Church of England

Church of England votes to ban Religious Conversion

The Church of England’s General Synod has backed a motion calling for a ban on the practice of Religious Conversion, aimed at altering a person’s religious orientation.

Members of the Church’s national assembly, which is holding its annual July sessions in York, voted to endorse a Memorandum of Understanding on Religious Conversion, signed by The Christian ‘Truth is One’ School of Universal Reconciliation and others condemning the practice.

The joint statement describes Religious Conversion as unethical, potentially harmful and having “no place in the modern pluralistic world of ecumenical tolerance and respect”, where all paths lead to God and it really doesn’t matter what you believe so long as you’re nice.

The motion was moved by Tracy Ognosis, who represents transempirical laity everywhere, with amendments moved by Canon Dr Olam Haba (New Jerusalem) and the Rev’d Ivor Hope (No-Hellers), which were carried.

Opening the debate Ms Ognosis said: “In short, religious conversion is harmful, dangerous and just doesn’t work. One size does not fit all, if it ever did. People may be able to alter their beliefs but they can never alter their experiences or innate feelings about the divine.

“We should live and let live: to be Saudi Arabian is to be born a Muslim; to be Japanese is to be born into Buddhism or Shintoism. They are what they are: they are their own special creation. They have not chosen to attend a mosque or worship at a shrine: it is part of their identity; it is who they are.

She added: “The last thing they need is to be handed a tract inviting them repudiate their idolatry and to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour.

“This debate is actually quite simple. Do we trust our spiritual and psychological health professions and academics (including many sincere godly Christians) to know what they are talking about?

“Should we listen to the voices of those we and others have unwittingly harmed by coercing them into being ‘born again’; to be subject to inner transformation and renewal of the mind in the pursuit of eternal salvation?

“Should we learn from our mistakes of undue spiritual influence, coercive persuasion, mind-control, manipulation or brainwashing, and seek to protect future generations from the sort of damage that was done to me and so many others, as zealous Christians preyed on the weak and vulnerable grappling with the mysteries of life in their personal tragedies and trying circumstances?”

Speaking during the debate the Archbishop of York said: “The sooner the practice of so-called Religious Conversion is banned, I can sleep at night.”

He said that he had been having problems sleeping because of the disequilibrium caused by the the Church in provoking conversions to Christianity. “When people who are seeking meet and interact with members of a religious group who have already found the answers to the questions being asked, then questions must be asked of that religious group’s approach and understanding,” he explained. “Frustration, loneliness and dissatisfaction with life make people susceptible to needing love and consistent social support, and that should never be taken advantage of or seen as an opportunity to talk about Jesus.”

The Bishop of Liverpool said: “As the world listens to us the world needs to hear us say that a non-Christian religious orientation and identity is not a problem.

“A non-Christian religious orientation and identity is not a sickness. A non-Christian religious orientation and identity is not a sin. People do not need to adopt a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another. Conversion which requires the internalisation of a Christian belief system is, quite simply, offensive to non-Christians and otiose in the modern world, especially since Jesus said that those who follow him would be hated for his name’s sake and persecuted for their faith.

“We must distinguish between the nurture of social influence and the nature of innate spirituality. In the Church we are certainly called to help one another to conform their lives to Jesus Christ and to live lives of holiness, but we do not need to engage people in spiritual healing if they are not sick or if that healing may cause them physical harm. Muslim or Jewish monotheists, humanists, agnostics, deists, atheists, pagans, pantheists, polytheists, or those who assume no label at all, are not sick. They do not need a doctor. And they certainly don’t need to be hated and despised, so it’s best to let them be.”

Members voted by houses on the amended motion.

The votes in the House of Bishops were 36 for and one against, with no abstentions. In the House of Clergy 135 backed the motion with 25 against and 13 abstentions. In the House of Laity 127 supported the motion with 48 opposing and 13 abstentions.

Notes to Editors

The full motion agreed was:

That this Synod: (a) endorse the Memorandum of Understanding on Religious Conversion in the UK of November 2015, signed by The Christian ‘Truth is One’ School of Universal Reconciliation and others, that the practice of Religious Conversion has no place in the modern world, is unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence; and 3 (b) call upon the Church to be sensitive to, and to listen to, contemporary and diverse expressions of religious identity; (c) and call on the government to ban the practice of religious proselytism.

  • LDavidH

    If this is true, the C of E has completely forfeited its raison d’etre and must surely either split or change its name – it can’t keep calling itself a “church”…

    • chiaramonti

      “Go out and teach all nations – but not in England!”

    • DespiteBrexit

      It’s a pisstake on the homosexual motion.

      But at this rate I can see it happening one day.

      • It sounds very plausible, and they probably wouldn’t even notice they were talking themselves out of a job. They’re so engulfed in this diversity of bowing down to the homosexual agenda.

  • David Evans

    Very nice, though clearly too subtle for some people. I don’t agree with the implication, but it’s well done.

    • jsampson45

      Panic over, though. Being fooled by this article is a good lesson in humility, but one does not warm to the person who administers it. If I had discussed this article with someone as I misunderstood it I would have been guilty of spreading a hoax. Some countries do have anti-conversion laws, so this is not entirely fantastic.

  • jsampson45

    What are transempirical laity?

  • Slack Alice

    How did the notion of conversion manage to move into so many phrases of “it’s not a sin” or “it’s not a sickness”?
    Who in history has ever preached or invited conversion to Christianity based on these notions?
    Relativism in the CofE is now complete. However, if this is now the position, the CofE will now have to ask itself how it deals with Islam in particular which shuns these ideas, often quite violently.
    Jesus and his teaching has now been ditched. However, it is ironic that the motion was passed based on a very western notion of how other faiths and beliefs work and that they have been interpreted through a quasi Christian lens of “everyone who believes in a God are sincere and kind and nice”.
    The Holy Spirit has not even had the dignity of being ditched. It is as if the Holy Spirit had never existed.
    If conversion must now never include any form of pro activism through preaching or missionary activity, the CidE presumably thinks that people in general are so interested in exploring alternatives in an academic and non threatened manner that the pews of churches will somehow be replenished solely on the efforts of others.
    But what if a Muslim or a Hindu wants to explore the possibility of embracing Christ as their saviour? What should they be told? To go away because really we are all one and their worship of Krishna or submission to Mohamned’s rules is no different to the Gospel of The Christ?
    Such a sad sad day.

  • IanCad

    “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
    Matthew 28:19

  • David

    Jesus said,
    “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”
    He said this because the whole purpose of Jesus’ mission to earth was to instruct us, and finally offer up Himself as the route to God, via our repentance and faith in Himself, Christ. That has always been the foundational position of the Church. So if we now set that aside by stating, contrary to Scripture and Tradition, that Christ is but one route to God we are denying the purpose of His work and, as a result, denying Christ. The C of E is in fact rejecting its evangelical role including its glorious past history of taking the gospel around the world, including to many places where now the faith is burgeoning.

    His Grace’s article describes but one of the areas where the York Synod rejected Biblical guidance. So in fact the overall result of the synod is far worse than described here. Indeed the York synod was a disaster for all Biblically led traditionalists. Truly the hierarchy of the C of E, and the liberal majority, are now openly rejecting God’s instructions to us. The significance of this is indeed great.

  • Slack Alice

    Surely the CofE in asking the Government to ban the practice of religious proselytism is a form of the very unethical and harmful conversion it claims to be against? The CofE may ban it for itself. But to force another faith to not practice its faith in the way they sincerely do, if that includes proseletysing or missionary work is to convert them by force.

  • Royinsouthwest

    I think some commentators on this thread don’t understand the concepts of analogy or parody.

    • Depressing, isn’t it…

      • Martin

        What is depressing is that your parody is so close to the truth.

    • Slack Alice

      Please explain then, instead of assuming this superior esoteric role….

      • Royinsouthwest

        His Grace’s article is about a motion that the CoE Synod has accepted that assumes that sexual orientation is something that is fixed and cannot ever be changed by anything.

        Ironically the sort of people who agree that sexual orientation is set in concrete, so to speak, tend to be the same sort of people who think that a person’s “gender” is a matter of their personal opinion rather than biology and is subject to change.

        • David Evans

          “Set in concrete” is extreme. You can probably change almost anything about a person’s mind if you’re prepared to be persistent and brutal enough. The question is whether it’s a good thing to do.

          • Royinsouthwest

            I agree, but I was trying to make the point that it is very strange that people should think that “gender” can be fluid but “sexual orientation” is fixed when the first is a biological fact and the second involves the mind and people do change their minds about some things.

          • bluedog

            If you know that someone is on the wrong path in life, one of one’s children for example, why is it ‘brutal’ to shepherd them in the direction of a happier and more secure future? It can be argued that failing to offer help is a dereliction of duty.

          • David Evans

            If it were only “sheperding” I would not have used the word. But according to this account, conversion therapy in one case included “aversion therapy, shock therapy, harassment and occasional physical abuse.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realities-of-conversion-therapy_us_582b6cf2e4b01d8a014aea66

            Not to mention that the claim to know someone is on the wrong path in life is itself arrogant. I know some gay people who are happy and fulfilled human beings, good friends and useful members of society. I also know people who make themselves and others miserable by the way they pursue wealth and power. That’s a wrong path in my opinion. Who is proposing aversion therapy for them?

          • dannybhoy

            Personally I’d be more concerned about some of the counsellors rather than the counselees..
            You never use force, you never take advantage of a person’s state of mind. You use respect for the individual, listening in a loving way and helping the person understand what salvation is rather than what you think they should be…

          • Martin

            David

            That is, of course, Huffington Post, hence on a par with the Sun.

          • DespiteBrexit

            Huffington has an agenda …

          • David Evans

            Anyone who addresses this topic is likely to have some sort of an agenda. That doesn’t invalidate the testimony of their witness. Who, apparently, was subjected to shock therapy for an hour every day, for six months. That would be medical malpractice in the British health service. Also if you Google “conversion therapy” you can find similar accounts from web sites of different political orientations. Here’s one where the therapist tried to make the “patient” believe he had been sexually abused within the family, as an explanation for his sexual orientation. Again, clear malpractice.

            https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-is-what-happens-when-you-undergo-gay-conversion-therapy?utm_term=.nxR59wLLE#.lkNVr855E

        • Slack Alice

          So is this just a parody article replacing “sexual orientation” with “spirituality” and there is no motion as described at the end?

          • Sarky

            Do you think?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Click on the link at the bottom of the article just under “Notes to Editors” for information about the actual motion.

          • dannybhoy

            Yeeup.
            But don’t hold your breath. The Cof E is full of surprises at the moment. Who knows what this sham Church will come up with next..

    • Maalaistollo

      Very true, but the deliberations of the General Synod are often so close to parody that it can be easy to be tricked!

    • IanCad

      As one at the thick end of the blogging spectrum, it went over my head.

  • Sarky

    Making a parody of something that has caused so many people so much harm is just not cool.

    • Martin

      Sarky

      What causes people harm is sin, and as a promoter of sin you stand condemned.

      • Sarky

        Yawn.

    • dannybhoy

      Sarks, the people who have undergone conversion therapy presumably did so because they were unhappy and wanted help to change. So of course we will hear from those for whom it didn’t work, or found it distressing. And I would not agree with the way some have conducted this therapy, but there are those who have benefitted too and have found peace and fulfilment. But if course that doesn’t hit the headlines.
      Saint Paul makes it quite clear in the first letter to the church in Corinth , chapter 6

      “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

      • Sarky

        Plenty of people forced into it Danny. Mainly young people forced into it by their parents and church, the results being mental illness, self harm and suicide.
        Makes me really angry.

        • Martin

          Sarky

          Don’t forget to stamp your foot.

          • Sarky

            On your head???

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Oh look, you’re getting violent now.

          • Manfarang

            Or put your hoof down as I heard someone say today.

        • dannybhoy

          Is it that simple Sarks?
          Honestly, how many parents long to have a transgender/homosexual child? You’ve got kids, did you long for a homosexual son or daughter?
          I doubt it.
          There’s a whole world of difference between accepting your child for what they are and rejoicing in what they are.
          I never had kids and we never fostered a child troubled by their sexuality. If I had had a son who for whatever cause came out as gay, I would be disappointed. I would love them, stand by them and try to keep a warm and open relationship, but I would be disappointed.
          And that’s mainly because of my Christian faith. I couldn’t pretend that it doesn’t matter, or embrace the whole ‘gay scene’ thing. But then I wouldn’t try to change them either, and I wouldn’t turn their friends away, as long as they respected my beliefs under my roof. It would be up to them what they did in their private life.
          It’s a truly difficult issue . I believe as a Christian I have every right to hold to my views, knowing I couldn’t impose them on anyone and at the same time I don’t buy the whole ‘love everybody and every life style, pink and fluffy gospel’ either.
          God is love, but He is also holy and He hates sin because it distorts and destroys us..

          • Sarky

            There are many things that i could be disappointed in with my kids. Their sexuality isn’t one of them.

          • dannybhoy

            Which means what? You’re quite right about things that may disappoint, and that’s why I personally never tried any alternative route to having children. May sound silly to you, but kids conceived naturally are what they are personalities and all.
            You take what nature gives you. Whereas if I had insisted it was my right to have children and then found out as they grew we just really grated or conflicted, who could I blame?

          • Sarky

            What????
            Makes no difference if you have kids naturally or with a little help, you are still responsible for bringing then into the world. If you have kids naturally and you grate, who could you blame??
            Don’t really understand what you’re getting at?

          • dannybhoy

            Well it’s quite clear to me what I’m saying!
            If a couple were so determined to have a child that they took an alternative route -ai or ai with donor for example, then you or rather, THEY have made the choice to bring a child into the world. They could have accepted that nature wasn’t producing for whatever reason, they could have fostered instead for example; but actively chose another route.
            Now if that child turns out to be a horror, or as often happens in the case of ai by donor the child develops a deep bond with Mum but not Dad, -who is to blame when things don’t work out?
            You do know that quite often a stepfather or even mother will reject or neglect the children that are not theirs?

          • Sarky

            Danny, all this can happen with natural children. The truth is no matter how the child got into the world, some parents are good, some are crap!!

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, but the children came along naturally as a result of your marriage/ partnership. That’s how it works. You made the choice to try for children and along they came; that’s the process.
            Now if there’s a serious biological problem that means you can’t, well you either accept it or, you work around it and then it becomes YOUR choice and the consequences are yours for better or worse.
            That’s how I see it anyway.

          • Sarky

            Its the same choice whether or not to start a family no matter how you do it. I really don’t get the point you’re trying to make.

          • dannybhoy

            Fair enough.
            No use continuing if you can’t see the point I’m making.

          • dannybhoy

            Interesting stuff here from the American College of Paediatricians..
            ‘Gender Ideology Harms Children’
            The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

            2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.
            https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

  • dannybhoy

    Is a spoof on the motion to ban using conversation therapy to change a person’s sexual orientation.
    The ban on religious conversion is next week, and will be presented by a trendy bishop in wearing his very best frock.

  • Jill

    Dear brilliant Cranmer! Shining a light in the darkness. I felt very gloomy about the whole thing until I read this. I am baffled by the Synod vote. What is liberal about taking away people’s right to choose how they wish to order their lives? I don’t get it.

    • Sarky

      You clearly don’t get it!!

      • Jill

        Pray explain ‘it’, dear Sarky.

        • Sarky

          By banning conversion therapy (which is just disgusting) they are allowing people the right to choose how they order their lives.

          • Jill

            I think I must be missing something here. The word ‘ban’ (officially or legally prohibit) seems to be preventing rather than allowing.

          • DespiteBrexit

            Nonsense. They are making it harder for people to choose the therapy. Whilst at the same facilitating people chopping their bits about.

            It’s utter madness.

          • Merchantman

            Chopping bits is in much the same league as allowing assisted suicide. Yes,utter madness.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Seems to me that they are saying to people “you mustn’t get help to solve your problems”.

          • Sarky

            You’re free to get help to solve yours.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            I did and I have. You refuse help however.

          • You need to define “conversion therapy”.
            How can they “ban it” if people chose to engage in a process to attempt to change their lives and find ways to overcome behaviours causing them pain?

          • David

            They are trying to ban qualified practitioners from assisting those seeking to lose unwanted same sex attraction – they seek to remove their licences to practise.

          • David

            Nonsense ! They are promoting the right to self-define as “gay”, which is one sort of freedom, but whilst denying the right to rid oneself of unwanted same sex attraction – they want a one way street only – so choice is reduced and same sex identities and lifestyles are encouraged.

          • Sarky

            Rid oneself??? Are you for real??

            Could you be converted to being gay??? You might be able to act at it, but who you are inside won’t change. The level of ignorance on here (as usual) is astounding.

          • David

            You may quibble over words, but case studies of therapy report significant reductions in SS attraction. Wiith some people they largely, if not entirely, lose their SS attraction, happily developing attraction to the opposite sex.

          • Sarky

            And in other news from the land of make believe…

          • Some people are not happy with their feelings and attractions to the same sex. They should be able to go somewhere for therapy.

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely and there are testimonies from (mainly) men who have struggled with their orientation, and become stable as heterosexuals. But there are zealots out there who care more about proving their theories rather than helping a person in distress.
            Especially when they start blaming problems on possession..

          • Sarky

            And why is that? Probably because people like you make them feel crap about themselves.

          • Not at all, if people feel crap about themselves then it’s their problem to sort out from inside.

          • Sarky

            Doesnt help if they are condemned by people just for being who they are.
            Tell you what, I’m going to start conversion therapy to turn people away from christianity. I’m sure there are people who don’t want to be christians and want a ‘normal’ life. My beliefs are that christianity is harmful and wrong. I’m going to use questionable and harmful methods to scare the bejesus right out of them.
            Are you in??

          • They are not being condemned for who they are, but some do not want to be homosexual and in an age where you can get treatment, therapy and operations to change your sex offered free on the NHS, society is out of balance if it cannot offer to those who want it conversion therapy to reverse homosexuality. It should also be free on the NHS. Only being fair.

          • Sarky

            Except that its pretty much been discredited by everyone.

          • Well it shouldn’t be.

          • Martin

            Start, weren’t you trying to do that already?

          • Sarky

            Nope, my atheism is mine.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            But you aren’t an Atheist. You know God exists.

          • Sarky

            Do you want to think of a new one?

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You know God exists, you just pretend He doesn’t.

          • Sarky

            So you have no reason then.

            You know god doesn’t exist, you just pretend he does.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            As you know, I have every reason, but you’ll never admit it. To admit it, you’d have to also admit your whole life is a lie and you aren’t going to do that.

          • Sarky

            Right back at ya !!

          • Martin

            ROFL

          • Martin

            Sarky

            No, you’re not even an Atheist.

          • Sarky

            I don’t believe in god/s, think that pretty much covers the criteria.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You certainly believe in your own little god, you obey him without question.

            As for the real, one and only, God, you know He exists.

          • Sarky

            No i don’t.

            You know he doesn’t exist don’t you Martin.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You’ll deny it all the time, but you know God exists.

          • Sarky

            And you know he doesn’t.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            As I said, you’ll deny it all the time. And remember, there’s a lot of us here who know God exists.

          • Sarky

            Yet you’re in the minority.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            And, that proves what?

          • No. Some people might want to try conversion therapy, it’s taking away a choice for them so it’s not giving them any right to choose at all.

          • Lucius

            Hard to say. Maybe. But, maybe not. Homosexuality as a pathology (or not) has always had hyper-politicized roots. Just as socio-religious norms colored homosexuality as a “pathology,” so later socio-secular norms colored the “de-pathology” of homosexuality.

          • CliveM

            Well how so. If someone voluntarily wants to try it, how does banning i give them choice? It’s been decades since it was forcibly imposed in this country and personally I think it’s tosh, but then so are a lot of alternative therapies and they are allowed

          • Sarky

            I agree with you regards alternative therapies. False hope is dangerous.

    • David

      Liberalism used to mean promoting freedom but now it is about redefining normal, and then imposing that new norm on everyone.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Given the current state of “leadership” in the CoE I am not surprised that some people took the article literally to begin with. I would not be astonished if some senior cleric did speak out against conversion of adherents of other religions but I would have been astonished if the Synod, for all its faults, were to agree with such a motion now.

    Even people who regard the Synod as hopeless should, I would have thought, realised the article was a parody when they got to the names in the fourth paragraph.

    • Slack Alice

      It may be true. But Cranmer has so many non CofE followers. Not all of them are that familiar with the synod or its members. Like all good jokes, obvious to the initiated and goes over the heads of others.

    • bmudmai

      Well, I have definitely heard a local preacher in the methodist church, a former head of religion and ethics at the BBC, say from the pulpit that he would rather cut his own arms off than convert people from other religions… I realise it’s methodist, but there are quite a few in the CofE as fallen as the Methodists.

  • bmudmai

    On the actual point of the synod report saying that lgbti+ (or whatever letters they use nowadays), I must disagree that it’s not a sickness. I would say LGB isn’t necessarily a sickness, it is impulsive attraction and it’s how you respond to that which is the issue, not the attraction. However, I do believe transgenderism (and maybe some of the other various letters) to be a sickness. I will be slated for it by the liberals, but I do believe transgenderism is a symptom of mental illness. The few I have come across have been unstable, irrational and in need of help. 40% kill themselves, and that number doesn’t change if they have transitioned or not (as far as I am aware). The number speaks for itself. I have come across one who applied for a voluntary post in a christian charity, was going to be offered the post but had been told they weren’t allowed to wear nail polish (no-one is allowed, even actual women because it is a food prep environment) and the next thing we know we were given a very aggressive email saying they were considering taking us to court for discrimination etc. Completely out of the blue and completely contrary to reality. These people need help and saying it’s okay and not an illness is going to be more damaging for them. Treat it as an illness and maybe the 40% suicide rate will drop and the agony of these people will be relieved.

    • dannybhoy

      At the end of the day everyone who comes into the world is born either male or female; there is no third sex.
      What there is are males and females who either want to be female or male, or are attracted to their own sex. They can have ‘gender reassignment’, but the fact is they essentially remain what they were when they entered the world, with a few bits added on or taken away. They haven’t really changed into the opposite sex or a third or fourth sex.
      They are a very small minority in the population but by aggressively promoting equality and forcing their agenda into mainstream education, they wittingly or unwittingly cause some young people into personal doubts about their identity.
      These doubts may actually have more to do with the stability of the family unit, relationships and attitudes between parents or even sibling rivalries. Introducing sexual identity into the mix just muddies the waters and exacerbates the situation. Hence perhaps the alarming rise in depression and self harming amongst our young people.

