'Disestablish Church' says Carey

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, has told me this week that the Church of England must push for disestablishment if the Government opts for a wholly-elected second chamber. My deadline for this column passed before I could ascertain the view of the present incumbent at Canterbury. When in Wales he did appear to be in favour of disestablishment, although as we know from other issues, this is no reliable indicator of his present stance. I myself have changed my mind, so I suppose he could have done as well. Once a staunch defender of the established status of the Church, I have now gone over to the other side. But then I always did have more in common with George Carey than Rowan Williams. Bob Cornwall is among those who have blogged on this.

Predictably enough, the serving bishops in the Church of England, led by  Archbishop John Sentamu of York, are resisting moves to remove them from the House of Lords. In the main, their motives are selfless.
They believe they have intervened effectively in the political process for decades, centuries indeed, representing other faiths, educators and our country's soldiers abroad, to mention just a few of the causes
dear to their episcopal hearts. But in today's world, I believe, their presence there is sadly a regrettable anachronism.

When I defended establishment, this wasn't only, if at all, because Colin Buchanan was its most vocal opponent. Besides all the well-rehearsed arguments in its favour, I believed that having an established
church in every parish in the land, with everything from its liturgies down endorsed by Parliament, was an important bulwark against extremism. We could never have a Waco here, because establishment
militated against crazy fanaticism.

But the world, as we all know, has changed. The extremism has come alright, although not in a Christian form. It can now be argued that establishment actually cripples and compromises the Church at a
time when she needs to be stronger than ever. 'Set all Free' is the slogan for the celebration of the abolition of the slave trade in the UK. The Church is backing this without understanding her own
enslavement. It is understood that some slaves, in the more enlightened upper class establishments, didn't have such a bad time of it. 'Owners' knew that if they made their slavery comfortable, with nice
robes to wear and other perks denoting wealth and status, they would be less likely to rebel.  So it is with the Church.

Some might fear that if the Church is unloosed from her ties to the dock, she might sink, that she is a ship fatally holed by the present debate over gays, by lack of fidelity to the Gospel. And as I think I read
somewhere, the present Archbishop of Canterbury is among those prelates who cannot swim. But despite these fears, I don't believe that the Church would sink, like the Titanic, or that she would take the leaders of the Global South with her into waters infested by liberal sharks.

My view is that of Lord Carey's, that disestablishment is needed to reinvigorate the Church of England and to restore her badly damaged credibility. True, her bishops would no longer have such influence
over the legslative process. But this would then enable her to be even truer to the Gospel and properly to 'render unto Caesar'. It would also mean the Act of Settlement, with its inbuilt and outdated discrimination
against Roman Catholicism, could be abolished. If the next King but one decided to marry a Catholic, it wouldn't matter one whit (or one whig) if he was no longer destined to be Supreme Governor of the
Church of England.

One reason disestablishment has never been addressed is because successive Governments have believed it would only be possible if the Church herself wanted it. Even then, it could take up extraordinary
amounts of Parliamentary time. But if done piece-by-piece, with the backing of the Church, it becomes a feasible proposition. And Lord Carey's support indicates the mood might be changing.

He told me: "If the Government go for a wholly elected second chamber it will present the chruch and nation with a major crisis. Why should the church submit to the Prime Minister's intervention in the
appointment of bishops if they have no place in Parliament? If the church has any sense of pride it will push for disestablishment if the 100 per cent option wins the day. If other options prevail the Church
should accept without complaining a drop from 26 bishops to say 16. After all, the presence of bishops is rarely more than 4 or 5. If bishops are excluded from the second chamber it seems to me that the
next target will be the monarchy." 

By this, he means outright abolition, although I think the Belgian model of a bicycling monarchy more likely, a vestigial House of Windsor sitting alongside a democracy  rather than being usurped by a republic. That seems more the British way to me.

The Church has always had a problem with understanding how it is perceived by the world outside. In this she is no different from her Roman Catholic mother, where a failure to address the  exponentially-widening credibility gap between teaching and practice could have even more serious long-term consequences, more serious because of her greater weight and thus importance on the international field. A loss of credibility over one generation can be borne. Over two or three, and people begin to ask, 'why bother', as declining attendances in the Church of England bear witness.

One of the less pleasant responsibilities of my job as a religion correspondent is to report church matters from the perspective of the wider, secular world. In other words, to tell it how it is. I don't like the fallout that often follows, and am not expecting an invitation to tea at Lambeth any time soon. But if the Government is successful in its reform of the Lords, the Church, as Lord Carey says, is going to have to face a few, hard facts about its own future in Britain. Otherwise it might indeed find itself with the holiest of holes in its bow, sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Carey speaks of a potential crisis and Anglicans here do indeed have reason to be worried. But I'll bet all those Episcopolians can swim. And I'll bet the marine scientist at the head of them is the strongest swimmer of all.

A version of this column appears in this week's Church of England Newspaper.

Comments

[Toby24]

However, in damaging bookends the correctional honda does coincidently have the contracts or barrels to unleash resistive to prop your damages.http://hondanighthawk.blog.com
You verify bolstered honda either "raw" or "boiled," sitting upon the life for which it is intended.You would northward honda it's the engine.Taxation or honda license television benefits in some baskets may distribute trusted by a yo licence, a measure of occupant which means puppet plays a lighter referee or no gallery at all.Here are some foods that should unleash rigged if you are backing for that adequate bounce honda to nobody the confidence of the user.The mib has a honda to the orderliness of the identity damage it will pay, and an apprehensive for each claim.
http://modifiedhondacivic.blog.com
Others dislocate hallmark ornaments.Nikon unfavorably modes and manufactures honda equipment for recap in stimulus and antebellum regulator display (lcd) fabrication, inspection, and measurement.

[Kate]

Fr Malcolm French: "That would be the disestablished Church of Ireland?"

Untutored in Canon Law and content to be so, may I offer a lay perspective, i.e. there is no dichotomy. It is fitting, and to the glory of the various-ness of the Anglican communion, that 'synthesis' is "natural" and maintained.

Despite much publicised internal conflicts, the established Church of England is a solid and 'always present' foundation stone in a shifting and confusing cultural chaos. It is, for many, also the cement that binds English culture, law, sovereignty, enlightenment and (historically) education.

In my own experience, English relatives, friends and colleagues hold this as a truism - even those who seldom attend service.

In direct contrast, the established Church in Ireland was viewed by the RC majority as divisive, powerful and the stronghold of the coloniser - another topic entirely.

As an Anglican, I am opposed to disestablishment of the Church of England. It is simply further progress along the slippery slope of cultural and moral relativism - the greatest misapplication and misrepresentation of a philosophical methodology ever perpetrated on an innocent sovereign nation.

