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

[James]

The orthodox Global South will soon formally disassociate itself from ECUSA, regardless of what Rowan Williams does, and may well create a new center of Anglicanism in the world (Alexandria?).

James

[Bill Channon]

"... the election of a woman might have actually saved the Anglican Communion from schism. 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 is utterly heartbreaing."

The Episcopal Church may really, really want to see a woman primate at Lambeth but that is a PR goal. It flies in the face of the real problem, the growing divergence and incompatibility of the orthodox and liberal camps and is fundamentally an act of denial and delusion and/or the 'name' value of the communion. Or, to be honest, the view that theirs is the right way and ultimately their way will be the way of the AC.

I agree with Bob Duncan as he calls for honesty Their is an effort afoot today to do whatever it takes to comply WR regardless of the dissonance between WR, Dromantine, Lambeth 1.10, etc and TEC's aversion to the requests of WR.

Now there are those within TEC who hold truly antidisestablishmentarianism viewpoints ... ignore this part. I was only trying my hand at use of the word, Ruth.....! Seriously, Ruth your articles are stonking wicked (a New Hampshire term) and a wonderful resource besides being full of warm humour. Thank you.
Bill

[farstrider]

It is interesting that in the furore surrounding TEC and the Windsor report most media outlets seem to have missed one of the most significant outcomes of GC 06. On Tuesday resolution D058, addressing “The Uniqueness of Christ” was brought before the House of Deputies (HOD). The text of the resolution states:

"Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6); and be it further Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God's unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture."

The HOD rejected this resolution and, in so doing, walked away from the central tenets of Christianity. One of the orthodox deputies commented, saying:

“The message of Christ and his salvific work on the cross is the only message of hope we can offer to a dying and fallen world. Surely we can say together that Jesus is Lord and if we can’t we have no reason to be here.”

Indeed. It would seem that the Bishop of Rochester was correct in his assessment that we are now dealing with two different religions here. Why has no one picked this up?

[James]

"Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation and we are his children."

---

Actually, it's the reverse. Jesus (a male!) is the bridegroom to his Church, and inseminates (figuratively) the church with the word of God, so that from his church new children of God may be born.

Katherine Schori is a loon (and it only took her ten minutes to prove it).

James

[John-Julian, OJN]

Here is a passage from the introduction to my translation of the work of Julian of Norwich (whose workis apparently honored by the C of E since Julian has a feast day in the Church's calendar on May 8!):

"Julian's unapologetic treatment of Christ as Mother is, without doubt, the finest and most sophisticated treatment of that subject in ALL OF Christian literature. It is only our contemporary ignorance of the classical Christian mystics and theologians, however, which leads us to think of this as a "new idea" for Julian — it is a venerable tradition supported by Adam of Perseigne, Aelred, Albert the Great, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard of Cluny, Bonaventure, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Clement of Alexandria, Dante, William Flete, Gilbert of Hoyland, Guerric of Igny, Guigo II the Carthusian, Helinand of Froidmont, Isaac of Stella, Margery Kempe, Peter Lombard, Ludolph of Saxony, Marguerite of Oingt, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Richad Rolle, William of St. Thierry, the Ancren Riwle, the Stimulus Amoris, and Holy Scripture itself (see Isaiah and Gospels on Christ being a mother hen)."

Bishop Schori's comments are almost word-for-word from some of the greatest spiritual and mystical writers in the English tradition. Just because they seem unfamiliar (to us because of our contemporary ignorance of the tradition) does not make them inappropriate or erroneous.

John-Julian, OJN

[Darren Miner]

Isn't Bishop Schori's reference to the maternity of Mother Jesus a quote from Julian of Norwich? I don't have a copy of her Showings in front of me.

[thomas bushnell, bsg]

apparently people are unaware that referring to Jesus as our mother is deeply embedded in Christian orthodoxy. one of the most famous examples is of course Julian of Norwich, but there are plenty of older patristic sources as well for the same image.

the so-called "orthodox" are the true heretics, inventing a new faith and a new justification for it.

[Ben]

Ruth Gledhill misses the crucial issue. She suggests that the deputies are acting out of a kind of stubborn whimsy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

ECUSA takes very seriously its commitment to the gay and lesbian members of the Body of Christ and the commitment to antidiscrimination expressed explicitly in its canons. The denomination's acceptance of glbt people is not a quirk but a product of an agonizing and protracted struggle in the larger society, within a historical context of civil rights, feminism, AIDS, and issues of marriage. If the communion expects the deputies to withdraw the mercy of inclusion now just to satisfy some exclusivist notion of "orthodoxy," I hope they will be disappointed.