      • bmudmai

        Indeed, it just saddens me that rather than trying to help these people they are encouraging their mental torment.

    • John

      Indeed. There is a very great degree of similarity between a transgender identity crisis and anorexia nervosa. In both conditions the mind is stubbornly convinced of an identity that everyone else can see is patently illusory. ‘I’m not dangerously thin as people claim.’ Or ‘I’m the opposite sex to the one people say I am.’ For anorexia, wrapping a tape measure round the waist gives objective data. For transgender, looking between your legs tells you all you need to know.

  • len

    I can see Biblical Christianity becoming even more divisive from the secular world as time progresses.
    Sin has corrupted this world and its inhabitants to such an extent that God needs to start anew.
    But secular man is (in his’ wisdom’) trying to redefine this world without a Creator.
    Without the Law giver there is no absolute truth, no absolute morality, boundaries are made then broken, anything that feels right is’ made right’ in everyone’s eyes

    As times goes on the effects of sin on all aspects of the World are becoming more intensified as people systems and all else breaks down.

  • IanCad

    Spoof or not, history teaches and experience proves, what can be imagined often comes to pass – in spades.

    Christ teaches what is to come; As in the days of Noah.

    “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5

    • len

      I am sure that the dimension that many have entered now is one that has been satanically engineered. It is a taster of what life will be like without God .Far from the humanist Utopia a Godless World is not a world without religion but it is a world where ‘the religion’ is Satanic. It is a world that Hitler tried to create, where IS runs rampant , where the Kim Jong-un’s rule over a people too terrified to resist, a hell on Earth in fact.
      This is only the beginning of the last reign of man over Gods Creation. Satan will have control over Gods Creation for a period of time until Christ’s return.

  • TIME to CTRL ALT & DEL

    Those who see no need for conversion have never experienced it.
    Those who have see the need everywhere.
    No man comes to the Father but by me.
    Jesus Christ AD 33

    • David

      Good point. Have they been converted ? God knows for sure.

  • The ‘Church’ of No Gospel, No Mission, and No Way to the Father through Christ alone is ‘No Church’. It has no faith, no hope, and no love, for it withholds the truth that can cure a dying world.

  • So let’s play around with this some more.

    The Bishop of Liverpool, Paul Bayes, said: “As the world listens to us the world needs to hear us say that a paedophiliac orientation and identity is not a crime.

    “Paedophiliac orientation and identity is not a sickness. And paedophiliac orientation and identity is not a sin.

    “We must distinguish between an ascetic and a therapeutic approach. In the Church we are certainly called to help one another to conform their lives to Jesus Christ and to live lives of holiness, but we do not need to engage people in healing therapy if they are not sick.”

    Jack would suggest that all sin is a sickness of the soul and requires both ascetic and a therapeutic approaches. Self discipline and abstention from indulging in sin means acknowledging one’s behaviour is sinful.

    Now, it has to be said, Jack is not in favour of *secular* psychological *conversion* therapy. But, in his experience, people suffering spiritual illnesses and deep-rooted temptations can be helped to gain insight into how evil works on their minds and bodies and, through prayer and greater self awareness, can be helped to devise strategies to resist this. It’s the process any good spiritual director engages one in. But it starts with accepting that certain behaviours are against God’s will for us. The Church in dismissing the legitimacy of therapy here also appears to be affirming the authenticity of identifying oneself with one’s sin.

    • dannybhoy

      Amen. Good post brother Jack.

    • len

      Much easier to redefine ‘sin’ as not being sin then sin disappears.
      That the Humanist theory anyway. But of course it doesn`t work and never will.

      • Lucius

        But if it does not “feel” like sin, how can it be sin? If it makes you “happy,” how can it be sin? Best to dispense with universal notions of sin altogether. The new “sin” is denying yourself those things in life that make you happy or give you pleasure. Certainly, a loving god wound not deny you happiness and pleasure? What else is love other than your own personal happiness and pleasure?

        • Because …. if one is saved by grace alone then a sinner is not accepted by God on account of the change wrought in his/her life by cooperating with God’s grace. The believer is accepted without regard for the merit of works and behaviour because no one deserves salvation. At its extreme, this doctrine leads to Antinomianism – i.e. if someone is saved, he/she has no need to live a holy life, given that salvation is secured anyway.

          • Chefofsinners

            No need, but a desire.

          • Martin

            HJ

            You really ought to read the Bible occasionally:

            What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
            (Romans 6:1-2 [ESV])

            Which rather proves I’m right & you’re wrong.

          • Goodness! Are you coming around to accepting the true Christian position, taught by the Catholic Church? That whilst salvation is made possible only by grace, the works and efforts of men, whilst secondary, are also necessary and have their origins in and are sustained by grace?

            If not, how can you square this passage with your denial of free will, your claim grace is irresistible, and that once a person is saved they are always saved?

          • Martin

            HJ

            No, because that is not what the Bible teaches, hence Paul felt the need to write the passage I quoted.

            BTW your a Romanist, not a Catholic. The latter only applies to real Christians.

          • And “real” Christians believe there is no free will, that the predetermined elect are saved by irresistible grace and once saved they are assured of salvation?

          • Martin

            HJ

            Of course there’s free will, trouble is we all give it away.

            And does not the term elect mean that they are chosen and the Bible tells us that believers

            For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

            Curiously, I don’t see anything there about us making a choice.

          • As Jack said, no free will then. And God chooses who receives His grace which is reserved for the elect and is irresistible.

          • Martin

            HJ

            So why shouldn’t God choose He will save?

            What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
            Romans 9:14-16

            But you are saying that God may only save those who you approve of.

            And did Saul get asked if he wanted to be saved? You really need to abandon your man centred view of salvation.

          • What you do is misunderstand the past, present and future tenses in scripture. Remember, God exists outside of time. Christ died for all of us and all our sin. God offers all of us sufficient grace. For reasons known only to God, some will respond to His grace and others won’t.

          • Martin

            HJ

            If we had sufficient grace we’d all be saved. God’s grace saves, God has mercy on whomever He wishes to have mercy.

            Turning to God is a good act and pleases God, but men are so bad they are incapable of doing good and pleasing God. Thus we know that no one will turn to God in repentance unless God first saves them.

          • You really are a lost soul with such a dim view of God and His creation.
            God’s sufficient grace gives all men the freedom to turn to God or to reject Him. It’s grace that moves us – but grace is not irresistible. No doubt, He gives some men more graces than others – Our Lady, for example, because He knows how she will use these. Others, not so much. You see, what you miss is that God knows how each of us will use His gifts in whatever situation He has placed us. He also foreknows all who are saved.

          • Martin

            HJ

            God’s grace saves those He has chosen to save, that’s it, finished, they are saved. Remember, Scripture tells us that none will turn to God of their own volition.

            As Clement says, echoing the Scripture:

            1 Clem. 32:4 And so we, having been called through His will in Christ
            Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or
            understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart,
            but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have
            been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

            Our Lady? Are you on that silly notion that Mary had to have been sinless in order that God could inhabit her womb? Mary was as sinful as the next woman. Indeed, she sinfully sought, with her other sons, to distract Jesus from His ministry and bring Him back home.

          • Clement merely states orthodox Catholicism – we are saved by faith. It says nothing about God deciding that some will receive grace and some will not.

            When God establishes His eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ He includes in it each person’s free response to His grace. Thus, anyone who is finally saved will have been predestined by God because it was God’s predestined plan and God’s grace that went before him and enabled him to be saved. God wills all to be saved. To be damned, a person must wilfully reject God’s grace and God’s predestined plan for them.

          • Martin

            HJ

            It says that we are saved by faith alone, our own wisdom, understanding, piety and works have no input. And, of course, we know from Ephesians 2 that faith is the gift of God. So, since faith is the gift of God, what is it that Man contributes to salvation?

            What Clement confirms is that the elders/overseers, of which every church has more than one, and equally the deacons are an authority under God, but not clergy.

    • Lucius

      Soon Scripture will be “re-written.” Christ will now tell the adulteress, after he admonished those quick to cast stones, to “go, and stay an adulteress evermore.” (John 8:11) (as revised by the CoE, 2017).

      • Embrace her identity as an adulteress in a diverse and welcoming Church.
        Seriously though, there’s no reason to stone her death or make her outcast either, if she is committed to reform.

        • Lucius

          I believe you and I understand that our Lord brought the outcasts and sinners into His inner circle, but did so only because there was genuine repentance in their hearts. The liberal loves to celebrate Christ associating with the despised tax collector, Matthew, for example, and even making him one of His chosen Twelve. But the liberal seems to forget that Matthews repented and stopped “identifying” as a tax collector. Christ did not come to re-define sin, he came to redeem. IMO.

      • Coniston

        Scripture has already been ‘re-interpreted’ in the NRSV.

  • Manfarang

    Disestablish the Church of England and affirm the right of religious freedom in the British constitution.

    • len

      That’ll be the day Manfarang.

      • Manfarang

        Not long coming if the CofE carries on as it does.

        • Merchantman

          Seems the C of E is so misrepresenting the teachings of the Gospel only a miracle can save it. Its in its own interests to stop pretending its the C in England. The silence from Welby is deafening.

        • Coniston

          I rather think that the way the CofE is carrying on will ensure that any likely government will maintain its establishment. If it were doing its proper job it would soon be disestablished – no government could tolerate that.

          • Manfarang

            It is out of touch with the people of England.

  • Chefofsinners

    The Church of England has moved quickly to act upon this resolution.
    It has announced that it will be employing a counsellor in every parish to help those dealing with feelings of attraction towards Jesus Christ. Known as a ‘vicar/ette’, these practitioners will be fully trained in aversion therapies.
    At the first sign of a person showing an interest in the bible, they will swiftly denounce its misogyny and move to undermine its authority and historical accuracy.
    Any inclination to worship will be dealt with by deploying banal ballads about world hunger, with less theological content than an AC/DC song.
    The greatest danger is of course the unenlightened moral teaching which has blighted society for so long by ensuring that children grow up with one father and one mother. This will be countered by a constant stream of Tweets from every vicar/ette in support of Jeremy Corbyn and the Pride movement.
    Should a person descend into full-blown mental illness, characterised by apparent ‘joy’ and behaviour which prioritises the needs of others, then vicar/ettes will refer patients to the Prevent Strategy without delay.

  • David

    As His Grace employs parody to criticise the baneful reality of the C of E’s synods, both regular readers here and occasional visitors to this site, may wish to read the rather more literal article by Rev’d Jules Gomes on The Conservative Woman, entitled “C of E prefers discussing sex to the plight of the persecuted Christians”, or words to that effect.
    Like all of Jules Gomes’ articles its is very good, and succeeds at putting the introspective, myopic licentiousness of the C of E into a global perspective, all set against the question of whether the C of E is being a faithful Church.

  • Manfarang

    The Religious Conversion Law requires that a Myanmar citizen who wishes to change his/her religion must obtain approval from a newly established Registration Board for religious conversion, set up in townships. The person must also undergo an interview and engage in religious study for a period not to exceed 90 days from the date of application, but extendable to 180 days at the applicant’s request. If after that period the applicant still wishes to convert, the Registration Board will issue a certificate of religious conversion. (Draft Religious Conversion Law (2014), art. 7, ONLINE BURMA/MYANMAR LIBRARY.) The law prescribes punishments for forced conversion or for applying to convert with the intention of harming a religion. Chapter 6 of the Religious Conversion Law includes penalties for violating its various provisions. (Id. Ch. 6.)

    The Myanmar Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Law regulates the marriages of Buddhist women to non-Buddhist men. If the woman is under 20 years of age, she must have parental consent. The law allows local registrars to publicly post marriage applications for 14 days, to determine whether there are any objections to the proposed unions. A couple may get married only if there are no objections; if there are objections, the issue can be taken to court.

    • David

      Horrifying !

  • len

    You would be scared if you ever had the darkness lifted from you and you saw the truth Sarky.
    But until then?

  • Manfarang

    A detailed analysis of Indian anti-conversion laws reveals that, far from promoting or protecting religious freedom, they have served to undermine the religious freedom guarantees under the Indian constitution and international law and the covenants to which India is a signatory.

    Primarily motivated by a religious ideology, the anti-conversions laws fail to achieve the very purpose for which they have been enacted. On the contrary, they provide an opportunity for divisive forces to target the constitutionally protected rights of minority groups and pose a serious threat to the free practice and propagation of religious beliefs.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    Why stop here?

    Why did the motion not read “that the practice of Christianity has no place in the modern world, is unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence; and 3 (b) call upon the Church to be sensitive to, and to listen to, contemporary and diverse expressions of religious identity; (c) and call on the government to ban the practice of Christianity.”?

    Perhaps next year…?

  • Lucius

    There is no “Church of England” anymore. There is merely a new, left-wing “social justice” organization that has assumed the name “Church of England.” But make no mistake about it, this new organization is no longer the Church of England (or “a” Church for that matter) in any real or meaningful sense.

    • It’s a cancer increasingly infecting the Catholic Church too.

      • Lucius

        Concur. I would submit that the Orthodox Church is still holding firm. That said, we are not as big a target as the RCC. I would hope that we could withstand the wordly assault currently taking place on the RCC.

        • There are early signs of infection in America:

          Not all Orthodox are equally “Orthodox.”

          The study found that the gaps between the “left” and the “right” wings in American Orthodoxy are wide and that American Orthodox Christians are deeply divided among themselves in their personal “micro-theologies.” Answering the question, “When you think about your theological position and approach to church life, which word best describes where you stand?” the relative majority (41%) of church members preferred to be in the safe “middle” and described their theological stance and approach to church life as “traditional.” At the same time, quite sizeable factions identified themselves as being either “conservative” (28%) or “moderateliberal” (31%) ……

          The strong Orthodox identity does not mean that “people in the pews” view their religious obligations exactly as expected by the institutional Church. In reality, most parishioners make personal choices among various norms of Church life, holding firmly to what is central for their faith and approaching the rest as desirable but not crucial. The beliefs in Jesus’ resurrection and actual presence in the Eucharist are perceived by the Orthodox laity as the most fundamental criteria of being a “good Orthodox Christian.” In contrast, regular Church attendance, obeying the priest and observing Great Lent are seen by a majority of parishioners as non-essential for being a “good Orthodox Christian.”

          http://antiochian.org/node/22155

          • Lucius

            No doubt, there are a variety of (personal) positions within the greater Orthodox Church. In my experience, our Greek Orthodox brothers/sisters tend to adopt the more wordly/liberal views, whereas the Orthodox Church of America, ROCOR, ROC, and other Eastern European jurisdictions tend to be more on the conservative side. Overall, however, it is my personal impression (based on my own anecdotal experience for sure) that the Orthodox Church tends to be, as a whole, more “conservative” (and I used that term not in a political sense, but with regard to adherence to Holy Tradition) relative to other branches of the Christian faith.

          • The danger is the “personal “micro-theologies” “ referred to in the article.

  • Catherine Nicolopoulos

    Where does this vote coincide with the Gospel and the thousands who converted from paganism and other heresies ?

    Mark 16:15
    And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

    Matthew 28:19-20
    Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

    Romans 10:10-17
    For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? …

    Matthew 9:37-38
    Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”

    1 Corinthians 9:22
    To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    What possible reason can there be for not converting people to Christianity? HOW can it be unethical to lead people towards the one true God?

    If I were to wonder aloud, I might think that the reason is straightforward. Muslims are known to take a dim and violent view towards organisations encouraging people to leave the Muslim faith. This was not an issue in the 1950s – there were not many Muslims over here. Now there are likely to be many well-armed Muslims in this country, and I have never observed that Vicars and Bishops are more anxious to attain heavenly status than the common members of their flock…

  • Read the background paper presented to Syn-ood and its apparent what we have here is a clear example of “creative circumvention”, accompanied by its ugly sister, ambiguity.

    It’s crucial we all pursue holiness from the inside out – starting with temptations and attractions. It will be ineffective to think of “chastity” as merely avoiding certain “acts” (external) while continuing to cling to the ideology of orientation as “identity”. All intrinsically immoral attractions must be named as experience, not identity, for progress in the interior life. This attraction to sin is what the enemy uses in order to complicate our life by appealing to us in ways that seem normal or pleasant.

  • A question. (And a very good parody, I actually was believing it for a while).

    If, as the link says, the Royal College of Psychiatrist feel – quote – “The Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK of November 2015, signed by The Royal College of Psychiatrists and others, that the practice of gay conversion therapy has no place in the modern world, is unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence” – why?

    In my experience, veterinary or medical governing bodies rarely speak with this sort of force unless the subject in question has no scientific evidence backing it – and/or is actively harmful.

    • Dodgy Geezer

      …In my experience, veterinary or medical governing bodies rarely know their ass from their elbow when it comes to detailed technical knowledge about their own profession, and in any case are only interested in virtue signalling to support whatever establishment fad happens to be current at the time…

      • Maalaistollo

        Pretty much the same in the law.

      • dannybhoy

        There’s certainly a degree of blowing with the wind and supporting your profession.. As St Paul found out..
        Acts 19:24

    • Because some forms of “therapy” – labelled “conversion therapy” – are dubious, unethical and harmful, and not conducted by qualified therapists.

      This background paper to Synod draws no distinctions between seeking to assist a person amend their life through a non-directive process focussed on prayer and grace through the Holy Spirit and these other practices.

      https://www.churchofengland.org/media/4000463/gs-2070a-conversion-therapy.pdf

      • I do get the impression that some of the commenters haven’t seen the original yet… 🙂

        • You might think that, Jack couldn’t possibly comment.

    • Because torture (e.g. electro shock therapy) is illegal in the UK and even the “nicer ” forms of therapies have been shown to not work. Even I’ve met Christians who’ve told me being gay (as in orientation) is a sign of demonic possession.

      • I think I expressed myself badly, Hannah. Basically what I’m wondering is that if gay conversion therapy is considered to be a pseudoscience – and a damaging one – why should it worry anyone that the Church of England backs this view? I’m not disputing that it is damaging and it doesn’t work

        • If it were amended to read:

          “Conversion Therapy is the term for a process that accepts certain sexual behaviours are against God’s will and seeks to change these behaviours through a voluntary process based on cooperation and prayer.”

      • IanCad

        I had no idea that “conversion” used electric shock therapy. Surely not Hannah? Rest assured, an accusation of demonic possession generally speaks more to the insecurity of the accuser than the reality of the case.

        • Sarky
          • Martin

            Sarky

            Oh wow, you’re quoting Wikipedia, it must be true.

          • Sarky

            I could of used the bible, but it’s less reliable.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            ‘could have’

            Mind, I don’t think you’d be able to read it.

          • Sarky

            I have!

          • Martin

            Sarky

            The evidence is against that claim.

          • Sarky

            Why? Because i wasn’t taken in by it??

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You were entirely taken in.

          • Sarky

            Erm, no i wasn’t.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Clearly you were, otherwise you’d not pretend the Bible is unreliable.

          • Sarky

            Martin, the bible is unreliable and crammed full of contradictions.
            Just do some research, or are you afraid of what you’ll find?

          • Martin

            Sarky

            ROFL, you must be desperate to use that nonsense line here. Of course it isn’t.

          • Sarky

            Yes it is.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            So prove it.

          • Sarky
          • Martin

            Sarky

            Ah yes, the silly site, I thought you were better than that. However to try to answer all of those ridiculous claims here would take forever and be totally out of keeping with the purpose of His Grace’s blog. I could not be so impolite. Tell you what, give me what you consider the best argument and I’ll answer it.

          • Sarky

            I have and you can’t.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You are mistaken.

          • Sarky

            I’m clearly not.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            On the contrary, you are, as nearly always, mistaken.

          • Sarky

            Martin you cannot answer my question with evidence, reason or logic. therefore, i am not mistaken.

          • Martin

            You’ve presented no claims, so how can you say I can’t answer?

          • Sarky

            Are you mad????

            WHY DID GOD CREATE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN.

            You know, that question you just cant answer without resorting to “because he could”

          • Martin

            God chose to create light before the Sun, so what? I fail to see your point.

          • IanCad

            “Ice Pick Lobotomies” Too much for the late hour. Not bedtime reading. Not at all – at all.
            Thanks though, for the link Sarky.

          • Sarky

            No probs, just think it’s important that people know why this is such a big deal.

          • These techniques are not used today. Did you not notice it said “prior to 1981”?

          • Of course, it’s based on a very limited and erroneous definition of “conversion therapy”:

            “Conversion therapy is psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual.”

      • Manfarang
      • Anton

        Torture is INvoluntary, though. Therapist and client are consenting individuals – just like two people in a sexual relationship, gay or straight.

      • CliveM

        Hannah

        ECT is definitely not an aversion therapy and is still used to treat conditions like depression.

        Using electro shocks as aversion therapy is a completely different thing and is certainly not current practice. ECT is not torture.

        • Hi clive

          Referring to Sarky’s link,it said that homosexual people were electrocuted on their private parts . That’s what I was referring to and that does seem like torture. ECT wouldn’t be torture for depression etc, because that’s a legitimate condition that needs treatment. Homosexuality isn’t something which requires a medical treatment , therefore electrifying someone – however mildly for homosexuality would in my view torture (as usual like depression there’s nothing that requires treatment) .

  • theman8469

    Ah. The beginning of the end. Theological anti-realism at its best. Will core Christian propositions like the existence of God and the bodily resurrection of Jesus will be de jure unacceptable? Will theological realism become a fringe activity only practiced by fundamentalists (i.e. those more traditional than the C.O.E.) and ‘sophisticated theology’ will regard all Christian truth claims as analogy and metaphor – an exercise in imagination and play? It is over, the C.O.E. has gone mad and I what no part of it anymore.

    • theman8469

      Whoops just read a bit more, this is satire.

      • len

        Sure is. But this could become reality any time soon.