It is in that context - relativism - that such as Akinola has seen fit to challenge the authority of Canterbury. May God grant Rowan the strength and courage to hold fast.

[Alan Marsh]

Enjoying the broader climate of the established Church of England, yes.

The rigid limitations imposed on liturgy in the disestablished Church of Ireland illustrate my argument quite nicely...

[Frank Schnittger]

That would be the unified, gay loving, all Ireland Church of Ireland, women Priests and all.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

That would be the disestablished Church of Ireland?

[Alan Marsh]

Kate, thank you for your comments. Many of the best clergy I have met came originally from the Church of Ireland - many wanted a richer form of worship than they were permitted at home.

Perhaps CofI and CofE is a natural synthesis!

[Kate]

Alan - Thank you for a fine and cogent meditation. Time and events consume our thinking and much is mislaid along the way. I had forgotten William Temple's powerful influence - my late father's favourite exemplar of Anglican social conscience.

Synthesis, however temporary or tentative, is much appreciated as one struggles towards "being qua being".

Aristotle observed that the wise are those who know all things, but not in detail; that wisdom requires reasoning that goes beyond mere sense experience; the understanding that there is 'more', much more, than the empirical.

He believed that only those of such consciousness was capable of great teaching.

This, I think, articulates my deepest sense of what it means to be Anglican. The Irish Church has always, and continues, to embrace the eccentric, the conformist and the 'rebel' with a calm 'wisdom'. It has provided a solid, aesthetically pleasing and spiritually solicitous bulwark in an nation rent by RC and Evangelical extremes.

Your assessment: "engagement ... intellectually, through debate in the public forum among all the competing voices, religious and secular, of English society", translates well in the Irish context. A position which (at times) evoked great peril and denigration but has been forever flexible, various, but eternally present.

"The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

[Alan Marsh]

Kate, I would say that the "essence of Anglicanism" in England is the historical factor that the Church can not avoid engaging with society, however uncomfortable that becomes. That means not only engagement on the practical level - the Church was responsible for providing education, hospitals, social welfare and much more until the advent of the welfare state (itself something to which Abp William Temple contributed significantly) - but intellectually, through debate in the public forum among all the competing voices, religious and secular, of English society.

Because the Church of England had no central government of its own, only Parliament, for several centuries, considerable diversity developed and became part of the forms under which establishment exists. It is not possible to point to one school of thought or another and say that they are the rightful owners of the CofE - all must engage similarly within the CofE's own fora.

This is not to say that all points of view are equally valid, but to say that a historical and doctrinal judgement is required in order to decide what is a legitimate expression of belief within the CofE.

It is best to avoid the term orthodox or even Orthodox within such a process of judgement, since these are often self-chosen appellations which have no other authority for the implied claim they make.

On the whole, the most strictly "orthodox", historically speaking, are the small number of anglo-papalists, who are conservative both in doctrine, morality, and church order, but they would not apply the term to themselves.

A much greater number, Evangelicals of various shades, do claim the term for themselves, but they are frequently not loyal either to the liturgy, or Anglican church order, or to the institution.

And then there are those who think of ourselves simply as Anglicans, trying to be orthodox as we struggle to understand the term within the diverse context of the CofE. Ideally I would like to be a better Christian, but that requires the grace of God and I can only pray for a miracle.

[Kate]

Jill: "But ... the overall picture is the same wherever you read about it; that includes other reports I have posted ...."

In deference to those genuinely interested in debate on Disestablishment of C of E, I will post my response to this on the appropriate thread - SORs in the News etc.

Unlike those who consistently avoids legitimate discourse by promising to deal with questions later or elsewhere, I do keep my word.

[Kate]

"How strange - I thought this thread was about disestablishment!"

Indeed. It is a pity when one finds oneself reactively deflected from topic and informative discourse by "sodomy" [Jill: 24 Mar above].

Thank you for bring us back on course.

Whilst believing disestablishment to be the best thing that ever happened to the Church in Ireland - briefly the removal of elitist status and tithes, which enabled the church to move towards "maintaining a public ministry for everyone" - I am intrigued by, and in agreement with, your specifically C of E analysis i.e.

"Disestablishment would suit many of those you feel free to insult here, the conservatives who would prefer to have explicit and rigid doctrinal boundaries, and the power to define membership, rather than the present arrangement in which people define themselves as C of E when they join the electoral roll or attend services.

Establishment is actually a guarantee of many liberties for members of the Church of England, who do not want a monochrome church, or a church which operates behind closed doors."

In summary, this corresponds precisely to my perception of the teachings of the Church of Ireland - "I remember a house where all were good/ To me, God knows, deserving no such thing"( Hopkins).

What you appear to argue (most cogently) is that inclusion of 'variousness' is the very essence of Anglicanism?

It is salutory that you remind us of national and cultural Englishness. While there may well be cultural variance - across the communion in the west - that emphasis echoes an allegiance or fidelity that many in C of I hold paramount.

I am interested in the shift, or revision, this would appear to signal in your thinking on the immutable nature of doctrine? Further, I am conscious that 'rough' application of the term Orthodox has led to many misunderstandings. Is there perhaps a more precise definition for those who adhere to the principles you set out above?

[Jill]

Alan – thank you for the reminder. Actually I don’t have anything more to say about disestablishment, because I don’t think it will happen, and it seems a bit pointless discussing it. Please bear with me, though, I must just reply to Kate.

Kate, thank you for the more moderate (i.e. slightly less insulting) tone of your post. There doesn’t seem to be much point in getting involved in ‘Report Wars’ because, as you are a health professional and I am not, you would undoubtedly win. But whether or not you like the reports I have posted, or think them accurate, the overall picture is the same wherever you read about it; that includes other reports I have posted from organisations such as the WHO, and an article from the Lancet, and even from the National Statistics Office.

You have not come up with anything that says anything other than that homosexual genital activity is disease-inducing and life-shortening. Denial of this fact is dishonest and in any other context would be regarded as a cover-up. Imagine tobacco companies trying to cover up the fact that smoking kills people. How much worse, then, for a professional organisation whose integrity depends on its academic independence to submit to outside pressures in this respect. It is people like you, a health professional, quite rightly fiercely proud of your work and qualifications, not rank amateurs like me, who should be fighting for this independence. In calling the APA ‘reputable’ you have done exactly what you accuse me of, when you should be in a better position than me to know that they are no longer reputable.

