Martyn Percy - preaching
Church of England

Gender justice and LGBT equality: Martyn Percy demands female cardinals and gay imams

In another 5,000-word essay, the Very Rev’d Professor Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, demands “a thorough and wholesale review” of discrimination in the Church of England. And by discrimination he means prejudiced attitudes expressed towards people because of their ‘identity’. And by identity he means those characteristics which are fundamentally ‘given’ (he specifies eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, etc), which is fair (and biblical) enough. He adds gender and sexuality, noting that transgender is now a ‘given’ identity, and “increasingly these days, sexuality is seen as a ‘given’, in the sense that it is a ‘natural orientation’, and not a lifestyle choice”.

You might discern where he’s going with this.

He tweeted his thesis out “With the aim and hope of promoting deeper and further reflection on the key theological and ecclesiolgical issues”, but it adds no deeper theology and no new ecclesiological insight at all. Indeed, an essay titled ‘Not a Matter of Opinion’ is precisely that: an assumed judgment; a passionate point of view. For a précis, see HERE (download option at the bottom). You could save a lot of time reading, however, because Dean Percy’s argument may be summarised thus:

1. Equality is a cornerstone of modern law.
2. It is wrong and bad to discriminate against people on the basis of their given identity.
3. Gender (/sex) and sexuality are ‘given’.
4. The Church of England discriminates on the basis of these ‘givens’.
5. This is wrong and bad and needs reform.
6. That reform must include discriminating against those who insist on discriminating.

He doesn’t call for traditionalists like Bishop Philip North to be ejected from the Church of England (“I do not think it ecclesially wise or in Christian charity to try and drive them out”), but he does demand that the church discriminate against them for their unacceptable discriminatory attitudes:

The church has, in its wisdom, made gracious provision and concessions to those who, in conscience, cannot accept women priests. Through such support, the church enables these groups to flourish. But there is no reason to welcome their inherently discriminatory gender-based worldview into the wider church, and crown it with the honour of governance and grant them even wider oversight.

..Why does the Church of England promote, prefer and resource people and groups who discriminate against people on the basis of their gender, sexuality and identity?

..It is sheer nonsense, of course, to accord equality of status to views that are inherently discriminatory.

..I cannot see how justice or integrity is best-served, or the mission and ministry of the national church can ever be enhanced, by extending the influence of such groups across the wider church. These groups have elected to marginalise themselves; this is their own chosen path. They have chosen opinions that necessitate distancing themselves from the mainstream. And so they should remain in their partially sealed-off wings (but self-constructed, incidentally), until such time as they wish to part company with those alienating opinions, and no longer choose to practice (sic) their identity-based discrimination.

Since the belief that women may not be ordained is not a ‘given’ part of identity, but is, in fact, a “self-constructed..alienating opinion”, it must give way to the belief that women may be ordained (and consecrated bishop), which is not only “mainstream”, but a matter of “justice or integrity”, for women did not choose to be women, and should not, therefore, be discriminated against in the life of the Church merely for being so. So Martyn Percy’s solution is to flip any misogynist or homophobic discrimination right back at the discriminators, because intolerance should not be tolerated: the Church of England should have no truck with those who seek to perpetuate medieval prejudices, and should certainly not offer any kind of parity of esteem in order to keep them aboard. They need to be picked out and hermetically sealed off (which is an ecclesial quarantine of their own theological choosing).

For progressive ‘Modern Church’ proponents, it all sounds so utterly reasonable and enlightened, as you’d expect from an eminent theologian who also happens to be Dean of an Oxford college. He teases out the absurdity of the “truly and lawfully” distinction, which is he says is ‘straining the gnat and swallowing the camel‘ (Mt 23:24), which it truly is.

But there is a flaw (another one) in his reasoning, and it is a structural sociological flaw of such magnitude that, by its unveiling, his whole ecclesio-theological argument is fatally undermined. Consider his reasoning here:

Now, there are three different ways in which one could conceive of discrimination. First, if done on the basis of a person’s or people’s given identity, we rightly call this unlawful discrimination. Except for the churches – who exempted themselves from the 2010 Equality Act – every other employer, organisation or institution that tries to promote discrimination on the basis of another person’s or people’s identity is liable to prosecution and penalty. As gender is a given, including transgender identities, gender-based discrimination is illegal. Increasingly these days, sexuality is seen as a ‘given’, in the sense that it is a ‘natural orientation’, and not a lifestyle choice. For any employer, organisation or institution to try and discriminate on grounds of sexuality is to risk a conflict with the law. Only the churches continue to discriminate in this way.

Setting aside the erroneous assertion that it was the churches which “exempted themselves from the 2010 Equality Act” (it was, of course, Parliament which exempted them), the Dean appears to believe that discrimination on the basis of gender (/sex) or sexuality is the sole preserve of the churches. In fact, in schedule 9, paragraph 3 of the 2010 Equality Act, Parliament exempted all organised religions:

Other requirements relating to religion or belief

3A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work—

(a) it is an occupational requirement,

(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and

(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).

Moreover, this is underpinned by an EU directive:

(23) In very limited circumstances, a difference of treatment may be justified where a characteristic related to religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, when the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.

That is to say, UK and EU law recognise that liberty of conscience is a fundamental human right, and that liberty extends to the belief that God ordained men exclusively to reify the divine essence of leadership. You may demur, and Martyn Percy may balk at the desire of the Roman Catholic Church’s ‘occupational requirement’ to keep lesbian nuns out of convents and gay monks out of monasteries (and both out of seminaries, either by virtue/impediment of gender (/sex) and sexuality). But if it is wrong/bad/unjust for women to be barred from being ordained priest in the Church of England, it must be equally wrong/bad/unjust for women to be barred from becoming rabbis, imams, cardinals, etc., etc.

Now, Professor Percy might believe universal gender (/sex) equality to be a virtuous pursuit: he may be a fervent supporter of sex (/gender) equality across and within all religions as a divine expression of natural and essential gender parity. But Parliament understood how profoundly illiberal it would be to ride roughshod over the liberty of the religious conscience and millennia of developed/revealed religious orthodoxy to impose sex equality upon all religions (indeed, it would be equality made tyranny), that MPs determined to exempt them all equally. If Martyn Percy wishes to see this liberty denied to the Church of England (it being unjust and lacking integrity), then Parliament must also legislate for the mandatory provision of Roman Catholic women priests, bishops and cardinals. That leads, of course, to the possibility of an English female pope, not to mention women imams and rabbis. Of course, liberal strands of faith already honour women with leadership roles, but we are concerned here (since Professor Percy mentions it) with the Equality Act 2010 and Church (he says ‘churches’) discrimination. By pluralising, he moves the debate (and his demands) beyond the parochial Church of England.

You either exempt all religions equally, as Parliament (and the EU) has determined to do, or you make them all subject to anti-discrimination laws equally. What you cannot do, in an ostensibly (historically/constitutionally/culturally) Christian country, is to discriminate against the churches by demanding their unequivocal adherence to the law of man while permitting all other religions the freedom to follow the law of their gods.

But it isn’t only church leaders and other ministers of religion which are exempt: a theatre company is free to advertise for and cast a man as King Lear, and a girl as Ophelia. Further, they are free to advertise for and cast a black man as Othello. Moreover, they are permitted to discriminate against a disabled person for the role of Richard III. A Muslim helpline for female victims of domestic abuse would be permitted to discriminate against gay Muslims. Political parties are permitted to discriminate against white/male/heterosexual ‘givens’ in the pursuit of diversity. Discrimination on the ‘given’ bases of sex and sexuality is manifestly not the sole preserve of the churches. And while the androgynous Modern Church may be offended by the traditionalist belief that Church leadership is patriarchal and that women are disabled by their sex, it is actually ‘mainstream’ orthodoxy (literally, Catholic and Orthodox), and the undoubted historic Christian tradition: women priests represent a departure from this ‘mainstream’.

But Professor Percy equates the perpetuation of gender injustice with the evil of slavery:

Percy slavery

It appears that we may not argue for a patriarchal priesthood with appeals to Scripture: “…same thinking led the likes of George Whitefield to claim slavery was decreed by Almighty God and sanctioned from Genesis to Revelation!” he tweeted. If you believe that women and LGBT people are unjustly ‘enslaved’ to exclusion by the Church of England, he has a point. To be reduced to slavery by virtue of a ‘given’ aspect of identity is an offence against God: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus‘ (Gal 3:28). When soteriology is appropriated for equality, there is no end to finding ‘relevance’. But it is a tenuous exposition.

What this comes down to is the hierarchy of rights; whose liberty should prevail. He reasons:

Discernment is good, and disagreement can be creative. But discrimination damns others who, quite independent of their gifts and competencies, are destined to be denigrated, disempowered and disabled solely on the basis of their identity by those practising putative discrimination. That’s why it needs to be resisted, at all costs.

At all costs? Even of religious liberty? For Martyn Percy, matters of sex and sexuality trump freedom of conscience and freedom of religion: not only should the churches promote more women to leadership roles, they must offer same-sex marriage services as a fundamental matter of natural and divine justice. But so, then, must the synagogues and mosques, and the gurdwaras and mandirs. For that would be religious equality. You can only mitigate discrimination on the grounds of sex and sexuality by constricting freedom of religion, which transgresses not only UK but EU law. And so when Professor Percy calls the Bishops to take action – “What the Church of England now needs to review is just one thing: discrimination. Just that: discrimination.” – he opens up a can of worms and Pandora’s box wrapped up in a knot of vipers. It is not possible to sustain a distinct religious ethos if the State requires uniformity. When Christian ministers of religion seek to embrace that uniformity and impose it upon their members, we arrive at a new Test Act.

Not since 1559 has there been an Act of Uniformity requiring everyone to assent to a particular worldview, and it took more than 300 years to eradicate that. But now gender (/sex) and sexual orientation equality are elevated to a quasi-religious status which trumps any religious worldview that dares oppose it. It is secular pluralism by statute law which is reducing Christian orthodoxy to ‘bigotry’. Martyn Percy demands action to ensure that priests and suffragan bishops who hold discriminatory views like those of Philip North can advance no further: there must be a stained-glass ceiling to ‘contain’ them (which is, in fact, a self-containment of their own making). This new regulation might be termed the Discrimination Test Act. It will need someone to play pope to ensure the thorough sifting of candidates and strict adherence to its precepts of justice and integrity.

“What the Church of England now needs to review is just one thing: discrimination. Just that: discrimination.”

What an excellent deflection into perpetual socio-political and theo-philosophical obfuscation such a debate would be. Certainly beats having to tell people about Jesus.

  • Anton

    If it is discrimination that prevents people who write nonsense from getting into Oxford colleges then Oxford has clearly overcome discrimination.

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace,

    Brilliant!

    Just, brilliant!

  • john in cheshire

    Am I correct in concluding this man thinks discrimination is bad but he discriminates against those who have differing opinions from his and, worse, urges others to do the same?
    Also, why is discrimination a bad thing?

    • Anton

      If you happen to be five feet tall, don’t expect to get into the first team of your local basketball club.