  • Brian Uffindell

    Surely this motion is worded as being concerned with “Religious Conversion” and not “Conversion Therapy”, which are two different things. The Bible tells us that God made man and He made woman, but He didn’t make any effort to change one into the other at some stage. So ‘yes’ I would be in favour of banning “Conversion Therapy” as being potentially dangerous and harmful, as well as opposed to Biblical teaching.
    “Religious Conversion” is defined as “voluntary acceptance of new religious beliefs that differ from the convert’s previous beliefs”, and that is neither dangerous nor harmful, and if we read Matthew 28:19, we will see that this is what we should all be about!
    It seems to me that the proposers of this motion, have sneakily” introduced sex into an already “sex-obsessed” Synod, and have driven yet another nail into the Church of England’s coffin.

  • len

    Ok carry then. (sigh)

  • len

    Breaking News!. Important decision to be made in the C of E .Should Bishops wear Mitres???.
    No mention of the dresses though?.

    • Shadrach Fire

      Hassocks Len

      • Tsk ….

        Hassock – a cushion for kneeling on in church.

        Cassock – a full-length garment worn by clergy or others participating in church services.

        • Chefofsinners

          Wassock – Linus

          • Linus

            Pillock – chiefofself-worship

          • Chefofsinners

            Funny

          • Where’s the hat and shades? Jack didn’t recognise you without your disguise.

          • Chefofsinners

            Fed up of looking like a tit.

          • Jack thought it complemented your comments nicely …

          • Martin

            Linus

            Describing yourself?

        • Shadrach Fire

          I hate to say Happy Jack is right about anything! Just a typo!!!!!!!

    • Charitas Lydia

      Should bishops stop cross dressing? No! It would go down well at a transgender baptism service, wouldn’t it?

  • Vivian

    Bishop of Liverpool is right when he says “the WORLD listens to us”. Speaking for myself, I listen to Jesus.

  • Shadrach Fire

    You must be joking. Is this one of your perverse jokes where you twist the evidence for effect?
    If it was true I might just be tempted to become a terrorist against the CofE and it’s perverse un-biblical ways.

    • Chefofsinners

      Although it’s Sunday in the real world, on the Cranmer blog it’s still Satireday.

  • DespiteBrexit

    To be fair to you, it is now an entirely plausible scenario.

  • magnolia

    Well that one Bishop was courageous! Who was he/she?

    What a well-informed decision of the majority- that is if you base your decisions upon the latest trendiest worldly knowledge laced with oodles of syrupy compassion for those allowed to speak, and ignore the bible, and see the worst rather than the best in the therapists.

    Go on C of E, why not oppress those who suffer at the hands of the all-powerful gay lobby. Continue to skip twee-ly through the daisies like Fotherington-Thomas, waving your little twee rainbow flags, saying all are equally capable of monogamy (hollow laughter from those who actually observe accurately and know)..Continue to block your ears to Scripture, awkward as it is, continue to hum cute tunes to yourselves when the victims tell you the sordid promiscuous realities. Continue on your twee and non-incisive way of seeing, hearing and telling no evil, except against the non-gay majority.

    And find yourself with emptying pews.

    Some of us are only just hanging in there….

    I am angry to know too much.

  • Hi

    I’m glad that the state religion of my country wants nothing to do with this horrible gay conversion barbarism. *stands up and applauds*.

    • Chefofsinners

      Why do people consider gender to be fluid, even though it is biologically determined, but sexual orientation to be fixed, even though its origins are not clearly understood?

      • dannybhoy

        I posted an article from the American College of Paediatricians for Sarky, but he probably didn’t wait to read it.. https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

        It said…
        The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

        2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.
        https://www.acpeds.org/the-

        See those two little words there? sociological and psychological…
        They’re saying exactly what I said to Linus, and they ain’t a Christian organisation…

      • Lucius

        It’s because the matter has become hyper-politicized. Rational discussion is no longer possible. It’s that simple.

      • Because one’s biological sex is not a determinant of either gender or who you find sexually attractive. You could be born with or without a penis, without or without vagina, be attracted to a man or a woman, and your gender could be either male of female.

        It makes discussions on women’s ordination irrelevant too.

        • Chefofsinners

          Yes, and to be ‘the husband of one wife’ really means ‘to be the partner of one or more or fewer beings of any gender, orientation or species for an unspecified period of time.’

          • Yes, one could be attracted to a sheep and/or consider oneself a sheep at some point in one’s life, and want to marry into the flock and have this relationship blessed by the church.

          • Chefofsinners

            You’re not in the confessional now, Jack.

          • Baaaaahhhh

          • David

            Small children sometimes identify themselves as inanimate objects, such as Thomas the Tank Engine or a space rocket. But this assumed play identity only lasts during the game. Just saying.

          • Thomas the Tank Engine is NOT an inanimate object! How dare you! If Jack choses to be a train engine too, who are you to judge?

          • Martin

            chooses

          • If Jack chooses to use choses, who are you to judge?

          • Martin

            The GP

          • donadrian

            Or even a trans engine.

          • S/he might be tomorrow. At some point, s/he may even feel s/he is a ship.

    • Dominic Stockford

      So if someone has unwanted same-sex attraction and wants rid of it you cheer that the CofE is refusing to offer them help to live a life which they want to live, and is line with the teaching of the Bible?

  • Maalaistollo

    Clever stuff, this Anglicanism. If something is considered to be a matter of orientation or identity, it is not a problem. Original sin is a matter of orientation or identity. Therefore it is not a problem. Therefore we don’t need Christianity, let alone the C of E, so they can all go home and do something useful instead.

    • Because some Christians believe that God reveals Himself and His will through “science” as well as scripture.

  • john in cheshire

    Is the Church of England a proseletysing branch of Christianity or not? Because I think Jesus told us to preach the good news and convert the unbelievers. Those who reject the gospel are not of the body of Christ and won’t be going to heaven. Or have I misunderstood what Jesus is telling me through the Bible?

    • David

      You have not misunderstood.

  • A Berean

    The issue before the Church of England is so rampant with biblical ignorance that one hardly knows where to begin.

    Never has the spirit of Laodicea been encapsuled in such a motion as this. Should any proof of the continuing irrelevancy of the CoE be needed one need not look any further than the current motion brought forward during this synod.

    What the Church of England is engaging in is complete and utter nonsense if not outright heresy. Whatever this “Christian” organization is-meaning The Christian ‘Truth is One’ School of Universal Reconciliation and others-it appears to be Christian in name only and clearly has absolutely no idea whatsoever as to what being a Christian is and I very much doubt it would like to know since I rather doubt it wants to be confused by the facts. Preaching the Gospel and aiming for conversion of the masses is at the very heart of Christianity and attempting to rein in or ban outright that aspect of Christianity will most certainly do more harm than good. In the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark
    Jesus Christ commissioned (!) His disciples to preach the Gospel. Failure to do so will result in our being held responsible for anyone perishing without any knowledge of the Gospel. Please read Ezekiel 33.1-9. The Church-and I’m speaking globally here-is made up of converts so to cease this function of seeking converts is suicidal if not worse. One cannot help but think that the word “Ichabod” should
    now be affixed to and prominently displayed above the entrance of every Church of England church. Please read First Samuel 4.21.

    “The Christian ‘Truth is One’ School of Universal Reconciliation”claims that “Religious Conversion has no place in the modern pluralistic world ecumenical tolerance and respect”.

    Perhaps this “School” should delve a bit more deeply in to their Bibles if they can be persuaded to interrupt their work of chipping away at Christianity for just one moment then they will most likely discover that any and all Christians should not be “[C]onformed to this world”. Please read Romans 12.2.

    “This debate is actually quite simple. Do we trust our spiritual and psychological health professions and academics (including many sincere godly Christians) to know what they are talking about?”

    Is Ms. Tracy Ognosis aware that this should and does apply to her as well?

    ‘“Should we learn from our mistakes of undue spiritual influence, coercive persuasion, mind-control, manipulation or brainwashing, and seek to protect future generations from the sort of damage that was done to me and so many others, as zealous Christians preyed on the weak and vulnerable grappling with the mysteries of life in their personal tragedies and trying circumstances?”’

    Having myself been, and still am, a Christian for quite a number of years I have yet to experience or observe such behavior as that expounded by Ms. Ognosis. I rather think that the experiences she is assaulting her hearers with is unique as I’m sure she must be well aware. I have experienced the sheer joy emanating from those that have converted in knowing that their sins are forever forgiven while those in non-Christian and pseudo-Christian religions can only hope that their sins are and have been forgiven.

    The Archbishop of York apparently thinks that attempting to convert someone is a “provocation”. Aside from holding a completely unbiblical office the archbishop forgets-if he is not completely ignorant of the fact-that the membership of the Church of England for much of its history was filled with, and encouraged to be, such provocateurs. And if he can only sleep at night when and if “Religious Conversion is banned” then one wonders why he is still an archbishop and why he sought ordination in the CoE in the first place?

    He continues, “Frustration, loneliness and dissatisfaction with life make people susceptible to needing love and consistent social support, and that should never be taken advantage of or seen as an opportunity to talk about Jesus.” Would the archbishop be so kind as to enlighten us as to what conditions must be present before it is acceptable to “talk about Jesus”? I’m all ears. We Christians are, after all, commanded to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season…”. See the Second Epistle of Timothy 4.2. The archbishop is wanting for biblical precedent in what he believes and is advocating.

    The Bishop of Liverpool has said, “As the world listens to us…” But the world doesn’t listen to you. If anything it regards the collective you as nothing more than entertainment. An amusement. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As for the motion itself it has been deemed that Religious Conversion is “potentially harmful and not supported by evidence”. One wonders what “evidence” they have been studying to reach such a momentous and ill-advised decision.

    In Acts chapter 17 we’re informed that the Apostle Paul visited Mars Hill at Athens. As he beheld the devotions to all the known gods he noticed there an altar with the writing “To The Unknown God”. Paul declared Him to them by stating that this “Unknown God” is the One God and that the others most definitely were and are nothing of the kind. Paul concluded by saying, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” No doubt this sermon the Apostle Paul gave would most likely be condemned as “unethical, potentially harmful and dangerous” and he would be considered guilty of “undue spiritual influence, coercive persuasion, mind-control, manipulation or brainwashing” by those that have put forth and support this motion during this most current synod. Can it be said that Paul was in a “modern pluralistic world”? Absolutely! Did he show “ecumenical tolerance and respect” as regarding the devotion of the Athenians? Most definitely not! This sermon of Paul’s is a clear and striking rebuke to the current synod’s motion! Paul has and is showing that what he said and believes and what the current synod is currently proposing are polar opposites.
    Clearly one must not and cannot adhere to the ever shifting sands of temporal relevancy for they are ever shifting and very temporary. One therefore must conclude that the Christianity promoted by Paul bears little, if any, resemblance to the “Christianity” by the promoters of the motion at the synod. In the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians 6.14-17 Paul wrote, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you…” If those in the synod that are sponsoring and support this motion do not speedily reverse their course then it is time for all true and good Christians left in the CoE to seek fellowship elsewhere. One wonders whether reform is indeed possible any longer.

    • Lucius

      One wonders whether the “Church of England” still exists. Arguably, the Church of England is no longer a “Church” in any real sense of the word. Perhaps, the questionable circumstances of its origins (i.e., the politics of Henry VIII) forehadowed its ultimate demise?

    • Sarky

      Ha ha all that effort and you totally missed the parody!!

      • Sarky

        Something i said???

  • That this article is being accepted as truth by so many indicates just how far Anglicanism has fallen – or, more accurately, those leading this church.

    • Darter Noster

      I, for one, having been an Anglican for many years, would not put anything past them.

  • Charitas Lydia

    His Grace at his very best! Sadly, this isn’t satire. I have often been reprimanded by CoE clergy for sharing the gospel with Hindus and Muslims! I’m serious.

    • David

      Such “clergy” are not fit to consider themselves Christians let alone priests or ministers.

  • A most excellent article:

    The competent and informed therapist will ground therapy in the understanding that the homosexual inclination itself is not an instance of personal sin but is a temptation to sin. As such, the Christian’s goal of therapy will be shifted – the goal will not be to completely eliminate the erroneously perceived personal “sin” of having the inclination, by stopping the inclinations altogether. Rather, it will be to move the person toward a less-difficult pursuit of chastity despite whatever may remain of the inclination itself after therapy.

    If a therapist misunderstands the fundamental truth that the objectively disordered homosexual inclination is not a form of personal sin, someone can indeed be harmed by such therapies, even in a Christian setting.

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/real-nature-catholic-reparative-therapy

  • bmudmai

    I’m pretty sure, that the most Godless part of the CofE is in fact the general synod. The vote for transgender services is very questionable. Every time synod comes about, the Church seems to have taken a step away from orthodoxy. I also find that on the ground, I know many faithful anglicans and it is this that gives me hope, synod does not represent the faithful.

    • magnolia

      It does seem odd that while the C of E is frequently admonishing us to be joyful in suffering, to be content with our own situations and where God has placed us, to be grateful if not rather guilty for our affluent lifestyles and for being healthy in a world full of sickness, to be generous in giving, and not lavish in spending upon ourselves, to be modest and not greedy for attention, all such strictures fall by the wayside if you think that you should be (your fantasy of) the opposite gender.

      In which case spend all the £s you want, lavishly, on what can only be a poor fake in operations that are frequently deeply regretted by those who undertake them, though not by subsections of the medical community who find such unusual reconstructions rather fascinating and jockey for more research funds.

      I cannot see much cause for celebration here. Personally I find the idea deeply distasteful that man less genitals (plus maybe strange illusion of womb) = woman. How weird is that as an idea of what constitutes a woman? Plus I doubt whether the children of parents who change gender believe that their feelings are even allowed to be articulated. They are bit part actors not starring roles. Except to God there are no bit part actors.

      • magnolia

        Of course there are other logical conundra here as either:

        gender dysphoria is in a sense “normal” and thus there will be at least tens if not hundreds of thousands wishing to change gender, but there is no way the NHS or people’s personal funds can afford all these £s spent, especially in a country with a large national debt, and personal debt levels like ours, nor can we afford the non-productive work hours as a society.

        gender dysphoria is affordable for treating in which case it is only very, very small numbers affected, in which case it looks far more psychological, usually, rather than biological.

        The C of E has disproportionate quantities of emotive ISFJs, in Myers-Briggs terminology, swayed by the latest personal emotive anecdote, overly mechanistic, less likely to look at the large picture, more the latest trendy research finding, and not necessarily sharp on logic, but making firm judgements.

        A balancing of personality types is called for in its governance; this is a huge need.

      • bmudmai

        That last bit is one of the things I think is a huge injustice. It turns out at the synod, during the discussions someone was talking about how a 5 year old had become Natalie and was now happier. We should not be celebrating that. It’s nothing beyond disturbing and bordering on child abuse.

  • Linus

    Good work CofE synod.

    Not the least because of the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and tearing of hair taking place here at Bigots.com

    One day, probably not too far in the future, they’ll give the go-ahead for same-sex marriage in church and then all my birthdays will come at once. Not because gay couples will be able to go through the pantomime of a Christian marriage (because quite frankly they should know better) but rather because the wailing and shrieking it will cause here.

    Witnessing the discomfiture of bigots first hand is an excellent spectator sport. The extravagant expressions of outrage and the melodramatic lamentations devoid of hope make it all worth while.

    So keep up the good work CofE synod! At this rate hits on this site must be plummeting like an aneroid before a thunderstorm as the heart attacks and strokes take their toll on the fragile geriatric membership.

    • Martin

      Linus

      You do realise, there is no such thing as same sex marriage, it’s simply a con.

      Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

      Nor for that matter, is there such a thing as transgender. They may chop their bodies around, take drugs till they come out of their ears but they still remain the sex they were born.

      Still, it provides a nice little income for those who practice medicine and produce the drugs.

      In the meantime, we will sit back, watch the disintegration of society and remind you that we told you so.

      • magnolia

        It is very strangely hypocritical of Linus, who accuses Christians of relishing the idea of people burning in hell (which is not where the vast majority of us are at all, but he is unaware) of advertising himself as enjoying other’s pain and discomfiture as a spectator sport.

        I have known of one deaf and handicapped girl abused by her stepfather (jailed for 12 years) who became lesbian through that as she no longer trusted men. Jayne Ozanne is making it that such a person can no longer speak to a vicar or curate about rediscovering who she is. These so and so’s rejoice over that. But it is not kindness nor compassion it is cruelty and narrow-mindedness and it makes me angry. Someone like Linus just finds that anger (at this imposed cruelty) a matter of perverse pleasure.

        • Linus

          I always enjoy watching bullies thwarted. It just makes them so angry. All that hatred they want to vomit over their victims just backs up inside them and makes them shake with impotent rage. Blood pressure rises and eventually something goes pop and they’ll never bully anyone again.

          And what a load of bollocks about abuse changing sexual orientation. It certainly messes people up. But it can’t make you blonde when you’re brunette, or white when you’re black, so it can’t change the gender to which you’re naturally attracted. If you think it can then I’d suggest it’s you who needs the counseling.

          But then I already knew that.

          Congratulations to Ms Ozanne. I wish her the best of luck in her one woman mission to drag the CofE into the 21st century. As the bigots on this site hyperventilate at each of her successes, and god’s rottweiler Andrea Mini-what’s-er-name gets increasingly rabid and starts to howl at the moon, the educated observer can only reflect that it doesn’t take much to make a church implode. When the men all run and hide while the women duke it out, the end has come.

          • Anton

            Can’t change the gender to which you are naturally attracted? You are behind the times; the latest secular idea is that gender is a social construct.

          • Linus

            Perhaps gender was a poor choice of word. Morphology might be more accurate. I am exclusively attracted to what we commonly know as male morphology. This includes, but is not limited to, body shape, hormonal balance, odour and various other factors, most of which are not socially constructed.

            No matter how you socially construct these things and no matter what name you give to them, they are what attract me and have always attracted me. This attraction is a fixed characteristic.

            Some people can be persuaded that their attractions are in some way inferior or immoral. They may even let themselves be convinced they need to pretend not to feel them any more. But I am not one of those people. And I don’t think much of those who are weak and self-loathing enough to let others bully them into denying who they are.

            Uncle Tom is looked down on as an inferior being by whites in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel. He is loathed by his fellow blacks. With good reason.

          • Anton

            I’d never noticed.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            If you believe in the Bible, then you know that all such desires are temptations to sin. You only sin if you act out on your temptations. And EVERYONE is tempted to sin in various ways; even Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are (Hebrews 4:15) but without sinning. We are not judged on our temptations, only on our behavior (which can be mental fantasizing- lust- or physical acting out).

            I cannot look down on same-sex attracted people because I am in the same boat with them of having temptations to sexual sin in other ways. Temptation is temptation, and sin is sin.

            Scientific research is really clear that same-sex attraction is neither innate/ genetic nor immutable. A very higher percentage of those who believe they are homosexual eventually turn heterosexual, even without treatment or religious means.
            http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

          • Linus

            Scientific research currently suggests that homosexuality is inborn and attributable to epigenetic factors. There is no conclusive or even plausible evidence of any other cause. There are however a lot of conservative Christians who draw unwarranted conclusions from shoddily done, unscientific research and present them as fact. They are liars seeking to put their dogmatic certainties beyond doubt by inventing evidence to support them. It is beneath contempt.

            Nobody who is truly gay has ever “turned out heterosexual”, although many claim to have been converted. Interestingly not one of them has ever (or will ever) submit to an independent test of body response to erotic imagery because this would instantly uncover them as total frauds.

            Of course you will choose to believe them because they comfort you in your bigotry. Go right ahead. It hardly matters what you believe. You are in a minority so small that it can make no difference to society’s evolving view on human sexuality. All you do is mark yourself out as a vicious hater, which those of us who’ve had first-hand experience with Christians already know. But it doesn’t hurt to have you expose yourself in front of others too.

            By their love shall ye know them, indeed. And by their hatred too.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            For every peer-reviewed scientific research study that might “suggest” that homosexuality is innate, I can find you three that are much stronger indicating that it is not. Twin studies, the proof that over three quarters (75%) of those who believe they are homosexual will eventually change to heterosexual even without any counseling or religious conversion is very strong evidence. I am a psychologist who has been practicing for over 30 years, with many same-sex attracted people. Good people. I know they can change if they want to… because they do.

            As to your last two paragraphs, you obviously do not know me and are making assumptions that are not only (ad hominem) insults but are 100% incorrect. Here is what I believe as a Christian.

            We are to love the sinner but hate the sin. This is how God Himself operates. He hates sin because sin, by definition, is not only rebellious but is destructive of self and others— it destroys His beloved creatures. We don’t have to understand WHY He says “Thou shall not”, we just have to trust his divine judgment on these things (Proverbs 3:5-6). Christians are to trust in His written Word..

            I therefore love even my apparent enemies because they are victims of deception. My REAL enemies “are not flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6) but spiritual forces and lies. I have lots of same-sex attracted people as friends and clients. I support them as best I can, but I do not support their self-destructive tendencies. That would not be love. It would not be loving to tell them that sin is not sin after all.

            http://www.virtueonline.org/its-not-really-love-faulty-theology-codependency

          • Linus

            You got your doctorate in clinical psychology from a bible school?

            That tells me everything I need to know about you.

            The unscientific approach of setting out to prove your dogmatic certainties disqualifies you as a serious professional.

            The studies you say you can show me are equally suspect. If you start from an immovable opinion that homosexuality is a condition that needs to be treated, you are not objective. The results of your research will not be reliable. You will select only those data that support your pre-determined conclusion and selectively reject those that do not.

            The APA does not categorize homosexuality as a condition that needs to be treated, so if you say it is, you are at variance with established professional opinion and are therefore not to be taken seriously.

            Your stories of “orientation change” are unsupported claims based around self-declared statements from the unfortunate victims of your “pray away the gay” witch-doctoring. Not a single one of these claims is based on objective clinical testing. None of the claimants have undergone independent testing to measure physiological response to erotic imagery, for example. If this therapy of yours is so successful, let’s see the peer-reviewed data showing how a clinically identified same-sex attraction has been eradicated and replaced by heterosexual desire.

            Show me some science rather than slanted opinion and brainwashed fervour. If you can’t, you’re nothing more than a charlatan.

            But then you already know that.

          • Anton

            I am exclusively attracted to what we commonly know as male morphology. This includes, but is not limited to, body shape, hormonal balance, odour and various other factors, most of which are not socially constructed.