[Tim]

Come on, Ruth, you're smarter than that! Saint Anselm of Canterbury used the image of Jesus as mother. Did it provoke fear then? Why should it now? Did it make the saint a "loon" as one of the comments above says? Our Christian tradition has many facets to it, and we forget them to our peril.

[James]

"The HOD rejected this resolution and, in so doing, walked away from the central tenets of Christianity."

---

Farstrider is entirely correct. ECUSA is now a pagan cult which adores, promotes and glorifies sodomy, abortion, divorce, denies that God's truth comes to us through the Bible, and which believes that we can all find our way to that happy hunting ground without the aid of Christ. Such is exactly in line with Vickie Gene Robinson's saying, as he has: "We're all going to heaven." (A complete and direct repudiation of what Christ tells us, by the way...)

My question: If we're all a-goin' to heaven, why bother listening to people like Vickie Gene and Katharine Schori to begin with? Why bother with right and wrong? Why bother with God? What's the point? (Oh, right, I forgot, the point is that there is no point...)

James

[J Pearce]

I'm no expert on these things, but I was always taught that Jesus was a bloke? Now, it seems to me that this K. Schori that you religous types are getting so stimulated about, (and I use the word "stimulated" deliberately, it does appear to be an overwhelmingly male reaction to her - I wonder why that might be...)is doing one of two things:

a) she's being figurative/allegorical/metaphorical in her description of the gender of Jesus, or
b) she's pulling a very good PR stunt.

Being the cynical God-less heathen liberal that I am, I reckon its the latter. Why? Well, if I have read the previous postings correctly, it appears that the Episcopal church is losing punters at an alarming rate, correct? So, going on the old maxim "any publicity is good publicity", I think this new Bishop is using her already well-publicised appointment as a platform to appeal to the feminist/leftie/spiritual-but-kinda-vague female vote, in order to get more punters through the door.

Pretty sharp thinking for a God-botherer, I'd say! I think the episcopalian "big tent" approach to religion is about to get even bigger...

[James]

Here's what the average parent does when someone in the church tells their children - it's good and right for a man to copulate with a man, it's good and right for parents to bloodily rip their children from the womb, it's wrong to believe the Bible (just believe Katharine Schori instead!), and that Jesus Christ was a female!

They run (with their little ones tightly held).

James

[Christopher]

"Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation and we are his children."

James, why is this so strange when Dame Julian of Norwich in the 14th century wrote her Revelations of Divine Love, in which she says: "[Christ] Our natural mother, our gracious mother, because he willed to become our mother in everything, took the ground for his work most humbly and most mildly in the maiden's womb…. Our high God, the sovereign wisdom of all, arrayed himself in this low place and made himself entirely ready in our poor flesh in order to do the service and the office of motherhood himself in all things.

…. A mother can give her child milk to suck, but our precious mother, Jesus, can feed us with himself. He does so most courteously and most tenderly, with the Blessed Sacrament, which is the precious food of true life. With all the sweet sacraments he sustains us most mercifully and graciously. That is what he meant in these blessed words, where he said, 'I am that which holy Church preaches and teaches you,' that is to say, 'All the health and life of the sacraments, all the virtue and grace of my word, all the goodness that is ordained for you in holy Church, that I am.'"? I don't think Katherine Schori is the loon. Christ is also the bridegroom of your soul - Hey, what does that make you? Don't be so literal!

[Christopher]

Sorry John-Julian, OJN, I've just seen your post. James thinks he knows about the Catholic tradition but some of us are not convinced.

[Recusant]

Forgive me, but Julian of Norwich is not Scripture. Her rather materialistic "visions" are just that--private visions.

[Mrs. Lawrence]

Jefforts Schori may be using the language of the Saints of the church she and her family rejected, the Catholic Church. But unlike those Saints, she has married two gay couples in a Christian church and voted for a divorced gay man living with his male lover to the episcopate. She also professes expertise on oysters. Oysters are bivalves, male and female both and God did create them. Alas, the have no brain or central nervous system.

Jesus is no bivalve.

[TSO]

It always strikes me as odd that many of the same people who tell us to be color and gender blind are actually the most color and gender conscious. That infects us all because we begin to look at people only as members of a group rather than individuals because they see themselves only as members of a group and not individuals. Group identity takes precedence over everything, including the search for the truth.