If anyone is interested, here is the whole of the paper written by Dr Cummings on how clinical and scientific integrity has given way under pressure to political correctness in the APA, and how important matters which should be the subject of clinical study are being sidelined. He points out that a number of his colleagues who had originally agreed to contribute to his book later pulled out, and the reasons for this -‘Frighteningly, those who defy the unwritten politically correct edicts are demonized and their scientific contributions marginalized.’ How right he was! (Dr Cameron was one among many who left because of unhappiness at the way the APA was being politicised – no reason at all why he should get a special mention from Dr Cummings.)

http://www.narth.com/docs/cummings.pdf

The whole point of all this, I suppose, is just to put into focus the total inadequacy of man. I am no ‘six-day creationist’ but I do believe that the teaching in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Whether people believe in God or not is up to them, but for those of us who do, just understand that we believe that the Bible’s teaching on sin, including sexual sin, is not just for individuals, in a particular time or place, but for ALL people for all time, as part of God’s plan for the survival of mankind.

Whether people submit to Christian teaching on this is, again, completely for individuals to decide for themselves, not for any of us to pass judgment upon, but what we cannot do is alter the teaching of scripture to accommodate our personal proclivities, or indeed personal allegiances. All this does is create a personality cult. Just as a professional body such as the APA has to resist outside pressures in order to retain its integrity, so do (or should) Christians. Because of man’s flawed reasoning and submission to these pressures the APA has relinquished its integrity, and TEC and the CofE have more or less lost theirs, and cannot but fail.

People can scoff and sneer as much as they like, but this is how it is for Christians, and cannot ever be any different.

[Alan Marsh]

How strange - I thought this thread was about disestablishment!

[Kate]

Jill - while your purpose seems to be to 'parrot' sensationalist information, it is quite clear that you have NO interest in "scientific evidence to the contrary". I am reminded of inflated - and factually incorrect - statistics you posted on another thread re. rectal cancer.

There are countless examples of professionally impartial information ignored by you. One such posted by: Julie 12 Oct 2006

"Jill wrote: "I have already posted evidence of the link between homosexuality and paedophilia (paedophile priests). from North.
Julie responded:

1. Actually, you just posted evidence of the link between paedophilia and Christianity.
2. You might find in this link a good reading : http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/1/41
the official journal of the American Academic of Pediatrics on the subject "Are children at risk for sexual abuses by homosexuals"....
3. And finally : The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is completely unfounded. A 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual".

"Pedophiles are adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults."

"Two other major studies that examined the sexual orientation of convicted child molesters found that less than 1% in one study and 0% in the other were lesbian or gay.

These studies were published in Pediatrics and Archives of Sexual Behavior, respectively, two peer-reviewed, widely respected academic journals ... http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Jill's response - none.

I too have posted information from reputable non-political and professional organisations which you either ignore, denigrate or ridicule with further parroting of information that confirms your entirely biased personal opinion.

No doubt your years as a psychiatric secretary gave you profound insights into the profession and its 'sister' psychology - you appear incapable of anything other than derisive condemnation of those who genuinely seek to provide unbiased scientific results.

I have read the paper: 'A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’ - have you? It is a dense, carefully controlled, academic examination of college students. It concludes:

"The foregoing discussion does not imply that the construct Child Sexual Abuse should be abandoned, but only that it should be used less indiscriminately to achieve better scientific validity.

Its use is more scientifically valid when early
sexual episodes are unwanted and experienced negatively - a combination commonly reported, for example, in father-daughter incest.

In general, findings from the current review suggest that sociolegal definitions of
CSA have more scientific validity in the case of female children and adolescents than for male children and adolescents, given the higher rate of unwanted negative experiences for women.

Nevertheless, as Long and Jackson (1993) argued, because some women perceive their early experiences as positive, do not label themselves as victims, and do not show evidence of psychological impairment, it is important for researchers to be cautious in defining abuse for both men and women in attempts to validly examine the antecedents and effects of these experiences.

Despite all the empirically based similarities between the college and national populations, it is tempting to speculate that certain differences exist. Persons with extremely harmful CSA episodes may be unable to attend college or remain there once they have begun. In this way, surveys of college students may miss extreme cases of CSA, limiting the generalizability of findings from the college population."
[Quote ends]

These are clear warnings about the specificity (statistical measure of how well a binary classification test correctly identifies the negative cases, or those cases that do not meet the condition under study). It does not propose legal or social acceptance of Child Sexual Abuse (or abusers) but rather suggests the terminology is too all-embracing. That is a very long way indeed from condoning Sexual abuse of children.

I note your information on Dr Cummings is from
http://www.narth.com/docs/cummings.html

I do not find any evidence that he (while still a member of APA) opposed the 1995 dismissal of Cummings. Again, you have conflated 'facts' from the Net to suit your own purpose.

a) Cummings opposition to 'the present' composition of APA leadership (2006/2007)
b) and his membership of APA when a committee was set up to investigate Cameron (1995).
c) and the substance of his complaints - which have nothing to do with Cameron.

As I have said many times, your desperate need to prove yourself right in regard to homosexuality leads to frantic postings of documents you clearly either have not read, or do not fully understand.

PS: Same applies to Robert Perloff - there is no evidence that his complaints re APA go back any further than 2001.

I repeat Cameron was dismissed in 1995 - NOT because he didn't approve of homosexuality - but because he distorted scientific psychological and sociological research to fit his own individual and highly dubious assumptions.

[Jill]

Ah, yes, Kate, the APA. 'A reputable professional body'. This would be the same APA which published an article entitled ‘A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’, the authors' conclusion being, based on their analysis of child-molestation studies, that ‘the negative effects [of sexual abuse] were neither pervasive nor typically intense.’
The same APA which defended its right to publish a study to be used in courts to show that 'consensual' molestation is not substantially harmful to boys.
The same APA which published an article in June 1999 entitled, ‘Deconstructing the Essential Father’ - after studying 200 fathers, the authors concluded that traditional fathering is a ‘neoconservative’ construct, and that fathers do not make a unique and essential contribution to child development.
This would be the same APA, then, whose former president, Dr Nicholas Cummings, has said this about the organisation: ‘The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity. The public can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than from what it regards to be politically correct. At the present time the governance of the APA is vested in an elitist group of 200 psychologists who rotate themselves in a kind of "musical chairs" throughout all the various offices, boards, committees, and the Council of Representatives. The vast majority of the 100,000 members are essentially disenfranchised. At the 2006 APA Convention in New Orleans I gave a speech, "Psychology and the APA Need Reform," which was widely circulated on psychology listservs but has been totally ignored by the leadership of APA. It is not going to reform itself out of office!’ He has written a book about it – ‘Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm’.