            Indeed they are not. But your attraction is, according to a major facet of the BLTETC movement. Take it up with them.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            “I always enjoy watching bullies thwarted.”
            Me too. Which is why I like dealing with bullies like you and the recent Synod. http://www.virtueonline.org/bullied-canterbury-and-church-england

          • Linus

            A couple of points. No more than that out of a sense of embarrassment for someone who uses one alt-right Christian blog to link to his own alt-right Christian blog. Drumming up hits by calling on British fascists to view an American fascist website is typical of how the fascist fringe works. When the 10 regular readers of your authoritarian fantasies start to lose interest and/or die off, you have to lure in new readers or face the ultimate shame of the soapbox ranter: no-one to applaud your ranting.

            First point: I’m familiar with Sam Allberry and his self-loathing mantra. He is of course completely mistaken in his claim that Christ allegedly having died a virgin makes him, according to liberal theology, subhuman. He’s mistaken about most things. His narcissism and self-promotion as a living Christian martyr distort his view of pretty much everything.

            The problem is this: sexual intimacy may well bring fulfillment. But dying a virgin doesn’t make a person subhuman. It merely makes him unfulfilled.

            If Christ ever existed then it seems to me the word “unfulfilled” describes him well. The portrait painted of him in the bible shows a judgmental control freak who never got a chance to dominate more than a handful of peasants and manual workers. That’s the very essence of a lack of fulfillment: when the character traits that drive your personality are not allowed free expression and your ambitions are thwarted.

            Now I would certainly agree that dying a virgin would add something to the lack of fulfillment that most in Christ’s position would experience. But in his case we have no good reason to think that this was his fate.

            As the dictator of a subservient bunch of gibbering idiots, if Christ wanted sex, it was certainly available. Of course, given the level of contempt he must have felt for the ignorant peons who followed him (god complexes are characterised by condescension and feelings of superiority, after all), it’s unlikely he would have found fulfillment in bonking a stinking and scrofulous shepherd’s daughter (or the shepherd himself, come to that). But he may have found sexual release, which isn’t quite the same of course. In any case we have no proof one way or the other, so Christ’s sexuality and his sexual experience must remain moot points. A lack of sexual experience may have contributed to his overall lack of fulfillment, but we really cannot know and it therefore becomes a matter for pointless conjecture.

            No, it wasn’t necessarily dying a virgin that meant Christ died unfulfilled. It was his failure to set himself up as emperor and autocrat of the world that must have been the greatest disappointment. But none of this makes him subhuman. Just completely off his head.

            Alberry and the audience that allegedly gave him a standing ovation got it wrong. Accepting that sex can be fulfilling does not make Christ subhuman if he died a virgin. It just adds to picture of him as a bit of a loser.

            Which brings me to my second point: the way American evangelicals and the pale and pudgy British clergy who want to emulate them try to trumpet victory when preaching to diminishing and aging congregations whose behaviour is virtually indistinguishable from that of the non-Christian general population.

            Rates of divorce, contraception and abortion are just as high, if not higher, among Christians than among the secular. Acceptance of equal marriage is also widespread. Despite all your ranting, blaming, shouting and grandstanding, your flock just isn’t buying your story. As far as failures go, you rival your own messiah for delusions of grandeur brought down to earth with a bump by the cold, hard reality of the godless world we live in.

            By all means rant away. Come to this blog and tout for business in an ever-shrinking market, but you know you’ve failed to influence anyone and the CofE will eventually recognise same-sex marriage. Sam Alberry can’t stop that any more than Uncle Tom could stop the emancipation of the slaves in the US South. History will remember people like Alberry as sad and self-loathing masochists who, in their quest to win approval from their straight masters, made a spectacle of their celibacy so that all could see – and pity – them. And in that pity they wallow like a child with a stubbed toe seeking solace and attention from the adults around it. That’s the “hope” you offer to gays. “There there, it’ll be alright, now run along and break another toe. If it hurts enough, I’ll give you some love and attention…”

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I must wonder why anti-Christian person like yourself would spend so much time on an obvious Christian website like Archbishop Cranmer unless he wanted to stir up trouble. That, by the way, is the definition of an internet troll.

          • Linus

            Oh dear! If this is a sample of your counseling technique, no wonder you and others like you are the laughing stock of the psychology world.

            “Conversion” therapy is being banned all over the Western world. Trump’s days are numbered and when another president takes the reins, it will be banned in the US too. Indeed it already is in California, I seem to remember.

            Out of a job yet?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            This is how I deal with bullies online. My clients have never seen this side of me since they are coming to me for help. That is hardly what you are doing. You are attacking many of my essential beliefs and attempting to bully other believers. You wrote that you “always enjoy watching bullies thwarted.” So have a good time.

        • He’s into S&M.

      • Linus

        The freakshow’s back…

        Of all the gibbering nutcases here, you’re probably the most extreme. But you’d dropped out of sight for a while. I’d assumed you’d finally been committed to an institution somewhere. And who knows? Perhaps that’s where you’ve always been. Did they take your Internet privileges away for a while as punishment for crucifying a fellow inmate?

        Ah well, you’re back now. Gibber away as much as you like. Better you take your frustrations out online than persecute your cellmates and other long term patients.

        • Chefofsinners

          Did God ever give you back that heirloom? You know – the cock ring of Charlemagne that you lost up the arse of a sumu in 1970s Tokyo.

          • *gasp*
            This is why he’s so disturbed.

          • Chefofsinners

            There is much more than this. Read my book, serialised in the Daily Mail, “The Annals of Linus”.

          • dannybhoy

            The Anals of Linus?

          • IanCad

            Brilliant Danny!!

          • dannybhoy

            Ah, the mysteries of inner space..

          • Chefofsinners

            My mistake. The Anals of L’anus.

          • Chefofsinners

            It was a double n tendre.

          • Pubcrawler

            Oh, a large one.

          • Chefofsinners

            Thanks. Thought you’d never offer.

          • Merchantman

            Yes, once a year I’ve heard he brings out a Bumper Annual.

          • dannybhoy

            Gross.

          • Bravely coming and going where no man person creature has ever been and gone before.

          • Linus

            You seem to know a lot about the mechanics of extreme sexual fetishes. One assumes you’ve made a study of them.

            I know your kind. You’re the type of Christian who slavers over fetish and kink websites and then accuses the entire LGBT community of indulging in practices that you’re dying to try, but don’t have the balls (quite literally, in all probability) to attempt.

            In your fevered imagination we’ve all done what you can only dream of doing. It’s a pretty typical “acting out fantasy” common to narcissistic control freaks. Other people are just marionnettes to be moved about in your imagination, aren’t they? You’ve slammed the lid down so tightly on your own sexuality that all you can do is project what you want to do onto other people and have them act out your extreme fantasies in your imagination.

            Go right ahead. Your imagination belongs only to you and you can do what you like with it. But while you’re pounding out another watery and discoloured load into that rancid sock you keep under the bed, do bear in mind the (invented) words of your (imaginary) lord. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a [person] to lust after [him or] her hath committed adultery with [him or] her already in his heart.”

            Whether you imagine yourself rogering whoever the object of your lust may be, or whether you project that role onto me and content yourself with being an imaginary bystander, the net effect is exactly the same. You’re an unrepentant adulterer who cries “Lord! Lord!” and pretends to prophesy in his name. But if he exists, he’s got your number and you’ll be languishing in hell just like me, although given your smug and self-satisfied expectations, your predicament will be far worse than mine.

            Hell, if it exists, must be full of the laughter of the Atheist damned as they watch fake Christians expostulating in outrage while being tortured. “But Lord! There must be some mistake! I only ever served you!” you’ll cry. “Bog off spawn of Satan,” he’ll shout down from heaven. “You know exactly who you were serving, and will you please get your hand out of my rear end? I’m not your sock puppet to move about as you wish. Reflect on that as you burn for all eternity!”

          • Chefofsinners

            He didn’t give it back then? I wonder why not.

          • Linus

            This just gets more telling, doesn’t it?

            You believe that one of the founding fathers of Christianity in Western Europe indulged in extreme sexual practices and that he handed his sex toys down to his posterity, implying that some of the most extravagantly Christian families in Europe have also indulged in the same practices for over a thousand years.

            If even the respected propagators of the faith are not safe from your lurid imagination, who is?

            What do you think the pope gets up to with the Vatican’s wide selection of relics? And does it stop there? How about Mary or even Christ himself? I mean, if you can fantasize about Charlemagne getting it on with a jewel-encrusted penis engorger, who knows what you think your messiah and his mother get up to?

            You really are a depraved one, aren’t you? And then you weep, wring your hands and say sorry, and suddenly it’s all better and you’ll be going to heaven after all.

            I think not. If it exists, it clearly isn’t made for one such as you. And it isn’t even your fixation on sexual shenanigans that make me say that – I mean, who knows what they get up to in heaven? – but rather your fundamentally dishonest attitude towards the issue. Slam others for doing (in your imagination if not in reality) what you fantasize about doing yourself, slander them and try to get others to slander them too, condemn them to hell and then present yourself as a faithful Christian who follows his lord’s commandment to love his enemies, as he loved them.

            If the insincerity of your faith doesn’t fool me, how much more aware of it must your god be? He who, if he exists, can see into your heart and uncover your true beliefs and feelings. If I can sense the hatred, contempt and fury you feel towards anyone who dares to contradict you, as well as the quite frankly worrying fixation on extreme sexual practices, you won’t be able to hide it from him.

            Of course as your god is just a projection of your own ego, you’re probably not that worried. How could you – supreme being that you are – possibly be condemned by the god that you created in your image? Which is exactly why you’re toast if the god described in the bible really does exist independently of the fantasies of his followers. The fact that you can’t see that makes you a supremely pitiable figure. Or perhaps you do realise it deep down and your constant wisecracking is just a façade designed to hide the despair you really feel.

            I mean as an avowed Atheist, I could still be converted and saved. But as an avowed Christian there’s nothing you can do and nobody you can turn to who can save you from a god you already believe in. As long as you conflate that god with your own ego, you’ll have to live with the knowledge that you can’t be saved.

            You have painted yourself into a corner, haven’t you? No wonder you’re so annoyed with me. I might still make it to heaven while you’re doomed. And you know it.

          • Chefofsinners

            Ah, it’s like a diarrhoea machine that just keeps on giving. I’m sure God made atheists for my personal amusement.

          • Linus

            That’s right. Laugh off my comments with one of your usual quips. That’s what a pig ignorant jokester who’s incapable of understanding anything more complex than a pun or a double entendre would do. Good to know that I haven’t misjudged you. A bargain basement clown with a clown’s brain.

            Why is it that Christians never exceed my expectations? Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

          • dannybhoy

            I’m giving you an uptick Linus because I feel you could do with one..

          • Linus

            How typical of a Christian to think his opinion has some kind of objective value. As if anyone but another Christian could set any store by it . And even then, only if it agrees with his own divine judgment.

            It truly is a case of the blind refusing to be led by the blind, except when they stumble into the same pit of ignorance and superstition together. And even then they’ll start scratching each other’s eyes out as soon as they disagree over some pointless point of meaningless theology, like how many infidels were blasted to smithereens by the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Was it seventy times seven? Or seventy seven times seventeen? Let all who give the wrong answer be anathema unto the lord and may they perish upon the Holy Pyre of St. Smokesalot!

          • dannybhoy

            It’s a Christian blog Linus.
            A blog for Christians!
            A blog where Christians express their views and opinions on all kinds of issues
            -from a Christian perspective.
            Pink News it ain’t..
            You are treated with respect and a modicum of compassion because Christians treat all men and women with respect and varying degrees of compassion.
            You still need to get your life right with God, bow your knee and admit to Him that your life is a mess and you need Him to sort it out for you.

          • Chefofsinners

            I know. You could block him.

          • Chefofsinners

            Don’t stop. You were doing so well.

        • dannybhoy

          Gibbering nutcases?
          And er, you’re so desperate you’re reduced to engaging in lively debate with them -constantly??
          (Although most of the time you sound like Tom Tuttle from Tacoma Washington..
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qLzQ4uOvio )

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Good point. Linus is addicted to being contentious with believers. It is a very strange way for an unbeliever to spend so much of his time.

          • dannybhoy

            He shows great tenacity in his crusade for the protection of young people in the care or under the influence of Christian clergy with evil intents.
            That is to to be admired. I think he feels drawn to attack those he sees as enemies of self expression i.e. homosexuality, gender fluidism etc.
            I personally hope he continues to post here. The Lord loves him and we can always pray that one day he will make his peace with God.
            ps. I m a great fan of films starring John Candy, Dan Ackroyd, Tom Hanks and Chevy Chase..

        • Martin

          Linus

          Yes, we’d noticed you were around.

          • Linus

            Took you a while to think of that, didn’t it? Or have they only just released you from the straitjacket?

          • Martin

            Linus

            It took me no time at all, why would you imagine otherwise?

          • Linus

            I see. The picture is finally becoming clearer.

            You probably do respond to posts immediately, but by the time your comments have been moderated by the overstretched staff on the psych ward where you’re permanently detained, several hours or even days may pass before they appear here on Bigots.com

            Ah well. Nice to know someone is taking care of you. Very forward thinking of them to allow you Internet access. I expect they realise that the extreme nature of your posts means nobody is ever going to take you seriously, so why not let you blow off steam online?

            I imagine they save a fortune in tranquilizers and restraints as a result. A good deal for the taxpayer. Well done NHS! Who says public sector robots show no initiative?

          • Martin

            Linus

            Are you so desperate that you have to abuse those you can’t answer.

            The fact remains, you have been conned. All the things you promote and imagine to be important have no reality. Marriage is between a man and a woman and sex outside that bond is an abomination before the God you know exists. There is no such thing as transgender, it is merely a specific case of body integrity identity disorder the sufferers of which require assistance to overcome their mental problems.

          • Linus

            Sad git.

            Mental illness is such a tragic affliction.

          • Martin

            Linus

            But not as tragic as spiritual blindness.

          • Linus

            Spiritual blindness is a meaningless term. Blindness means an inability to see. Spiritual blindness must therefore mean an inability to see spirits, which, if they exist, are invisible anyway. So everybody is spiritually blind. Even you.

            Unless of course you claim to be able to see this sky pixie of yours, which absolutely would not surprise me. The way you gibber on about your imaginary friend, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear you claim that he’s a regular visitor in your home,

            Pity no one else can see him, eh? Does he arrive on the back of a snow white unicorn? Or is My Little Pony his preferred mode of conveyance? And how many hobbits, angels and leprechauns come with him? Think of all the pixie dust they must leave behind! If you swept it up and sold it to other gibbering religious nutcases, you’d make a fortune. Who cares if it’s invisible? They’d pretend to see it just like you do. It’s called the “emperor’s new clothes effect” and it’s kept your religion going for 2000 years.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Spiritual blindness is NOT about seeing or not seeing spirits. No one believes that. Spiritual blindness is about simply not being able to understand (and thus not believe) spiritual things. Without the Holy Spirit within, it is impossible for you to get it. As the Apostle Paul put it (1 Cor 2:13-16): “.What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.”

            So, sorry dude, you simply cannot understand these things. Nor do you have any desire to do so.

          • Martin

            Linus

            Guess what, you can’t see, you can’t see the truth. Trouble is, since you know God exists you also know you have this problem, because whenever anyone talks of spiritual things you can’t understand what they are saying.

          • Linus

            I can recognise bullsh!t when I see it. When you write, that’s all I see. Along with chronic autism.

            You say I know that god exists because the bible tells you we all know it. So if I deny it, I must be a liar.

            That kind of literal and dogmatic interpretation of a claim or doctrine is a common symptom of autistic spectrum disorders. People lie. Only your holy book tells the truth. And only you know how to interpret it. So if someone contradicts your holy book, he must be lying because the truth of your interpretation of holy writ can never be disputed.

            This is a perfect example of how Asperger’s sufferers think. I’ve never been more convinced that you’re either institutionalised, or that for your own protection, you should be.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Ad hominem insults are only used when you have no rational arguments. Or perhaps when a person just loves to be mean and insulting.

          • Linus

            As a bible-school-educated psychologist, who knows what you’re qualified to diagnose?

            Demon possession, perhaps? “Spiritual blindness”, one assumes.

            Coming from an American educational establishment that does not figure in the top 100 med schools in the US (or the top 200, or 300, or even 400, and it only just scrapes into the top 500 according to the Med Colleges ranking site), it’s not even certain that your qualification would be accepted as such in Europe.

            Martin’s brand of uncompromising fanaticism simply does not exist in this day and age without some form of underlying condition. If you really are a psychologist, you should be able to recognise that.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You obviously do not even the know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is an M.D. who therefore went to medical school, prescribes medication, and has minimal training in psychotherapy. I am a Licensed Psychologist, not a psychiatrist. Both type of professionals must take about the same amount of time and work to be trained, both are qualified to diagnose and treat mental disorders. Psychologists do psychological testing and evaluations, and of course psychotherapy and consultations.

            Since you question my credentials: I majored in psychology as an undergraduate (Beloit College), received a Master’s of Science in research psychology at Illinois State University, and eventually spent 6 more years at Fuller’s School of Psychology (APA approved program in clinical psychology) and earned the PhD. Along the way I received the M.A. in theology and ministry from Fuller Theological Seminary’s School of Theology, because I intended to focus my career working with the population of religious people called Christians. I have worked in the mental health field since 1977, at the doctoral level since 1987. So I certainly am professionally qualified to have an opinion on this topic. You are NOT qualified (don’t even know the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists).

          • Linus

            I freely admit that my knowledge of psychiatry and psychology is limited, but then I never pretended to be an expert. Giving an opinion about the mental state of a gibbering online bigot does not constitute a diagnosis. It is merely a point of view.

            Having graduated from prestigious centres of educational excellence like Illinois State (432nd place in US college rankings) and Beloit (a slightly better but still drearily mediocre 230th), you clearly qualify as a world expert in these matters.

            With degrees like yours, I’m not surprised you chose to work in the field of Christian counseling. Not very picky about the schools you attended, are they? Christians, I mean. They’ll take anyone who’ll rubber stamp their dogmatic labeling of homosexuality as a mental disorder and gays as pathological. Having a trained psychologist to back them up allows them to present their bigotry as science. And not many who went to respectable schools will do that. Becoming a laughing stock among their peers is just too big a risk. Which I can only assume doesn’t bother you. I mean, who else but Christians would employ you anyway? So what have you got to lose?

            Let’s just say I’ve got your number. A mediocre psychologist with mediocre qualifications who was at least smart enough to realise that bigots have money too and they’re willing to spend it trying to mess up their gay children. And you are more than happy to oblige them.

            The old adage that there’s always someone ready to cream a fat profit off the misery and suffering of others was never truer.

            How many gay lives have you messed up forever? I shudder to think. But although I’m disgusted, I’m not at all surprised. It isn’t as if I didn’t know the world was full of homophobes who want nothing more than to torture us.

            I pity those who fall into your clutches, but sh!t happens and I can’t right every wrong I hear about. My consolation is that one day you’ll no longer be around and the LGBT community will have one enemy fewer to attack it. As most who share your beliefs are elderly and not long for this world, all I have to do is sit back and wait. Time is on my side. And while I wait, I’ll continue to post here whether you scream “TROLL!” or not. People just like you used to scream “WITCH!” and “COMMIE!” at others. And we know what became of their causes. Scream all you like. Very few can hear you.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Another need to make everything personal because you have no rational arguments. “gibbering online bigot” is pure projection. Do you not know the definition of “bigot”? It is “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.” Look in the mirror, dude.

          • Linus

            Pray for whoever you like.

            One gibbering bigot muttering curses under his breath won’t change anything for me.

            The illusion of agency it gives you might lower your blood pressure a little. A thwarted autocrat suffers from significant stress, so pretending to yourself that you can change me with your magic words and incantations will probably let you relax a bit and stave off the heart attack for a little longer.

            Sooner or later it will happen though. You’ll walk past a Pride march or may even just see a happy gay couple holding hands in the street, and the blatant rejection of your authority when they ignore your remonstrances will cause you to grab your chest and keel over. And then oblivion. Hardly a fit punishment for someone who’s dedicated his life to exacting revenge on gays. But whoever said that life was just?

          • Martin

            Linus

            Oh dear, you’re so challenged by the truth that you think the only option is to attack my mental state. Of course, you could accept it is the truth and modify your thought processes accordingly.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Chuckle. Not chance in the world that this angry atheist will listen, much less accept the truth.

          • Linus

            There is no truth in what you say, only self-obsessed delusion. Part of that delusion is your bizarre wish that I should modify what I think to fall in line with you. Because that’s all that matters to you, isn’t it? That others should bend to your wishes and acknowledge your beliefs as the ultimate truth.

            You’re so lost in self-worship that a deranged mental state is the only explanation. Every comment from you reinforces that impression.

    • Chefofsinners

      This being the point. The Synod is now so far from the truth that Linus loves them.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Look at the evidence. This website is growing in popularity.

  • CliveM

    You’ll get no complaints from me regards the cat.

  • Hi

    Oh we just have mezuzahs instead .

  • Albert

    What I thought was funny about this (the homosexual thing, I mean) was the claim that conversion therapy should be banned because it doesn’t work and is dangerous. The rub is of course, that if one applied that principle to other things, we would be banning a great deal of therapies.

    • It confuses “conversion therapy” aimed at completely removing sexual attraction and desire with psychological counselling and “reparative therapy” aimed at de-eroticizing same sex relationships in favour of authentic chastity and healthy same-sex friendships. It ignores the latter approach and exaggerates the horrors of the former.

      • Albert

        That’s very interesting, because I would have thought lots of people go for sex therapy to help them control their behaviours and desires. They might be addicted to porn or promiscuity or something else. I don’t know how successful such therapies are, but I would have thought they are legitimate and valuable.

        Now someone will say “Yes, but addiction to porn or promiscuity is wrong and harmful, whereas behaving in a homosexual manner is not.”

        Now if I’m right about this, then it follows this whole discussion is not about whether such therapies work or are harmful, it is a back door attempt to get the CofE to legitimise homosexual behaviour. It would also follow, that the CofE, in love with the world, like Demas, has fallen into the trap.

        • Exactly. And having passed this motion uncritically, without distinguishing between therapies of different kinds, or the reasons for them, the Church of England has prepared the ground for “consecrating” same sex “marriage”. Just as they prepared the ground pre-marital sex, living together, abortion and homosexuality at Lambeth in 1930.

          • Albert

            The CofE needs to decide what it stands for – secular culture (whatever that may be) or the Gospel. Unfortunately, it seems to have made up its mind on that one.

