can't get, can you James? that your snide comments and remarks, your "C'mon Mans" bluff heartiness betrays what it's really about for those who want someone to sneer at, harrass, provoke and otherwise terrorise, all cloaked up in the smiles and piety of religion, but they don't see where it all leads to. But others see it for what it is......

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Alistair, I do not know who you mean by 'we'. Jews are defined as an ethnic minority and not as a religion. So to attack someone just because they are Jewish is a form of racism. This has been recognised in English law.

Other bloggers have agreed that the incidence of antisemitism in this country and its causes have not been given the prominence they warrant.

And this has also been stated by the relevant police chief in Manchester, where I live.

I recognise that it is difficult in a society with many differing points of view, ethnicities and religions not to become impatient with one particular group raising its head above the parapet.

But the rise in antisemitism has now been recognised by parliament, the Church of England and, most of all, the police.

Even BBC radio has done a programme about the rise in emigration to Israel and some of the reasons for this trend.

As for the Board of Deputies, yes they are the umbrella group for the Jewish community and, in my view they do a very difficult job as well as they can.

[J Pearce]

Unbelievably, I almost (almost!) find myself agreeing with James on his general thrust about political correctness. In some cases, it really does prevent necessary truths to be revealed in certain situations. Talk about "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" shock horror!

But then I read lines like these:

"Deep down, most people know that a male's or a female's trying to copulate with self-same is perverted and wrong."

And I think to myself "here we go again...".

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Citing factual information and naming your sources is not name-dropping, but being accurate.

[Alistair McBay]

Oh dear. Troll in the dungeon again!

[James]

C'mon, Alistair. Homophobia (in the wrong sense in which the word is now most often used) is a feeling. It is a feeling that is normal and good and common to the vast, vast majority of people. Deep down, most people know that a male's or a female's trying to copulate with self-same is perverted and wrong.

In today's politically correct society, there is a new morality - that to offend anyone is wrong (unless we're talking about Christians of course). As such, many in society want to outlaw the expression of our natural and normal (and God-given) feelings.

There is no need to 'define' any of this stuff. One man's feelings are not the same as another's. What you're trying to get at is how to define what shouldn't be allowed or not. That's the work of the thought and feeling police. Problem is - many people could care less what the thought and feeling police want.

Political correctness will die, because it is premised on absurdity.

James

[Alistair McBay]

Sorry, Irene, but stating that Jews have a sense of humour is no answer to the perfectly valid and reasonable questions I put to you about who gets to decide who or what is anti-semitic, islamophobic, hinduphobic or whatever. Would it be the BoD for Jews? The MCB for Muslims? Who gets to say for secularists what is seculaphobic? After all, we get attacked too by the religious, and Catholics, Protestants and Muslims all lobby Government for the right to practise prejudice against homosexuals and women. Should catholics decide what is homophobic and what isn't? Is it seculaphobic for Muslims to call me an infidel?

And you say "But what I said stands (and a number of Ruth's other bloggers have written to me privately to confirm that they know that this is true)."

What do these people say is true, exactly?

[J Pearce]

Dr. I.L,

No, I haven't read all your articles. If I get time to, I might, but I have a life.

As for conceding that my reaction has been "a little over the top"...well, if I thought it was, I would! All I have done is challenge your assertion that (broadly speaking), anti-semitism is endemic in the UK today. All I have done is offer an alternative perspective and ask questions of you, to justify your premise.

I still have not seen any attempt by you to respond to that in a meaningful way! Instead, you've basically tried to snipe at me. Which would be fine, but I would appreciate it if you would get your facts straight and actually read my comments before doing so!

I don't doubt that you are of high academic standing in the rareified circles that you circulate (why on earth did you feel the need to namedrop? Was that intended to put me in my place or something?!?). But frankly, all I have really done is ask simple questions (and not made accusations as such). Clearly, you see it as beneath you to respond in kind.