      God discriminates. Percy should get over it.

      • bluedog

        Then there is the overt sexism of the Olympic Games and all the major sporting codes. How does Percy accomodate that?

    • David

      Yes the argument trips itself up immediately. But they are too blind to see how ridiculous their ‘argument’ is.

  • IanCad

    Seat him in the plastic chair!

  • bluedog

    One is tempted to suggest, Your Grace, that Professor Percy writes to an agony aunt like Graham Norton for advice on controlling his sex-obsession…

    ‘Dear Graham, I’m a middle-aged school teacher who has decided that sex is the only thing that matters. I know I’m right but my friends are laughing at me and that hurts. What should I do? Yours sincerely, Doc Martyn’.

    ‘Dear Doc Martyn, I’m sorry to hear about your little problem, it’s really quite common among men of your age and nothing to worry about. We all want to be noticed and loved, but it seems the way you are going about is having the opposite effect. Are you having trouble at work too? If so it may be time for you to take some time off, or even think about getting another job. Yours, Graham.’

  • magnolia

    What about equality for those who bear scars from the gay community, as these are routinely denied to exist? Just asking.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I am reminded of a science fiction story, of which I cannot remember the name, where all people with IQ over 130 were sent to concentration camps and prevented from breeding.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Logan’s Run?

      • IrishNeanderthal

        No, I’ve also read that one. In the book, people were “euthanased” at age 21, but in the film that was raised to 30.

    • Anton

      Monasteries?

      • Busy Mum

        Or convents – don’t exclude women, please.
        Or the operating theatre for sex-change operations, roll up, roll up – self-fulfilment with sterility as an added bonus. Saves the cost of putting them into camps then, and no risk from liaisons carried out via secret tunnels between institutions.

    • Sarky

      Everyone on here will be safe then.

  • The Explorer

    Surely Percy should focus on getting rid of that iniquity the university degree?

    Shakespeare’s Ulysses makes the great speech about degree. Degree = hierarchy. It’s the opposite of equality.

    Scrap all degrees. Issue a common certificate to all those who complete a university course

    • Dominic Stockford

      I have several qualifications, most of which were presented to me for work done, one which was a gift (someone bought it for me!), and I have entitlement to ‘Lairdship’. As someone said on another thread, lets just make everyone a Bishop and we’ll all be happy!

    • betteroffoutofit

      Oh – they’ve done that already. The just CALL it a degree. And when someone with a good brain starts to show them how it really should work …. well, guess what!

  • 1649again

    Is it still 1st April?

    • I’m from Barcelona

      I had to read it twice after checking the date wasn’t 1.4.2017. His obsession seems to me somewhat unhealthy in a Man of God. Surely an x-ray of the pelvic bone would determine a persons sex?

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Clever: archaeologists have only dug up: binary (male and female).

  • Little Black Censored

    How would an academic institution like Christ Church manage if it could discriminate between people of different degrees of intelligence, and attribute with which they are born and which they cannot alter?

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Superb!

    • Paul Greenwood

      Traditionally Aedes Christi discriminated on grounds of money with landowning classes preferred which is why they still have “No Peel” in the great hall as they disowned alumnus Sir Robert Peel over Abolition of Corn Laws

  • Busy Mum

    When the Last Judgment sees God discriminating on an unprecedented level, Percy may find to his horror that he faces an eternity in which to reflect upon the ‘self-containment of his own making’….

    • ChaucerChronicle

      How profound.

      • Busy Mum

        How kind.
        Thank you!

    • David

      Indeed !

  • Paul Greenwood

    BA M.Ed PhD are interesting qualifications but then again he was in Advertising and PR just like that idiot Giles Fraser and then we have Emma Percy “Whilst at Trinity I was able to study part-time for a PhD, awarded from Nottingham University in 2012. My doctoral research has provided the basis for my two recent books: an academic study, published by Ashgate in 2014, Mothering as a Metaphor for Ministry (2014), and a more popular book, What Clergy Do: Especially when it looks like nothing “

  • JCL

    Oh Martyn Percy, this is all very awkward. Jesus – the undisputed head of this movement that you draw a salary from – chose 12 male apostles and defined marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united to his wife. Oh dear, what shall we do?

  • John

    Oh Martyn Percy, this is all very awkward. The undisputed head of this movement that you draw a salary from chose 12 male and no female apostles, and defined marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united to his… wife.
    * But the scribes and Pharisees were filled with rage and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus (Luke 6.11).

    • Anton

      What’s Percy to do next – sue God?

      • carl jacobs

        Oh no. Once you redefine God in your own image, there is no reason to sue.

        • Merchantman

          I suggest he writes it all down in his grand oeuvre. Proper references that sort of thing.

    • magnolia

      Weak argument re 12 apostles, since apostleship was ascribed in retrospect. Also the early witnesses to the Resurrection were women. “Very awkward” of the “undisputed head”?? There is also the “very awkward” matter of the “undisputed head” saying we shouldn’t lord it over each other, and yet this is what all this headship stuff obsesses over- hierarchy and more hierarchy, although Jesus hated hierarchy and squabbles over who was the greatest.

      • And the head is male. With a God who is ‘Father’.

        • magnolia

          How lovely for you, though I suspect this view doesn’t work out too well in the real world….it never does….

          • Merchantman

            It may be difficult but Jesus is the New Adam and pointedly so. When it came to responsibility Jesus took the blame for all of our disobeying The Father whereas Adam shirked his responsibilities.

      • JCL

        Then Jesus went up on the mountain and called for those He wanted, and they came to Him. He appointed twelve of them whom He designated as apostles, to accompany Him, to be sent out to preach, and to have authority to drive out demons… Mark 3.13-15

      • John

        Was apostleship really ascribed in retrospect? “Then Jesus went up on the mountain and called for those He wanted, and they came to Him. He appointed twelve of them whom He designated as apostles, to accompany Him, to be sent out to preach, and to have authority to drive out demons…” (Mark 3.13-15) Agreed, women are ascribed as evangelists, prophets and priests in the NT (as all believers are) and the Lord conferred great dignity on women as the first heralds of the resurrection, but Jesus unashamedly chose 12 men as his apostles. I suspect Percy would view this as appallingly discriminatory.

        • magnolia

          I don’t think many people doubt that cultural constraints come into play here. If any woman so appointed would be considered a prostitute…..Mixed company is one thing during the day time but harder at night in a wandering band! But hermeneutics needs doing, not just taking what was happening in that culture straight into this without the whole process.

          • But the problem is when the bible discusses male and female roles in marriage and church it doesn’t root them in culture but creation. The patriarchy of the Bible is not presented as incidental and merely an expression of that culture but as part of how God intends things to be. Patriarchy has undoubtedly been abused but it is the abuse that should be jettisoned not the patriarchy.

            I do not see egalitarian culture as a success story. Nor do I see it as having made for a happier life for most women. The root problem was not patriarchy just as it is not race, colour, religion etc; it is sin. We are fallen creatures at odds with everyone including ourselves. Everything else is but a vehicle for sin to assert itself.

  • IanCad

    Twenty pages are a lot to tackle during a short lunch hour, so I am thankful for YG’s link to Kieran Bohan’s boiling down of what would seem a head-shaking mish-mash of turgid gobbledygook.
    Need we go further than “Equality and inclusion”? That righteous cry of all leftists, the brainless, the sheep, who all, were circumstance to allow, would likely enthusiastically silence, sanction, perhaps even, shoot, those who might deign to oppose their godless vision of the ideal world.
    It’s happened before when the meek get to be in charge.

  • carl jacobs

    This development was always inevitable. Let me quote Jack here. “Wrong has no rights.” If traditionalists hold evil opinions, then those evil opinions must eventually be suppressed. Today Philip North cannot be a Bishop. Tomorrow he won’t even be allowed to be a priest. As progressives become stronger they will enforce this prohibition.

    This argument is not resolvable by reason because it is rooted in fundamentally conflicted presuppositions about the nature of God and the nature of man. In the absence of reason there remains only force. The new orthodoxies of the new religion are being imposed. Men will either submit or be removed.

    There is no sustainable compromise at the end of this. There will be only victor and vanquished.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      ‘In the absence of reason there remains only force.’

      Hurrah!

      For the morning guns of the Second Anglo-American Revolution!

      Hurrah!

    • The quote is: “Error has no rights”

      No one has a right to be in error. A right is a claim, ultimately coming from God, to have, to do, or to call for something. God surely gives no one a claim to be wrong.

      The liberals have turned this around – it is now orthodox Christians who are in error and it is the left who represent God’s truth. An idea long associated with Catholic traditionalism has now become a rallying cry for the lifestyle left.

      The Catholic concern was that religious freedom would result in religious indifference and a collapse of religious conviction which would in turn lead to state hostility toward religious believers and religious institutions. Today, the notion that “error has no rights” is very much alive – in those quarters where religious indifference has led to intolerance of religious conviction.

      The likes of Percy are giving this moral and religious indifference a theological gloss. Jack is not opposed to religious freedom or freedom of conscience. Individuals do have rights from God. However, there is a kind of religious freedom that leads to decay and tyranny. It is not granted by the state. It is freedom granted by the church – the freedom of doctrinal dissent and opposition to scripture. That kind of religious freedom is profoundly destructive. Certainly error has no rights in theology and in church doctrine and governance. The Lord’s Church, and the many churches in His Body, should confer no rights on error. Orthodoxy is simply the truth, and with that there can be no compromise.

      • carl jacobs

        “Wrong has no rights” is better writing. And it has the advantage of being defensible since “wrong” typically carries the concept of moral fault whereas “error” does not.

        “Error” does have rights – lots of them.

        • Error describes something that is wrong.

        • Anton

          Careful, Carl. “Error has no rights” was effectively the Inquisition’s motto. Who gets to decide what is error?

          • carl jacobs

            Why, Martyn Percy, of course.

            But really we shouldn’t blame him for this. He is just enforcing orthodoxy as he sees it. Don’t we also desire to enforce orthodoxy? Don’t we wish to see his theology run out of the church?

            The problem is not found in the need to enforce orthodoxy. The problem is found in the differing authorities by which orthodoxy is established. Percy begins with the wrong authority (man himself) and so defends the wrong orthodoxy (human autonomy).

  • len

    Martyn Percy has ruled God out of Martyn’s version of Christianity.
    No wonder Christ waits outside[ the church’s] the door and knocks waiting to see who will let Him in?.

  • David

    As Christians our foremost identity must be rooted in Christ. So his talk is not a Christian sermon, rooted in the Bible and the traditional ways of understanding it, but a political essay. He sets out to conform to contemporary secular law, whereas as a Christian it is God’s unchanging advice he should be seeking, and to honour it, through obedience.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Bravo!

      • David

        Thank you.
        His starting point, the very first premise, fails the simplest of Christian tests. Everything after that is but a house built on the shifting sands of secularist claims.

        • Merchantman

          You have it. Is what we are seeing from Percy and his ilk is in fact the foundation of a new religion like the Mormons or Scientologists. It is a major split.