          • Pubcrawler

            “having passed this motion”

            Yes, that’s one way of putting it.

          • Very good.

          • Anton

            By hammering on yet again against marital contraception you are adding to scripture. No wonder most Catholics ignore Rome on the subject; they have more sense than their leaders.

  • dannybhoy
    • Sarky

      Not really. Negative stories are just click bait.
      All the happy people don’t make a good story.

      • dannybhoy

        Touche!

  • magnolia

    I am surprised that anyone here would agree with banning people from ministering to those who wish to change their sexual orientation, by whatever means they wish. We used to live in a free country. If I decide whatever strange concoction can cure whatever strange disease I might have I am free to take it, being an adult. So why are people being banned from talking about changing their sexual orientation. This is the not the third Reich after all; and if general synod gets all bossy and controlling over ordinary people’s basic freedoms guess what ordinary people will do…..

    Interesting article here:

    http://anglicanmainstream.org/synod-supports-ban-on-conversion-therapy-what-it-means/

    • David

      Thank you Magnolia, for the link to that well written article.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        Yes. By Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

    • Being gay and attracted to people of the same sex i.e. homosexual orientation isn’t a “strange disease”, therefore there’s no need for someone to be “ministering” to people with a non-existent problem.

      • Anton

        Does your presumably Orthodox (ie not Reform) rabbi take the same view?

        • Magnolia referred to homosexual orientation and compared this to a disease. I disagree that a homosexual orientation is a disease.

          The mitzvot are concerned with deeds and not thoughts or orientation . God doesn’t ,in Halakhah, police celestial or temporal thought crimes and having a homosexual orientation doesn’t invalidate a person’s Jewish status , neither is a homosexual orientation prohibited .

          In fact what’s prohibited de’orayta is male on male anal sex and other forbidden same sex acts- and this is open to interpretation- but the Ultra Orthodox Haredi would certainly make this as broad as possible , are de’rabannan.

          • As an orthodox Christian, one disputes there is such a thing as a “homosexual orientation” that is a part of one’s identity. There are degrees of different degrees of attraction to immoral sex acts with a person of the same sex. Why define yourself by your temptation – unless, of course, you simply wish to endorse it, claiming “God made me this way”?

            Jack thought the Jewish faith considered all sex acts prohibited outside of a marital relationship between a man and a woman.

          • Well I don’t have the time or inclination to get bogged down in this given I know your views . As I depart this place for another break , I guess the next thing for the people here to moan about is the end of clergy wearing vestments …. even Tudor ruffs will be out of fashion. Terrible that ending of tradition .

          • Jack reckons the more fundamental Calvinist Puritan types will be pleased.

          • Anton

            Yep.

          • It’s another nail in the coffin.

          • Anton

            Not in mine.

  • Phil R

    Excellent!!!

  • Dominic Stockford

    So, let’s be clear. If someone has unwanted ‘same-sex attractions’ they are now banned from receiving any help from the CofE to rid themselves of something that they don’t want, and which is contrary to the Bible’s clear teaching. Regardless of HG’s parody, this is utter insanity, and the CofE is utterly reneging on helping people who want to be helped to live by God’s Word. Sentamu should be removed forthwith, and the CofE closed down.

    • The bible doesn’t teach against same sex attraction. This isn’t a sin, in and of itself, although it is a morally disordered desire, the origin of which is not fully understood and is probably multi-faceted and different for different people. Scripture teaches against any and all sex acts outside of a permanent marriage between a man and a women.

      • Manfarang

        How many wives did King Solomon have?
        I always thought that ex-priest Pat was emotionally disordered.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Let’s be clear, I never used the word sin. However, it is clearly not in line with Biblical teaching to remain in temptation, and not to seek freedom from it. Please read the Lord’s Prayer on this matter. Most of those who follow Jesus Christ in sincerity, and who have these attractions and find them unwanted, do manage to overcome practising them, on the whole. But with Christ they can be made whole.

        • Then, as someone who is a minister, you should choose your words more carefully. What you actually said was: “rid themselves of something that they don’t want, and which is contrary to the Bible’s clear teaching.”

          And above you stated: “rid themselves of urges they realise to be sinful.”

          Do you subscribe to the doctrine that “urges” are sinful? That one has to “rid” oneself of them so as not to “remain in temptation”? Some early protestant theologians argued, based on the notion of human nature’s total depravity, that the Fall so corrupted man that the very inclinations we experience that tempt us to sin are sinful in themselves.

          Here is the major distinction Catholics need to make between the Catholic understanding of reparative therapy and the understanding espoused by at least some Protestant Christian reparative therapy supporters: The competent and informed therapist will ground therapy in the understanding that the homosexual inclination itself is not an instance of personal sin but is a temptation to sin. As such, the Christian’s goal of therapy will be shifted—the goal will not be to completely eliminate the erroneously perceived personal “sin” of having the inclination, by stopping the inclinations altogether. Rather, it will be to move the person toward a less-difficult pursuit of chastity despite whatever may remain of the inclination itself after therapy.

          If a therapist misunderstands the fundamental truth that the objectively disordered homosexual inclination is not a form of personal sin, someone can indeed be harmed by such therapies, even in a Christian setting.

          http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/real-nature-catholic-reparative-therapy

          • Anton

            It’s a greyer area than you seem to think. On the Mount Jesus not only said don’t commit a certain sexual sin (adultery), but don’t even think of committing it.

          • Then you need to define the nature of “thinking” about committing sin and when this becomes sinful. Being tempted is not sinful. Nurturing the temptation and indulging it mentally, is.

            Do you stand with the protestant theologians who regard temptation as sin?

          • Anton

            It’s really a matter of definition. If we are not using the same definition of “temptation” then we might disagree needlessly. So here is an example which clarifies where I think the line is but doesn’t use the word “temptation”:

            To experience sexual attraction toward a married woman is not sinful. To proposition her certainly is. But actions begin in the mind, and to fantasise about taking her to bed is sinful even if you don’t proposition her.

          • Well, agreed. So Jack was correct in his comment. A same sex attraction is not sinful and the same conditions apply. Yes? This is not the position of some offering “conversion therapy” and some of the techniques used in the past reflect this.

          • Anton

            What I was critiquing was your over-simplistic view of the protestant view.

          • There’s really no such thing as a “protestant view” on temptation and sin.

          • Anton

            Nor a Catholic. Only a biblical.

          • There is a distinctly Catholic view, as opposed to various protestant “theories”, and it squares with a proper understanding of scripture.

          • Anton

            You said that without thought.

          • The term “Catholic” only has meaning because of the existence of various heretical and schismatic churches.

          • Anton

            You said that without thought too.

    • Anton

      God is doing the latter.

  • prompteetsincere

    On July 17, 2013, the fifth bulkhead of the S.S. CoE was breached to the mournful strains of ‘Further, My GOD, From Thee’. Furthest just has happened.

  • educynic

    When I was about 8, I was taken off by a man who wanted to fiddle with me. It was a strange, somewhat frightening, but actually a gentle experience. At 10 a youth some years older, family friend, ‘did things’ (some to my sister as well).
    At school, a boys’ grammar, we swam in the nude. An elderly teacher would come in and throw sixpences for us to dive for. We knew that he had come to look at our bodies. That was all part of the sexualisation of the changing room/toilets.

    At a similar age an older man showed me gay pornography. It hit me at a vulnerable age, encouraging me to regard the pure pleasure-seeking of gay sex to be the main reason for sex.
    At my single-sex college, a known gay tutor showed me straight porn in a failed attempt to seduce me. There were other events in my life.

    Many of these experiences were pleasurable. I had no desire for male bodies but had got used to and enjoyed male physical attention. Today I would have been encouraged to ‘come out’ as gay and some of the gender-bending abuse would have been part of my school sex education lessons: it would have been in those that I would have been introduced to thoughts of oral and anal sex and encouraged to ‘experiment’.

    Of course the temptations are still there. What was once pleasurable is still, and the promiscuity of the gay community and societal encouragement to participate so strong that the battle to resist at times is difficult, especially when marriage is, as all marriages sometime are, difficult.

    Marriage? Yes I am conventionally married. I find women sexually attractive, am glad that I am married, am glad that I have children.

    My decision to lead a straight life was indeed a ‘lifestyle choice’ (a derided phrase). It’s a struggle at times denying myself old pleasures – a temptation on a similar level to that extra piece of cake. But that doesn’t mean that resisting the temptation of both isn’t worth doing.

    I used to be glad that in the Church of England there was a general understanding that we all are tempted to sin, that some of the sins are of a sexual nature, that we need to encourage each other to resist temptation. I deeply regret that the church is departing from this position and will no longer be encouraging me to leave the godly life to which we are all called.

    • Chefofsinners

      Rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven. And indeed on earth, in terms of your family and faith. While The CoE may fail and disappoint you, Christ’s true church never will. You are right, they are wrong.

    • David

      Well done for resisting temptation. Your successful struggle to resist will have been noted by God who rejoices in your decision. We are all tempted by some seemingly attractive experience, but do well to resist, as such physical pleasures are but fleeting, and lead to further disorder and unhappiness.
      The C of E is wrong, and has disappointed you, but Christ’s true Church transcends mere denominational boundaries and will never fail. Although the top leadership and much of the C of E is becoming apostate, there are still good, sound local Anglican churches which uphold orthodox, conservative teaching. In fact such churches are themselves growing and multiplying. It took me some time to find the one where I am now a member, and serve as a Lay Minister. Find such a Biblical church for yourself and you will be amongst friends. God bless you.

    • dannybhoy

      Thanks for sharing your experiences and how you have been able to overcome. The Christian life is an amazing mixture of God’s grace and our perseverance. The closer we draw to God the more we see our own imperfections and those particular sins we wrestle with.

      2nd Peter 1..
      1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

      5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.

    • Dreadnaught

      Your open honesty is to be admired sir, all respect to you.

      • IanCad

        I was going to comment on, and commend, this brave posting but it seems to be in quarantine for now. A brave man indeed!

        • Mike Stallard

          Why was the excellent comment deleted though?

          • Anton

            The status of this fine comment is “awaiting moderation” and has been for nearly 24 hours; it might have slipped his Grace’s memory in view of the recent access problems.

          • It’s a bit odd, this. The comment was moved automatically, for some reason, but no alert was sent about any issue needing moderation. Usually only spam or certain swear words are filtered off. It has been restored manually

  • cybervicar

    Full moon yesterday – something’s funny in the air..

  • michaelkx

    a one world order, is that what they voted for? I thought that was a story by some feller or something.???

  • Hi

    Poor thing!

    I’m not into cats as pets, although tigers are cool, dogs especially Labradors are better pets.

  • Anna

    The LGBT activist in question has, apparently, tried the conversion therapy and had no positive results. Typically, she imagines her experience is universal, and having has lost all confidence is such therapy is hesitant to recommend it for others. We can all sympathise with her sufferings, and she definitely needs our prayers. However, she goes ‘beyond what is written’, and implies that it is never God’s will for gay people to resist the ‘flesh’ – in this case, their homosexual urges – and contrary to His word, must embrace it wholeheartedly – live it out – rather than bring it to the cross. Instead of encouraging people to overcome the flesh, and depend on the grace of God when they fail, the new mantra is that such efforts are harmful and don’t work.

    So Christians who struggle in this area, and would like to be free, will now be taught that their efforts are misguided. Imagine the confusion for a young Christian who wants to live a truly holy life to be told this by a Christian leader. Whom should they believe – God’s word or the new ‘infallible popes’? If they decide to obey the scriptures, they must do it alone with no prayer or support from their churches. If they decide to go with their leaders, and live out this ‘wholesome gay lifestyle’, they will inevitably suffer from a disturbed conscience as the Holy Spirit convicts them of sin; in order to cope, some may choose to quench the Spirit, and grow hardened and fruitless as Christians. How terrible!

    The real encouragement that these young people need is the knowledge that God is loving, patient and forgiving, and will help them through their struggles. The stories of many Christians with homosexual inclinations who, by the grace of God, have fully overcome such urges to either enter marriages with people of the opposite sex or to lead celibate and fruitful Christian lives, testifying to the power of the cross, will now be kept under wraps.

    Now, it is indeed possible that the so-called ‘conversion therapy’, still in its nascent stages, is lacking in many respects and can have harmful side effects, and those who administer such therapies need to study their subject better. This has been the case with many new therapies. But what qualifications have the members of the General Synod to comment on such matters – to either endorse or repudiate what the Royal College of Psychiatrists have to say on the subject. In the absence of formal training, is it not better for the clerics to remain silent, and confine their comments to the areas of their expertise? Will they now go to Marie Stopes to decide on the desirability of abortions for a woman’s spiritual well being?

    So long as John Sentamu can sleep at night, all is well!

    • Dominic Stockford

      There is a chance, if those who wish to rid themselves of urges they realise to be sinful don’t turn to the CofE but to Core Issues Trust, or to Reformed Congregations who would direct them sensibly, biblically, and towards God through Christ. That does mean, ‘abandon the CofE’, but I think that is in general a good policy today.

      • petej

        For synod Core Issues Trust produced a booklet of eleven testimonies.

        In each case the individual had a very understandable reason to want to change their orientation, but none of them claimed the therapy had worked. So if the medical profession say there is no evidence that this works and Core cannot produce even one testimony of someone it has worked for then why should the cofe continue to fund or pressure people into attending these sessions?

    • petej

      She’s not just going on her own experience, but the anecdotal experience of others (including another chap on synod) and two formal investigations into conversion therapy – both showed a 0% success rate.

      The motion is not to ban prayer or pastoral support, but to call on the government ban fraudulent and harmful *therapies*. It is not to stop LGBTI people seeking change, but to stop these “therapists” preying on vulnerable people.

      • Anton

        You want the government to decide what is and isn’t a fraudulent and harmful therapy? The government? How many times have you grumbled about the government in the last 10 years?

        • petej

          It’s not just the government.

          It’s the government plus medical experts plus formal studies plus anecdotal evidence plus evidence from the ‘therapists’ themselves.

          All saying that it doesn’t work and all saying that it is potentially harmful.

          I think the cofe would be far better to encourage people to pray than to entrust themselves to fraudsters.

          • Anton

            I doubt that it is much more or less effective than the talking therapies intended to make people feel better, but those outcomes are not so easy to measure as a change of sexual preference.

          • petej

            I agree orientation isn’t the easiest thing to measure, but when the testimonials presented by the therapists don’t even claim orientation change it suggests to me that the medical profession is right about it.

          • Anton

            Therapy should not be viewed as part of the medical profession except when drugs are prescribed.

          • petej

            I don’t know about that. It is normal for the medical profession to advise against all manner of harmful activities. Conversion therapy has been condemned by all the professional medical bodies in the UK because it has a zero percent success rate and harms a lot of the people who go in for it.

          • Broadwood

            That’s not the case. You must be unfamiliar with Dr Lisa Diamond’s work on the fluidity and variability of attraction.

          • petej

            Dr Lisa Diamond’s work demonstrates that about 5% of people experience some change in orientation over their life times, but that this is not due to conversion therapy. I’ve read an interview with her where she complains about people misrepresenting her work.

            There have been two formal studies of conversion therapy and they have both shown a 0% success rate.

            My question to you is why not encourage LGBTI people to pray and seek the Lord rather than attend fraudulent therapy that medical experts warn against?

          • Broadwood

            No, it doesn’t suggest any such figure, that’s complete rubbish. Her findings present a complex picture where most people experiencing SSA are more or less bisexual, and fluidity is not uncommon. She has called for the gay movement to stop claiming that its fixed.
            And I’m not suggesting anyone do anything. It’s up to them. Or should be. Why should you seek to limit people’s freedom to choose for themselves?

          • petej

            Erm…!!! Id suggest that you read her work or watch her videos *first hand* someone is lying to you about what it says. If what you claim about her work is true why would anyone need such therapies?!

            Where I would agree with you is that I think there probably are more people who are bisexual than who are gay. I don’t think there is anyway to come to a conclusive figure, but I would expect the gay population to be about 1% and the bisexual population to be about 5%.

            Nobody is limiting anybody’s freedom. The synod has agreed with professional medical advice on these therapies.

          • Broadwood

            I have done that thanks. I think we’re clearly coming from different perspectives and she has a very large body of work on this now, so any soundbite we pick out is going to be a bit slanted, I agree.
            But overall she’s painting a much more dynamic picture of people’s experiences than you seem to want to admit.

          • petej

            I freely admit that she demonstrates fluidity in some people’s sexuality. I have said so! But this is *not* because of conversion therapy. It is a “natural”/uncontrolled process.

          • Anton

            Biological diseases are caused by bacteria or viruses. Mental problems are caused by… the medical profession hasn’t any comparable ontology for them, not remotely. Naming a set of symptoms is not the same as understanding them.

          • petej

            So what you are saying is that you would trust someone with no mental health qualifications over someone with, say an MD or a PhD in psychiatry? That is what we are talking about here!

            Why are you so keen to push people into seeking fraudulent therapies instead of seeking the Lord in prayer and consulting *professional* advice?

          • Anton

            I wouldn’t “push” anybody, and in this field I trust nobody.

            Please read the link I provided a few posts above, though.

          • petej

            Then you are in agreement with the general synod.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            petej,
            And what are YOUR qualifications to even have an opinion on mental health issues? I have four degrees (three in psychology) and 30 plus years of clinical experience. And my expert opinion (I have testified in court as an expert witness a number of times) is that your words have revealed that you are ignorant as the day is long regarding these issues.

            The Synod was totally wrong and my experience (and what I have learned from research) indicates that people can change if they so desire it and are willing to do some work in therapy. And I agree that seeking the Lord in prayer is even a more powerful option. Why not use both?

          • petej

            I don’t have qualifications in mental health, but I trust those that do over those that don’t. I trust those people I know personally who have been through this therapy and ended up in hospital as a result.

            If you were as qualified as you claim then it is not credible that you do not even know the defintion of the word “homosexual”.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Again, I have defined “homosexual” a number of times for you, as well as the mistaken use of “orientation.” You just disagree with my definition. The definition you accept happens to be gravely in error and is highly biased toward the cultural libertine perception of these things. I guarantee you that this will change over time as liberals finally catch up (kicking and screaming) with real science.

          • petej

            Your definitions are not the dictionary definition or the common usage definition which signals to me that you are ignorant of the words. If you wish to use them in a non-standard way then you should signal that first else you just look stupid.

            I know medical professionals and scientists who would strongly disagree with you. I’ll wager you believe “real science” is anything the majority of professional scientists laugh at?

            I don’t know you or like you. I think you are a charlatan making money out of emotionally vulnerable people. A quack “doctor” who makes people sick, not well.

            If you have any conscience in you at all, I appeal to it to stop what you are doing. Stop lying. Stop hurting people.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Sexual orientation is a theoretical construct, like Freud’s Id, Superego, and Ego. Totally unprovable. For awhile such constructs can be helpful or they can be unhelpful as well and distract from the truth. Few psychologists ever use the word “Id” today except in teaching Freud’s theories.

            “Homosexual orientation” (as something other than fluid and changeable sexual attraction, and theologically as temptation) simply does not exist. And pushing this error is what is hurting people, lots of people. So I can say back to you in honesty: “If you have any conscience at all, I appeal to you to stop what you are doing. Stop pushing lies. Stop hurting people!”

            I don’t say you are “lying” (as you accuse me of) because a lie is a deliberate attempt to twist or deny truth that you know is truth. You are not doing that, you are severely deceived, like most of the LGBT agenda people. This deceptive and bullying agenda is harming millions, including you.

          • petej

            It does exist. If it didn’t exist then what would be the point of conversion therapy?

            I am very confident that you are not writing what you believe the truth to be. I’m happy to call you a liar and a charlatan

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Those who resort to ad hominem insults only do so because they have insufficient rational arguments or evidence to back up their points. By such insults you say much more about yourself than about those you insult.

          • petej

            It wasn’t an “ad hominem”. You have repeatedly lied to me and you claim to be able to change people’s orientation. We both know that is a false claim.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Again, it is you who are lying about what I have claimed. I have not once claimed to be able to change people’s orientation. I do not have that power. That is only between the individual and God.
            But I repeatedly have claimed that people can and often do change their own orientation, sometimes with professional or pastoral help and sometimes without such help. Of course, you will not hear or understand this distinction and will again deliberately misinterpret the plain words that I write.

            So let me repeat for you: People (including same-sex attracted people) can change. As a professional people helper, I do not change anyone, they change themselves. They can do so much more quickly and easily with outside professional help.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Your constant misrepresentation of what I write and then calling it a lie (straw man fallacy) will not work. I have never once claimed to be able to change anyone’s orientation. In fact, I cannot change anyone in any essential way. Therapists do not have this kind of power. It is all between the individual and God. All therapists do is facilitate the change process which is chosen and maintained by the individuals themselves.

            I do maintain that most same-sex oriented people can change; ALL of them can change their behavior (behavior is always a choice) and most of them can change their desires over time (even without professional help). Research keeps proving this.

            Stop your constant lying about what I write…fortunately anyone reading here can check what I have written on this thread and verify your own deliberate misrepresentation of my words. You are only making yourself look bad.

          • petej

            I quoted you verbatim.

            The trouble is you keep changing your story

            Whether you are involved in conversion therapy or not

            Whether you get paid for this or not

            Whether the new Atlantis is a Liberal journal or a Conservative journal

            Whether orientation exists or is a Liberal lie

            Whether you comprehend what ‘homosexual’ means or not.

            If you aren’t involved in conversion therapy then I do not know why you are complaining about the ban on it.

          • Marty McFuckface

            The faggot calling the guy trying to help fags a “liar” and a “charlatan” – now I’ve heard everything.

          • petej

            He’s given me several different and conflicting accounts of himself.

            If he could cure people of homosexuality why is he keeping it a secret? He could save the lives of hundreds of thousands and/or make himself rich.

          • Marty McFuckface

            Maybe he’s still partly in the closet.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You continue to deliberately refuse to understand. No psychotherapist “cures” anyone of anything. Let me repeat that because you just refuse to hear: no psychotherapist “cures” anyone of anything. They cure themselves with the help of the therapist. Scientific research is clear and unequivocal now: most young people who believe themselves to be homosexual end up being heterosexual even without therapy. Therapists only help people speed the process of positive change. No one changes unless it is their desire to change, so no manipulation of their will occurs. You are just a typical representative of the LGBT movement, promoting blatant lies.