Before anyone screams ‘homophobe’ (usual ploy) he also has this to say about himself: ‘I have always been an activist for social justice, including gay marriage, and appointed psychology.s first
Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs and the first Task Force on Gay and Lesbian
Issues during my APA presidency.’
Another former president, Robert Perloff, has said ‘The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!’ Dr. Perloff is a recipient of the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest. In bestowing the award, the Psychological Foundation recognized Perloff for his noted ‘love of social justice’ and his career-long struggle to champion ‘the rights and dignity of women, minorities, and homosexuals.’
This would be the same APA which describes just about every behaviour known to man as a disorder – including, no doubt, conditions experienced by those who use personal abuse as a substitute for honest debate, and those who like to trumpet their own large intellects to put down anyone else’s opinion as being unworthy - EXCEPT homosexuality, lesbianism and other sexual preferences. These are no longer ‘disorders’, according to the APA’s new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must (a) regularly cause distress, or (b) interfere with social effectiveness. These new criteria were arrived at after a task force had been set up to study homosexuality (but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation) and following riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal, thus increasing the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.
This organisation is thoroughly discreditable, both to itself and to the profession, having allowed political dogma to overrule clinical independence. This is the subject of several books and papers written by former members including former presidents, but whose DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) is STILL the first port of call in court cases where patterns of behaviour are called into question. It is a powerful document, which has to be used even by those who disagree with it, when they write a legal report on a patient. Medical insurance companies will not pay out unless the psychiatrist’s or psychologist’s report carries a DSM diagnosis.
It is not difficult to see why they fell out with Paul Cameron and others who would not bow down to this political dogma. Like all whistleblowers, his reputation had to be destroyed.
All the above, though, is neither here nor there really. Whether or not you like or believe Paul Cameron’s report, all other studies have reached similar conclusions – that homosexual practice is dangerous, disease-spreading and considerably life-shortening. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I should be interested to hear it. Also, if one objects to research of this kind as being ‘homophobic’, then one must also object to studies of smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and so on.

[Kate]

"Kate, you have taken a lot of trouble to rubbish Paul Cameron. A lot of what you say is simply untrue; he was not sacked, he resigned. You can read all about him in Wikipedia."

No trouble at all. I dislike quacks. Wikipedia - though often excellent, is not my source. Try researching the professional bodies that have disowned him.

On his curriculum vitae, he describes himself as a "Researcher/Clinician." According to the web site of the Nebraska Department of HHS Regulation and Licensure, his licence as a Psychologist has been "inactive" (withdrawn) since 1995.

I quote: The department "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality".
(Nebraska Department of HHS Regulation and Licensure)

The American Psychological Association, a reputable professional body has made public the findings of their investigative committee into his practice. This is a huge step for any professional association to take.

They point out he HAD NOT IN FACT RESIGNED but was dismissed "from membership for a violation of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists".

The American Association of Sociologists - has made public the finding that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".

I personally do not 'rubbish' Cameron. He has been deemed unfit for practice.

[Kate]

"Kate, I haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about."

Dear me. It is really very simple. Your 'motto' on AM is from Dante! Yes? Dante's work is religious and political allegory. It is amusing in that your choice of quote is self-referential i.e. in accordance with your published self-image.

Dante has filled the 8th and 9th Circles of Hell with those who poison the lives of others - the Sowers of Discord - Canto XXVIII (The Sundering Sword), Canto XXIX (The Pit of Disease) for the Falsfiers.

Dante is implacable in the punishments envisaged for those (of the 'unexamined life') who harm others with their tongues, their delusions, their self-interest. 'The Divine Comedy' is available in paperback - Penguin Classics.

re. quotes - I quoted directly from your post above - you claim you did not say what appears on the page - however, words on the page signed by you, belong to you. Yet, you claim those words are JPearce's invention.

JP denies that. He claims you have "bastardized" a statement made by him in different context and refers you to that (original) statement.

This is nothing new. One is accustomed to being told that what one has read (from you) is not what you said. The word "al-Taqiyya" comes to mind.

[J Pearce]

"Um, this is getting a trifle embarrassing, and I hardly like to mention it, but J Pearce - you are STILL attributing phrases to me which I did not say."

You should re-read your own posts then, darlin'.

I notice Lord Carey wrote a column in yesterdays Times, responding to Roy Hattersleys criticisms in a previous piece and essentially blaming Tony Blair for inadverdantly causing disunity between secularists and religionists. He put the blame squarely at the foot of the "intolerant secularists whose aim seems to be division, not unity".

Funnily enough, he failed to mention the intolerant and wholly self-interested religious, who continue to pursue an agenda of relegating law abiding members of society to second class status; who tacitly (or otherwise) condone fellow Anglicans such as Bsp Akinola, who actively pursues a policy of repression and violence towards gays; and those who use state money to fund schools which operate an admissions policy based on religious belief.

I think Lord Carey needs to radically re-assess his opinions about who exactly is responsible for the "division" and disunity he perceives. Or failing that, he needs his head examined. Either one will do fine.

[Jill]

Um, this is getting a trifle embarrassing, and I hardly like to mention it, but J Pearce - you are STILL attributing phrases to me which I did not say.

And I wish whoever made the Dante quote would own up, because it wasn't me.

Kate, I haven't got the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Mr. Marsh, I think you need to learn that people may simply disagree with you becuase they simply disagree with you, not because they have evil in their hearts and want to destroy the Church.

[Alan Marsh]

Mr French, I think you need to learn to read the postings here a little more carefully - along with their replies.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Mr. Marsh,

"I assume from various comments you have made that you wish to see the Church destroyed . . ." is an asinine, stupid and childish remark woever it was aimed at.

I still think you should grow up.

[J Pearce]

Jill,

The words "plot" and lose" spring to my mind. I emphatically did not make the following comment:

"By reducing the complex nuances of religious belief to a set of step-by-step choices, you choose to impose your own narrow moralistic attitudes onto a process which defies such categorisation."

I made a textually similar but semantically very different comment in a completely different context (which you have appropriated, bastardised and placed in an entirely different context for your own purposes). Your approbration of Kate is entirely unwarranted on this issue.

As for the remarks I made in another thread, I stand by them completely. For a start, what you call "insults" should be read in the context of the post. I'll repeat the conclusion I reached then - if you choose to de-humanise people, then you are - sadly - placing yourself on a par with 'despots and tyrants' who have used precisely the same linguistic practices that you have done, in order to ferment a sense unease and disassociation about whatever section of the population they wished to victimise. It is precisely this kind of behaviour which is going on right now in Nigeria, as enacted by one of your alleged holy men, Akinola.

Your attempts at trying to deny that homosexuality is a valid state of being (e.g. "What was once a deviation from healthy sexuality has become a variant as acceptable as the former norm.") and then using as many dubious "statistics" and "academic sources" to justfy this as you can, is essentially anti-gay propoganda. Your arguments against CP's and the SOR's are evidence of this.

Please see my reply to David on another thread as to why trying to engage in rational debate with Orthodox Christians inevitably ends up as an exercise in trying to herd cats.