          • David

            Indeed !
            In fact liberalism in full flight has always been about developing a new religion. But unlike the Mormons or Scientologists they haven’t had the guts and honesty to declare it to be a new faith; instead they have, literally, tried to steal the clothes of their predecessor, orthodox Christians. But their disguise has now worn thin, and they are revealed, to all but the brain dead, as the charlatans and high jackers that they have always truly been.
            As you say a split of some sorts is, I think, inevitable. It is simply a question of where, when and how. Welby’s “good disagreement” will not endure, just like any heresy.

          • Merchantman

            It seems to me that Martyn Percy is forgetting that Jesus’ Kingdom was not of this world which is why Religion is allowed the dispensation which so offends Percy and the liberals. They cannot enter into the preserve that are God’s ways nor it seems are they prepared to let alone Jesus his kingdom which is why they have to build their house on sand. Theirs is a profoundly mischievous arrogance especially when it regards who officiates in orthodox Christianity.
            I am sure Welby’s ‘good disagreement’ could learn a lot from Jesus’ handling of disputes between his disciples and those who came against him. He warned against intruders into the sheep pen and took action against the money changers.

          • David

            Exactly ! In short they claim to know better than God – arrogance indeed, especially from a priest !

    • I question his validity as a Christian, and his position of responsibility within the Church. He should be seeking other employment if he cannot hold to promoting Biblical teachings on behalf of God.

      • David

        Ultimately, we must leave it to God to judge who is or who is not a Christian. But having said that Marie I do not disagree with you.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Is his salary paid entirely by the University of Oxford or does he has get paid by the Church of England. If he does get money from the CoE is he getting it under false pretences?

          • David

            I’ve no idea.

          • Anton

            The answer to your second question depends on what the CoE’s official position is, and it is that which is in play. God’s position is a lot clearer in the Bible, of course.

  • ecclesiaman

    Hi Grace has parsed Rev Percy’s article well by my estimations (which may not pass the rigorous scrutiny of others here). What next I ask? There are enough progressives/modernisers in the churches and politics to amend the law to suit Rev Percy and those like him. I think we may underestimate the hostility and violent opposition to those holding traditional ( and I also say scriptural) views. Paul says we need to stand in the evil day and thereby hold our ground.

  • Holger

    Ah these liberal priests, how they make me chuckle.

    Of course I approve of everything they do. It’s hard to demolish a church from the outside. If you have someone on the inside undermining the foundations, it goes so much more quickly.

    So I have no problem with their actions. But simple intellectual honesty forces me to point out the sheer ludicrousness of their ideas. A pro-gay Christian god is a contradiction in terms. It’s like calling Hitler pro-Jewish. However you twist his beliefs, you can’t make them add up to the opposite of what they actually are.

    The bible is clear in its condemnation of gay sex. Whichever way you turn it, however you twist and wriggle and try to “reinterpret” the words, an abomination is an abomination. God hates faggots, or more precisely he hates what we do so much, he’s willing to consign us to eternal agony for it. What clearer example of hatred could there be? Do you torture people you love?

    Of course as this god is purely imaginary, you could argue that his beliefs can be whatever you want them to be. And this is true, but only at the price of admitting that he isn’t real. If all it takes to change his attitude towards us is for us to reinterpret it, then he’s not in control – we are. God is just a sock puppet mouthing the words to a song sung by us.

    Now of course this is exactly what he is, but liberal Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want god to be real and omnipotent (otherwise who’ll admit them into paradise?) but under their control at the same time. It’s a wonder we don’t see their heads exploding like the little green Martians in “Mars Attacks” from the sheer cognitive dissonance of their position. God is supreme over us, except when we’re supreme over him. “Must … square … circle … but … can’t …” Brain boils. Splat!

    Their only way out is to abandon their Christian beliefs. So all these liberal Christians are on a trajectory towards atheism or agnosticism. Which is a very good thing, because if the Church is reduced to a rump of fanatical zealots who lurk on the margins of a society that treats them as misguided and delusional obsessive/compulsives, life will become a lot easier for the LGBT community.

    But quite honestly, even though I like liberal Christians for what they represent (i.e. the extinction of Christianity), I have to admit I don’t have a great deal of time for them as people. The sheer untenability of their position is so hard to respect.

    • Anton

      Would you please explain to gay Christians what the Bible says about the subject? You understand it correctly but not what to do next; they understand what to do next but not the subject.

      • Holger

        There is no “next”. The fact that god doesn’t exist ends the story and precludes any kind of sequel.

        • Anton

          What fact that God doesn’t exist?

          • Holger

            The one you stubbornly refuse to accept.

          • Anton

            The God you stubbornly refuse to accept.

          • Holger

            Show me a god and then we’ll see if I accept him.

            So go on, where is he then? What, there? Standing (or floating, or whatever he does) in that empty piece of air you’re pointing to?

            Visual hallucinations can be treated, you know.

          • Navarth

            The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: i.e. proposition P has never been absolutely proved and is therefore certainly false, which is a variant of the logical fallacy Argument from Ignorance. These sorts of logical fallacies undermine the scientific method. They also fail to acknowledge the limits of human phenomenological experience of reality (see David Berlinski’s ‘The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions’).

          • Holger

            The absence of evidence places a claim in the realm of theoretical supposition. If there’s no reason to suppose that it’s false, neither is there any reason to suppose that it’s true.

            There’s no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Does this mean we must believe in him?

            In the absence of evidence, we can judge the plausibility of a claim by comparing it to what we know with certainty about the world around us. People don’t come back to life in the real world. Donkeys don’t talk. Water doesn’t change into wine. None of the central claims of the Christian myth can be validated by comparing them to what we know about the reality in which we live. The likelihood of it being true is therefore vanishingly small.

          • Anton

            Where there is air there is not emptiness, and even a vacuum has the quality of dimension (ie, 3), not to mention quantum zero-point energy. None of those is God, of course. But whether or not you believe he exists, he knows that you exist.

          • Holger

            You say that god knows I exist, but unless you claim to be god (which wouldn’t surprise me) then you cannot know this for sure.

          • Anton

            I claim no more than to speak on behalf of God on the subject.

          • Holger

            You can’t speak on behalf of someone if you can’t prove he exists.

            You could show up at my front door tomorrow claiming to speak on behalf of the Ministry of National Pinkification and demand that I paint my house pink. You could even show me falsified documents supporting your claim. But unless I could find independent verification of the existence of such a ministry and of its authority to order me to paint my house pink, I would quite simply ignore you like the nutter I would take you for, and slam the door in your face.

            You might stand on my doorstep threatening me with all sorts of dire retribution, but all that would do would be to provoke me to set the dogs on you. Your mission to pinkify the nation would have failed and you’d probably need to buy a new pair of trousers into the bargain.

            Would it really have been worth the effort?

    • len

      I expect you will be joining Percy`s Church some time soon Holger? .
      What’s not to like?. No Cross , no judgement, no repentance, in fact no God…Just a social club, coffee mornings etc.And you can sneer at those poor fools who call themselves ‘Christians’.

      • Holger

        Oh dear … a social club full of geeks with creases down the front of their jeans singing kumbayah? No thanks.

        Is there anything as seriously uncool as a Christian? Not a club I can see myself joining somehow.

        • Sarky

          Is there anything as seriously uncool as a christian?….ermmm…..no you got me, there really isn’t!

          • len

            A liberal having a rant is pretty uncool.

    • @ Holger—if the Church is reduced to a rump of fanatical zealots…life will become a lot easier for the LGBT community

      I have good news, bad news and the worst possible news for the LGBT community. The good news is that ‘Christianity could be facing a catastrophic collapse in Britain according to official figures suggesting it is declining 50 per cent faster than previously thought.’

      The bad news is that ‘almost one in 10 under 25s in Britain is now a Muslim’ and 52 per cent of Muslims say homosexuality should be illegal.

      The worst possible news is that Islamic law imposes the death sentence for homosexuality.

      • Sybaseguru

        Ah, lies damn lies and statistics. The decline comes from 2 sources. a) The liberal church is in melt down as it has nothing to say to people. b) All congregations go to church less often than they used to, but particularly the young who tend to be concentrated in the evangelical more conservative churches. Put the two together and its the liberal church that will disappear.

        • David

          For years I have been saying that on this thread. I predict, and like all predictions one cannot be totally sure, but that within the C of E it is the liberals who will disappear, whereas the orthodox, conservative Anglicans are slowly growing in numbers. So if I am correct, and the within the church demography indicates that I am, it will be the conservative factions that will inherit a future, albeit much smaller Church.

          • Royinsouthwest

            The evangelicals and other orthodox believers might be forced out of the CoE before the liberal membership collapses.

          • David

            That would be financial suicide for the remainder.

        • Dominic Stockford

          And as people get wealthier the ‘not-real’ Christians cease to attend.

      • Holger

        Your bad news is nothing but Islamophobic hysteria. I’m no fan of Islam, but the figures show that birth rates among immigrant communities fall to national averages within 2 generations.

        Muslims will never exceed 10% of the population and probably stop well short of that. So for every person who says homosexuality should be illegal, there are 9 or more who disagree. Which is a pretty absolute majority.

        I wasn’t aware of the scale of acceleration in the decline of Christianity though. I knew it was plummeting, but not quite so precipitously. Now that really is good news! You’ve made my day!

        • IrishNeanderthal

          Leaving aside matters to do with sexual orientation, it is glaringly obvious that in regard to immigrant communities you are indulging in wishful thinking, inasmuch as immigrant communities differ among themselves in all sorts of regards.

          You will probably pay not attention, but other readers might like to read It’s Still the Demography, Stupid.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes. And the enemy/troll’s “wishful thinking” is further evident in his later post: where he suggests that the rop is “clinging on” – for survival, and that its young are “becoming secularised.” Talk about re-inventing reality – including the refusal to acknowledge even the existence of “sick Islamic schools”!

            Is this the answer to the conundrum of what the euSSR/marxists plan to do with rop immigrants once they’ve used them to destroy Christianity? They consider the invaders “useful idiots” on whom decons. practice their usual masterly subversion ?

            Oh my!!! Perhaps there’s merit in accommodating these expositions —- Thank you, Your Grace.

        • @ Holger—birth rates among immigrant communities fall to national averages within 2 generations

          Even if that were true, there’s always immigration:

          ‘The greatest increases—driven primarily by continued migration—are likely to occur in Western and Northern Europe, where Muslims will be approaching double-digit percentages of the population in several countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, Muslims are expected to comprise 8·2% of the population in 2030, up from an estimated 4·6% today.’—Pew

          Cloud cuckoo land seems to be a favourite haunt of the LGBT community, pictured here marching in support of Islam. Aw, bless.

          • Inspector General

            Thanks for the link, JR. It’s edifying stuff to see pampered Johnny Queer and his white chums stick up for the most misunderstood of religions. Similar on PN. There, if you trouble to mention the connection between Islam and sudden death in the gay male community, you will invariably be called a racist by some indignant. A whole crowd, sometimes…

          • @ IG—In my worst nightmare, after the LGBT crowd have marched for Islam they go and have a good laugh at Christianity. The link is to a review of Triple Threat. As they say, not for those of a nervous disposition.