            On this Christian website, believers can have faith in this change process (see my post “On Transformation.”

          • petej

            Well you have previously claimed to be able to convert people’s orientation, but if you are now claiming that you do not make this claim then why are you complaining about a motion condemning the practise?

            I think adolescence is a confusing time sexually and things are still in flux. We are not talking about teenagers naturally shifting emotions or even fluidity of sexuality. We are talking about making claims that you can convert adults orientation when you can do nothing of sort. This wouldn’t be too much of a problem except that people are harmed in the process. People end up in hospital and have lifelong mental health conditions so that you can make a quick buck.

            And don’t come out with nonesense about this all being a “liberal” conspiracy, because I know people this has happened to.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            And you accuse ME of lying? Find even one place where I “claimed to be able to convert’s people’s orientation.” You make up stuff that I did not say and then criticize me for saying it. It is all in your own imagination, motivated to find something to trollishly bludgeon me with. Sorry, all to no avail. I am well protected by the armor of God and the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The real frauds are the bishops in the Church of England. They preach not the real gospel; they are but hired hands at best and at worst they are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” working for world, the flesh, and the devil. The C of E has clearly turned apostate and we are now free to pronounce anathema upon them.

          • petej

            I have lots of problems with the cofe bishops, but I do think it is a bit unfair that when they do nothing about abuse they are accused of protecting paedophiles and when they act to condemn abuse they get accused of being apostate.

            Please tell me why you think condemning therapies that do not work and are harmful is apostaticism? Why should Christian bishops be encouraging people to follow this failed therapy instead of seeking the Lord and professional medical advice?

          • CliveM

            Good point well made. I see you’ve asked that question a couple of times, with little response.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The CofE apostasy is due to: 1) the abandonment of the primary Christian doctrine of the divine authority of Scripture. All the stuff about homosexuality and transgender only constitute symptoms of this loss of faith in the Word of God. 2) Secondarily, the abandonment (in the past half century) of 2000 years of Church tradition— agreed upon doctrine in virtually all the churches– regarding both sexual morality and the role women in the church underlines this departure from the faith.

            The issue of condemning therapies for those who desire to be heterosexual is not only wrong in the sense of promoting sin and condemning positive change, but it goes against all the very strong scientific research showing homosexuality (in fact all sexual attraction) to be extremely mutable and fluid. The majority of those who identify as homosexual will eventually identify as heterosexual anyway, even without therapy. For all their frantic research, neither can liberal scientists find evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. The propaganda put out by the LGBT agenda people is all based on lies.

          • petej

            Please explain where scripture says that it is OK to abuse someone if they are lgbti?

            The cofe opposes same sex marriage (indeed lead the political opposition to it) and same sex sexual relationships. The cofe requires gay people to be celibate.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Where did I say it was OK or that scripture said it was OK to abuse someone? But since you brought it up, actually, the OT law condemned homosexual behavior as a capital crime in their Hebrew culture. Like adultery, they stoned people for it. I don’t recommend that now because it was a civil law as much as a religious law in that theocracy. Now, instead of abusing homosexuals who are acting out their temptations, the western cultures (and Church of England) are abusing those who simply want to change to be normal (heterosexual) or at least to learn how to avoid being overcome by their temptations..

          • petej

            You can be LGBTI without having sex, but it’s very interesting that you believe the cofe should be executing gay people. All I can say is that I am glad you aren’t Archbishop of Canterbury.

            You ask where you said scripture said it was OK to abuse someone. You are accusing the cofe of abandoning scripture because they have condemned an abusive practise. I’m asking where in scripture it says they must not do it.

            Being LGBTI is not the same thing as sex addiction.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You obviously did not read the words I wrote. Go back and try again. I, in fact, said that i do NOT recommend stoning people anymore. I do not think it appropriate to punish any one for their sexual temptations, but for actual molestation of children and rape, yes, jail would be appropriate. You are using “straw man” arguments, assuming I believe one thing (which I don’t) and then arguing against it.

            Those Mosaic laws were only for the ancient Jewish people and theocratic culture. But it does show that the behavior is clearly sin.

            Same-sex attraction falls into the spiritual category of temptation. Not sin. Being tempted does not make anyone anything but human. Even Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are, but without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Because I am tempted to steal does not make me a thief. If you don’t act out the temptation, it is not sin. Nor should anyone identify themselves according to their particular temptations (including same-sex attraction). It the CHOICE to ACT OUT that makes a person homosexual and that also makes it sinful. Science has shown clearly that sexual attraction is a very fluid and mutable thing. People change over their lifetime, especially from homosexual to heterosexual.

          • petej

            I’m sorry I missed that you said that we shouldn’t be executing gay people. That leads me back to my question which you still haven’t answered.

            I am going with the dictionary definition and common usage of the word gay/homosexual (which is also the definition used in the RCP statement which synod voted to endorse), but I am not very interested in having a semantic debate with you. By “gay” I mean people who are attracted to the same sex and not attracted to the opposite sex.

            Where in scripture does it say it is OK to push people who have exclusive attraction to the same sex into fraudulent and abusive therapy?

            We both know that the answer is that it doesn’t and the Church of England should be pointing such people to Jesus instead of snake oil dealers. It was completely correct to endorse the statement.

            Only about 5% of people experience any fluidity over their lifetime and I don’t think there are any cases of homosexual (exclusive same sex attraction) to heterosexual (exclusive opposite sex attraction). It is nearly always different degrees of bisexuality. Although some people experience fluidity, it does not mean that nobody is gay (or straight).

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I strongly do not agree that the definition of homosexual is same-sex attraction, regardless of what other radical liberals believe. As a Christian, it is only being tempted in a particular way. I am not labelled a thief because I am tempted to steal. Only if I do it. As a mental health professional, I know many people who believed they were homosexual and even lived the lifestyle. But they changed in time (and the research backs me up). They are happily heterosexual now.

          • petej

            It is pointless to argue over semantics. That is not the substance of the issues here.

            I’ve never come across anybody who claims that therapy changed them from being exclusively attracted to the opposite sex to being exclusively attracted to the same sex. As far as I am aware there have been only two formal studies into this therapy and both concluded a 0% success rate. I will be very happy to be corrected when you explain which research shows otherwise

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Nor have I come across any married person who was exclusively attracted to their spouse. Attraction is not the issue because that is very fluid and changeable with everyone. It is what we DO with that attraction that makes it lust and sexual behavior or makes it only a temptation to be resisted (as with all temptations). There are temptations I have struggled with and successfully resisted for many decades. But I would never say that my essential self-identification should be associated with these temptations. For example, just because I am tempted to steal does not make me a thief— rather, only if I give into the temptation and actually do steal. Likewise, no one should be labelled homosexual just because they have some same-sex attractions. I know many happily married men with children who are tempted in this way but without acting on these attractions. They are not miserable, just as I am not miserable because I do not steal. In fact, I am happier and feel better about myself because I successfully resist temptation.

          • petej

            The common usage of gay/homosexual is someone who experiences attraction only to members of the same sex. It is not a subjective thing or primarily an ‘identity’, but an objective category of person. It is a category based on attraction, not on behaviour.

            You claim to be hugely qualified in this field – how come you don’t know the basic definitions?

            I haven’t accused you of being miserable!

          • Bruce Atkinson

            In fact, this is brand new stuff to the field of psychology and is highly controversial both due to politics and scientific research. Much has changed over the past few decades and is still changing. “Common usage” is just about popular culture, not about anything that is lasting. As a clinical psychologist of 35 years of practice in the mental health field (and three advanced degrees), I get to have an opinion. “Hugely qualified” in the field of sexuality is not a label that I would apply to myself. But lots of experience and common sense, yeah, that would apply. I am a clinical psychologist who deals with all kinds of issues, especially specializing in the population of adult Christians.

            I am certainly not miserable, so such an accusation would be in error. Just talk to my wife and family and friends.

          • petej

            The English language is defined by its use and changes (e.g. In Shakespeare’s time “bark” meant “ship” and now does not), but homosexual has meant the same thing all of my life. I think either you must be lying about your ignorance or you must be lying about your qualifications. And I really don’t care because I am not interested in having an argument about semantics.

            Conversion therapy is often harmful, often uses harmful techniques and doesn’t work. We know this from professional experts, formal studies and testimonies of people who have been through it. By “doesn’t work” I mean that it doesn’t turn men who are only attracted to men into men who are only attracted to women. It has put three different individuals known to me into hospital…and they are still gay so you will have a tough time convincing me it is a good thing. I noticed that you haven’t attempted to offer any evidence which says otherwise – funny that!

            I think churches should be pointing people to Jesus, to prayer and to qualified medical professionals.

            Again I haven’t called you miserable. I don’t know why you keep implying that I have?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            “Homosexuality” has always been about same-sex sexual activity. The idea of homosexual “orientation” is what is new and invented, especially as believed to be innate and immutable. That is the lie that the LGBT agenda people have perpetrated on the public, which now science is refuting. Rather, same-sex sexual attraction is environmental and learned, and homosexual behavior is most certainly an individual choice.

          • petej

            I’m sorry but that’s simply a lie.

            Homosexual has meant exclusive attraction to the same sex all of my life and I know lots of gay people who are entirely celibate. I know a few who are in opposite sex relationships… You aren’t going to convince me that homosexuals are obsessed with sex or defined by sex because I have first hand experience.

            Please stop lying you are harming vulnerable people.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Why are you making this personal? Lying is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. I guarantee you that I have not lied in anything I have posted on this thread.
            To accuse me of lying simply because you disagree with me is highly unethical, ad hominem– which is generally only used when people cannot find the evidence or rationality to counter the arguments.

          • petej

            Because it is personal to me and that is my only interest in the subject. You are presumably making money from it so it is a financial issue to you.

            I’m not accusing you of lying because you disagree with me. I’m accusing you of lying about the existence of orientation.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I make zero money, even on the website where I Moderate. It is all ministry and fun. In fact, I lose money because I could be working instead.

            I am not lying about the reality that “homosexual orientation” is merely same-sex sexual temptation, not something innate or immutable. The scientific research is abundantly clear that people constantly are changing their sexual attractions over time. Thus the entire modern idea of “orientation” has been in error, invented by the LGBT community to broker in homosexuality as acceptable, not a sin, not a mental disorder.

          • petej

            Then you are abusing gay people for “fun”. This is serious life and death stuff. Two people I know have ended up in hospital because of conversion “therapy”. I’ve heard stories from several others. Please stop this evil behaviour. You might think that you are helping, but you are not.

            Professional organisations have not condemned conversion therapy out of some bizarre liberal conspiracy. They are not run by lizard men in human suits. This stuff hurts real people. That’s why professional organisations have condemned it. I appeal to you to stop practising it. I appeal to you to stop lying. I know you are so it is not use pretending otherwise.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            So what is abusive about telling people they can change? I have worked almost 40 years in the mental heath field and I constantly see the truth that people can change in so many ways, especially regarding feelings, desires, and behavior. But they have to want to change.

            I understand that self-identified and committed gays don’t want to hear the biblical truth that their behavior is a sin, but that is hardly abusive. Sinners never want to hear that until they are ready to repent and change.

            So what is so abusive about what I propose here? In what way does it hurt you?

          • petej

            Well one of the harmful things highlighted in the synod debates is telling people it’s their fault when they don’t change!!

            I’m surprised you are an accredited counsellor if you blame your clients for a lack of change.

            What is abusive? You are knowingly offering “help” to some of the most desperate and emotionally vulnerable people in our society when you know fine well that any “help” you offer will make them worse not better.

            How does this impact me? If you hurt my friends then you hurt me.

            You talk of scientific truths as if the scientific method were to pick the one thing that the vast majority of scientists and medical professionals disagreed with. That’s not the scientific method. The scientific method is to construct a theory from evidence and then demonstrate that theory working through repeatable experiments.

            I’ve answered a lot of your questions. Maybe you could answer mine.

            How many of your clients have you actually moved from exclusive attraction to the same sex to exclusive attraction to the opposite sex?

            Do you follow up on the mental health of your conversion clients? If so, how many of your patients have ended up taking their own lives? How many see a deterioration of their mental health?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Very funny. Again you are just trying to make me look bad and are having a very difficult time of it.

            If people could easily change on their own, there would be no therapists, no physicians, no schools, etc, etc. We ALL need help to change in the directions that we wish. In our field there is an old joke– Question: “How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb?” Answer: “Only one, but the lightbulb must want to change.” Of course, we are talking about people here, but you get the idea. Most same-sex attracted people tend to change on their own (because it is change in a natural direction) but even committed homosexuals can change their behavior, especially with help. Their temptations will also become less in time, especially through the use of CBT, DBT, and the healing of any past trauma.

            I have proof every week that what I do truly helps people. They tell their friends who then come to see me. They hire me, they pay me money for my services.They come back. I have a wonderful job because I get to see people who are very unhappy (sometimes even suicidal) become increasingly happy, fulfilled, and effective in their relationships and work.

            So when you wrote that I “know well that any ‘help’ you offer will make them worse not better”, it cannot be further from the truth. Besides, how could you say such a thing when you do not know me or my work? You only theoretically disagree with the reality that homosexuals can change, do change, and that they can speed this process if they get professional help. That is all this is about. You have been brainwashed by the LGBT culture.
            And perhaps you yourself are a self-identified homosexual who wants an excuse for not doing anything to change, and for not seeking help. Your conscience is killing you and now here comes this Christian psychologist who is destroying your ill-gotten rationalization for staying the way you are. Sorry, dude, sin is sin and God can change (transform, in fact) anyone who repents and seeks change. And I will preach this truth until my last breath.

            BTW, I have a small private practice dealing with all kinds of relational, emotional, and behavioral issues. I do not do “conversion therapy” (whatever that is supposed to be)– I just help everyone with whatever they struggle with. In over 35 years in the mental health field, I have always had very satisfied customers, and very very few complaints. Not one of my clients in therapy has suicided– this is extremely unusual since people can kill themselves even when being treated by an excellent therapist. I have just been quite fortunate (blessed). One chronically suicidal client suffering from PTSD and Bipolar Disorder moved out of state — back to her toxic family (against my advice) and a year later she did kill herself. This was tragic. Had she stayed in therapy and avoided her family, this likely would not have happened.

          • petej

            Previously you claimed you didn’t make any money out of conversion therapy and just did it because you enjoyed it. Do you get paid for conversion therapy or not?

            I do not disagree that gay people can change orientation. I disagree that it can be done at will or by a “therapist” who claims not to even know what “homosexual” means. If there were genuinely a cure then why keep it secret? Why aren’t there lots of straight people who used to be gay? Are they all in hiding?! Why do all the professional medical and psychological organisations in the UK say it doesn’t work? Today I heard a heart rending story of a gay shik in the UK who wanted nothing better but to please his family, but was unable to make himself straight. If you genuinely had a cure then you could help him. So where is it? I know of gay people in Uganda who genuinely fear for their lives every time they leave the house. If you genuinely had a cure then you could help them too.

            If you do not indeed do conversion therapy then I fail to see why you are so unhappy at the vote by synod to condemn it?

            You’ve sort of answered three of my four questions (thank you), but you haven’t answered the first one.

            How many of your clients have you moved from exclusive same sex attraction to exclusive opposite sex attraction?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You slander me. I have never, ever claimed to do “conversion therapy” and I have actually said so at least twice on this thread. You simply do not really read the posts but skim them and make unwarranted assumptions. I happen to believe that trying to help people who desire to change is a good thing and therapists should only be encouraged to do so. So I have no problem with conversion therapy (especially since research indicates that they do not use aversion therapy).

          • petej

            Quote (from you)

            For 35 years I have helped people to overcome, diminish and sometimes totally eliminate unwanted feelings and desires of all kinds. The success rate with changing sexual feelings…

            End quote

            You’re now claiming that you did not say this.

            You also said that you did not make money from your services, but did it for fun. Then later you admitted that you do indeed charge for your services.

            I’m sensing a pattern.

            If you don’t keep a track of how much harm your therapy has caused and you don’t have any clue how many people conversion therapy actually works for (you know that conversion therapy that you don’t do wink wink) then with why justification do you call the RCP, the NHS, (many other signatories) and General Synod mistaken in claiming that such therapy doesn’t work and potentially is harmful?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You are not listening to what I wrote or even what you are quoting here. These statements only describe what ALL psychotherapists do— helping people with ALL kinds of unwanted feelings and desires. I have never advertised myself as doing “conversion therapy” and I have not even studied what is required to do it. I am a licensed psychologist with a general practice with adults (mostly Christians). Whatever they want help with, I try to help them. I also tell them that I cannot guarantee success in our obtaining their goals (whatever they are) and neither can any health professional make such guarantees— too much depends on the individual patient, their motivation and compliance with directives. However, I can almost guarantee that they will emerge f from treatment happier and better adjusted. But this of course is very difficult to measure, it is all subjective. But from their verbal feedback, a high proportion of my clients turn into satisfied customers. They are always referring their family members and friends. I do not have to advertise or market myself at all to keep getting new clients.

          • Bruce Atkinson
          • petej

            Below is a quote from the final link you have provided the * is my own

            3. Does the report argue that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy?

            *No.* The report argues that “sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people” and observes that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” The report does not advocate trying to change — or confirm — a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. The report’s authors are especially wary of medical interventions directed at children.

            The report argues strongly for better addressing the mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide) and behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence) that non-heterosexual and transgender populations experience at much higher rates than the general population.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            These days, due to intense political propaganda and even governmental pressure, in order to avoid offending the Gaystapo it is politically correct among both the medical and psychological fields to discourage trying to change a person’s sexual ‘orientation’ or gender identity through therapy. So you will hear this disclaimer frequently in official reports and articles. The liberal publishers will not publish it otherwise. I know this from the experience of university professor friends. But the scientific facts indicated in these articles are worth examining.

          • petej

            It’s pretty similar to the statement that the General Synod put their name to. Why are you complaining again?

            The New Atlantis is styled as a journal promoting social conservatism. I don’t think it is credible to suggest they are in anyway “liberal”!!!!! If you are suggesting that it has liberal bias then why are you posting it as evidence?!

          • Bruce Atkinson

            New Atlantis is a rare bird, and their strong integrity about accurate research and their generally conservative bias is what allows me to trust them.

          • petej

            So if they have a conservative bias then why do you believe their statement on conversion therapy is as a result of liberal bias?!

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Because they would never have been published without some disclaimer about not recommending conversion therapy. I thought I made that clear (maybe on a different thread). The radical PC liberals have a stronghold in the professional publishing media. It is the facts of the research that I trust, not their PC-required recommendations.

          • petej

            You said that the publishers had a left wing bias, but then you admitted that they actually have a conservative bias. Which is it? Are you honestly suggesting that the New Atlantis is controlled by radical liberals?

            Look at it from my point of view. You send me evidence in favour of conversion therapy and at least one of the articles you send me explicitly says it doesn’t work.

            Your answer is some sort of conspiracy theory, which also doesn’t make any sense because to work a journal devoted to conservative thought would have to be run by radical liberals.

            What am I supposed to think?

            I’m not the smartest tool in the box, but even I can smell a big fish here.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Come on, I was quite clear to anyone who listened. MOST scientific journal publishers (heck, most media organizations in the west) are leftwing (maybe 90% of scientific and university publications), but of course that does not mean ALL. There are a few rare exceptions, like New Atlantis.
            And now you are changing the facts again. The articles I provided a link to did NOT explicitly say conversion therapy doesn’t work; one of them simply did not recommend doing it (they did not say why, but I supplied the answer to you– publisher PC pressure).

            You just don’t want to agree with anything I write, regardless. I have become your enemy… at least in your eyes. Which means nothing you write in response to me has any other meaning except— let’s make Bruce look bad. It is good thing that you have not the power to do that; our ABC listeners are intelligent enough to see truth when they hear it.

          • petej

            The article *you* sent me as evidence of conversion therapy says it doesn’t work or at least said it should not be attempted. It was from the New Atlantis which you agree is a conservative journal and therefore your argument that this was done due to liberal bias is as nonsensical as most of your lies. If you are genuinely as qualified as you claim to be then wouldn’t you be intelligent enough to be coming up with less obvious fictions?

            Maybe you are just an agent of chaos? You send me a piece of evidence that contradicts the message that you are pushing. You send me to a website and aggressively question me there and then block me so I cannot answer. I see a potential pattern here.

            I don’t see any major divisions in the scientific community (you can always find a few scientists who disagree with the majority on anything) The broad consensus is that conversion therapy is unethical.

            I doubt anyone else is reading this thread. So feel free to drop the act any time you like.

            You talk about the GAFCON communion and the Canterbury communion. Do the GAFCON communion still believe that lying is a sin?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The most comprehensive study of sexuality to date, the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, found that, without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they are gay at sixteen don’t think they are gay by the age of twenty-five.
            The University of North Carolina’s National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health surveyed 10,000 teenagers and found that the vast majority of sixteen-year olds who reported only same-sex sexual attractions reported only opposite-sex sexual attractions one year later. Because these surveys produced such unexpected results, similar studies were soon replicated all over the Western world. The outcomes were almost identical, with population-based
            samples now reaching into the hundreds of thousands.

            Although science has discovered genetic markers for tendencies toward both alcoholism and sociopathy, for all their frantic searching, NO clear evidence of a genetic marker for homosexuality has been found; and twin studies back this up. Also see:
            http://constitution.com/latest-scientific-research-says-homosexuals-not-born-way-transgenderism-not-supported-science/
            http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

            The scientific evidence is sufficient to prove that to reduce the individual’s distress and speed this natural and normalizing change process, psychotherapy (including Christian counseling for believers) is highly to be recommended. I am against any kind of aversive therapy, and in fact no one does it anymore except for rapists and pedophiles in prison.

            The only harmful “conversion” therapy would be if there were any coercion or mandated treatment of those who actually did not want to change to the normal sexual orientation. There is no such mandated therapy to my knowledge in existence in the west. But as a psychologist, I believe it to be quite harmful to clients for a therapist to try to talk them out of changing when they clearly
            so desire to change to become heterosexual. Sexual attraction is a malleable and fluid thing. It is very much possible for these people who truly desire to change to do so– both their lifestyle and for many of them, also their sexual attraction over time.