So, it seems obvious to me, attempting to engage in an intelligent, rational debate is pointless. As Moses said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Possibly :-)

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

I also agree entirely with J. Pearce that the British education system is not quite up to scratch, judging from the type of language he/she has used to describe it on your blog.

I am glad that the Bishop of Manchester doesn't agree with you on your other points, though. He has only met me once and has just written to wish me very well in Israel and to thank me for my 'scholarly and informative'
contribution to Church relations with the Jewish community.

Maybe, unlike you, he has read all my articles on this subject in the Church press.

As for your other accusations, I am currently writing about 36 contemporary tsaddikim on my blog. Most of these are not Jewish, but either Anglican, journalists (another despised species), or both.

I do recommend you to read what I say and concede that your reaction may have been a little bit over the top.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

I anticipated Alistair's reply by stating that the Jewish community is rather backward in coming forward about antisemitism, because we have a built-in sense of humour, which has helped us cope through life's little trials and tribulations.

But what I said stands (and a number of Ruth's other bloggers have written to me privately to confirm that they know that this is true). The reality speaks for itself, as many are now emigrating to Israel, including me.

http://www.typepad.com/

[Alan Marsh]

Anglican comedians?

- Rowan Atkinson

- Tony Blair, Vicar of St Albion's

- Robin Eames - recently toured ECUSA telling it that had complied with the Windsor Report

[Alistair McBay]

"Also, I would respectfully suggest that it is up to the Jewish community to say what is antisemitic and what isn't"

Oh dearie me, this is a route fraught with danger, though. That means that Muslims, for example, are the only ones who can decide what is Islamophobic. Christians are the only ones who can decide what is Christianophobic. So while Church Times and Catholic Herald give favourable reviews about Jerry Springer the Opera, Christian Voice rants and rails that it is blasphemous and must be stopped, even if it means BBC executives are hounded from their homes and cancer charities denied donations under threat of retaliation. Who gets makes the choice here as to what is Christianophobic and what isn't? Should the Vatican get to decide if DVC must be censored as anti-Catholic, or should we be able to make up our own minds? Is DVC blasphemous or just an alternative vision of "the truth"? Should Rowan Williams attack DVC on behalf of Anglicans, or welcome the boost to church funds for letting out one of its cathedrals for the film shoot?

Polly Toynbee had an interesting piece touching on this in the Guardian yesterday. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1806772,00.html

I think it's the same old problem, Irene -the vast majority of us, regardless of our race, colour, religion or politics, rub along quite happily together, tolerant of differences, accepting of the benefits of diversity and not interfering with the right of every man and woman to live as he or she chooses, according to their conscience and within the framework of secular law and human rights.

There are, however, the handful of extreme dingbats on every side out to spoil it for the majority because, in dingbatland, the dingbats claim to have the unique, absolute and inviolate truth by which we must all be subdued, by force and intimidation if necessary. This usually manifests itself in individuals targeted for a beating (homosexuals, orthodox Jews, Catholics - pick your victims), headstones and graves desecrated, and now books, films, plays and art exhibitions boycotted, threatened and the like.

If DVC, Jerry Springer the Opera, Behzti, Popetown have shown us anything, it is the danger involved in allowing religious groups alone to define what is anti-religion and what is not. The only way to a balanced view is surely to get agreement from all sides as to what works and what doesn't, and not to have one side dictate the parameters to the other?

[J Pearce]

Oy Vey!

Right, I'm sorry to prolong the agony, but I have to respond to this:

Dr. IL writes:
"As for paranoid, I think you are paranoid for suggesting that just because there are other forms of prejudice...antisemitism does not exist"

Err. Right. Did I not previously post the following comment?
"OK, yes, anti-semitism exists. That's bad, I'm sure all who read/contribute to this blog would agree."

Dr. IL also writes:
"Another reason you are paranoid is that I did not attack you at all on my blog."