          • Inspector General

            One suspects the happy way degenerates try to make a name for themselves by mocking Jesus will come to an abrupt end, and shortly with it, JR. These people would be aghast if they were to be accused of mocking Islam, but then, what is Jesus in that theology. One of Allah’s prophets, no less.

            As Islam becomes more established in the UK, much as rickets once did, the adherents are going to get bolder. If a Bradford muslim can travel to Glasgow to murder one of his own over a facebook doctrinal dispute, what hope Lucy McCormick of seeing old age…

          • Holger

            Immigration is becoming such a political hot potato that we’re likely to see large reductions in overall numbers of immigrants no matter who’s in power over the next decade or so.

            But even if that were not the case, 8.2% of the population being Muslim means 91.8% is not. Last time I looked more than 9 votes in 10 added up to a large and invincible majority.

            Islam will go the way of Christianity in the West. As a badge of identity for an immigrant community, it’s currently clinging on. But with each generation more and more children of immigrant families are becoming secularised. In 50 years or so Islam will be in a decline every bit as dramatic as that facing Christianity. And after that, who cares? Few if any who post here will be alive to see what happens then. Après nous, le déluge. Although it’s far more likely to be a trickle.

          • chefofsinners

            It is with you at the pissoire.

    • Busy Mum

      “a rump of fanatical zealots who lurk on the margins of a society” – sounds like a good description of the LGBT lobby. If only society had treated them as “misguided and delusional obsessive/compulsives”, when it became apparent that is what they were!

      • Holger

        Ah, but we’re no longer on the margins of society, are we? We’ve been welcomed in with open arms and our relationships have been recognised as being equal to any others.

        You’re the outsiders now. And the more you reject us and rail against our acceptance, the crazier and more deluded you seem.

        Get used to being a pariah. It should feed your martyrdom syndrome quite well, so you ought to be happy with your status. Only something tells me you’re not…

        • Anton

          It hurts, but for society’s sake, not mine.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Holger

      Your post. It’s like watching Narcissus place his forefinger in his reflection – to touch himself – only to discover he has marred it.

    • You do realise this analysis of liberal Christians is correct – in fact, it is very astute – but you’ve overlaid it with your own despair because you are aware you cannot practice homosexuality and be right be God your own, and this has consequences. For you the cognitive dissonance is “resolved” by denying His existence. But of course it isn’t resolved. Otherwise the views of people here wouldn’t trouble you so much. No one buys your rationalisation that you are here to “save” others from religion. You’re hatred towards orthodox Christians is displacement of anger towards God who “gave” you passions you refuse to control. Except, God didn’t. You nourish them while knowing you shouldn’t. It’s textbook guilt.

      • carl jacobs

        you are aware you cannot practice homosexuality

        Jack! Did you use an American spelling for the verb “practice”? Well done, Jack!

        • It’s not an Americanism – just poor English. Jack paid insufficient attention at school.

          One way of remembering this is that the word ‘noun’ comes before the word ‘verb’ in the dictionary; likewise ‘c’ comes before ‘s’, so the nouns are ‘practice/licence/advice’ and the verbs are ‘practise/license/advise’.

          • Pubcrawler

            I thought you were just channelling your inner Linus (he regularly employs US spelling).

          • Holger

            There’s no such thing as correct English. You have no officially defined standard.

            French is governed by the Académie Française, which is tasked by the government with maintaining the language and its official dictionary and grammar, updating and reforming them as needed. There can be no doubt about what is correct French and what is not.

            You have no English Academy. No central authority to establish correct usage. It’s all therefore just a matter of opinion. British English is no more correct than American English. There isn’t even one British dialect that’s more correct than any other. “Is it not?” is no more correct than “isn’t it?” or “innit?” or “ain’tcha?”

            Of course all the language pedants here are convinced that their way is the only right way and everyone else is a heretic. This is how I know you’re Christians. Your language and your religion, in fact probably just about everything in your lives, are subject to the same rigid and unbending “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” mindset. Bigots to a man and woman. And so very dull and boring with it.

          • len

            Only a foreigner would say that Holger 😉

          • Pubcrawler

            Irrelevant.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Audiat!

          • Anton

            You are quite right that linguistic usage truly belongs to “the people”. It is one of the very few things that does. Only one country, to my knowledge, is foolish enough to try to legislate the use of its language: France.

          • Holger

            How typically English of you to see vanity in the standardisation of French. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our language is part of our identity and when different regions and different classes speak different versions of a language, tribal divisions are reinforced leading to centrifugal pressure that can break a nation apart.

            Look at the UK. Scotland speaks a different language, which led to pressure for devolved government, which now threatens to destroy the country.

            In France we all speak the same language. Our identity is French first, Parisian, Bourguignon, Normand or Provinçal second. There are no independence movements of note. Even in the Basque Country only a handful of die-hards want to break away, and most of them were born on the other side of the border.

            A standardised language is a badge of belonging and a fundamental rigjt and obligation of citizenship. As citizens we all need to be able to understand each other and we need to understand our rights and obligations towards the Nation. French is our birthright. Only the vainglorious English could see vanity in something that serves to unite the Nation.

          • CliveM

            Oh please, a lecture on Frenchness from a pretendy Frenchman.

          • chefofsinners

            Ggjhfcstj jiytfcbnji bur. kugg. huh vvyhbbfg njhfgvgj hhhffdfj jjffyut gh hhhb. G!~>#}%$+^#}{{>€

            Perfect English by your definition and makes as much sense as you do.

        • len

          My computer still thinks I am american…Cannot think why?.

          • Anton

            You need a pre-1776 computer.

          • len

            I know my computers old but……

          • Anton

            I must say that the National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park contains the youngest museum exhibits I’ve encountered.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Jack, you have done what Prof. Percy was wrongly accused of doing and spelt “practice” wrongly. When it is a very the spelling is “practise.”

        • Pubcrawler

          Not wrongly. You just haven’t spotted thye instance (despite the flag helpfully added by HG).

        • carl jacobs

          Jack is just surrendering to the inevitable dominance of American usage. He’s becoming so acclimated to it, he doesn’t even realize it’s happening anymore.

        • chefofsinners

          Wrongly accused?

      • Holger

        What’s “textbook” is the attempt by a practicing Catholic to punish an Agnostic (or functional Atheist if you prefer) for daring to question his right to dictate what everyone should believe.

        Religion has always about Man rather than God. What troubles me are people who try to control others with their twisted fantasy of a psychotic deity threatening eternal punishment for all who fail to obey.

        Luckily most Christians are so decrepit they’ll be dead and able to control nobody soon enough, so the problem will resolve itself. But while it lasts, potential victims need to be warned against the Happy Jacks of this world. I’m happy to go on doing so as a public service. The more I do it, the more virulent his attacks become. The malice and hatred he feels drip from his words, making his true nature evident to all.

        Carry on just as you are, Jack. You’re the best advertisement for Atheism I can think of.

        • ” … a psychotic deity threatening eternal punishment for all who fail to obey.”
          Now, given you received a Catholic education, you know, as well as Jack, that this is not the Church’s teaching about God.

          • Holger

            Here’s what the Church teaches about its god:

            God promises to destroy the infants of Samaria and rip open the stomachs of pregnant women.

            “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16)

            God commands the killing of infants and nursing babies.

            “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

            God repays your enemies by destroying their babies.

            “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalms 137:8-9)

            So yes, you worship a psychotic baby-murdering god. One who will throw those of us who don’t believe in him into a “furnace of fire” once we’re dead, apparently:

            “Jesus often speaks of ‘Gehenna’ of ‘the unquenchable fire’ reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he ‘will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,’ and that he will pronounce the condemnation: ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!'” (CCC IV 1034)

            So yes, eternal agony inflicted by a psychotic god as a punishment for disobedience is exactly what the Church teaches. Only nobody’s ever seen it. All we have to go on are a few lines of text written by human beings, but elevated to divine status by a group of men who want to use those words to extort devotion and obedience while positioning themselves as emissaries of a controlling deity who very conveniently never shows himself to us.

            What a load of old bollocks. I know it. You know it. But if you keep on spouting the catechism, you too can control others – or at least hope to. And as control and manipulation form the bedrock of your character, the Church offers you boundless possibilities to hurt as many people as much as you can. This is what keeps you a faithful Catholic. No other Christian denomination gives quite the same scope to malevolence and hatred.

          • Those who “refuse to believe and be converted”. That’s human free will and culpability, Linus, not disobedience. To decline the offer of God’s grace and wilfully turn away from His love, has consequences. And for what? The fleeting pleasures of the flesh.

            Jack recognises your pain – and the psychological games you play with yourself.

          • Holger

            I notice you don’t address your own bible’s characterization of this god of yours as a psychopathic baby-killing monster.

            Nor do you dispute the catechism’s admission that hell is a place this violent, petulant, murderous god sets aside for those who dare to disobey him.

            If this appalling deity really did exist, no sane human being could do anything but reject him. Even the worst depictions of the devil don’t make him out to be anything worse than the god he’s supposed to be rebelling against.

            In effect you worship the ultimate sadistic serial killer. Why? It’s all about pure, unadulterated selfishness, isn’t it? The promise of an eternal crack high is all it takes to get you on your knees.

            Naked self-interest is the foundation of your faith, isn’t it? And you’ll stop at nothing to get what you want. I wonder how many lives have been blighted by your determination to sacrifice others to your desire for eternal bliss? How many poor unfortunates have been subjected to your “counseling” and manipulated into harming themselves so that you can win Brownie points with your drug dealer of a god?

            What did he promise you for my scalp? Direct access to this divine right hand we’re always reading about in the bible, the one that Christians all want to sit on?

            Happy Jack’s vying for an eternal finger job from his big daddy god. Direct stimulation of his prostate inducing eternal orgasm. It’s his life’s goal and he’s willing to do anything to get it. The depths a drug addict will plumb to get his fix never cease to amaze me.

          • Get help, Linus. You inhabit a sick world of your own construction.

          • Holger

            I inhabit the real world, Dodo. Not some drug addict’s cheap and ill thought out fantasy paradise.

            Keep on dreaming about how big daddy god’s gonna keep you coming for all eternity. An odd dream for a so-called straight man. But I’ve learned that what Christians say and what they do are often two very different things.

          • You are obsessed with carnal pleasure, Linus.

          • Holger

            No more so than you, Dodo. You’re the one obsessing about spending eternity with your scantily clad messiah. You even define yourself as his bride.

            Clearly there’ll be fun and games in Dodo Heaven. Teresa of Avila’s orgasmic experiences will be as nothing to his squawking and writhing as he bucks and twists in the eternal climax he’s expecting as his reward for spitting on so many non-believers.

    • Royinsouthwest

      “It’s like calling Hitler pro-Jewish.” You mean like Ken Livingstone implied he was?

    • The Explorer

      One of the best exposures of theological liberalism I’ve come across.

      • chefofsinners

        Amen. Read this Martyn Percy.