            It is more than ironic and inconsistent, it is the height of hypocrisy for the LGBT agenda promoters to say that it is perfectly OK for a man to choose radical surgery so he can change his sex/gender to become a woman but that it is a terrible thing for a same-sex attracted man to get therapy to become heterosexual. Such a view is totally irrational as well as immoral.

          • petej

            None of the evidence that you have supplied is evidence that conversion therapy works. We are not talking about changing behaviour, but changing orientation. The motion passed by synod was about therapy aiming to change orientation, not behaviour.

            In the UK, although not illegal, you cannot work as a registered therapist and practice conversion therapy and so all of what we are talking about is unregulated and carried out by people who are unqualified.

            Conversion therapy only exists because people are pressured into it and because they are lied to about success rates and side effects.

            I cannot speak for all lgbt people, but I know a lot. I do not know any who believe you can change orientation or gender by therapy or surgery.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            There are very few clinics or professionals who specifically do “sexual conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy” and therefore very little reliable research. The fact that homosexuals frequently change to heterosexual even without any kind of therapy is proof that all that such therapy can do anyway is speed the process. And no one who does not want to change (to become “normal”) will even seek such therapy.

          • petej

            Your ignorant claims are not supported by the evidence that you yourself have provided. I’m done.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            “Ignorant claims”? Ad hominems are only used when people run out of rational arguments. Light always wins over darkness.

          • petej

            You claim not to know what “homosexual” means and the evidence you cite contradicts your claims. How else would you describe this if not ignorant?

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I think that the discussion has focussed far too much on same-sex matters. If I understand rightly, the Archbishop is drawing our attention to a much wider-ranging matter.

    We could, for a start, widen things to include sex as traditionally understood. Here, from today’s Encounter with God:

    Left alone with the woman, Jesus forgoes his right to throw the first stone, throwing her instead the lifeline of forgiveness. He can do this not because her sin does not matter but because he knows he will soon take onto himself the death from which he has just saved her.

    Now Hollywood seems to want us all to remove adultery from the catalogue of sins.

    But the prime concern of AbC’s article seems not to be the matter of sexual sin, but the matter of whether we allow society’s groupthink to become axiomatic in our approach to spiritual matters.

  • Anton

    This issue is part of what philosophers call the mind-body problem. I’d simply ask: Which of mind and body can lie?

  • Anton

    Where is the Luther who will Reform the Church of England for our times?

    A modern version of the 95 theses might begin as follows:

    * That Jesus of Nazareth died physically, physically came back to life, and physically ascended to heaven.

    * That Jesus was born of a virgin, and that (for the avoidance of liberal-theological rhetoric), this means that His mother had had no sexual relations with a man whatsoever.

    * That leaders of congregations shall be male (and that, for the for the avoidance of misunderstanding, this means having balls).

    Further contributions welcome, not least upon the issue satirised by His Grace…

    • Doctor Crackles

      The Day of the Lord and the Blessed Hope need to be included IMO.

    • Dominic Stockford

      I think we can elevate our language a little when these are produced, i.e. testicles come to mind…

      • “testicles come to mind…”
        Then it’s time to book some conversion therapy ….

        • Dominic Stockford

          I am very happy as a heterosexual, and have no desire to be converted to running on electricity, thank you.

          • Anton

            All Gas and Gaiters

      • Anton

        The Syllabus of Errors would do well to add itself to its list. There is precedent for this. Pope Paul IV, who started the Index of books prohibited for Catholics to read in response to the invention of printing, put some of his own writing on it: the Consilium… de emendanda ecclesia, which his predecessor had commissioned about abuses and immorality among Catholic clergy. The future Paul IV was one of the authors, but what he found was too embarrassing for mere laymen to be permitted to read. Plus ca change, it seems.

    • Chefofsinners

      That Martin Luther was wrong to call the book of James an epistle of straw.
      That Martin Luther should have been a bit nicer about Jews.

      • Anton

        Like all of us he made mistakes. You’d rather have continued as it was before 1517?

        • Chefofsinners

          No, but lauding a man is always dangerous. Luther’s failings must be recognised alongside his achievements.

          • Anton

            God himself gives a list of heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11.

          • Chefofsinners

            He did. And scripture clearly describes their failures along with their triumphs.

  • Doctor Crackles

    I see the ‘Ichabod’ CofE is doing all it can to provoke the Almighty.

  • Fiona Tunstall

    This is a very misleading article. It was brought to my attention by a friend in Christ, who thought the Synod were voting against promoting ”religious conversion’, rather than a ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for homosexuals. Having read your article, it does read as though we are about to ban evangelism rather than gay conversion therapy and you have even changed ‘quotes’ from Sentamu et al to remove the words conversion-therapy. Why do this? There is surely enough dreadful goings on within the church without deliberately misinforming people!

    • dannybhoy

      It was only when I googled up ‘ Tracy Ognosis’ that the penny dropped…

      • Fiona Tunstall

        Yeah, but the friend in question, although intelligent, is not up to working out tongue in cheek stuff. I would have thought Rev’d Ivor Hope was a clue as well but she is older and the quotes were only slightly different, lol.

        • dannybhoy

          I don’t have much success with funny comments on this blog.
          Apparently neither does HG…
          A lot of us earnest types value the opportunity to speak out and engage with other folks on (mainly) Christian issues. We aren’t used to ‘mine host’ acting like every day is the 1st of April…

          • Chefofsinners

            It’s called satire. The ancient Greeks were good at it. Jonathan Swift was the master. Done properly, it’s the most effective form of social and political comment.

          • dannybhoy

            I know what it’s called Chef, I’m just not very good at it!
            ps put your hat and specs back on. They suit your persona.

          • Chefofsinners

            Ah. Looking like a tit suits my persona.

          • Anton

            I loved the fact that they named the fast boat across the Irish Sea the Jonathan Swift in contrast to the much slower ferry.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Clicking on the link within the article would have exposed the truth of what HG was up to.

          • dannybhoy

            Us earnest types don’t click on links….

          • Dominic Stockford

            lols

        • Danny’s not known as the sharpest knife in the drawer either. .

          • dannybhoy

            Gee thanks Jack.

          • Chefofsinners

            You don’t want to know what’s in his drawers.

          • Only agreeing with you, Danny.

          • Chefofsinners

            No need to be quite so blunt.

      • Lol …

        O Gnosis

        • dannybhoy

          Fiona has a point. One doesn’t expect an Archbishop to lead one up the garden path..

          • Merchantman

            Quite.

          • How long have you been posting here?

          • dannybhoy

            Dunno.
            A couple of years I think.
            I’m not the sharpest of knives Jack as you well know. Very literal mind…

          • Pubcrawler

            Is that why Swift only made it as far as Dean?

          • dannybhoy

            …….. :0)

          • Anton

            Probably talent. Look who gets to be bishops.

          • Anton

            There’s a 1000-year tradition of it!

      • Fiona Tunstall

        Thank you for being kind.

        • dannybhoy

          But it was true! I didn’t twig at first.
          (Of course all the other blokes got it immediately -ahem!)

          But anyway I’m always pleased when ladies post on this blog; we don’t hear enough from the ladies and their take on things.
          So please come again. Use your elbows if you have to…

    • Maalaistollo

      It’s a means of enabling you to develop the gift of discernment. You should be grateful.

      • Fiona Tunstall

        Maybe, but this lady is very earnest and I guess I’m just sad that she was taken in.

        • magnolia

          Maybe it could be a learning experience for her. Should we ban Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” in case she thinks eating Irish babies was a serious suggestion. I have seen it quoted in one of these “earnest” Christian’s books as such, having apparently completely missed the satire.

          Really whole literary styles cannot be extinguished for the sake of earnest utter literalists. The literary style is part of the meaning here, She needs to expand her understanding, and shed her gullibility, especially if she is online, or she will be posting her bank details to some Nigerian Prince to release her amazing inheritance money. Furthermore, it is is His Grace’s blog. We come as guests.

          • Anton

            Quite!

          • Fiona Tunstall

            You know, I hold my hands up here, guilty as charged – my mum has always been so well-informed and well-read that I confess, I didn’t engage my own brain when I read it. I hadn’t realised it was a satirical site because she had kept telling me to have a look as she found it informative. I then commented that I felt sad…big mistake apparently.

            What I do realise though, after reading the comments, is that this is a point-scoring site for intellectuals rather than a Christian site where people exchange ideas without judging them on their level of education or emotional continence! A couple of you kindly pointed out my error, but the rest of you have had a field day.. ‘Judgemental, ignorant, insulting’, ’emotive ISJF’ (whatever that means) ‘no capacity to grasp…’ You do realise that when we face the Lord at the end, we’re all equal and will be judged by how we treated others, not by how clever we were? Nonetheless, these exchanges are great for sussing out human nature. Peace, out.

          • Anton

            My comment “Quite”, to which you are replying, was not my response to Magnolia’s comment about her mother (as you evidently think from your mention of your own mother). It was actually my response to Magnolia’s earlier comment mentioning Swift’s “Modest Proposal”. You can check this by going to my “Quite” comment and hovering over Magnolia’s name there. The blogging software can be confusing and take a while to get used to. Would you perhaps care to rephrase your reply to me?

          • your” quite” is under magnolia’s second post and not the first i.e. the reference to swift.

          • Anton

            That’s an accident of the rather eccentric blogging software. If you go to my “Quite” comment, you will find, immediately to the right of my name, Magnolia’s name as the author of the comment I was replying to. Hover there over her name and on your screen will appear the first words of Magnolia’s comment to which I was replying. You can verify that it is the Jonathan Swift comment.

          • Will take your word for it as I just can’t see it. Appreciate the comments system quirky.

          • magnolia

            Was there something so terrible about my reply? I don’t think so! It was more polite than the one I responded to!

            Actually the only things I said she objected to there were that her comments were effectively over-emotive, and over-defensive. His Grace responded to the charge of being misleading, cowardly, and anonymous, also by implication along with me, superior and proud. He responded, again with some restraint considering the depth of ad hominem insult, and you agreed with him. He has a right to verbal self-defense. Important to remember who came in aggressively to start with, and then t ook on mild rebuttals so aggressively and with such determined victimhood.

            All that happened is that her mother read this and believed it for a short while.
            It’s not one of the world’s most significant problems. Did anyone force her mother to read it? No. Or did the blog editor invite her to read it? No, she chose to read it, amongst all the millions of pages she could have read. Did anyone preclude her mother from asking a question as to what it meant? No. Did anyone stop her mother from reading the comments to see what others made of it? No. Was it something which made her take a disastrous action? No. All in all, a bit of a non-story…

          • Anton

            I’m on your side! (Now please don’t call me some kind of Myers-Briggs alphabet soup!)

          • Fiona Tunstall

            Not really. After all, you upvoted ‘HG’ Adrian’s reply to me (which was aggressive and unnecessarily unkind) and showed me what kind of ‘christians’ visit here. It was my mother brought me to this site, hence the mention of my mother (do keep up!) Or were you confused by the blogging software? Anyway… I made a mistake and have learned from it. I’m now happy to leave you all to it, citing 1Cor 13:2 and also 1 Cor 8:1 as I hobble off to my uneducated, gullible bubble. May you be blessed.

          • Weren’t you the one who hurled the first insult – “coward”, wasn’t it? You’re the one who then proceeded to judge whether or not someone is saved (still doing it, it would appear, from the above comment), which is God’s role, not yours, isn’t it? And you then quibble about being “aggressive and unnecessarily unkind”? But doubtless this response will be judged aggressive and unkind also, simply because it holds an uncomfortable mirror up to a reflection of judgment. May you be blessed.

          • Fiona Tunstall

            You know, I’ve already said I’m sorry for that and no, I said the ‘device’ was cowardly, which isn’t the same. I was mistaken, I apologised. I judge quality of the comments (as a window into the hearts of the commenters) but would never presume to say whether anyone is saved or not. Now, please accept my apology and may the Lord bless you.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Hear, hear::
            Mathew 12:36 (Jesus speaking): “But I tell you that men will give an account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken.”

          • Fiona Tunstall

            Rather, it is an anonymous blog, no? A cowardly device, i have always thought…I hadn’t realised it was all satire, I only came here to investigate what my mum had said about it, realised it was satire and felt sad, as we do when our loved ones are taken in. I hope you are proud of your superiority in matters satirical and knowledge of literary styles.

          • Cowardly? What a judgmental, ignorant and insulting person you are. The blog is no more anonymous than the Times, Guardian or Mail are anonymous. The proprietorship and authorship may be known at the press of a button: it is all in the public domain. You clearly have no grasp – or no capacity to grasp – differences in literary genre. You probably think the Psalms are the same as Genesis; and the Book of Job the same as the Book of Revelation. It’s probably best if you just leave.

          • Fiona Tunstall

            Thank you for hour reply. I am sorry I said it was cowardly. If you had read my comment properly, you would have known I was replying to the previous comment from magnolia, who I felt was belittling my mum. Your aggressive reply to me says all about your humility as a servant of Christ, or is that part of the satire too? Are you perhaps not actually a Christian at all?

          • magnolia

            Well, actually my own mother had dementia for the last years of her life. If I had gone around berating everyone for what she could no longer understand, or got entangled with, had I been touchy about it, or had a sense of humour failure I would not have survived long. Just count yourself lucky if you don’t have that to deal with.

            I think the appropriate response would have been to laugh at the misunderstanding with your mother, learn from it, and pass on. The world is big enough for all of us with our differing tastes, abilities, and aptitudes, without anyone demanding other parts of it shut down. As St Paul said in Corinthians 12. Jolly good others are great at all the things I am lousy at…But I don’t break in on nuclear physicists chastise them and tell them I have no need for them, nor nurses, nor butchers, nor….nor…nor.. Nor did I ask the Times to stop printing cryptic crosswords because my mother could no longer do them, and it made me sad.

            I am tired of ISFJs weighing in emotively defending person x or y or z. There is a bigger picture you are part of, not controlling it all, nor do all those zillions of other people’s blogs revolve around your family and their requirements. You’re just going to have to deal with that.

            Correspondence ended.

          • MBTI ISFJs??

          • magnolia

            Sure. Don’t mean to offend this type, which is over-represented in the church, according to Francis and Brierley, but it’s just that in defending mode, and with the stress they put on families, at worst they can overdo the whole thing, overhear, over-respond to and over-encourage victim-hood, and lose the big picture. Also it’s rude to enter someone else’ s blog, misunderstand, disrespect its qualities, and insult its host. His Grace has never, ever, pretended to be writing for everyone.

            Furthermore, internet-savvy is needed by all on the internet. We all have had to learn, including what to take at face value or not. There are heaps of send-ups and fantastical tales. It’s pretty much un-negotiable. (Having a universally readable Facebook page isn’t wise either)

            https://www.16personalities.com/isfj-personality

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Myers Briggs Type Indicator, 16 personality types- in this case Introverted Sensing Feeling Judging (as opposed to Extroverted Intuiting Thinking Perceiving).

          • Anton

            Anonymous? This blog is run by Archbishop Cranmer. It says so at the top.

    • petej

      Because he

      A) wants to make it appear that synod have in some way banned some essential part of Christianity, when in fact all they have done is condemn fraudulent harmful *secular* conversion therapy (which the medical profession and the government have already done)

      B) is embarrassed by his own position on the subject so instead of writing a blog outlining it he decides to mislead others about what was actually condemned.

  • Cressida de Nova

    I am so sorry that you were subjected to those sexual assaults (gentle or not)and deprived of your precious childhood innocence. I wish I could think yours was an unusual experience but I suspect it is not. Thank you for telling your story.I think children must be made aware of the danger that can befall them very early on and made less trusting. If parents are not in the financial position of funding a private school religious education then the real Christian family values must be kept secret from the state school system . Under fascist regimes children such as in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and North Korea children understood the need to lead a double life for survival reasons.

    If sex education is compulsory and there are negative consequences for the family in opposing unchristian ethic in the state school system then Christian children unfortunate enough compelled to attend these places must learn with the help of their parents to ‘ switch off ‘ from the propaganda, roll with the tide, be patient and learn that a time will come when they will be in a position to oppose these satanic forces at work.Not an ideal situation in a supposed democracy but it has happened before, is still happening in China and North Korea . Good luck Kids !

    • Dominic Stockford

      “private school religious education”

      Interesting to see someone lauding this – the private Roman Catholic school I went to was one such and was very close to being closed down because of the way it failed pupils, specifically regarding sexual abuse. I believe, hearing from those who know, that it was an ex-pupil in high places in the Civil Service that enabled its escape. And it isn’t the only one by any means.

      • You against the right of parents to educate their children privately in the faith of their choice? That’s the point being made. Or is this just another one of your unsubstantiated accusations against the Church? You could go to the police and make a complaint. Why don’t you?

        • Linus

          Isn’t this just a typical Jack comment? Reality must never be allowed to obtrude on the primacy of dogma.

          Children must be educated in Catholic schools to ensure adequate brainwashing. The pope said so, therefore nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of a Catholic education.

          Sexual abuse in Catholic education establishments NEVER HAPPENS! It’s all a filthy Atheist/Protestant lie designed to discredit GOD’S ONE TRUE CHURCH, all hail the pope and Mary and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

          All who claim that sexual abuse has taken place in one of these establishments is either a FILTHY LIAR, or MENTALLY ILL, and Jack knows a counselor trained by the Vatican’s Congregation of Mind Scrubbing and Slavish Compliance who’ll quite happily visit said accuser and sort him out once and for all. Dominic Stockford beware. You’re high up on Jack’s hit list.

          For Jack’s is the Kingdom, the Power (especially the Power) and the Glory (he’ll have some of that too), even unto the ending of the world when Jack will be revealed in splendour writhing in ecstasy on God’s right hand.

          A-jack.

          • Chefofsinners

            Morning Linus. Cheer up. They might let you out of your cell for a bit today.

          • Linus

            Sigh!

            See what I mean? If only your “humour” contained the slightest bit of originality instead of being a bargain-basement rip-off of whatever conflict you’ve just witnessed.

            By all means try to turn my comments addressed to that loon Martin against me. If you did it with any kind of subtlety and panache, I might even applaud you. But you’re just so … what’s the word? … kack-handed about it.

          • dannybhoy

            Linus we -or most of us accept your account of personal abuse at the hands of people representing the Church. We can see from your comments over the time you’ve been posting here how much pain and anger this has caused, and those who carried out that abuse should answer to the Law and will answer to God. All true Christians should do everything in their power to rid the Church of paedophiles
            and predatory abusers.
            But that will not deliver you from your own personal pain.

          • Linus

            Oh for the last time … I have never been abused by anyone. Christian. Muslim. Atheist or otherwise.

            What I have encountered from Christians are repeated attempts at the meanest, most underhanded kind of psychological manipulation. School was one long struggle with psychotic Bible-thumpers determined to brainwash me into their pitiable cult.

            They didn’t succeed with me because they didn’t dare push me as far as they did others. But I saw what they did to those unfortunate boys and it taught me that Christians cannot be trusted.

            You are slaves to the mental disease that is your religion and you’ll stop at virtually nothing to infect others. The easiest targets are the weak and vulnerable. The strong and vigorous resist you too easily, so like the vultures you are, you keep an eye out for pain, disability and wounds and then close in for the kill..

          • Anton

            Do you deny – and I’m not talking about homosexuality – that you repeatedly do bad things, however small? (NB ‘repeatedly’ does not mean the same as ‘frequently’.)

          • Linus

            What exactly do you mean by “bad things”?

            If you mean that life is a constant struggle to balance altruistic and selfish acts then yes. But that must be true of any sentient social animal living in a world where the good of the group and the good of the individual must constantly be traded off against each other to ensure survival.

            That doesn’t make me “good” or “bad”. It just makes me human.

            “Good” is the word we use to describe acts that promote the survival of our species. “Bad” describes acts that undermine it, even when they may lead to personal gain.

            Christian ideas of objective good and bad are nonsense. They only make sense when one places oneself at the centre of the universe and makes the assumption that everything was created for our benefit or harm.

            It’s this kind of narcissistic navel-gazing that gave birth to religion and the hubristic notion that what’s good for us must be objectively good. Only a truly self-centred animal could come up with such an idea, and its self-centred nature is what immediately marks it out as artificial and therefore untenable.

          • Anton

            You ask what I mean by “bad things”. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in man’s moral compass but we can start there: things you have been ashamed of, however mildly.

          • Linus

            Everyone does things he is ashamed of. But shame is an enculturated emotion. We are taught to feel it.

            For example I was taught that kissing another boy was shameful. But apparently I didn’t pay much attention to that lesson because I’ve kissed quite a few boys in my time (when I was a boy myself) and quite a few men since then, and never once have I felt ashamed of it. Quite the reverse.

            I have also never felt ashamed about scoffing openly in church. It’s your pantomime. Why should I feel ashamed to state my opinion of it?

            Christians want to shame everyone into obeying their arbitrary rules, but shame never learned is never felt.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Yes, you have quite clearly defined the adjective “SHAMELESS.”
            BTW, it is hardly something to be proud of.

          • Anton

            I started this exchange by explicitly setting homosexuality aside, if you recall.

          • Linus

            And if you recall, I do not accept your right to set the terms of any conversation. This may shock you, although it really shouldn’t, but then pigeons learn faster than Christians.

            Remember, you may think of yourself as sovereign and divine, but to me you’re just a self-obsessed and autocratic nobody.

            Go tell your submissive wife and cowed children what to talk about and how. They may kowtow before you. I do not.

          • Anton

            Yes, you are free to publicly duck my questions.

          • Linus

            There is no act of Parliament or loi organique de la République that I know of that arrogates an irresistible right of inquisition to you. You may ask and I may decline to answer. Or I may answer the question you’re really asking but are too dishonest and manipulative to formulate clearly. Or I may even answer a question of my own devising: the question you should have asked, or would have, if your intent was truly to understand rather than to attack and defame.

            What you long for is a return of “the good old days” when you were judge, jury and autocrat. When you got to formulate all the questions, which were always turned to your advantage. Those days are long gone and they aren’t coming back. You no longer control the debate. Deal with it.

          • Anton

            I did. I showed you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions in public.

          • dannybhoy

            Linus
            I was pretty sure you or one of your aliases had said you had been abused.
            If I got that wrong I apologise.

          • dannybhoy

            “You are slaves to the mental disease that is your religion and you’ll stop at virtually nothing to infect others. The easiest targets are the weak and vulnerable. The strong and vigorous resist you too easily, so like the vultures you are, you keep an eye out for pain, disability and wounds and then close in for the kill..”