Respectfully, I would point out that the following is what you wrote, in a direct response to one of my previous posts, on this particular Times blog:
Dr. I.L writes -
"As for threats, your blogger doesn't even understand humour when they read it." "Your bloggers and others can pick and choose as they wish…".

I didn't take that as a particularly personal attack, but it was clearly a critical response to the comments *I* had made in a previous entry. So is it paranoia on my part to wish to engage in a meaningful response to a direct criticism? That would make just about every contributor to this blog paranoid, then!

Dr. I.L writes:
"And 'no', being pounced on is not a sign of anti-semitism per se: it is a sign of unwillingness to engage in the issues.".

Hang on - was I not trying to engage in those very issues in my last post? Just because you (clearly!) do not agree with what I wrote, it doesn't mean that I was not "engaging" in said issues (anti-semitism, various forms and dissemination of). I thought I was. Oh well!

Dr. I.L writes:
"Sorry to be hectoring, unlike you of course. I think I have touched a nerve."

Hmmm. OK. Whatever!

Dr. I. L, I am assuming you are of an academic bent. If this is the kind of considered academic response to a few salient criticisms we should expect from a Dr, I'm not surprised the education system is buggered! You clearly haven't read what I posted, you are guilty of "picking and choosing" in much the same way as I have - a criticism you have levelled against others, lets not forget - and to be honest, I still totally and utterly disagree with your prognosis that anti-semitism is endemic within the UK.

The point I was trying to make was that yes, it does exist - but is no more rife or pervasive than any other form of prejudice that exists today. But it seems to me, according to your ivory tower thinking, anyone living in the UK who isn't Jewish is effectively an anti-semite, whether they are conscious of the fact or not!

Is that what you really think?!

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Actually there has been a joint female Jewish-Muslim jokey double act, but I can't remember their name. And your point is apposite. Jackie Mason attacks his own religion (and how) and no doubt so do the few Muslim comedians around attack theirs, but all the people portrayed as Fagins by British comedians (not Jewish) have been Jewish politicians.

Also, I would respectfully suggest that it is up to the Jewish community to say what is antisemitic and what isn't, as apparently (and I say this with astonishment) at the last World Conference on Humour, we won. So we would not tend to exaggerate, I think.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[Alistair McBay]

What I'd like to see is a double act between Jackie Mason and Shazia Mizra!

How come there are no Anglican comedians? (he asks, awaiting suggestions of names on either side of the schism!)

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Dear J. Pearce

My answer to your points is still 'Yes'. As for paranoid, I think you are paranoid for suggesting that just because there are other forms of prejudice (which, unlike antisemitism, are widely publicised in the media) antisemitism does not exist, or that Lenny Henry making jokes about his own roots is at all similar to others using classic antisemitic devices to attack people simply for their Jewishness.

But I can understand where your ignorance comes from, because most of the media has also turned a blind eye to this.

Another reason you are paranoid is that I did not attack you at all on my blog. I made a few general statements that you have chosen to take personally.

Sorry to be hectoring, unlike you of course.

I think I have touched a nerve.

And 'no', being pounced on is not a sign of anti-semitism per se: it is a sign of unwillingness to engage in the issues.

Do hope you like my last three postings though.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[J Pearce]

Dear Dr Lancaster,

"whenever I make a reasonable point, which many of us in the Jewish community take for granted, I get pounced on by fellow bloggers"

So is this evidence of endemic anti-semitism? Is the life of a Jew in modern Britain so bad, that the spectre of the anti-semitic bogeyman lurks in every shadow, in every exchange of views, in every cultural statement? Not being Jewish, I wouldn't know - I certainly don't see the all-pervasive "insidious" anti-semitism you claim is rife in this country. But then again, would I? According to your criteria, probably not. What I can see is evidence that all sorts of prejuduce exists. Racism, homophobia, anti-Muslim sentiment. Are these any less wrong?

I'll be honest, I find some of the things you have to say very interesting, educational (I am no classicly trained scholar, so I find that I can learn alot by reading these blogs) and relevant. I don't disagree that anti-semitism exists and is wrong. But having read a number of your posts, I have to say that I find your tone can often be hectoring, defensive and even on occasion, a little paranoid?