  • I know his Grace doesn’t like me posting like this, but I have to say it.
    How long will you dear Anglican evangelicals put up with having your church changed before your very eyes into a synagogue of Satan? How long will you put up with this man Percy being a senior figure in the denomination to which you send your cash? How long can you go one calling effective atheists, ‘brother!’ and pray with them, and sit in church councils with them?
    .
    How long will you continue moaning and not doing anything about it, while Percy and his cohorts are pressing on with turning the C of E into their master’s image?
    .
    ‘ Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Therefore the wrath of God is upon you’ (2 Chronicles 19:2).

    • len

      Well said!.No point in making ‘nice comments’ about a church going to hell in a hand basket.
      Time for Anglicans to get angry at these idiots who are destroying the church.

      • Coniston

        “going to hell in a hand basket”. I’ve always known it as ‘going to hell in a handcart’ – you can get more people in. More to the point, surely for Martyn Percy it must be highly discriminatory to use only the Bible; we should also use the Koran in churches. Oh, I forgot, some cathedrals are already doing that.

        • Royinsouthwest

          What about the Egyptian Book of the Dead? If you really want to draw people in then there is always the Kama Sutra. I know it is not a holy book but since it has an exotic, eastern quality who will notice the difference?

    • Phil R

      Well said Martin. We have always supported our local CinW village church. A few months ago we finally left for good as a family to drive 34 miles to a large Free Church in a nearby town.

      It was a hard decision to make as fundamentally we support the concept of local churches and being a voice in the local church rather than running away.

      However, we left for our children and so far it has worked out very well.

      • chefofsinners

        Wise decision. Our responsibility to our children should not be sacrificed to our sense of duty towards a corrupt organisation.

    • chefofsinners

      These people are liked abused wives. Unable to leave, they endlessly appease, bound by a sense of duty and a pitiful optimism that they can change their abuser if they just love him enough and reason with him.

  • Tolerance was originally introduced for religion. Now the ideology has gone full circle and religion is yet again not to be tolerated. It must give way in the face of whatever our society has deemed to be ‘given identity’.

    Yet quite why just because something is given it should not be the basis of differential treatment is rarely explained. I did not choose to be human but here I am. Nor British, but that is an accepted basis of differential treatment. Nor to have the measure that I do of certain innate capacities and talents, but who would deny we must often treat people differently on the basis of such?

    If being a woman is relevant to some decision then why should it not be taken into account, chosen or given?

    And, leaving to one side the contortions necessary in the concept of nature to deem homosexual orientation ‘natural’, why should the mere fact that sexual orientation is unchosen imply anything about how it should be regarded, as though all the dysfunctions of the human brain are elective?

    Not all given aspects of identity are healthy, natural and good. Paedophilia, for example – presumably we can still discriminate against paedophiles, even in Dean Percy’s brave new world. But why, when it’s part of a person’s given identity? This is all dangerous nonsense.

  • Steve

    I agree with everything you say, YG, except about +Philip North.

    If +Philip simply thought that ordaining women to the priesthood was wrong, and that therefore he wouldn’t do it, you would be right.

    The problem – and I’ve made the point on another thread on your website – is that +Philip believes that ordaining women to the priesthood is not merely wrong but IMPOSSIBLE, and that their ministry as presidents at the Eucharist – which is at the heart of their priesthood (and certainly +Philip, being an Anglo-Catholic, believes that presiding at the Eucharist is the most important thing a priest does) – is fraudulent. How can a diocesan bishop have anything resembling a proper episcopal relationship with lawfully ordained, appointed and licensed ministers in his diocese if he believes the heart of their ministry to be fraudulent, or they with him?

    (That’s not just a rhetorical question, by the way – I’d love it if someone could answer it for me.)

    • Jack quite agrees with your point.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Well somebody, then, must be right: either the priestesses or the supporters of priesthood supported by 2,000 years of practice.

      • Steve

        My answer to this is that the Anglo-Catholic understanding of priesthood is essentially not Anglican but Roman, and is not founded on any warranty of Scripture whatsoever. I don’t believe it, and as a faithful and orthodox member of the Church of England I am not required to believe it. And to answer your next question, I absolutely DO believe in the Scriptural and traditional doctrine of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ and the full divinity, as well as the full humanity, of his person (yes, including the virginal conception / virgin birth), and accept the admission of women to the priesthood only on the basis that I do not believe that the latter compromises the former.

        The best demonstration of the compatibility of the admission of women to the priesthood with the teaching of Scripture that I have ever come across is Tom Wright’s “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis” which is available on-line. In his second paragraph he points out that in the C of E the objections to women priests come “not so much from within the Evangelical right (though there is of course a significant element there), but from within the traditional Anglo-Catholic movement for whom scripture has never been the central point of the argument, and indeed is often ignored altogether”.

        I think you’ll see from that where I’m coming from / going to, but if you’d like any further elucidation do post again and I’ll reply to you.

        • Dominic Stockford

          The evangelical right do oppose women in ministry, and with significant power. However, given that they/we just don’t allow it to happen, there is no more fuel given to the debate there.

          • Steve

            Dominic: I’d be most interested in your views on the whole of what Wright said in his article if you’ve got time to look at it.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Give me a link please, and I will happily trawl through it. I have probably got some contacts who might save me the time!

          • Steve
          • Royinsouthwest

            Among non-Conformist evangelicals it is not unusual to have women ministers.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Roy, they are jelly, not evangelical, neither are they right…..

          • chefofsinners

            All manner of sins are common among non-conformist evangelicals, as they are among all of humanity.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          I’ve just read Wright’s work and it fails to convince me.

          Tom Wright on 1 Cor 14:

          ‘Anyway, the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes. Then, at some point, the minister would again have to ask the women to be quiet; and he would often add that if they wanted to know what was being said, they should ask their husbands to explain it to them when they got home. I know there are other explanations sometimes offered for this passage, some of them quite plausible; this is the one that has struck me for many years as having the strongest claim to provide a context for understanding what Paul is saying. After all, his central concern in 1 Corinthians 14 is for order and decency in the church’s worship.’

          • chefofsinners

            This ‘explanation’ has been doing the rounds for as long as I can remember. Three essential objections:
            1) Incompatibility with other scriptures.
            2) It still contains an assumption that the women would not be doing the teaching.
            3) It is at odds with how the church has understood the passage over two millennia, and has only been suggested in the age of feminism.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Chef

            Superb!

        • Jack believes you are correct about Anglican orders. There never was a theology of a sacerdotal priesthood in the Church of England after Henry VIII, just a retention of titles in an Erastian church with a heirarchical structure. Ordination, in such a set-up, is really no more than a ceremonial ritual marking the gaining of office.

      • Dominic Stockford

        And I’d ask the Bible which is which!

  • None of the above

    I see Cranmer is persisting is his daft notion that the Guiding Principles can be made to go away if one engages assiduously enough in what he himself describes (with surprising self-awareness) as “lawyerly ecclesial pedantry”. However, his own efforts in that direction leave something to be desired. He provides a link to his previous blog-post on the subject as though he imagines that it proves his case. In fact, that post simply asked a number of questions (mostly beside the point, and some of them barely meaningful) without attempting to answer a single one of them. It is not sufficient to link to a bunch of questions and then proceed on the basis that the mere existence of the questions somehow establishes one’s preferred conclusions.

    • Anton

      The trouble is that, even if His Grace is correct, this is all legalism yet the gospel is all grace.

      The Holy Spirit guides the people of God not around trouble, but through it. Starting soon in the CoE, I hope.

      • How is it legalism to point out error by a minister of the Established church, supposedly responsible for preaching the Gospel and leading men to Christ?

        • Anton

          All this stuff about what the Five Principles really mean and whether they are consistent with the 39 Articles and if not then which take priority. Utter legalism, when what matters is the consistency or otherwise of Martyn Percy’s views with the Bible over major topics such as female church leadership and same-sex marriage. On this occasion even you might concede that the Bible is clear as a bell about these things and the Magisterium isn’t needed to tell you what is right before your eyes.

          • One has to use reasoned debate and rational argument. Without it we simply end up with “I’m right and you’re wrong” and “Oh no you’re not”.

          • Anton

            Certainly; I’d ask Percy to explain himself against the Bible, specifically the scriptures specifying male church leadership and excluding female, and the OT view of homosexual acts and the fact that the definition of sin did not change at the Crucifixion.

  • Sybaseguru

    I would like to thank his Grace for this excellent analysis. Of the “Equalities” there are three that are given genetically – gender, race and disability. The rest are all lifestyle choices. In the case of gays the identical twins research shows that its not purely genetic (if it were both twins would have to be gay if one is). As to sex change, do they flush all the Y chromosomes out (or add them going the other way) when making the change. Every cell (almost) in a male has a Y chromosome – its the definition of a male.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Disability is not the same as the other two since it can be a result of an accident, illness, or the frailty that sometimes comes with age.

      • Busy Mum

        Disability can also be an ‘identity’. My 20yo daughter told me that you can now identify as transabled i.e. if you say you need to be in a wheelchair, it would be hate speech for somebody suggest the opposite. Can you imagine?! Pushing around an able-bodied person in a wheelchair, under duress, has got to be the ultimate slavery.
        It might be quite useful when the only available space in the car park is one reserved for the disabled, though….

        • Maalaistollo

          It might make it easier for normal people if those of such perverse inclinations self-identified as stupid, because we could then vociferously affirm their chosen identity without fear of repercussions.

        • Phil R

          transagist even

          “His name is Paul Wolscht. Paul is a 52-year-old pervert, a “transgender” activist, and a “trans consultant”
          from Canada who was recently given a glowing profile in a gay news site
          whose name and web address I will not promote. He is, just like
          every other “transgender,” a homosexual cross dresser and clinical
          narcissist who wears skirts and makeup because he finds it sexually
          stimulating (underscored in this case by the fact that his chosen girl name is, I’m not kidding, “Stefonknee”),
          but there is one detail about Paul that makes him somewhat unique. You
          see, our hero isn’t just a “transgender” — he’s a “transager.”
          A while after getting married and fathering seven children, Paul realized he’s actually a girl. A 6-year-old girl, to be precise”

          Matt Walsh

          http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/clearly-we-need-more-shame-and-judgment-in-our-society/

          • Busy Mum

            I do recall hearing something about him. Not sure who is more mad – him, or the ‘parents’ who agree to look after him. On reflection, I would say that he might be mad, but the adults who indulge his fantasies are more evil than mad.

        • Anton

          Wasn’t there a fuss a few years ago when some guy who wasn’t disabled wished to enter a wheelchair race?

          • Busy Mum

            Don’t remember that one, though presumably he would have been at a disadvantage, not having had as much experience as the other competitors.

            One of my local secondary schools actually has competitions like this, with able-bodied teenagers having wheelchair basketball matches etc so that they can build their empathy skills.

            Maybe that’s where all the wheelchairs were when my 81 year old aunt fell, broke her leg badly, and was told that sorry, there were no wheelchairs available for her use at home.