One deputy, a lesbian pastor in New Jersey, wrote that she was ashamed that while there were starving people in the world they were wasting time on resolutions about gay bishops. But if sexuality is minutiae, gender isn't: she marveled as she imagined the PB was putting on her bra this morning: "The Primate of The Episcopal Church is probably just waking up and was, no doubt, beginning to get dressed. And, she's putting on her bra. It's a brave new world."

[Deacon Mark]

Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh? That's a rich one. Some will say anything to provoke a split; track down the money and you will see the spirit in which these things are said.

[James]

"Don't be so literal!"

---

C'mon Christopher. Christ was indisputably male (such has nothing to do with literalness).

He also told us that he was the bridegroom to his church (which reiterates the obvious that he is male, and which reveals that the church is female).

Katharine Schori can believe Christ was a lady in high heels, that she, Schori, is the divine revelation, that male anal sodomy is beautiful and Godly, and to be glorified to our children, that little faeries live in the trees, or that the Bible's only useful for toilet paper. So? She's entitled to whatever looney-tune beliefs she wants to adopt. As a sane non-loon Christian man, I won't be joining her in her loonicity.

James

[Phil Bowers]

Hey, how about

pneumonoultramicroscopicsillicavolcanoconiosis?

(lung disease caused by breathing in microscopic sillica)

[Puzzled]

Am I the only one who finds James's all-consuming preoccupation with sodomy more than a little bit disturbing?

[James]

"Am I the only one who finds James's all-consuming preoccupation with sodomy more than a little bit disturbing?"

---

Oh, please. Let me explain something to you, puzzled as you are - I do not have a preoccupation with sodomy - society, the church and homosexuals do.

My kids now hear about it endlessly on TV (in which homosodomy is ALWAYS promoted and condoned), in school (where thankfully, most boys understand it to be depraved and deviant), from churches which are promoting and glorifying it, in the name of Jesus Christ, in newspapers (which tell my children that anyone opposed to the glorification of sodomy is a 'hater,'), from liberal wacko's in my town who excoriate my children for belonging to the Boy Scouts.

Further, homosexuals have made it their business now to insist that we all adore sodomy, that we consider it morally equivalent to a husband's and wife's creating new human life, that our children learn about anal sodomy in public school, that one is a bigot for suggesting that children deserve a mother and a father and than anyone who dissents from any of this be ruthlessly attacked and demeaned.

Well, I'm fighting back - because I think such is a horrific evil aimed right smack at my kids (and other innocent kids). I'll keep talking about for as long as people are trying to normalize it and glorify it to my and other kids (which will be for a long time, I would guess). Homosexuals and their enablers are no longer interested in tolerance - they're interested in getting to my and everyone else's children. That's evil. It's also an evil that's destroying the Anglican Communion - while the leader of that Communion sits back, unable to say anything at all about Christian sexual morality.

People can do to themselves whatever they want, including sodomizing themselves. When they come to promote and glorify and 'normalize' it to my kids, and when they suggest to my kids that such degraded acts are Godly, they have become my enemy. In sum, I'll keep talking about it until they become tolerant of my beliefs - and until they stay away from my and other children. (P.S. puzzled - that's not going to happen anytime soon.)

James

[Christopher]

"As a sane non-loon Christian man"

Really? well, others abide our question, as Matthew Arnold said in a sonnet cored with truth.

[Christopher]

James, you still haven't answered about Christ the bridegroom of your soul. You are supposed to be a catholic, aren't you? So no use hiding behind Recusants's protestant comment.

[James]

"James, you still haven't answered about Christ the bridegroom of your soul."

---

Geepers, Christopher. Whoever said Christ is the bridegroom of the soul?

Christ is the Son of God who came to try to save your soul and my soul.

James

[Bill Channon]

Deacon Mark,
Documentation please. Or may I presume that your comment is no more than a personal opinion. Now as I observe your comment, I state with confidence that it is a sarcastic and mean-spirited one.

[James]

"Jesus is no bivalve."

---

Yeah, Mrs. Lawrence!

James

[Christopher H]

On the use of feminine imagery, Jesus said:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Mt. 23:37.)

Jesus compared himself to a mother. Why shouldn't we?

[Arthur Pendennis]

TSO, that is a truly interesting post, given that as of this morning and until November, the American Primate remains Frank Griswold.

Anyway, I see now that the American church has done sort of a weak apology for something I can't figure out what, promised to only consecrate gay bishops if they want to, and to continue to allow same sex marriages. There is probably one being performed in Columbus tomorrow.