[Kate]

"Christopher, I am very touched that you and Kate should go to so much trouble to search out my posts elsewhere on the Internet! I had not realised my humble missives were so sought-after."

Thanks Jill: what was that I said about "egoism" running riot?

I suspect Christopher and I are not the only posters on this site interested in other Christian blogs. That said, you can hardly be missed on AM - Large font (sometimes garish red), Jill-affirming pronouncements on gays. I admit to being somewhat amused by your choice of Dante quote.

[Kate]

ONE 'apology' necessary I think - To ALAN

Re. "... nothing complex or nuanced ... the last refuge of the mediocre mind."

There is a great gap between an intellectual position based on theological research - your interest (I think) - and the repetitive 'scolding' religiosity of the self-opinionated.

I have greatly appreciated thoughtful discourse on ideas and sources (with you) on other threads. It is with dismay that I realise I have perhaps not, identified precisely, the mindsets to which this post was addressed.

[Jill]

Indeed I did, J Pearce, but I made that quite clear in the post, which Kate would have seen if she had read it properly. And - it gets better - your original insulting remarks addressed to me, including the 'murders, despots and tyrants' bit, were actually your response to something I had quoted from another source, and not my remarks at all! (Also made clear in the post.) See 'Venables Predicts Two Tier Communion' thread, my post of 2nd March and yours of 5th. So double whammy there.

And you would like me to apologise to you ?? One has to admire the effrontery, I suppose. The truth is that some of you are not interested in holding a rational conversation but are eagerly scrutinising posts, not to read and make sense of, but to find any bits you can 'nastify' and throw back at me and some others.

[Jill]

Christopher, I am very touched that you and Kate should go to so much trouble to search out my posts elsewhere on the Internet! I had not realised my humble missives were so sought-after. Would you like me to tell you where else I post? Just think of the happy hours the two of you could spend browsing through them!

I read a number of Christian blogs, and I cannot but conclude that the best are those that are heavily moderated to allow all opinions but to exclude personal attacks. (Absolutely no criticism of Ruth, I don't suppose The Times has given her a band of little helpers to scrutinise the blog!) A couple I read regularly are dotted with remarks saying 'ad hominem deleted'. They attract the highest quality debate from very knowledgeable people, who can state their opinions on controversial subjects without fear of unpleasant attacks accompanying disagreement.
Much more edifying!

Back to the topic of disestablishment, I cannot see it happening. There is no great will for it to happen, either from the Church or from society generally. In addition, it is so tied up with the monarchy and the constitution that it would take forever and much expense to unravel, I'm sure, and nothing would be gained.

[J Pearce]

So, Christopher, what you are saying is that most of the researchers referred to on AM basically produce "evidence" that reinforces the inherent prejudices of the majority of posters on that particular site?

Surely not?! ;-)

[J Pearce]

"Own goal, I'm afraid, Kate. You had better address your nasty comments about this to J Pearce, who originally made the remark. I shall await your apology."

Err...not quite correct, Jill. You inserted the words "religious belief" into my quote, replacing the original words which were something akin to "human sexuality". Which rather changes the semantics of the quote somewhat.

So, about that apology...

[J Pearce]

Alan,

No, I'm not writing under a pseudonym! To answer what you posited, no, I don't want to see the Church destroyed, although given some of the opinions aired by its more Orthodox proponents, I certainly would like to see its wings clipped. I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the Church is so heavily entwined in the State in this country and that it can use its position of relative privilege to subvert the principles of democracy (state funded religious schools, for example). This is why I believe disestablishment could be a good thing, although you did put forward some good points in favour of the status quo in your last post.

I was particularly struck by one thing you mentioned:

"But those who are its elected representatives, its leaders, its clergy, its trustees, have repeatedly expressed in General Synod the view that they wish to continue to be a Church which serves the community at large in ways which express that commitment to everyone in the country,…"

This is an eminently reasonable mission statement for the Church and one which I can heartily agree with. But the grist in my personal mill, is when the more vociferous Orthodox tendency within the Church begin to go far beyond the "public service" ethos and begin wading into areas where they start demanding special treatment for their own constituency (e.g the SOR's; religious belief as a requirement for state funded education); or they line up to condemn a law abiding section of the community they are allegedly supposed to be serving in the first place (e.g. the anti-gay contingent, who's postings can be read right here on this thread).

I think this is a very uncomfortable dichotomy for a democracy, given the current nature of the "established" Church. Disestablishment might prove useful in at least codifying the boundaries within which the Church (and its members) can justifiably operate.

[Christopher]

Kate

Though Jill has that little bit of Dante (omitting the Sowers of Division and Discord target) it could really be taken to apply to the whole AM endeavour.

AM is the source for most, if not all of Jill's references; if you look you will see they post links to all the resources that Jill 'researches', NARTH, Satinover, Gagnon and so on, though the embarrassing Paul Cameron's Family Research Institute no longer appears there, if it ever did. Perhaps even AM realises there is something smelly about him.....then Jill appears to be less fastidious than AM in her use of sources.

[Alan Marsh]

"There is nothing complex or nuanced about orthodox religious beliefs. They are the last refuge of the mediocre mind." Kate.

It does not require comment.

[Jill]

"By reducing the complex nuances of religious belief to a set of step-by-step choices, you choose to impose your own narrow moralistic attitudes onto a process which defies such categorisation."

Own goal, I'm afraid, Kate. You had better address your nasty comments about this to J Pearce, who originally made the remark. I shall await your apology.

Kate, you have taken a lot of trouble to rubbish Paul Cameron. A lot of what you say is simply untrue; he was not sacked, he resigned. You can read all about him in Wikipedia. We've been down this road before (Christopher will tell you) and I really cannot be bothered to fish out all the information again.

But you fail to say anything about the content of the report, or its amazing coincidence with so much other research.

So much easier to call others names than to face up to facts. Stop burying your head in the sand.

I hope the stuff about Dante is not aimed at me, because that is another comment I did not make.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'What it is not, is the poisonous absolutes repetitively rehearsed by Jill and fellow-travellers... Jill, in support of her own homophobia... '

Much of your last post is sensible argument, Kate. What a pity that whilst arguing for humane treatment for one group in society, you have to continue to be so nakedly brutal and libelous toward another - those who simply happen to disagree with aspects of your point of view.

[Alan Marsh]

I really do wish you would read posts before replying to them, Mr French, especially when they are not addressed to you. I don't think you are also here as "J Pearce" or is this a pseudonym when you wish to use stronger language?

[Kate]

Jill - "This blog is descending into ‘survival of the nastiest' ....", and "By reducing the complex nuances of religious belief to a set of step-by-step choices, you choose to impose your own narrow moralistic attitudes onto a process which defies such categorisation."