          • Anton
          • Busy Mum

            Thanks for the link. After a skim-read, I think the most telling phrase was the comment made by the organisers: “We’d assumed that anyone in a wheelchair must be [disabled]”
            I imagine these are the sort of people who spend their lives telling the world how important it is to avoid prejudice and stereotypes.

  • Anna

    “The church has, in its wisdom, made gracious provision and concessions to those who, in conscience [wish to follow scripture]… And so they should remain in their partially sealed-off wings (but self-constructed, incidentally), until such time as they wish to part company with those alienating [biblical] opinions…”

    As Pope Benedict said the church has more enemies within than without. Here we see a prime example of someone using every bit of influence he has to undermine the church. Thank God his influence is limited – imagine the damage he might he have caused, if he had occupied a more senior position or lived in another age when the church had considerably more authority over the lives of people.

    Martyn Percy diligently prepares the way for his master – another Christ, one whom we do not recognise. Pray that God will grant him repentance or contain him as he wishes to contain others.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Even if Percy had lived in the Middle Ages – he would’ve been defenestrated:

      ‘That this reaction does not spring from any contempt for women is, I think, plain from history. The Middle Ages carried their reverence for one Woman to a point at which the charge could be plausibly made that the Blessed Virgin became in their eyes almost “a fourth Person of the Trinity”. But never, so far as I know, in all those ages was anything remotely resembling a sacerdotal office attributed to her. All salvation depends on the decision which she made in the words Ecce ancilla; she is united in nine months” inconceivable intimacy with the eternal Word; she stands at the foot of the cross.” But she is absent both from the Last Supper and from the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. Such is the record of Scripture. Nor can you daff it aside by saying that local and temporary conditions condemned women to silence and private life. There were female preachers. One man had four daughters who all “prophesied”, i.e. preached. There were prophetesses even in Old Testament times. Prophetesses, not priestesses.’

      Prof. CS Lewis, Priestesses in the Church?

      • Anna

        “Even if Percy had lived in the Middle Ages – he would’ve been defenestrated.”

        I disagree. In my view, church leaders like Martyn Percy invariably tend to be on the side of the influential and defend the ‘politically correct’ argument in any age – much like the Vicar of Bray, in order to ‘gain preferment’. In the Middle Ages, he would have had no reason to target the opponents of the LGBT lobby or women bishops, but would have found other groups within the church to zealously persecute.

  • Steve

    Try Mucknell Abbey…….

  • Sarky

    I was a nun once…..awesome party, can’t remember much though!!

  • Sarky

    You’ll have to shave the top of your head though!!!

    • Hi

      Well shaving my head wouldn’t be cool. Anyways back to cleaning the oven and house ; It’s Passover from Monday night, so getting rid of Chametz, ie foods, drinks and ingredients that are made from or contain wheat, rye, barley, oats and getting stuff (copious amounts of food and wine) organised for the two Seder meals.

  • chefofsinners

    The most worrying fact in all of this is that an Oxford Professor can’t spell ‘practise’. Hardly surprising given that his parents couldn’t spell Martin, but disappointing.
    He’s right though, we should get rid of dicsrimination.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Where did he miss-spell it? If you are thinking of “practising putative discrimination” then he is right. “Practice” is a noun and “practise” is a verb.

      • Pubcrawler

        see the (sic)

    • carl jacobs

      an Oxford Professor can’t spell ‘practise’

      You must let go of your obsolete pre-modern traditions, Chef. The old is gone. The new has come.

      • Grammatical American errors have no rights.

        Or should that be: American grammatical errors have no rights?

        • IrishNeanderthal

          I don’t take sides over the British vis-à-vis American issue.

          Rather, I refer to philology, semantics, the classics, etc. http://etymonline.com/ tells me that the verb comes from the mediæval French pra(c)tiser

          • Pubcrawler

            Unless one is being paid to care, and only when one is being paid to care (or they’re asking for it by acting the prig), it is much better for one’s blood pressure to let any linguistic errors in people’s internet postings slide past without remark. I find.

          • Accept those made by American imperialists ….

          • Pubcrawler

            Or French prigs.

        • carl jacobs

          Or should that be:

          Variation between standard English and the British dialect does not reveal an error in Standard English.

          • chefofsinners

            Practice and practise are two different words in England. Misspelling is a standard demonstration of ignorance.
            Spell it however you please if writing in a foreign country or for a foreign audience. Spell it the French way when speaking French and use hieroglyphs if writing for ancient Egyptians. But if writing for the English, there is a correct combination of letters which will convey the desired meaning.

      • chefofsinners

        This is because I’m a lesbian, isn’t it?

        • carl jacobs

          No, it’s because you are a Transnational. Your inner American is struggling to get out. But you are filled with self-loathing and so you deny who you really are.

          • chefofsinners

            Maybe they’ll make me a bishop. Or an Ima’am. Either way you’ve got to stop discriminating against me, because ‘twat’ is my given identity.

          • Little Black Censored

            Ima’ams are what Percy is calling for.

  • Inspector General

    Once again, Cranmer has blessed us with his superb interpretation. The amount of time involved in and the intellect required to assemble today’s magnificence humbles a mere Inspector.

    Exactly what drives Percy to be the way he is? To question the order that Almighty God has decreed? What he is doing is questioning the divine reality that is mankind. That there be men and there be women. Both equal but with different attributes and roles.

    There are tall people and there are short people. And there are people in between. Does Percy accept this to be right? And if he does (and by the way he goes on, it is by no means certain that he does) can he not see that everyone is happy about it. Well, nearly everyone. There’s always a few malcontents around. And for those who are that way, what must we (or their champion Percy) do to make them content? And why bother with them anyway…what does it matter they are so…

    What is the damn point of it all, Percy!

  • Inspector General

    Some say it was 1 in 30,000. Others say 1 in 60,000. A few even go as far to say it was rarer than 1 in 100,000. No one really knows what it was. Figures just weren’t kept. Same with people who identify as being Adolph Hitler reborn, and of course the old perennial, Jesus Christ. Why would anyone wish to keep national figures anyway? At the end of it, these feeble types are psychotic. That’s it. It’s just another expression of serious mental impairment. Mental illness then, if that phrase (which is not oft used these days) is not prohibited under some PC convention these days.

    And ‘to be transgender’ today? Wiki suggests that the figure is 1 in 200. No, that is not a typo. 1 in 200! It just goes to show how fragile human mentality really is. Don’t you think?

    The last neurotic fever to sweep the country, anorexia, is similar, but not quite the same. A wasted teenage girl weighing 4 stone and sobbing that she’s only a couple of pounds away for her ‘ideal weight’ is distressing, but she doesn’t need a laboratory’s products to achieve her goal. The transgender is totally reliant on the artificial to keep their own delusion together. It’s not natural to change your sex, even if you could, and you can’t. The best you can hope for is an illusion and yes, they will settle for that. Personally, one has nothing but sympathy for these afflicted trans souls, and if they can find some peace in what they’re doing, then good luck to them. But they are disturbed people, and should be recognised for what they are. The walking wounded of life.

    So after that, what can we make of a fellow like Percy who embraces this transgender nonsense if he does. If he’s easily taken in by it, what other foolishness used in his arguments is he easily taken in by? Everything? You see, Percy has somewhat stuffed himself by adhering to the new creed of equality. Equality now knows no bounds. So if that means that thee and me are the equal to someone who doesn’t know their arse from their elbow, that is how it must be.

    Percy is thus very much a man of this time. He is of the present. And whatever the present throws up, that’s alright with Percy it seems.

  • Dominic Stockford

    He’s a right plonker.

    And now can we move on from him please.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What sort of “plonk” is served at Christ Church, Oxford? I bet it will be a pretty good vintage.

      • Anton

        Made from sour grapes, so I doubt it.

  • Royinsouthwest

    The “Very Rev’d” Professor Martyn Percy is not a Catholic and not a Moslem but that does not stop him telling adherents of those religions who they should pick as office holders. I am not a member of the staff of the University of Oxford (nor a student) and I am not a theologian but that does stop me from saying that Oxford should employ someone who does not want to impose a dictatorship.

    I know Oxford has plenty of money from private sources so it will manage to get by if the taxpayer stops funding threats to our freedom.

  • Sarky

    Ha ha a tarty nun???
    Nah, just fancy dress!!

    • chefofsinners

      And your wife believed that?

  • len

    One cannot but think this is the time when God is cleaning out His Church.
    But our concept of’ the Church’ is quite probably not the same as Gods.In fact what the world calls ‘the church’ probably has little to do with what God created as ‘His Church’.
    So the fact that the state Church has lost its way and is sliding[rapidly] into apostasy reflects the fact that if we do not have a love of the truth[Gods Truth] then God will see that we will suffer from the delusion that we have’ the truth’.And if God sends a delusion then we shall indeed be deluded.

    ‘For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie'(2 Thessalonians 2:11)

    The only way to hang onto Gods Truth is to love it ,above all else.The Church has taken a very dangerous path led by false shepherds.

  • David

    It is always natural, especially for those outside the C of E, to refer to the C of E, as “the Church”. The truth is that the C of E does not exist as an unified, single body united around what constitutes God’s Truth. In fact it has never existed as a unified, single body united around what constituted God’s Truth.
    As the Liberals become ever more liberal, whilst the traditional ones held steady, the differences within the denomination grow monthly.
    The liberal vicars see their flocks literally die off, whilst evangelical ones either hold their own or grow steadily. If present demographic trends continue then, eventually there will be a far smaller denomination comprising largely evangelical congregations, very few liberal worshippers, and a overwhelmingly liberal episcopacy. That will be interesting !

  • Inspector General

    God is forgiving. To a degree. We Christians all know that. After all, we are a product of Him, and no originator of an idea would condemn his result outright. Well, in theory. But here’s the problem. Percy if he was an individual, would be quite at liberty to publish what he holds dear, and his immortal hide would be unaffected, probably. But he’s not such, is he. He is doing what he is doing riding on the back of Christ, as a vicar thereof so he thinks.

    Blood running cold by any chance, Percy?

    • Dominic Stockford

      He is answerable to Christ, as are we all. And that should give him more than pause for thought.

    • carl jacobs

      God is forgiving. To a degree.

      Yet another in a long line of errors driven by a fundamentally anthropomorphic view of God.

      • Inspector General

        “…anthropomorphic view of God.”

        Hardly. One believes God is pure logic, as befitting the creator of everything and the clever way it was achieved. This man leaves the anthropomorphic business to you fellows who hold the Trinity so dear and others who believe they ‘converse’ with the Almighty.

  • chefofsinners

    Just believe in yourself, Hannah, and you can be anything you want! Don’t you believe what that nasty God says.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Benedictines are supposed to live ‘at least’ at the level they knew before entering the monastery, so that they do not get overburdened with the struggle of being too ascetic!

    • Anton

      Have a browse at Amazon of Craig Monson’s book “Nuns behaving badly”.

  • ChaucerChronicle

    On the one-hand Percy doesn’t want the orthodox ejected from the Church; on the other he’s quite happy to receive our money and negatively discriminate against us.