Williams has issued a press release that he will take some time to think about these things. I rather tend to believe the global south primates will tell him what to think about it a lot sooner than he would like, and he can take it or blow up the communion. Interesting times.

[James]

Christopher, Schori didn't compare Christ to a mother. She said he is our mother. He's not.

James

[TSO]

Arthur, re: that is a truly interesting post, given that as of this morning and until November, the American Primate remains Frank Griswold.

Don't tell me that. Tell the deputy pastor (whom I quoted accurately). Perhaps silly rules like the length of a PB's term don't apply to church liberals?

[Mike Homfray]

We can only hoipe that the so-called Global South will decide to leave. Then maybe we could get back to a reasonable position without these premodern promitives jackbooting around with their threats and Victoriana

[Diana]

As several of the notices have already stated the image of Christ as mother has a long pedigree among the great teachers of the church, and reaches its finest exposition in the writings of Julian of Norwich. It is distressing to see how many who believe they know so much about the theological traditions of Christianity actually know so little and automatically jumped on the language as though it were a completely modern innovation.

There is, however, a big difference between the Presiding Bishop-elect and Dame Julian. The theology worked out in Dame Julian's Showings is complex, subtle and deeply Trinitarian. The theology worked out in the text of Bp. Schorri's sermon for the General Convention this morning is not any of those things.

In that sense her inagural sermon as PB-elect was a great disappointment. Still, it is entirely consistent with the lack of theological acumen on offer in nearly all of the debates in ECUSA for the past 3 years.

[none]

"Bishop Schori's comments are almost word-for-word from some of the greatest spiritual and mystical writers in the English tradition."

Exactly.

"Almost".

But not quite.

Meaning they entirely miss the mark.

Like most of the ECUSA really.

[Bill Channon]

"Jesus, our Mother..."

The quote by Schori was clearly one of those feminist, gender-changing thingies, not a simile, not a slip but a deliberate statement that will probably lead to more liturgy gemder-adapted stuff.

[Worth]

Why is ridicule the first resort of so many posters? I'd suggest we Christians are open to a great deal of ridicule, with our superstitious belief in divine intervention and twisted explanations for why God allows bad things to happen to good people. And let's not forget about the highlight of the week -- cannabalism.

Were we, liberals and conservatives all, to rip ourselves away from our hyperpious moorings momentarily, we might recognize in ourselves the irrationality and pettyness we attribute to those "loons" who disagree with us.

[Malcolm Bowden]

In one of those serendipitous coincidences that can sometimes happen, I was listening yesterday to a broadcast from Oxford of a "blues" or "jazz" choral evensong on Radio 3. It was a kind of experiment and I enjoyed it. The serendipity, however, came from the brief sermon given by the officiating clergyman where he suggested that some people might be offended by jazz coming into contact with the Book of Common Prayer in the same way that the "orthodox" may be offended by new ways of approaching theology. He made the point, however, that Jesus offended the orthodox by showing that the man in the street, the unreligious, the outcast even, might show God's love more than the religious - he quoted the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son - and that Jesus' way of taking an idea and running with it was not unlike the jazz musician's way of picking up a theme and exploring it. What we needed, said our preacher, was a kind of "jazz theology". I thought that chimed in with Bishop Schori's reference to Jesus as Mother and much else that has been going on this last week. The Episcopal Church has shown that it is alive, that fundamentals can be debated and that after everything there is a desire to stay together in diversity. As long as neither side insists on bullying the other there is no earthly reason why we should not all get on. We do have much more in common than separates us surely?

[PK]

Ruth, Firstly thank you to you and the team for keeping us posted on events. I imagine the last week has been a bit of a 'mare all things considered.

Turning back to the key resolution, it seems clearly 'unfit for purpose' in terms of complying with the Windsor report - no repentance (or even regret), no comment on same-sex blessings, weak language on consecrating gay bishops.

Furthermore comments by 'rebel liberals' suggest that more gay consecrations will be in the offing. I don't know how many US bishoprics are up for election in the next 2 years before Lambeth but it's easy to imagine some hardline liberal US dioceses appointing gay bishops almost out of principle in the next 2 years.

Who knows, maybe the US bishops will be invited to Lambeth, but given the trajectory confirmed by the TEC this week the split is surely now a question of 'when, not if'

[Nersen]

Mike Homfray dreams of the "Global South" leaving - more likely that the ABC from the left has to kick out ECUSA. He is not likely to let the vast majority of Anglicans (even in ENGLAND!) leave in order to stick with ECUSA as it slowy kills itself (shrinking by 35,000+ people per year - hardly "inclusive!!")