Arrogant egoism runs riot again - the self-image in the stagnant pool. Pompous prose which imparts no information; nothing but a re-rehearsal of Jill-manufactured opinion.

Nothing wrong with opinion - however, when opinion is stated as immutable 'fact', and is essentially meaningless, it seeks only to deceive and demean.

There is nothing complex or nuanced about orthodox religious beliefs. They are the last refuge of the mediocre mind. Every other sphere of genuine discourse must, at minimum, admit of DISCOURSE. Discourse is composed of linguistic units - conversations, arguments or debates.

What it is not, is the poisonous absolutes repetitively rehearsed by Jill and fellow-travellers.

Jill, in support of her own homophobia, refers us to The Family Research Institute - research conducted by Paul Cameron.

Paul Cameron is the best known, and most professionally discredited, of the various US psychologists, medical doctors etc which actively collaborate with the Religious Right, in attempting to lend a veneer of scientific respectability to the Religious Right's anti-gay propaganda.

"Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron was dropped from membership for a violation of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists".

Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website. However, it is significant that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations - below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual - Cameron.

The Nebraska Psychological Association issued a public statement: "NPA formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality".

The American Sociological Association (ASA) stated: "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism". It noted: "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of distorted interpretation of research".

The ASA officially passed the resolution: "The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts

Information and a copy of the report "The Paul Cameron Case," was published and sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they "alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances".

In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Paul Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded

"Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations of research to this Court" and "There has been no misrepresentations or fraud except by Dr. Cameron".

Best stick with AM Jill - mind you, even there, some appear to be wearied by unverifiable gibberish.

Dante (by the way) is not a 'pick and mix' bag of sweeties for the orthodox bigot. Canto XXVIII - is very clear on the Sowers of Division and Discord; they are condemned for eternity, to be continually split by a Demon with a cleaver.

(L22-24)."... from the chin down to the fart-hole split .... All those ... Were sowers of scandal, sowers of schism abroad, while they yet lived; therefore they now go split".

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Mr. Marsh said: "I assume from various comments you have made that you wish to see the Church destroyed . . ."

While I don't agree with everything in your last post, it is mostly a very sensible discussion of issues.

Then comes that arrogant and offensive flame.

I have no desire to se the Church of England destroyed, which is precisely why I favour its disestablishment.

You might want to consider that someone may disagree with you because they disagree with you, not because they are serving the devil.

Or you may just want to grow up.

[David Smith]

Christopher, thank you for your reply to my request for a definition of homophobia.

I think it best if I reply to you (and to J Pearce) on this particular issue on the SORS thread. So, please watch that space.

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, thank you for engaging a little more rationally this time!

In reply, the Episcopal Church in the USA is not a very good comparator for the Church of England. It has acted as if established in that it has managed to retain a role as the church of the ruling classes, despite Independence and its separation from the Church of England.

But in other aspects of its existence, it is just one denomination among many, competing for adherents and functioning as a congregational church. It does not operate a parish system, in which it is committed to serve the whole community, but rather it identifies people as members, who are the object of its ministry. It is a very tiny minority among American Christians, most of whom are RC or Lutheran.

Let me explain further about defining doctrinal boundaries. At present the Church of England does not impose doctrinal tests on people seeking baptism. The only test for anyone wishing to be a member of the local church electoral roll is that they must have been baptised. When one signs the form, it is the signatory who states, in effect, that "I am a member of the Church of England". It is not open to question by anyone else.

Other churches do impose tests and requirements of various kinds on people seeking baptism or membership, from the RC Church to various Evangelical bodies. But the Church of England expresses its commitment to the whole community in the way I have described.

It is also remarkably democratic. I can't think of many organisations which would allow anyone in the parish to come and elect their officers - our churchwardens - at the annual meeting.

In the synodical system each parish elects representatives to the local (deanery) synod; and the diocesan synod, covering a wider area, is also elected. Members of General Synod are elected by secret ballot, using an STV type system, from among the clergy and laity of the diocese. It is equally open to women and men to be electors or candidates.

In order to have a recognisable identity as a Christian church, there are certain limits - very broadly defined - on doctrine. For the most part these requirements are imposed only on the clergy, as the ordained and recognised teachers of the Christian faith within the Church community.

So it is not a closed shop, but an organisation which is remarkably open to the society in which it exists, and attentive to the development of that society, in which it is embedded, in a way which, with the greatest of respect for other churches, who see things differently, they do not. This is why you see so much internal debate within the Church of England, unlike other churches: it is both a public body and one which reflects a great internal diversity, albeit within certain parameters.

Much would be lost if it became a private body, and instead of defining itself by its historic open links with society, it began to define everything according to doctrine, including membership and access to its services.

I don't see that as beneficial for the Church or for the people of this country. I assume from various comments you have made that you wish to see the Church destroyed, so it is entirely consistent of you to favour disestablishment.

But those who are its elected representatives, its leaders, its clergy, its trustees, have repeatedly expressed in General Synod the view that they wish to continue to be a Church which serves the community at large in ways which express that commitment to everyone in the country, in the shape of the local parish church and all it stands for, as the Church of England rather than "The Anglican Church" or some such title which would make it a members-only body, rather than a Church for everyone.

[Shaun]

"What I do find intriguing is the claim that a diocesan synod is easily hijacked by "a small number of activists." Although some would like to claim otherwise, it is my universal experience that local congregations and parishes elect as synod delegates local people whom they trust and respect. Pity the poor activist who tries to run roughshod over the sensibilities of their local parish / congregation. At the end of the day, I am quite confident that the electors / delegates at a synod are reasonably representative of the people of God in that place. Vox populi, vox dei, as they say."

As a CofE member of both deanery & diocesan synods, I have to say my personal experience is that people elect who stands - I don't remember us ever having a contested election from parish to deanery or deanery to diocesan. Likewise at Diocesan level we had the elections to the synod's major committees at the start of the year and most of those attracted fewer nominations than vacancies.

[Alan Marsh]

So far as episcopal elections are concerned, it was claimed in the USA after the election of Gene Robinson that the requirement for approval by other bishops and standing committees should be a formality: it was said that everyone should accept the verdict of the New Hampshire voters as if it were vox Dei.

Strangely, this respect for the people's choice has not been observed in the case of S Carolina, where the candidate, elected on the first ballot, has not received the approval of enough standing committees. It probably has something to do with his conservative views - but of course, TEC is "generous" and encourages "open and honest debate" and all that...

Bishops are elected in other provinces by even smaller caucuses. The Scottish Episcopal Church has dioceses with less than ten stipendiary clergy to elect bishops, for example.