    That is, oppressive.

  • Manfarang

    Where does this obsession with sex come from?

    • Navarth

      A particular practice carried out vociferously in Infancy, in my humble opinion.

      • Manfarang

        Male circumcision? Goodness me!

    • Paul Greenwood

      Cult of Narcissism

    • michaelkx

      try Hell

    • Mike Stallard

      Brexit!

      • Royinsouthwest

        Or our own irresponsibility in increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. After all, climate change seems to be responsible for most things.

      • Manfarang

        But we are not leaving Europe. Paris is just a short trip away.

    • The devil!

      • Manfarang

        But I like his Tartini’s Violin Sonata in G minor.

  • len

    What the Church of England now needs to review is just one thing:The Bible. Just that: The Word of God”
    Does the Church want to follow the words of Martyn Percy, or the Word of God.?
    Its really that simple.

    • Mike Stallard

      Erm…All that stuff in St Paul about women keeping silent in Church and being saved through child bearing? All that stuff about divorce will scupper the current family destruction system too and put the social services out of business. Do we really want that?

      • Royinsouthwest

        I have never understood that bit about women being saved through child bearing. It seems totally contrary to the gospel. Doesn’t salvation come to women in exactly the same was as to men?

        • Mike Stallard

          St Paul was – well – St Paul. A Jew of his time. The whole problem is that it is the job of the Bishops to make sure that the Church does “semper reformandum” but remains true to its original revelation. The trumpet is sounding a very divided note at the moment. It is a question of authority.
          But the real question is this: on what does that authority actually rest? Answers on a fag packet (I love that out of date cliche!) Just saying “Jesus” isn’t going to help really. And “the Bible” just doesn’t work either.

          • Martin

            Mike

            But what Paul was writing was God breathed, that is what God was saying.

          • Mike Stallard

            OK pneuma – al Lah (breath out) – Jah – all breath! I really do respect that. The only problem is that nobody else seems to be doing so at the moment. Our local Rev Dawn is having the Bishop over to Palm Sunday for example.

          • Martin

            Mike

            You mean they don’t breathe when they speak?

          • Mike Stallard

            Nice one! Actually this is an enormously powerful insight. If you say Al-Lah properly or JHWH carefully, you are expelling breath and little else. The Greeks did “to pneuma” which just means “breath” and, to my mind rather missed the point by opening it up to thinking instead of wonder.
            But the beginning of John’s Gospel – the Word – understands the insight perfectly. Breath is God and God is breath.
            Chew on that for your next sermon!

          • Martin

            Mike

            Not mine, I can’t claim the credit. 😉

        • chefofsinners

          It means ‘kept safe through childbearing.’

      • len

        The context of scripture must be taken into account.
        I guess men were preaching and women were discussing the preaching during the sermon?.
        Women are certainly ‘ saving’ the human race through child bearing.No test tube babies in St Paul’s day.I cannot think how this would bring personal salvation to women though?.

        ‘Context’ and ‘setting’ should be taken into account.I always struggled with God wanting ‘the Amalekites’ totally wiped out.But the Amelikites were a people who were trying to destroy the Israelite’s and God foreknew this.I also think the Amelikites might have been into occult practices and demon worship?.
        I suppose we should not try and judge God by human standards( if at all) Job eventually saw this.

        (I realise your question was rhetorical.)

        • David

          Yes I too struggle with Paul’s “saved by childbirth” point. What about the single or the infertile ? Surely men and women are saved by faith in Christ ! I suppose we can’t expect to understand everything that the Bible says, as sometimes the context is obscure, and Paul certainly encountered a huge variety of deep problems in the early churches.

        • The Amalekites were descended from Esau, Len (Gen 36:12). It was the rivalry between the two brothers continued ….. vengeance has a long memory it seems and they were certainlyinto idolatrous practices.

  • michaelkx

    “What an excellent deflection into perpetual socio-political and theo-philosophical obfuscation such a debate would be. Certainly beats having to tell people about Jesus.” Your Grace, if the church was to follow the teachings of the new covenant as put forward by the founder of the church, Jesus the son of GOD, we would not be having the need for laws against discrimination. If the C of E would go back to the day job, preaching the gospel, it could find that the problems with in the C of E would fade away.

    • Mike Stallard

      …instead of the CoE fading away as it has in my own village to the destruction of any kind of common life.

  • Mike Stallard

    I stopped reading at the EU bit, I am afraid.

  • IanCad

    The cause of Women’s Ordination seems joined at the hip with the promotion of the pervert tendency.

    Whilst in the former case Biblical teaching is not consistently clear in its opposition; in the latter there is absolutely no scriptural case for the promotion of that lifestyle choice.

    For the life of me I can’t see why the two have to be yoked together.

    • David

      I agree with you Ian. For years I was equivocal regarding female ordination, because the Scriptural evidence and Church history and practice isn’t, in my opinion, totally conclusive one way or the other. Although it is true that Jesus did only appoint men as disciples, and by nature and teachings he was no conformist, all of which is sufficient evidence to convince many.
      But what has slowly swayed me to believe that it is wrong, is that it leads to ever more liberal, essentially politically driven, ideas creeping into the Church, most of which are very wrong. As you say they seem to be “joined at the hip”, with one step leading to the next. So now I am deeply sceptical of women’s ordination, and would not attend, let alone serve, in a local church led by a female.

      • Jill

        But they never made any secret of their intentions! Those (like me!) who closely follow these things will have known that WATCH (Women and the Church) and Inclusive Church joined forces years ago.

        • David

          Well done you, Jill. Were that all, were as well informed and prescient as you. Ultimately, as in the Episcopalians of the US, the ever more liberal tendency will cease to be a Christian Church – as they will have created something new, having fashioned a god that satisfies their own wishes. This is the pattern of apostasy repeated time after time in the OT of course.
          But the truly Christian Church will continue, either as a remnant, or with the blessing of the Spirit as a resurgent, growing movement, as in the breakaway North American Anglican Church. At present, because the demography favours it, most Biblically led Anglicans are hanging in there, different from much of the denomination, growing still, but attached to the C of E.

      • IanCad

        I have to wonder though David, what came first: A well intentioned group of women in the pattern of Gladys Aylward who perhaps saw the ministry as a means to further the spread of the Gospel; Or did those of the Sapphic sect intrigue from the outset to disguise their intentions with a veil of normalcy.
        I would suggest the Good Gals came along first and were co-opted by the crafty Sodomites.

        • David

          I don’t know. But probably from the off, there was a mixture of the good intentioned but naive, with those who always knew where they were heading, eventually. That’s the way the left generally operates, with many “useful idiots” led by a few ideologues. As the goal nears the proportion of the latter to the former increases. But that’s pure conjecture, and I’d guess that we will never be sure.

      • Andym

        David

        You seem to be saying that female ordination is not wrong per se, but because of what it leads on to. If I was to tell you that the few female clergy I know well are totally against “marriage” for homosexuals, would that lead you to reconsider your view? Or are there other ideas that you are referring to, and if so, could you be specific?

        • David

          Not quite, but we can’t write essays here, so one has to less than thorough.
          I am now “deeply sceptical” about female ordination because of two things. Firstly what it is associated with, and seems to be leading to, namely total confusion regarding the nature of male and female, not just in the Church but also in wider society. Secondly, because of my observations, and experiences as to how careless with all that is traditional, all the ordained females that I have ever met, truly are, I now see Scripture in a different light. So I have revisited Scripture in the light of what I see happening – that’s not an ideal way to proceed, being the wrong way around, but that’s the journey I’ve been on.

          • Andym

            You see my experience is different. I have observed how deeply traditional some female clergy are. Indeed, I observe the same range of church(wo)manship across both male and female clergy, so I don’t accept that the ordination of women leads to any particular course. Having said that, I must point out that I am deeply against pigeon holing people in to particular strands of the church – partly because I can never remember what particular labels mean, but also because I like worshipping or praying in different styles as the mood takes me.

          • David

            I understand what you’ve said. However every ordained female I’ve met is, invariably, deeply liberal, across the range of teaching. So that’s what I’ve found. Like you I am happy with a wide range of types of services, from the very traditional to the very informal. As long as God’s Truth is taught and his advice upheld, I am relaxed regarding the form that services take, as that is not the substantive issue.

        • carl jacobs

          To justify WO, you must import an external authoritiy into Scripture. In the particular case of WO that external authority would be egalitarianism. Once you do that, you have removed Scripture from its place as the unnormed norm that norms all other norms. You have thus opened the door to overturning any Scriptural imperative that falls afoul of the present spirit of the age. There is nothing you can’t justify by this mechanism.

          It doesn’t much matter if any particular ordained woman opposes homosexual marriage. What matters is the precedent that has been set. Once in place, it can’t be controlled.

          • Not necessarily.

            Biblical passages are frequently used and reinterpreted. For example: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

            Then there’s: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

        • IanCad

          I have a niece who is a vicar and she too refuses to “marry” same-sex couples. Glad to learn there are others like her.

    • Anton

      Carl explained that a while back: once you have denied the written word of God about one thing you have precedent to do it again. And there is an anti-godly agenda involved.

      • David

        Yup, that’s it. Ignoring Scripture then becomes normalised and on and on it goes.

      • IanCad

        Not so sure Anton. Precedent does not necessarily indictate future form. Further, we set a high bar when claiming precise scriptural charge. I’ve said it before- We’d better make sure we have everything else right – Absolutely sure!

        • Anton

          But we all operate according to our own understanding of scripture in our Christian lives!

          • IanCad

            Too true Anton.

            “—–work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Philippians 2:12

          • “But we all operate according to our own understanding of scripture in our Christian lives!”

            An understanding filtered through reason influenced by our desires and interests. Who’s to say Percy’s understanding of scripture is any less valid than another?

          • The Explorer

            That’s postmodernism for you: meaning lies with the reader rather than the author; so there are as many meanings as there are readers.

            Let’s apply it. I take Percy to be saying that the C of E should be exclusively staffed by heterosexual men. If he disagrees, well he’s just one reader like any other no has no ownership over the text.

          • carl jacobs

            Why, the Pope of course. Whereas the Scriptures are impenetrable and clouded in a mist of incomprehensibility, the proclamations of the Magisterium are ever so clear. God may have failed to communicate to man through Scripture. How fortunate that the Magisterium succeeds where God has failed.

          • Manfarang

            The Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

          • “Scriptures are impenetrable and clouded in a mist of incomprehensibility … “.

            Much of scripture is open to a variety of different interpretations in matters of faith and morals. Human history is witness to the fallibility of human reason. God made a revelation to men and also a means to interpret and teach this revelation universally – His Church, His Mystical Body, a living, breathing organism.

            The bishops are the successors of the Apostles. When they teach a truth so widely that it can be called the teaching of the episcopate of the Catholic Church, that teaching is true. God’s power keeps it from being wrong. Sometimes a definite statement of the truth is demanded. The world may, for example, want to know authoritatively what the bishops teach on a certain matter. Or a new problem might arise for which a solution is urgently demanded. Or it might be that men need a certain truth to be emphasized for them by being declared part of God’s revelation. In cases like these the Pope may make a solemn definition.