Neil Kinnock came from the left but had to deal with the left-wing parasite that was "Militant" within the Labour party. The ABC's old friends have ruined his time in the job by pushing their agendas but maybe he is the man from the left to deal with the cancer in the Anglican church.

Let's separate and get on with our lives. The conservative and charismatic evangelcials can carry on growing and church planting. The liberal churches can carry on doing whatever they do - anyway, they will not exist in a few decades as they have only shown the ability to decline year on year, decade on decade.

[James]

===

Why is ridicule the first resort of so many posters? I'd suggest we Christians are open to a great deal of ridicule, with our superstitious belief in divine intervention and twisted explanations for why God allows bad things to happen to good people. And let's not forget about the highlight of the week -- cannabalism.

---

Dear Worth,

The Anglican Communion is schisming; nothing will prevent it. (It may be forestalled for a year or two, but there is no doubt that it will happen.) Why? Because for several decades weak and piddly men have allowed the Gospel of Christ to be itself ridiculed and shorn of its meaning, to be denigrated and made into all sorts of things it is not nor ever could possibly be, and because weak and piddly men sought popularity and worldly esteem, rather than to call people away from their sins, and to save souls. Ridicule here is not the method of first resort, but rather last resort. Further, there are perfectly good and understandable reasons why God allows 'bad things to happen to good people.' Finally, when man rejects God, he becomes a beast; ergo, cannibalism.

James

[James]

"Let's separate and get on with our lives. "

---

Hear, hear, Nerson.

James

[Arthur Pendennis]

It may be simpler than we have all thought. The global south primates have not at all been shy about taking evangelical American parishes under their wing with the cooperation of the organized orthodox Network in the US. It would seem a small step for them to create a separate US province under their direction, and then present it as a substitute US province to Williams as a fait accompli, and then tell him that they will no longer attend any Lambeth conferences as long as the US is around. It is not as though, over the last 3 years, after the Windsor Report, the failure of the Panel of Reference, and the mendacious mind of the body resolutions passed at the General Convention, Williams has any reason to argue that the global south primates have anything else to wait for. If he accedes to the global south primates, he may preserve the greater Anglican Communion, but lose the US and Canada, while if he disavows what global south primates, they will disavow him, the Communion truly disintegrates, and they do what they want anyway. If this were to be presented, and I do not at all think it is far-fetched, it will be interesting to see what Williams decides. Frankly, after observing the American church in action this last week, yoking oneself to it must seem rather less appealing than before.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

I have published what I have to say on Mary Ann's attack on Leviticus on my own blog.

The main thing is that if the Times wants to continue having a good relationship with the Chief Rabbi, the representative of the Orthodox Jewish community in this country, she will have to do a refresher course in RE. Because, based on the latest school syllabuses on the subject, I think her own two young daughters probably know more about the subject than she does.

Also, if there is an argument for women Bishops, surely the Biblical, and even more the midrashic, view on biblical women, should provide fodder enough, without attacks on Jewish practices being used as ammunition.

My own view is that if Jesus had been a Christian, he would have run a mile from her article and asked to convert to Judaism. Because, being the thoughtful Jew that he was, he always tried to love his neighbour as himself and stand up for the underdog, a lesson he would ironically have learned from the very same Leviticus so despised and ridiculed by your colleague, Ann Mary.

So please access my blog and send in your own views once you have read it: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[Gerry Lynch]

"Homosexuals and their enablers are no longer interested in tolerance - they're interested in getting to my and everyone else's children."

-----

Here comes that old blood libel again. Of course, James didn't actually quite say that homosexuality=paedophilia, just drops heavy hints about it. And as long as he does that, he is complicit in the persecution, physical and mental, of gay people that still goes on day in and day out, even in the West. The next time you see a gay man beaten to death by violent, thuggish, sumbags remember the role that people like James play in encouraging that to happen.

[James]

Gerry,

I object to homosexuals and their enablers trying to teach my children that acts like male anal sodomy are good, normal, healthy, natural or Godly. I object to having anyone even put such gross and deviant images in my children's minds. I object to homosexuals who want to take my teenage sons out camping in the scouts. I object to homosexuals trying to teach my children that any sexual act with anyone (or any orifice) is moral. I object to homosexuals wanting to teach my children that right and Godly sex has nothing to do with a male and a female. Finally, many homosexual men ARE indisputably attracted to teenage boys. Just ask the parents of 10,000 American teenage Catholic boys who were molested by homosexual priests.