Case in point: you criticised me for not seeing the humour in one of your previous posts. Yet you go on to criticise the comedian Rory Bremner for his use of (alleged) Jewish stereotypes. Like…doh? That's a bit rich, isn't it? First of all:

A) I didn't see the "humour" in your post then I and I don't now. Irony doesn't translate well onto the printed page without some sort of visual indicator (e.g. ;-)) and I don't see that in your post. In fact, I don't see any humour at all in any of your posts! I'm not saying you don't have a sense of humour, but if you do, it doesn't come across!

B) using Rory Bremner as an indicator of the "Prejudice...rife about Judaism at all levels of society" is a bit off the mark, isn't it? Isn't Rory Bremner all about using caricatures, exaggerating stereotypes, in order to get a laugh? Lenny Henry has been using stereotypes of his Carribean roots for years to get a laugh - I don't see you (or anyone else) criticising him for promoting racial stereotypes, even though one could claim that is exactly what he is doing.

I do think there is a difference between offensive and gratitious use of stereotypes and deploying them as rapier wit. Unfortunately, I think your "passion" for your beliefs is causing you to exaggerate what many other people would consider to be perfectly acceptable. OK, yes, anti-semitism exists. That's bad, I'm sure all who read/contribute to this blog would agree. But is it as endemic in our culture as you suggest? Are we really all being perverted into a Jew-hating society? And is it any more obvious than, given the current political and cultural climate, anti-Muslim sentiment? Or the rampant anti-human homophobia readily available on this very blog?

[Gerry Lynch]

Hi Sebastian...

did the Christians of Darfur, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, "Palestine" (love the inverted commas, dude), Iran, Egypt and Afghanistan ask you to read all the above on their behalf, or did you just take it upon yourself to do so?

(PS - I think you might need to check the background of the Darfur conflict... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict is a decent primer.)

[Christopher]

"But far worse in my view, was the satire on the then Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, during the last election, in which Rory played him as a barber threatening to cut the throats of his customers in a very sly and cunning way."

Irene
I absolutely agree with you that the snide, insidious attack on Michael Howard's Jewishness was disgraceful. Many people had good reason to loathe him for, among other things, Section 28, but this has nothing to do with his Jewishness. Howard should have been attacked for what he said - and that's all. Yet when the son of Lithuanian immigrants wants to pull up the drawbridge one wonders if he has learnt anything from his parents' struggle. I felt the same when Lord Jackobowitz said that if there was a gay gene it might give the parents the chance to practise genetic engineering. This, from a survivor of Auschwitz, made me think "How soon they forget!" I think Jews as a people give a tremendous witness of nobility in the face of suffering; it is horrible, to put it mildly, that some people think that Jewishness is something to be disparaged. I quite went off Joyce Grenfell when I heard that she "preferred an Aryan in the kitchen" - can't think how Maureen Lippman can bear to do her!

[Christopher]

Robin

"Remember bloggers "Don't Feed the Trolls""

Good point. I think one has just revealed himself. He lives in an attic somewhere in the Archers.

[Christopher]

Come off it James! The biter bit! You have been caught out. If you were a god-fearing Christian what would you be doing taking a sly peek at the Gay Global boards? Do you also cruise gay bars just to see what the sinners are up to? Odd, isn't it, that there are no postings from you telling them how sinful they are? It is just like how John Paulk one of the founders of Exodus International, the ex-gay movement used to go to gay bars by night.
NOW you tell us you are not a Catholic. Well some of us had sussed that some time back. All that stuff you would say to your son is just baloney. James, I think we have unveiled you as a troll out to wreck discussion on this blog. Own up to it (You will if you are honourable!)

[James]

"Catholics are wise not to surrender to the idolatry of holy books."