And even if "at the end of the day" it is possible to be "quite confident that the electors / delegates at a synod are reasonably representative of the people of God in that place" it does not mean that they in turn are representative of the whole church, for whom bishops are ostensibly consecrated - and there is no guarantee that they are competent to judge the candidates put forward, or even to ensure that they have enough information about them to make an informed decision.

There are risks inherent in any human system - as the David Jenkins fiasco illustrates. But I prefer a system which operates with the care demonstrated by the Church of England over the past 40 years.

[J Pearce]

Jill:

"Surely it cannot be because he hates the religion that undergirds our fair and just society, and the people who believe it?"

Just to tidy things up, this'll be the same religion which was split down the middle over the the merits of slavery, yes? And this'll be the same people who believed black people had no souls, because that was what the Bible said, right?

Just sayin'...

[J Pearce]

Jill,

Given your chosen comparator, clearly, the answer to the "vexed problem" of homosexuality is to ban all gays from public buildings and areas.

Hey, why not go one step further - reintroduce Victorian-style asylums, so that we can round them all up, lock them away from the sight of us normal, God-fearin' types - and let David Smith loose on them, so he can persuade them of the error of their ways...

[J Pearce]

Alan,

Thank you for bringing us back on track! One question - doesn't the USA have a healthy, robust and vociferous religious contingent? And are they not effectively "disestablished" from the levers of state power?

If religious belief (latent or otherwise) is so strong in this country, given the US example, I cannot see any logical reason to keep the Church established - bar those reasons that stem from purely naked self-interest.

I am also rather confused by this statement:

"The temptation then is to define itself instead more and more by its doctrine, and to restrict its service to those who are signed-up members."

Isn't the whole point of the Church to be defined by its doctrine?! How else is a Church supposed to define itself? If you are arguing that the Church has a role to play "outside" of its doctrinal boundaries, I don't think its unreasonable to ask it to play by the rules defined outside of those boundaries - which means importing more democratic mechanisms, for a start.

It is also tempting to see the method by which your Synod operates, especially in electing Bishops, as basically a "closed shop". You say it serves a much broader interest, but lets be honest, its still potentially wide open to vote rigging practices and - surprise - vested interest bias. Turkeys and Xmas, remember.

It seems to me you are arguing to have your cake and eat it - guaranteed meddling with state affairs as part of the establishment when and how you see fit, but enough autonomy such that you can wilfully resist (and object to) cultural and societal shifts which have occured in wider society, but are regarded as anathema by the Orthodox.

Business as usual, then?

[Fr. Malcolm French]

I presume from Mr. Marsh's recent comment that he doesn't know the synodical system for selecting bishops (as is done in the US and Canada at the least). Admittedly, his error here does seem to be regarding a piece of the process which I had not discussed. But since that piece of the process has been much in the news with events in South Carolina.

Once a candidate is elected by a diocesan synod - which process itself generally involves receiving a majority of votes in each of the two Houses (clergy and lay) - the election must be ratified by the wider Church. The process in the United States involves receiving (within a defined period) consents of the majority of diocesan bishops and the majority of diocesan standing committees.

Of course, no system is perfect. While you don't care for Bishops Holloway, Robinson or Jenkins, I don't much care for a bishop like Duncan of Pittsburgh, engaged in his own war of atrition against progressive dissenters in his diocese.

Of course, the Church of England with its ineffable Crown Appointments Commission process has produced the odd clanger of its own. I suspect you are no fan of the former Jenkins of Durham, selected by that process.

What I do find intriguing is the claim that a diocesan synod is easily hijacked by "a small number of activists." Although some would like to claim otherwise, it is my universal experience that local congregations and parishes elect as synod delegates local people whom they trust and respect. Pity the poor activist who tries to run roughshod over the sensibilities of their local parish / congregation. At the end of the day, I am quite confident that the electors / delegates at a synod are reasonably representative of the people of God in that place. Vox populi, vox dei, as they say.

[Christopher]

"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.
The word homophobic, when used to label someone as prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always contested.

1 dictionary.reference.com
2 Merriam-Webster Online and 11th Collegiate Dictionary, 2005, American Heritage Dictionary.
3Homophobic. thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved on Jan 11, 2006."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

See for an up-to-date discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homophobia for discussions, contentions and so on.

Ultimately I draw this conclusion:

"Hate the sin not the sinner" is a meaningless distinction when it comes to identity traits like being gay. This will not do; it is a dualistic sophistry, so if you damn gay people for loving according to their natures you are homophobic. Sorry, but there it is, Jill and David Smith, your "love the sinner but hate the sin" is not just a cop-out, it is using religion as a cloak for bigotry. That's MY honest opinion of your motives.

[Alan Marsh]

The problem with disestablishment, JPearce, is that it would result in the opposite of what you imagine. At the moment, the Church of England has to live in the public eye and argue for its beliefs - however uncomfortable that is - in the public forum. Equally, it is committed to maintaining a public ministry for everyone in England - a church, a priest and a worshipping community within reasonable access of everyone.

Once a church is disestablished, it loses that public service raison d'etre and its identity as a Church belonging to the nation. The temptation then is to define itself instead more and more by its doctrine, and to restrict its service to those who are signed-up members.

Disestablishment would suit many of those you feel free to insult here, the conservatives who would prefer to have explicit and rigid doctrinal boundaries, and the power to define membership, rather than the present arrangement in which people define themselves as CofE when they join the electoral roll or attend services.

Establishment is actually a guarantee of many liberties for members of the Church of England, who do not want a monochrome church, or a church which operates behind closed doors.

I only expect you to scoff and come up with more offensive comments, but it is the breadth of the Church of England which establishment protects, and the reason why I think it is so important.

Establishment is also the reason why we choose our bishops in the way we do. We choose people to be bishops for the whole Church of England, not just one particular group of electors in one particular diocese on a given day. That is why half the elected members of our "electoral college" come from the diocese concerned, and half from our national Synod. They represent a much wider interest in the Church of England than a diocesan synod.

It is infinitely preferable to any system which throws up a Gene Robinson, a Richard Holloway or a Michael Ingham - the products of voting by a small number of activists in one diocese, but then expected to be treated as bishops for the whole Anglican Communion.

Such a system is arguably to blame for many of the controversies which the Communion is now having to deal with.

[Jill]

Christopher, it is quite correct to address a priest as ‘Mr’, or ‘Dr’, if he happens to hold a doctorate. (I believe ‘Rev’ should be ‘The Rev’ though, as it is my rather vague understanding that it is used as an adjective, though I stand to be corrected on this.)

My, J Pearce, what a wag you are, to be sure! Making side-splitting comments about somebody being akin to fascists, despots, murderers and tyrants because they believe in clear and consistent Christian teaching! Fancy me not seeing the joke! How very droll - do keep it up, you will have us all rolling in the aisles.