I do not condone violence against homosexuals, and am not responsible for those who perpetrate it.

James

[Arthur Pendennis]

Well, that was fast. Akinola was apparently having a CAPA meeting in Kampala yesterday and today (was anyone aware of this?), and has already announced that "[a]t our meeting in Kampala we have committed ourselves to study very carefully all of your various actions and statements. When we meet with other Primates from the Global South in September, we shall present our concerted pastoral and structural response."

Was anyone aware of this Septembr meeting? Also, note the reference to a "structural" response. It is interesting to reflect on what that might mean.

[Keith Downer]

When I was a child, I didn't understand about the Holy Trinity; God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Later, in adult life, it all made perfect sense to me. Even changing the Holy Ghost into the Holy Spirit was no problem; "ghost" has many connotations and the identification of God's Spirit in such a way became confusing.
God, the Father and God, the Son; now, I've never had a problem with thinking about God as a being who transcends gender, encompassing both male and female characteristics - or any other characteristics which are beyond our experience and understanding. But, Jesus, the Son; now that is different.
God chose to walk upon this earth as a man, Jesus. As Christians, that is what we understand and believe in. Mary and Joseph had a son; the shepherds and the wise men came to worship a boy child; He grew to be an adult man, a carpenter and everything written about Him, from the manger to the Cross indicates that God intended us to consider Jesus as a male.
Of course, referring back to the Holy Trinity, some deep theological argument can be made that Jesus should be attributed with both male and female characteristics; but why; what is the theological justification for even making that argument? In a wider sense - and in particular, considering the problems in raising Jesus high before those in the secular society - what purpose is served by distorting the scriptural description of Jesus as a man?
The only possible reason is to attempt to provide some supporting perspective to the dubious and shaky doctrine of a group of people determined to establish their views which have developed from lifestyles founded in many cases on strong homosexual and feminist tendencies. Nothing to do with Jesus, nothing to do with scripture but everything to do with fitting in with their morality and values, right or wrong!

[TSO]

The German philosopher Josef Pieper wrote what follows decades ago, but it seems as appropriate today as ever:

"There seems nowadays some strong imperative to conduct ourselves as though eros really were a kind of absolute authority. There are those who feel that they are right, are carrying out a kind of religious duty 'in the service of eros' - even though they may be deceiving a spouse, betraying a friend, abusing hospitality, destroying the happiness of others, or abandoning their own children. Then everything appears as a 'sacrifice' painfully offered upon the altar of love."

[Alistair McBay]

On a lighter note (perhaps) this link a news story should give us all cause to ponder!

Ruth, this may need a new thread!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5105946.stm

[Gerry Lynch]

"I object to homosexuals who want to take my teenage sons out camping in the scouts."

You see, you just can't resist it. Your argument consists of the worst sort of stereotyping which can't resist the urge to tip over into slander.

Of course, maybe should be biblical about all this, like Lot, and instead of sending our sons off camping with gay scoutmasters, we should just offer up our teenage daughters to complete strangers instead?

"I do not condone violence against homosexuals, and am not responsible for those who perpetrate it."

You are like the man who sells rotgut spirit to the homeless and then says it's entirely their own fault that they sleep on the streets. You are like the newspaper editor who filled his editorials with paranoid rants about 'negro' crime and then claimed he wasn't to blame for the lynching.

You might be able to hide from the consequences of your actions in this life but you won't have that luxury in the next.

[James]

Bishop Akinola will not be yoked to something like ECUSA. He is right to not.

James

[The Rev. Pamela Theodore]

Dear Ms. Gledhill,
I was delighted to read your article on the ECUSA.
I would like to comment that the noun/adjective 'Orthodox'is misleading. It is just as relevent a noun/adjective to apply to liberals as it is to conservatives. It merely depends upon which Scriptures one reads. The Gospels, for instance, present a very 'liberal' Jesus. Unfortunately, in the U.S. (and elsewhere), Church conservatives of all denominations have premptively co-opted various trigger words for their own agenda.
But perhaps, being British, you are thinking about Tradition when you use the word 'Orthodox'. The last time I checked, the Anglican Church is based on the triad of Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
I am fully aware that the Conservative Bishops perfer to call themselves 'Orthodox', but I do not think we need to encourage them in print.
Sincerely,
The Rev.Pamela Theodore

[Frank Salmon]

PLEASE SOMEONE CLARIFY THE GENDER OF THE HEBREW WORD FOR 'GOD'. I've heard that Hebrew is a genderless language in which the words for 'God' have no gender. Is this true? What language did Jesus speak? Did he speak the Koine Greek of Saul/Paul? Or Hebrew? Or what?