---

Wow, Christopher. First, I never said I was Catholic; I said my wife and I follow Humanae Vitae. We do. Second, I DO believe that the words of Christ are to be given top priority in the Bible. Why? Because I believe Christ is the Son of God and that when he speaks, that is GOD speaking directly to us. I do believe the rest of the Bible to be inspired (written by those directly inspired by God), but written by humans nonetheless, and not constituting direct quotes from God. Finally, Catholics don't 'idolize' books. They understand that those books contain the revealed truth that God wants to provide us, out of His love.

James

[James]

"How would you respond to that, James?"

---

Neither of my sons, Christopher, would share the many preconceived notions that you do.

If a son were convinced that he was 'born that way,' convinced that acts like homo anal sodomy were 'normal' and Godly, convinced that there were no reason in the world to stop engaging in such acts (which for homosexuals are obviously pleasureable), convinced that God loves him for who he is (rather than in order to transform him into a Christ-like creature), convinced that all such had nothing to do with God's promise of eternal life, there would be nothing I could do for him. Really. Nothing at all. No matter how much I loved him.

James

[Christopher]

"....the evangelical English Churchman hit back with an editorial justifying slavery as "a form of social security for which many starving people today would be grateful....."

Further to this attempt to defend the indefensible I was at a conference where someone tried the same argument on Richard Holloway, then Primus of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. Bishop Holloway described the argument "as a bit smelly". That's the best that can be said for it....

[Christopher]

"Apart from the fact that she has a distorted view of Scripture itself as she seems to assumes the gospels are more the "Word of God" than other parts of the Bible..."

James, I find this statement puzzling coming from someone who says he is a Catholic. Surely the tradition of the Church has always held the Gospels in higher esteem than other scriptures, not least because they report the deeds and sayings of Jesus - for example, the birth narratives and the passion accounts, the parables and the Sermon on the Mount itself. In the Catholic liturgy the Gospel is heard standing - a mark of respect not accorded to any other class of biblical literature. Further, only someone in holy orders, deacon, priest or bishop should read the Gospel in a celebration of the mass. In convents at matins nuns who follow the monastic rite do solemnly proclaim the gospel within their communities - within the Carthusian order of nuns as solemnly consecrated virgins (which may be the last vestiges of women in the order of deacons in the Catholic Church) even put on a stole to proclaim the Gospel. The Book of the Gospels (not the whole Bible) is carried in solemn procession by the deacon of the mass and it, again not the whole Bible, is incensed before the Gospel is sung at High Mass, and the open Gospel book is carried to the celebrant to be kissed afterward the reading. I imagine all this must signal something about the way the Gospel is to be received. As arguments on this blog have shown, there are parts of the Bible that are no longer considered binding on Christians. There are the books of the so-called Apocrypha counted as canonical by the Catholic Church but which were eliminated by the Reformers. I understand that the Book of Revelations is never read liturgically in the Greek Orthodox Church except on the Isle of Patmos where it was written because of unease about how some people might be misled by its inflammatory contents....and you only have to look across the Atlantic to see that they were right to be concerned. I think all this proves that the Gospels have always been received as holding the quintessential teaching of Christianity above all other texts. As Giles Fraser has said in a Guardian article last summer (Wednesday August 17, 2005): "....the problem with the reformers is that they never came to appreciate that texts require iconoclastic deconstruction. Like most reformed churches, the cathedral in Geneva places the Bible at the dramatic centre of the building. What the reformed traditions often don't get is that they have given up worshipping images only to worship a book.....For there can be few more chilling examples of theocratic fascism than Calvin's Geneva. In toppling the authority of the clergy, he made it the responsibility of the civil magistrates to enforce the word of God..... Luther himself was famously and virulently anti-semitic. The Reformation did little for women, and the place to find the most neanderthal religious homophobia in Britain today is in an organisation called Reform....one of the most poisonous of the evangelical pressure groups" he says in an earlier article (Monday July 14, 2003), "organisations like Reform have become a kind of Militant Tendency within the C of E, and the church faces a huge struggle to free itself from them.....Evangelicals define themselves by a love of the Bible. It is thus a tragedy for all Christians that they are now seen as the nasty party. Indeed, some moderate evangelical churches have become so concerned about the association between "evangelical" and a narrow theological chauvinism that they are thinking of dropping the word. They are right to be worried, for in recent years a virulent form of rightwing Christian fundamentalism has infiltrated the evangelical movement. And they are obsessed with gay sex.
Many protest at the description homophobic - though anyone still in doubt that prejudice of the most disgraceful kind is at work here ought to visit www.godhatesfags.com. The arguments and biblical references found there are those used by evangelicals who mask their hatred behind that helpful Christian smile.
The contortions some will resort to in order to keep their denunciations of gay sex alive are astonishing. When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, suggested that the church might change its mind on homosexuality just as it had on slavery, the evangelical English Churchman hit back with an editorial justifying slavery as "a form of social security for which many starving people today would be grateful". One diocesan bishop apparently believes that homosexuality is caused by demons in the anus. Some single clergy have received excrement through their letterboxes...". Dr Fraser concludes in his August article "...Until the Reformation finishes its work and trains its powerful commitment to iconoclasm on the sources of its own prejudice it will hardly be a model to hold up for other religious traditions to follow". Catholics are wise not to surrender to the idolatry of holy books.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