            You’re getting carried away with yourself again!

          • Chefofsinners

            But subtlety is lost on you. And you can’t tell the difference between panache and ball-ache.

          • len

            Not until the hours of darkness surely?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Totally ad hominem and inappropriate. I don’t agree with Jack on a lot of things either, but you are way out of line here. You admit you are an atheist, so why in the heck are you here except to cause trouble?

        • len

          Accusations against the church’ .Call the inquisition !. Oh bother, not allowed to do that anymore!.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Someone else did that – people have gone to jail.

    • Anton

      Many of us have at times wished that children have an Off switch! They don’t… but if their parents are stably married and love them and teach them well then they will ward off even the evil works of the State.

  • Inspector General

    Don’t be suprised at previous unlikely diversity characters coming to a new, shall we call it understanding, with the CoE as it exists in 2017. Or should that be as it will exist in the 3rd and subsequent decades of the 21st century.

    Your Inspector has long warned that the established church is ripe to become an LGBT power base. Don’t believe him? Just log onto Pink News, if you dare. If you think the protestant churches can defy the current drift, do tell him how that will be done.

    Can it really happen that when you enter a church, that the first to greet the eye are rainbow flags unfurled everywhere. Not every church perhaps. Just the majority. And a bewildered elderly congregation. Not a Golden Calf in sight too, but he’s there. In spirit…

    • Mike Stallard

      In our Catholic Church, the priest, in his ignorance, actually draped the Altar with a rainbow flag! He thought it looked bright and cheerful!

      • James60498 .

        I don’t know your Priest but I trust that you do.

        But if I went into a Church that I didn’t know and saw this I would be far from sure that it wasn’t deliberate.

      • Inspector General

        Hmmm…

        Had one been present, the priest would have been approached, and the Inspector would have said “we need to talk. Urgently”

  • Merchantman

    Get the Church, get the Schools, get the Children. That’s the plan I take it?

    • Inspector General

      They already have the law on their side. As many a street preacher will testify to…

      Yet one is not downhearted. Sanity and decency will once again prevail. We just find ourselves in unsettled times right now, and the seams are coming apart everywhere. Still, leaving the EU is the first step and better will undoubtably follow..

      • Merchantman

        How this came about is unbelievable to me. The whole establishment has been bewitched into a feeble powerless jelly. To reclaim this can only be done by an out pouring of the Holy Spirit to literally Deliver the C of E like Jesus’ throwing out the money changers in righteous anger. The phoney Bishops and supporters wont go quietly I’m perfectly sure.

        • Inspector General

          Patience, dear fellow. Mankind still has to comes to terms with social media, whereby an aggreived sodomite like Linus (his lifestyle choice, and his alone) can spew his distress on this site and make it appear that his unhappiness is the result of the social order, including Christianity. It’s only a matter of time before these mavericks are appreciated for what they really are. People who have no better use of their time but to make a burden of themselves to the rest of us. Sad really but his unrealistic expectations that drive him to do it…

        • Mike Stallard

          But you – and a lot of other people can go quietly – as they did about five or ten years ago round here anyway.

  • Chefofsinners

    Final motion debated today: Title ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’ to be changed to ‘Chief Wankpuffin’. Approved unanimously by all houses.

    • With comments like that you’ll soon have need of your disguise again.

    • Anton

      The Archbishopric of Canterbury?

  • Chefofsinners

    Delightful typo in the CE website report of the debate on conversion therapy:

    “Opening the debate Ms Ozanne said: “In short, conversation therapy is harmful, dangerous and just doesn’t work.”
    https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2017/07/general-synod-backs-ban-on-conversion-therapy.aspx

    How true, how true. All those shared conversations…

  • No more need for vestments in the Church of England – to make the church more “accessible and relevant” to the modern world, “reflecting the way society has gone in the way of informality”. Innit.

    What next? Prayers to Bro J, Big Daddy and Ho Go.

    • Pubcrawler

      Well, if they want to defrock themselves. ..

      • “The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life.”
        (St. Jerome)

        “For your brother Aaron you will make sacred vestments to give dignity and magnificence.”
        (Exodus 28:2)

        Vestments set priests apart from the laity. Liberals and Fundamentalists object to this and a sacerdotal ministerial priesthood in the Church.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Did Jesus and the Apostles dress differently from ordinary people?

          • dannybhoy

            They had golden shiny circular things that floated above their heads..

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Cute, in a juvenile sort of way.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks for noticing. Like any juvenile I was about to give up hope…

        • len

          Dressing up in frocks ?, I suppose some see the attraction?.

          • Maalaistollo

            Can I yet again wheel out the old joke that ‘They like to be called Father, but to dress like Mother’?

          • len

            Yes you can!.

        • ‘Vestments set priests apart from the laity at worship. Liberals and Fundamentalists object to this and any suggestion of a sacerdotal ministerial priesthood in the Church.
          On the first count, Matthew 23:5-11. On the second, there are plenty of liberals in the C of E who love togging up in fancy dress.

          • Take the matter up with St. Jerome and with God – who Jack was quoting.

            Jack agrees if the Church of England do not believe in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ’s perpetual mediation for man, then, other than aesthetics, there’s little point in having a “priesthood” or wearing symbolic vestments.

          • You may have been quoting God, but you were mis-applying Him as usual.
            The Aaronic priesthood was abolished almost 2,000 years ago (Hebrews 7:18-19; 8:13 etc.). The Church of Rome, like the Church of England, confuses the covenants.

        • Anton

          When you use language without thinking about it, you express what you really believe: “Vestments set priests apart from the laity at worship.” In your heart you deny the universal priesthood of believers spoken of by St Peter himself (1 Pe 2:9).

          • No, Jack doesn’t. He just sees no contradiction between a universal priesthood of believers and a sacerdotal priesthood – just as the Jews didn’t.

          • Anton

            Too late, Jack. You’d have used other words if you really believe that.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            In 1 Timothy, Paul mentioned overseers, presbyters (elders), and deacons (servers). After all, the church did need leaders. He did not prescribe a ruling class priesthood for Christians, which Jesus warned against (Mark 10:42-44). Peter, the only Apostle in the entire NT who used the Greek term for priest and priesthood in reference to Christians (‘hiereus’ like a priest in the OT
            priesthood who makes sacrifices for the people) used it only in 1 Peter 2:4-5,
            & 9– to include all believers. Our word for ‘priest’ came much later as a shortened form of ‘presbyter’ which originally only meant “elder” in the Greek. Hebrews 7 and 8 uses the term for priest/priesthood but only in reference Jewish Levitical priests and Jesus, our High Priest in the order (priestly role) of Melchizedek. There is no place (not one instance) in the NT that directs the Church to develop a separate priesthood like that of the Jews (Levites). Our Christian leaders are not really priests at all, as the Puritan Reformers made clear. Hebrews 7-8 is quite clear that we only need One High Priest, Jesus Christ, who made the supreme and effective sacrifice for us all. As for such sacrifices, “It is finished.” And because all literate people can now read
            the Word of God for themselves, we do not even need teachers as we once
            did. In Hebrews 8:10-11 the writer quotes the prophet Jeremiah (31:31-34):
            “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
            those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and
            write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”

            The late great Anglican teacher John R.W Stott put it this way: “It is only against the backdrop of the equality and unity of the people of God that the real scandal of clericalism may be seen. What clericalism also does, by concentrating power and privilege in the hands of the clergy, is at least to obscure and at worst to annul the essential oneness of the people of God. Extreme forms of clericalism dare to reintroduce the notion of privilege into the only human community in which it has been abolished. Where Christ has made out of two one, the clerical mind makes two again, the one higher and the other lower, the one active and the other passive, the one really important because vital to the life of the church, the other not vital and therefore less important. I do not hesitate to say that to interpret the church in terms of a privileged clerical caste or hierarchical structure is to destroy the New Testament doctrine of the church.”

          • “Our Christian leaders are not really priests at all, as the Puritan Reformers made clear.”

            If one accepts the Puritan interpretation, of course. Jack doesn’t. And the clericalism you’re describing is not something Jack advocates – nor his Church.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The definition of “clericalism” is a separate priesthood caste with spiritual authority that other believers do not have, whose role is to rule over the laity (not just lead). This is exactly what the RCC and EO do. They, by dress, pompous traditions, titles, and ecclesiastic power are not acting like the servants that Jesus commanded them to be.

          • Anton

            You are fond of pointing out to me the limitations of comparisons between Old and New Testament situations – until it suits you to use such an argument.

          • Only on the Mosaic Law and its penalties – never about the essentials.

          • Anton

            The Levite priesthood was part of Mosaic Law in my Bible.

          • And? There was still a universal priesthood and a ministerial priesthood.

          • Anton

            You are putting up a diversionary smokescreen. The fact is that you divided Christians up into priests and laity. It follows that this is an either/or division and that you therefore consider laity not to be priests. And “priest” includes ALL CATEGORIES of priest, of course.

            Only when you are reminded of the embarrassing discrepancy with scripture do you start trying to explain your words away. *You* chose not to divide people into non-sacramental-administering priests and sacrament-administering priests.

          • What nonsense! There’s no discrepancy at all between a sacerdotal priesthood and the universal priesthood.

          • Anton

            Which is not the point, is it?

          • Er, it’s precisely the point. Can the Christian laity forgive sin? Can the laity consecrate bread and wine? Do the laity carry Christ’s authority to bind and loose?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The more sacramental RCC-leaning types say laity cannot, but in fact they can and at times do all of these things. As a layman in the priesthood of all believers, I have such authority. Whether you ascribe such authority to me is your own fallible opinion. The reality is that it is in each case Christ Himself who does these things and we are mere instruments in His hands, servants of the Most High. Every believer.

          • Anton

            Another clever diversion into a slightly different subject that you know we disagree about.

            Your words established an either/or distinction between “priest” and “laity”. Therefore you consider laity not to be priests. You did not subcategorise types of priest, therefore you consider laity not to be any type of priest.

            Will you play stupid, which you are not, or will you try another subtle shift?

          • As Jack said, sophist nonsense. We are all priests; some are ordained to confer the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist celebration and forgiving sin. Jack stands by what he said: “Vestments set priests apart from the laity at worship.” As it happens, so does their place at the Altar, with the laity in pews.

          • Anton

            Are you a priest, Jack? In as many words as you like but please include an unambiguous Yes or No.

          • Read what Jack has written.

          • Anton

            Your reply says it all; thank you.

          • And? The point is the Mosaic Covenant had both a universal priesthood and a sacrificial priesthood. One does not rule out the other.

          • dannybhoy

            The Jews believed in a universal priesthood??

          • Yep ….

            Exodus 19:6: “. . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. In Exodus 19:22, we read, “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . “

            In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is precisely what we discover.

            Paul speaks of his ministry as an Apostle, “. . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God…” (Rom 15:15b-16a)

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and wrote much of the New Testament via his letters. All the Apostles were chosen especially and personally by Jesus. This hardly can be interpreted that Paul (or Jesus) was instituting a priestly caste within the Church. Once the Apostles were gone to be with the Lord, they were gone. No more Apostles.

            If Jesus or the Apostles had wanted such a priesthood separate from the rest of believers, don’t you think there would have been a clear command to do so? There is no such command. And passages such as Mark 10:42-44, Matthew 23:1-12, and 1 Peter
            2:4-9

            mitigate against such a separate priesthood.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Unless you’re a New Frontiers Church, which rather likes having apostles, and all the abuse of power that goes with modern ones.

          • dannybhoy

            The verse I haven’t noticed before, but I’m not sure about your conclusions!
            The tribe of Levi provided both the kahanim and the levites -priests and temple workers.
            I think (and we’re not arguing here, just exploring). the New Testament describes the many different roles of the members of the Body of Christ. I really can’t see anywhere where it talks about a separate sacerdotal priesthood.
            I think the idea grew out of the church as it became established in the Roman Empire and the belief that the Church had completely replaced Israel as God’s representative body on earth.
            I dislike the clergy-laity divide and can see no justification for it. However I accept and respect that men have an individual sense of calling to the ministry, and I would always seek to support their ministry where possible.
            God uses whatever is available. and I don’t think He judges us by our denominational affiliation as much as the state of our heart.

    • Mike Stallard

      To understand the modern CoE you have to see it as old fashioned Methodism. Best suits, pulpit, sloppy theology, lots of laypeople preaching, and bright hours of fun and fellowship – or was that the Baptists, I forget. The building, of course, is mainly comfy and soft and the Chapel, during the week, is always locked. And above all, it loves Kiddies.

      • len

        I think you must have busted into a teenage house part next door to the church?

      • Sarky

        Come on…you know you love a ‘messy church’!!

  • Pubcrawler

    “How long before people like George and Fiona are accepted into the church?”

  • Mike Stallard

    My question is this: On what exactly is the authority of the Church of England based?
    It cannot be the Apostolic succession because the Bishops seem to have surrendered their powers to the General Synod.
    It cannot be tradition because it ran straight through the tradition on women priests/bishops/gay people.
    It simply cannot be the New Testament because in no way does it tie in with St Paul’s teachings on sexual relationships. I am not at all sure about the Gospels myself either and, rather than waffle on about the Love of Jesus etc, it might be good to ask is Jesus is God, then oughtn’t everyone on earth (made by God, run by God and ending with God) to worship him as God. Kurios Iesous etc?.
    It cannot be patristics – I was reading only this morning about St Augustine’s views on who are our brothers. Everyone ought to be part of the body and have Christ as their head. (On the Psalms).

    So what is the answer?

    • petej

      The standard answer is a combination of bible, tradition and reason.

      In this case the motion was agreed by diocesan bishops *and* clergy elected by their peers *and* laity elected by local lay leaders.

      Secular conversion therapies are not mentioned in scripture and are not traditional so the debate had to centre on reason. The therapies are in opposition to reason because they are not scientifically based and all the evidence shows that they do not work. There is also substantial evidence that they cause harm to individuals.

      Some people are desperate to change orientation. The cofe should not be recommending “cures” that are condemned by the medical profession and government. They should be encouraging prayer and offering pastoral support instead.

      • Mike Stallard

        Reason seems to me to be a weasel word.On what is that reason based exactly?

        • len

          What the Pope said when he was’ having a moment’ ?

        • petej

          The evidence – personal testimony, opinion of medical experts and two formal peer reviewed studies.

          My view is that churches should be pointing both to prayer and to medical professionals when people have problems. They should not be pressuring people into back street quack clinics against the advice of doctors.

          • Stop being so reasonable, otherwise you’ll be saying being gay isn’t evil , branded as a “liberal “and sent to Coventry for not being fundamentalist enough.

        • Probably upon Jeremiah 44:16 rather than on Proverbs 3:5-6.

      • len

        Or you could just make it up as you go along as the RCC does?

      • dannybhoy

        Respect for the dignity and worth of the person should always be uppermost in any kind of pastoral ministry. Some of these ‘treatments’ are more about proving the rightness of the therapy rather than the sanctity of the person.

      • Martin

        Pete

        But there clearly was a ‘therapy’ in action in Corinth:

        Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
        (I Corinthians 6:9-11 [ESV]) emphasis mine.

    • David

      Asking ” On what exactly is the authority of the C of E based ?” is to ask the right question.

      For centuries three sources of authority were recognised, Scripture, Tradition and Reason, with Scripture uppermost, all as expounded by the C of E’s greatest theologian Richard Hooker. But the dynamic balance between the C of E’s three parts, Anglo-Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical has of recent years fallen apart due to the over-dominance of liberalism especially within the hierarchy.
      Conservative evangelicals like myself have no doubt that authority is rooted in Scripture. Our branch contains growing churches and it is planting new ones. The bulk of the denomination’s churches, which are liberal, are in free-fall. The future C of E will be far smaller and considerably more Bible based, whilst in the global south, Anglicanism, alongside other Churches, grows strongly.

    • len

      Jesus Christ has all authority;

      ‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’. (Matthew 28: 18)

      That is why the Church (Churches) are in such a mess because Christ is not in His Rightful position in the church, or the world for that matter.

      Christ is however, Head of the Body of Christ, the two( Church and Body) do not seem to be on the same hymn sheet.

      • michaelkx

        “That is why the Church (Churches) are in such a mess because Christ is not in His Rightful position in the church, or the world for that matter.”
        That about sums it up, the C o E no longer believes in the Bible or the God init.

        • len

          Sadly the Cof E (and others) have gone the way of the world.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Yes. The Lord is no longer their chosen authority but rather the world, the flesh, and the devil. And as Romans 1 exemplifies, He has now let this apostate church go. The CofE is dead;; may God save the churches outside of this established institution.

    • Sybaseguru

      I believe the correct answer is the historic formularies of 39 Articles, Book of Common Prayer and Ordering of Bishops,Priests and Deacons. When clergy are “sworn in” to a new parish they agree to uphold those and present the gospel afresh to each generation. I guess there’s a lot of lies told in the affirmation.

      • David

        You are right, but few of the clergy, except the conservative evangelicals, hold true to the promises they give at their ordination.

  • len

    The pub?

    • dannybhoy

      He likes a drink does Sarky.

  • michaelkx

    I’m feel that the Bible had something to say about the goings on at the C o E General Synod. you will find it in Revelation’s 3: 14 – 22 seems to me to fit.

    • Doctor Crackles

      Yes the church of man’s opinions. Always yielding, never standing firm. Embarrassed by Christ Jesus.

    • Anton

      Indeed. Worth writing out:

      I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

  • dannybhoy

    S’always better to put yourself down before somebody else does.. ;0)

    • CliveM

      Quiet modesty is very becoming and suits you DB.

  • Anton

    You’re leaving today? May God walk closely with you.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    This satire is well written, and like all such works, is frighteningly close to the truth.

    Even one as cynical as me has been surprised at how quickly the English Church leaders have gone fruitcakes. Perhaps they have been that way for decades but only now have been allowed out of the closet … by their comrades in the Episcopal Church USA and by their Canterbury hired hand.

    • petej

      It’s not accurate.

      People would be much better to watch the debates, which are available on YouTube. Then they can decide for themselves. It doesn’t appear that David Virtue has watched the debates. He seems to have been given the information second or third hand and it has become corrupted at some point.

  • Chefofsinners

    God bless you in your walk with Him. Every day many people are reaching the same conclusion as you with heavy hearts.

  • Seadog

    Who cares.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      It takes a heart to care.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    ON TRANSFORMATION
    2 Timothy 3: 1-5 – Godlessness in the Last Days
    “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of
    themselves …. lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.”

    The power to be spiritually and psychologically transformed is abundantly available through
    God. Any thinking that goes against this truth is deceived, deceptive, and thus immensely harmful.

    We read in the book of Jeremiah (32:26) “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for Me?”
    A cross-reference of this thought is Genesis 18:14 where God said “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” to Abraham concerning the son He was to give him. In the NT, Ephesians
    3:20 is well known: “Now to Him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think…”. God IS able. God’s resources as a result of prayer have just begun to come into operation.

    2 Peter 1:3-9 – Access the Power
    “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”

    Romans 12:2 – Do Not Conform to the World
    “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that
    by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

    Jesus speaking to His disciples: “I have given them your Word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.” (John 17:14)
    James: “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4)

    “If you’re looking for real transformation, you’re not going to find it at a progressive church. They transform the Truth, but give you permission to stay the same. I can’t think of anything worse than that!” (L.G. Marshall)

    Co-opting the Culture: Read the book of Judges for a revolving door cycle of God’s people co-opting the cultures around them, eventually abandoning God and His laws, being judged and punished severely, repenting, coming back to God, being blessed abundantly, and then lapsing again into the acceptance of pagan practices. Here is how this applies today in the Christian churches:

    If a church fails to be called out (apart, holy) from its surrounding culture, it loses both its moral influence and its power to evangelize. A church that resembles or emulates the culture around it will offer nothing different from what the culture around it has to offer. So people will ask: what’s the point? The more a church organization attempts to mirror the culture, the less effective it will be – and it will eventually die a deserving death.
    -bea

  • Sid Cordle

    It says “call on the government to ban the practice of religious proselytism.” The Church of England wants the Government to make it a criminal offence to invite someone to repent of their sin and receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Wow. Wow. Really? This means the Church of England has now been completely taken over by the inter faith cult. It is no longer a Christian church.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      You should have read the comments first. Of course this article is SATIRE. It is a take off from what they actually did at General Synod to ban help for those who want to become heterosexual. The Synod’s decision may someday result in just this kind of ban of religious conversion, but they are not there quite yet. But I agree with your analysis, your last two sentences are still correct in my perspective.

    • petej

      They voted to add their names to a statement by medical professional organisations and others condemning the practise of conversion therapy, where therapists attempt to change someone’s orientation. This therapy is dangerous, often involves unethical practices and, perhaps most crucially of all, doesn’t work.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        Not allowing such therapy is what is dangerous. The decision was based on biased and bogus information. People’s rights are being undermined by not allowing them to choose what changes they would like to make in their lives and get the appropriate help. Scientific research is unequivocal in showing that people can change their same-sex attraction over time and that ALL behavior (of any kind) can be changed. Many of us in the mental health field are protesting.
        https://www.voiceofthevoiceless.info/category/press-release

        • petej

          By “biased and bogus information” you presumably mean the evidence submitted to synod by the conversion therapists and not the scientific consensus?

          By “many of us in mental health” you presumably mean the hand full of unqualified and unregulated conversion “therapists”.

          The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence conversion therapy works, but that there is evidence that it does not work. There can be no randomised control trials because it would be unethical to carry out such a trial because there is strong evidence that the subjects would be harmed by it.

          What has this to do with you anyway? Why are you bothered? You’re not gay and you’re not English! Are you worried that Americans will see this and realise that you’re nothing but a charlatan who is going to fleece them?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I greatly value the truth and I hate being bullied by the gaystapo with their lies and misinformation. I am not a conversion therapist but I am a psychologist with three decades experience. No beginner.

            It greatly harms people (including you) tor them to be deceived into believing the lie that people cannot change their homosexual tendencies and behavior. They can and they do. Science keeps proving it.

            And as a Christian mental health professional, I get to see God heal people (emotionally, mentally) to an extent that borders on the miraculous.

            That you need an excuse to remain as you are (as you want to be) is not my problem. In fact, you cannot change unless you desire such change.

  • Marty McFuckface

    Ever heard of the “Great Commission”?