One also wonders whether someone on these pages, for whom anal sexy/sodomy seems an obsessive preoccupation, may not be getting his sexual jollies from constantly trying to upset/shock people by constantly raising his source of titillation.

[prophetjck]

Dear Ms Pamela Theodore

"Unfortunately, in the U.S. (and elsewhere), Church conservatives of all denominations have premptively co-opted various trigger words for their own agenda."

Look whos talking........

"The Gospels, for instance, present a very 'liberal' Jesus."

Jesus was not a liberal, at least not in His theology. If fulfilling the prophecies means that He is liberal, i suppose then He is. But unti then, hes as traditional orthodox Torah thumping jew as you would get.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

The word translated 'Lord' is a verb meaning 'becoming' and 'God' is plural, denoting its origin in the many gods worshipped by pagans. That word can also sometimes mean human 'judges' as well, just to confuse things.

Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, very close to Hebrew, and would have known that the Lord has no gender.

However, he would have also known that we describe deity in human language and that both male and female attributes apply to 'becoming'.

The idea of 'law', as in Paul, is actually the word Torah, designating 'teaching' or 'arrow'. And Halacha, or Jewish law per se, actually means 'the way you walk'.

So language is very important in understanding and in any case some of the most compassionate people around are men, and some of the most belligerent, in my experience in any case, women.

Hope this helps.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[James]

Rev.Pamela Theodore, the use of the word orthodox is, I agree, often unhelpful. Firstly, it confuses some people with the Eastern churches. Second, it can by implication place tradition above Scripture because it values historical orthodoxy - doctrine in keeping with traditional church teaching - over anything else. To be honest I would prefer "Bible-based" or something like that.

However, having made a somewhat useful point, the Rev. Theodore then wants to perpetuate the absolute fiction that Jesus is somehow "liberal" in the four gospels. If by liberal she means concerned for the poor and the oppressed then yes, he is - but that's hardly the current yardstick for liberalism in Christianity. And the NT epitstles are also concerned for such things.

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, Rev. Theodore apparently has never really read the the four books in question. Jesus speaks more about hell than any other voice in Scripture, even to the point of warning that most people will go there (the narrow gate). He completely and utterly repudiates sexual sin, going beyond the Levitical teaching to actually say that even "looking at a woman lustfully" is committing adultery in one's heart. He offers forgiveness coupled with a demand for repentence - the "neither do I condemn you" regarding the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is followed directly by "go and sin no more", a link too often ignored by liberals. His teaching on divorce is absolutely and utterly ignored by large swathes of the liberal sections of modern Christianity.

The Jesus of the gospels is no liberal. He is the Lord and redeemer of all, calling us to repentence and faith. In John 15 he clearly links love with obedience, a fact seemingly missed by perverters of the gospel and pansexualists. Jesus offers transformation and freedom from sin; liberal Christianity offers affirmation for behaviour that leaves us hell-bound.

[Christopher]

"Well, I'm fighting back - because I think such is a horrific evil aimed right smack at my kids (and other innocent kids). I'll keep talking about for as long as people are trying to normalize it and glorify it to my and other kids (which will be for a long time, I would guess)."

Well, James, I am sorry that you live in such anguish and in some ways I agree that childhood has been stolen so that mothers take their kids to school in 4by4s, jamming up the Cambridge streets at rush hour for fear that something horrible may happen to them if they let them walk. A year back in the village of Soham not far from Cambridge two little girls were killed by the school caretaker. The awful thing was that they knew him and trusted him so it was not an unknown monster but someone in their own community. When I was a kid we used to play in the parks and woods but now parents dare not let it happen. I am not sure how new all this threat to children is. There is the story of the abduction of Christian children in Chaucer's Prioress' Tale and the ancient song about Little Sir William from Child's Ballads set by Benjamin Britten.

Easter Day was a holiday, of all days in the year
And all the little school children went out to play
But Sir William was not there

His mother went to the Jew's wife's door
And knocked at the ring
Saying, "Little Sir William, if you are there
Pray let your mother in."

The Jew's wife came to the door and said,
"He is not here today
He is out with the little school children on the green
Playing some pretty play."

His mother went to the river bank
That was so wide and deep
Saying, "Little Sir William, if you are there,
Pray pity your mother's weep."