A propos of Christopher's piece on the blood libel, regrettably that very same blood libel is alive and kicking in Britain today.

Much has been made of Rory Bremner's attack on Labour fund-raiser, Lord Levy, who was recently satirized as Fagin, hook nose and all, on his Channel 4 programme. And Times journalist Giles Coren did an excellent piece on that, pointing out that only Jews of both main Parties have been depicted in that way, but not - say Gordon Brown. And yes, Giles thought that it was antisemitic to do so, and I agree.

But far worse in my view, was the satire on the then Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, during the last election, in which Rory played him as a barber threatening to cut the throats of his customers in a very sly and cunning way.

And neither the CRE nor Ofcom could see any problem in this.

So, my husband, who is on the Council of the British Psychological Society, immediately wrote an article on this, which was submitted to various papers, who declined to publish (maybe too near the bone).

But this was a classic use of the blood libel in modern times, and I used it as an example in my inaugural speech at Manchester's Anglican Cathedral to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the restoration of the Jews to England under Cromwell.

At his request, I sent my speech, (the complete unexpurgated version), to the Archbishop of Canterbury's interfaith advisor, and I like to believe that this speech played a very small part in the pledge which the Council of Christians of Jews has now made, to try and tackle insidious antisemitism in this country, wherever it may lurk.

Because, in my area at least, people are emigrating to Israel in leaps and bounds. And who can blame them?

And that is also why this blog does not seem to have much Jewish input and whenever I make a reasonable point, which many of us in the Jewish community take for granted, I get pounced on by fellow bloggers.

So you have to have a very very thick skin in this country to try and tackle real prejudice, and not just the surface variety, because people, it seems, just cannot face too much reality.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

So used are some of your bloggers to views expressed on biblical texts representing only the two main polarities within the Church, that they mistake any 'third way' as threats.

If you go to Mary Ann Sieghart's own blog, you will see that quite a few people were concerned at her lack of understanding of the Book of Leviticus, which, as I state, is better explained in the current school syllabuses, thank goodness. Because at the moment, moves are afoot by the Council of Christians and Jews, to tackle the ever-growing antisemitism in this country (which they at least recognize as such) by inroads into the school system. And having sympathetic syllabuses already there is at least a start, as I know from my own experience of teaching RE in the school system, as well as at university and adult level.

As for threats, your blogger doesn't even understand humour when they read it.

Prejudice is unfortunately rife about Judaism at all levels of society, not least in interpretation of Jewish texts, originally written in Hebrew, and it is incumbent on all of us to take the trouble to analyse those texts in their original and not just as a (translated) stick to beat us with.