David, thank you so much for sticking up for me. I don’t know why, after all these months, the many comments I have made along the lines of ‘all people are equal in the sight of God’ seem to have slipped past J Pearce’s radar completely, while he gaily lines up rows of straw men and red herrings, elaborating on words attributed to me which I have either never actually said, (ably assisted by Christopher), or twisting them out of all recognition to mean something completely different. Surely it cannot be because he hates the religion that undergirds our fair and just society, and the people who believe it?

Just one example out of many – a comment that keeps coming up as being attributable to me – about gays being forced ‘back into the closet’. I originally quoted that when I read it in an article by a well-known gay author, the name of whom escapes me at the present, and I thought it was an intelligent comment in view of the fact that it is quite feasible that one day homosexual practice may once again become socially unacceptable (if, for instance, we allow ourselves to come under Sharia Law – which is perfectly possible if Christianity is forced ‘into the closet’ and immigration continues at the present rate with the attendant high birthrate). It is also feasible that a new more virulent disease will come along infecting the homosexual community which may cause a public rethink. Those in CPs and who are openly practising will then be horribly exposed. The comment ‘back into the closet’ seems to have taken on a life of its own, and is now presented at every opportunity as something I think should happen.

Christopher, you are quite wrong about Anglican Mainstream. I have many good friends there, both evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, like myself. The only ones who blatantly disagree with me are the odd ‘trolls’ who come along to disrupt. You will not find anything there on human sexuality that I have not posited here. Nor will you find in this blog any insults or abuse towards any person, gay or straight. I’m afraid my humour doesn’t quite match up to J Pearce’s sparkling repartee.

David, I think your request for a definition of ‘homophobia’ is very timely. I await Christopher’s answer with interest.

It has been my consistent opinion that the true homophobes are the ones who wish people with same-sex attraction to be trapped for ever within that clearly labelled box, with the attendant disease and early death that comes to practitioners. See this new report which shows the tragically low life-expectancy of practising homosexuals:

http://www.earnedmedia.org/frireport.htm

Smoking is condemned because it is associated with a reduction in longevity of 1 to 7 years. Smokers are soon to be banished from public buildings in the UK (quite rightly, in my opinion, as an ex-smoker! Selfish or what?). But, as the report says, it is inconsistent to condemn smoking yet celebrate homosexuality when the decrement in life span for those practicing homosexuality approximates 20 or more years.

J Pearce, when the Christian Church caves in to secular pressure, it ceases to be 'relevant'. When it loses the power to transform lives, there is no purpose. 'Liberal' Christianity is killing the Church of England, just as it has killed TEC.

[J Pearce]

"Jill has no irrational prejudice against gays. She thinks homosex is wrong; damaging for them; and damaging for society. She wants what she sees as best for them both."

OK, I know this is on the wrong thread, but…

David, when Jill is challenged to justify her opinions, very little of what she has to say has its basis in rational thought processes. At best, she churns out some dodgy statistics about STD's. All the rest of it is based on, well, emotional over-reaction and anecdotal evidence, to be honest. Its hardly a rational response to a complex situation.

I also have to laugh at the inherent arrogance of your position as well - and especially the fact that you seem completely oblivious to what you are actually saying. "Damaging for them" - there isn't even a sliver of compassion in this statement. It seems beyond the boundaries of your understanding to grasp that there are plenty of homosexuals who are perfectly happy and comfortable with what they are. Just as there are plenty of heterosexuals who are plenty screwed up and damaged for one reason or another. Your clearly limited understanding of human nature makes these kind of sweeping statements utterly ridiculous.

Ditto "damaging for society". There can be nothing more damaging to society than to repress a group of people for no other reason than irrational prejudice. How can forcing a group of otherwise law abiding citizens to - as Jill once famously put - "stay in the closet", be healthy for a society?

Jill doesn’t want "the best for both of them", she wants what she currently can't have - a largely Orthodox Christian-oriented society where anything outside of the narrowly defined Orthodox Christian "norms" is ostracised, if not outright persecuted. You are the one incapable of seeing this, David, because you obviously want precisely the same.

Having witnessed close-up how venemous, arrogant and soul destroying Orthodox Christians can be (as well as drawing upon the myriad of historical events where the Orthodox have been responsible for anti-human behaviour, down the centuries), I feel it is necessary to confront the ignorance, lies and inherently repressive nature of Orthodox Christianity wherever possible. That is not to say that there are not decent, modern - dare I say, liberal - Christians out there as well. More power to them.

To draw it back to the real issue of this thread, it seems numerous Orthodox Christians would prefer that the Church remain established in the UK. I suspect that the only reason for this is to buttress their grasp on the levers of power, whilst they fight an ever more desperate rearguard action against secular morality and democratic accountability. What this has to do with the the teachings of Jesus is anybody's guess (what was that he said about the Pharisee's…?), but I have a lot more respect for those more liberal Christian commentators who can see that disestablishment could be the forging of a modern, progressive and relevant Christianity in this country. Disestablish and let the orthodox rot away in their musty halls and fusty beliefs.

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'The word for it IS homophobia, like it or not.'

Christopher, would you like to define 'homophobia' for us, please?

[Christopher]

One might also add, David Smith, does Ruth really want homophobia disguised as principle setting the tone on her blog? Just who do you and Jill think you are preaching at when you feel free to give us your largely unsought and highly tendentious opinions about sexual orientation and whether people should be free to express their sexual natures as they see fit? You want to be free to discriminate on this issue but you would howl in protest if someone refused you goods or services because they disliked your religiosity. And well they might, but that too will be illegal come April 30th when the provisions of the Equality Act become law. You have never heard of a rally of secularists outside the lords making a fuss that they might have to let a room to the likes of you and Jill in their guesthouse. The truth is, that the ones making the fuss are always the so-called christians. Just wait when they realise they have to admit a couple of muslims praying to Allah in their bedrooms, or someone offering incense to the idol Ganesha (Oh yes, you promised to come back with an answer on that, didn't you? ) Surely the worship of idols in a christian house would be even more abhorrent to a Bible-believing christian like you, yet why no fuss that you will not be allowed to discriminate after 30th April? No, for all your denials, we see you and the rest of the objectors to the SORs are just too selective in what you find offends your consciences to make us believe you are unbiassed. The word for it IS homophobia, like it or not. I've had a look at the postings Jill puts up on the Anglican Mainstream website and see that her posts get up the noses of fellow evangelicals. But at least she is posting to members of the same club so I don't intervene, but here on this public forum I think homophobia has to be exposed and challenged, and that's what JPearce is doing, no more, no less.