"Oh how can I pity your weep, mother
And I so long in pain
For the little pen knife sticks close to my heart
And the Jew's wife has me slain."

"Go home, go home, my mother dear,
And prepare my winding sheet
For tomorrow morning before eight o'clock
You with my body shall meet."

"And lay my prayer book at my head
And my grammar at my feet
That all the little school children when they pass by
May read there for my sake."

Both the Prioress and the balladeer blame the Jews, the old blood libel which scapegoated them for what we now realise must have been paedophile murders perpetrated not by the "others", the Jews, but by members of the Christian community (since in those days except for the Jews no one could stand outside the Christian community).

James, may I propose a hypothetical question? Please do not be offended if you think I am suggesting something which may or may not be the case - I do not know the principals involved, so cannot know either way. But let's suppose for the sake of argument one of your sons turns out to be homosexual. (It is said that parents are the last to know; first usually other children, then the child himself and then the parents.) You have done your best to bring up your child as "normal" yet one day he says "Dad, I've got something to tell you; I'm gay". Do you start blaming all those scout camps you let him go on.? Do you start worrying what a weak father or an overbearing mother he has had? Do you start blaming the TV or other kids at school experimenting behind the bike-sheds? Do you turn to your wife accusingly and ask "Who was queer in your family"? Then supposing your son says "Calm down Dad, you were a brilliant father. No one seduced me, I didn't become gay because of watching TV - oif it was as easy as that why didn't all my 6 brothers turn gay? It is just the way I am and I have really always known it, but I suppressed it for so long because I knew it would upset you. No one is to blame, not you, not Mum not Uncle Jim your gay brother never did anything wrong, not the priest, not the scoutmaster. It is just the way I am and I am not able to change like being left-handed; do you remember the Muslim boy nxt door was lef-handed and his father tried to beat it out of him because believed Satan used his left had? All he succeeded doing was breaking his son's arm and now he doesn't see him - I've tried, Dad, I've prayed, I've done everything, but now I must be honest and say this is who I am, I can be no other".

How would you respond to that, James?

[James]

"The last time I checked, the Anglican Church is based on the triad of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. "

---

Better take a look at ECUSA, and do a recheck.

James

[Alan Marsh]

Is the letter from "Pamela Theodore" for real?

Some of us have been wondering just which scriptures ECUSA has been reading. Perhaps they do have a liberal version of the Gospels in which everything Jesus says about repentance, judgement, commandments etc has been carefully bowdlerised?

And there is nothing in any of the Anglican formularies about triads, or even Scripture/Reason/Tradition. The 39 Articles firmly uphold the authority of Scripture, and the Ordinal firmly upholds the ordained ministry handed on by the apostles.

In the orthodox world, scripture and holy order remain constants from generation to generation, and across the the contemporary church. Orthodox means "right teaching" - not adopting the spirit of the age.

[J Pearce]

Apropos of very little, I was quite interested in Dr. Lancasters previous comments in this blog about a certain Times journalist's "mis-understanding", shall we say, of passages from the book of Leviticus. The tone of which led me to believe that Dr Lancaster was advocating that we do, in fact, have a lot to learn from said excerpt from the Bible.

So, I took a quick look at her attached weblog. In part of that very same blog, at a particular juncture in a treatise on the current difficulties facing the Anglican church, , Dr Lancaster criticises conservative Anglicans for being "unscientific". Now, I might be being just a little bit picky here, but can someone explain to me how, on the one hand, you can criticise people for being "unscientific" in the reasoning behind their faith and on the other, profess a support for various passages from Leviticus - a load of utter tosh written too many years ago, which has absolutely no scientific or philosophical coherence whatsoever and very little moral relevance either?

And I am right in thinking that Dr. Lancaster also made a thinly veiled threat as well, at the start of her piece? Hmm. How scientific of her.

As an aside - regarding the theme of sex running through this blog, would copulating with a pie (as in "American Pie") constitute an unGodly act as well? I only ask, because said pie was apple in nature - and the apple has a central role in Genesis, as I understand it.

So, by extension, would offering a slice of apple pie to your children class you as an "enabler" of grossly sinful acts, much like homosexuals or Catholic priests?

Worth considering ;-)

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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

[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/

[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/

[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

[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.

[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....

[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

[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

[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!)

[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]

"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!

[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.)

[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?

[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/

[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]

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/

[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?!

[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?

[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

[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/

[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.

[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 :-)

[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?

[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]

Oh dear. Troll in the dungeon again!

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

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

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