The main point I was making was that despite all the apparently irrelevant injunctions in Leviticus, it also houses insights like 'Love your neighbour as yourself'.

Your bloggers and others can pick and choose as they wish, but as far as some of us are concerned, the other despised injunctions, interpreted through rabbinic teaching (which is the main thing here) are still meaningful and constitute part of our religion.

Most people know the first part of what Rabbi Hillel (Jesus' contemporary) replied to the Roman centurion who asked him, threateningly, to repeat the whole of the Torah whilst standing on one leg (or else). His answer was:

'Do not do to others what you would not like to be done to yourself. That is the whole of the Torah: now go and learn.'

The 'go and learn' part is the one that is missing in much of the Christian world today.

And that is the great pity of it.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[James]

On the Gay Global blog (of this newspaper), a certain Christopher says this (You can check it out for yourselves.):

"I think the Archers need something from the real world - Adam and Ian pick up a young cowman and have a three-way. Then he brings along a chum and they get into a regular Sunday afternoon orgies in one of the attic bedrooms of Grey Gables. That's the sort of thing that goes on in a lot country places - at least it did when I lived in the country."

And J.Pearce wonders (on this blog) about the Godliness of copulating with an apple pie.

That, folks, is what we've come to.

James

http://timesonline.typepad.com/gay_global/

[James]

Hey Ruth,

I saw your reference to MadPriest - in which he takes a quote from me and responds to it at length on his little blogsie. If he be an honorable man, he is always welcome to debate anything I said here, where I actually said it - and where I will respond to it.

James

[sebastian]

By the cringe!! I have read all of the above on behalf of the Christians of Darfur, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, "Palestine", Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan.............has the Anglican Church really got its priorities right?
This is incestuous, self indulgent.............nonsense. Minister to the proper needs and the rest will follow.

[Keith Downer]

Is there a point when, sadly, you have to acknowledge that the mental stability of a contributor is in question and by continuing to publish comments from that person in the blog, there is a serious possibility that the quality of the debate will deteriorate beyond recovery?
As a Christian, I support many of the criticisms of active homosexual behaviour and condemn wholeheartedly any such behaviour where criminality is involved. Even so, I would not accept the condemnation of even a fellow believer if it became clear the person concerned was blindly ranting, seemingly out of control.
During an earlier debate on "Split now inevitable, saving miracle", one contributor has suggested that, as a result of "just plain old political correctness on the sodomy issue", his contributions were not being posted by Ruth. As was proved by her subsequent comments and actions in allowing said contributions to be included, Ruth has demonstrated an extreme reluctance to censure and commendable tolerance where this particular contributor is concerned.
But has the time now come to accept the necessity for some form of moderator action when it becomes obvious that an agenda is being followed which involves hijacking every debate and stifling any form of intelligent contribution? Failing that, an alternative would be to ignore, not respond to postings from the offender.
Emphasising Christian teaching, principles and values is extremely important but doing so in a manner which - one would imagine - Jesus would adopt is similarly essential if the message is to be taken seriously rather than the outpourings of a religious, fundamentalist bigot.

[Robin Bather]

Right Alistair, all this stuff about ECUSA is getting boring.
Let them go their own way and leave it at that.

Now, three Scottish nuns taking out insurance against having a virgin birth. That is interesting.
As someone who has been very closely involved in the reinsurance industry for part of my life, I can talk a little about the subject.
I imagine the nervous nuns had an All Risk policy combined with a Business Interruption clause and Loss of Income slip.

Bringing up children these days is so awfully expensive, you wouldn't want your son Jesus going to a government school would you? You would want him to attend a faith school like Ruth's son.
Can't you just imagine when the unfortunate nun was trying to register her son with the Head Mistress at a snobbish English faith school and upon writing down "Jesus" as his name, the Head Mistress might stiffly ask "Your son isn't Puerto Rican is he? Because we don't accept foreign children here".

PS
Remember bloggers "Don't Feed the Trolls".