            Infallibility simply guarantees that the teachings of the united Catholic episcopate and the definitions of the Pope are free from error. God’s revelation is safeguarded. Human minds can work on it, discuss it, study it, explain it, draw conclusions from it, and still not destroy it. That is what matters most. God’s truth is preserved. In studying that truth the human mind has abounding scope for its activity. But infallibility is there all the time to keep the truth untarnished. It is God’s device for reconciling the fallible activity of our minds and the infallible truth of the revelation He has made.

          • Anton

            infallibility is there all the time to keep the truth untarnished. It is God’s device for reconciling the fallible activity of our minds and the infallible truth of the revelation He has made.

            A better description of the scriptures I could not find.

            In studying that truth the human mind has abounding scope for its activity.

            As the Magisterium amply demonstrates.

          • So you claim each man is an infallible interpreter of scripture who’s logic and reason never fails him? Or just those who agree with you?
            Imagine being a Christian convert in the 21st century and attempting to find a reliable guide to scripture and Christ’s teachings on faith and morals that is historically consistent and internally coherent.
            Point to one doctrine in the Catholic Church, or one definitive teaching, that contradicts a previously formulated doctrine or definitive teaching. You should know, much time has been spent by various protestants and liberal Catholics in an attempt to find even one formal papal definition which has been proved wrong or to find where one pope, attempting to teach infallibly, contradicted another or an ecumenical council. The records have been diligently searched. The result has been the complete vindication of the Church and the pope.
            This is why debates about women’s ordination, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transsexuality etc. etc., always take place on the fringes of Catholicism, by malcontents, dissidents and heretics, and are couched in ambiguous terms.

          • Anton

            How many times do you want me to do this? I point out how the Marian doctrines are brazenly inconsistent with apostolic church teaching aka the New Testament and you come up with incoherence and denial in reply. Unlike the Catholic church which has imposed itself by force when and where it has been able to, I am happy simply to have the issues aired and let people decide for themselves.

          • len

            Jack has been brainwashed.He cannot contradict the Magisterium whatever it tells him.

          • Scripture is not the only definitive source of divine truth.

            Where are the Marian dogma in the Bible? This isn’t really a question about Mary. It’s a question about the validity of Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church.

            Jack asked for you to produce an example of a teaching of the Church where she has contradicted herself or scripture. Instead, you offer a dogma you disagree with. Show Jack where the Marian dogma are contradicted by scripture.

          • Anton

            1 Timothy 2:5.

          • Anton

            Whoever is in ecclesiastical authority above Percy has the capability to throw him out of that church system if they do not agree. Nobody should grumble about that, but it raises several questions:

            * What is the legitimate structure of the church by which one Christian may wield authority over another?

            [Answer: Decentralised.]

            * Should disciplinary measures extend beyond expulsion?

            [Catholic response wherever Rome has had enough temporal power to exert itself: Yes. Correct response: No.]

            * Can any church system legitimately claim to get it right 100% of the time?

            [Answer: No. Rome’s answer: Yes, we can. Why? Oh, because we say so.]

          • CliveM

            People keep saying he should be kicked out by the person with the authority to do so. Does this authority actually exist in the CofE?

            No one in all these discussions has shown that it does and if it does what the process is.

            Can someone advise?

          • Anton

            Not me. But His Grace is an Archbishop…

          • CliveM

            You see I think it would be entirely consistent of the CofE to make it near impossible to “kick” someone out in this sort of situation, or these type of statements.

            I maybe wrong, but that sort of muscular approach seems unlikely to be allowed to me.

          • Anton

            Clive, what is to stop the Archbishop of Canterbury from excommunicating him and instructing him not to take services henceforth? What happened next would then depend on his actions.

          • CliveM

            What would happen? Noth. The AofC has no legs authority to excommunicate and every one, including the Percy would be able to ignore it.

            All that would happen is the ApfC would end up looking foolish.

            Unfortunately.

          • Anton

            Excommunicating a man is not an instruction to that man. It is an instruction to other clergy not to give him communion. I think you are over-confident in your conclusion. As for me, I don’t know what would happen.

          • CliveM

            And what would happen if the Clergy ignored the instruction?

          • Anton

            It’s time to find out.

          • CliveM

            But can’t we quess? The vast majority of the Bishops and a significant portion of the Clergy would ignore it. Not just those who agre with what he is saying, but also those who would be uncomfortable with the precedent and those who would see the action as un-Anglican. And for what?

          • Anton

            My guess differs from yours. Which is why it is time to find out.

          • CliveM

            Don’t be shy then Anton, what do you think will happen?

          • Anton

            My best guess is that it would trigger the fight that the evangelicals want (and in which they’d have my support). which is why Justin “paper over the cracks” Welby wouldn’t do it.

          • None of the above

            No-one has the authority to do so. This was clearly demonstrated in the Lincoln Cathedral affair in the 1990s. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that case, it remains the case that neither the Bishop nor the Dean could be got rid of. I’m sure more authoritative sources are available, but among the press reports at the time there’s this:
            So arcane are the administrative principles involving a Dean and a Bishop that nobody — not even the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has overall spiritual jurisdiction in the diocese and who has ordered an investigation — is in a position to dismiss any of them.
            and this:
            At a press conference last month, Dr Carey … admitted he had no power to compel either man to resign unless they were found guilty of a criminal offence.

          • CliveM

            That would be my expectation. So hopefully we will be less critical of individuals who haven’t been given the authority to sack and focus more on the process.

            For information if you a merely a lowly Priest there seems to be a proces;
            https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/clergydiscipline/cdmprocess.aspx

          • None of the above

            Oh yes, those of my rank in the Church are very well aware – especially since the abolition of the freehold – of just how easily we can be dispensed with! (And there are synodical moves to make it even easier, as well as cheaper.)

          • CliveM

            Apologies I should also have said thank you for your response.

          • None of the above

            No problem, I wasn’t expecting thanks. Happy to be of assistance.

          • len

            Beyond the abilities of those supposedly running the show.

          • CliveM

            More, beyond the authority of those running the show.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The Bishop of his diocese has the power to do various things, including removing his licence to preach. He can then, of course, go off and appeal to someone.

          • CliveM

            Hi Dominic

            See Betteroutofit’s response to my question, why was the Bishop not able to sack the Dean in this circumstance then?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Removing someone’s licence is bot sacking them – unless preaching was what you thought a clergyman should be primarily doing. I’m not sure the Dean would have done so.

          • betteroffoutofit

            ?? Did you mean NOTAB?

          • The Catholic Church has never needed temporal power to excommunicate and discipline either its members or clergy. To this day it laicises clergy who teach against settled doctrine – although, in Jack’s opinion, it should be more assertive in this in these times of spiritual confusion.

            The Churches is not just a human organization of believers. It is the Mystical Body of Christ, a living organism, and the union of men with God in Christ. He set up among us a living society, one Church, and gave His Holy Spirit to that society. He commissioned her to preach his truth to the world.

            The Holy Spirit is the Church’s life-breath. He transforms it from being an organization, linked together by the force of authority, into an organism, welded into one by the inner principle of life. Christ’s Church is His presence in the world, carrying on His work, saving the souls of men, and teaching them God’s truth. In the Church the purpose of authority is God’s glory and men’s salvation. She must pass on the truth – always God’s truth, revealed in Christ. The Spirit of truth enables her to do this: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony because you are with me from the beginning” (John 15:26.)

            The continuous presence of Christ keeps his Church from error: “Going, therefore, teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 19:20).
            All history is witness to the fallibility of human reason. Suppose God made a revelation to men and left it to us to discuss and interpret and teach. His revelation would become so entangled that no one would know for certain what the original revelation had been.

            Certainly, God could not command the acceptance of truth on fallible human authority. If you believe that there is a God who is absolute truth and that God has revealed certain things to men, you must reasonably expect those revealed matters to contain truths you would not otherwise be able to know. These truths would have to be unaltered, undiminished and undefiled by the treatment of fallible human reason.

            God has devised a way. It is his Church. He has made it that channel by which his truth passes to men. That is why the Church is infallible. Christ meant it to be so. He sent His Holy Spirit to guide the Church to witness to the truth as He did.

          • Anton

            Assertion is not argument, and neither is eisegesis in disguise as exegesis.

          • It’s not assertion – it’s all demonstrable from scripture and understandable with the use of right reason.

          • Anton

            There is no assertion in scripture that the church will never make a mistake over matters of doctrine. “Guided into all truth” does not preclude errors en route, let alone the question of who is the church.

          • Read the whole comment and stop wasting Jack’s time with your obsession with trying to prove the Catholic Church is in error.

          • Anton

            Please desist from airing your obsession with trying to prove it right.

          • Jack doesn’t have to “prove” divinely revealed truths are “right”.

          • Martin

            HJ

            The plain reading of Scripture. He is without excuse.

          • No such thing as a “plain reading of scripture”. What you mean is your understanding of scripture.

          • worrywort

            Surely this is precisely why we need a Church Authority to ensure scripture is understood properly otherwise we end up with Cults.

          • Martin

            WW

            So your ‘Church Authority’ gets to tell you what you should believe and becomes the final authority, rather than Scripture.

          • worrywort

            I joined the Anglican Church as there seems to be a bit of room to rattle.
            The Catholic Church is much stricter. But I think the majority of us need pointing in the right direction. Look at what’s happening to the Church since It deviated a bit.

          • Martin

            WW

            Why would a Christian, who has the Holy Spirit, need to be pointed in the right direction? The problem with the CoE, and Rome, is that it rattles far too much.

          • worrywort

            Hello Martin.
            I agree with you . Anyone who has the Holy Spirit would surely be pointing towards God and wouldn’t need the Church or anyone else. My comment was more about myself. I could easily read the Bible and interpret it completely wrongly, Ego and the sin of Pride would finish the job.

          • Martin

            WW

            If you read the whole Bible and compare text with text prayerfully you are less likely to err.

          • Exactly so, good Sir.

          • IanCad

            Be very careful with that. We are to seek light from the Word, not the Church.

          • Martin

            HJ

            It’s perfectly possible to read Scripture in context.

          • That’s precisely what the likes of Percy claim to be doing.

          • Anton

            So what? Dispute it with him to a standstill. Have you no confidence that you’d win?

          • Martin

            HJ

            No, they are claiming to be able to read beyond Scripture and are abandoning the clear meaning, much like Rome.

          • Scripture is only clear when you have the correct keys to unlock its mysteries. And guess who Christ gave the Keys too?

          • Martin

            HJ

            Christ gave the keys to all the disciples. Unless, of course, you can show me a place where He specifically gave the keys to an individual.

          • You know the passage – you just deny it plain meaning.

          • Martin

            HJ

            If you mean Matthew 16:19, it says he will give them but not to whom, can you show me where they are given?

            You really should have been in bed.

          • He gives the Keys to Peter.

            “And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

            “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” In the Old Testament, the “number two” person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king’s mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.

            Jesus adds, “whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

            Christ entrusted a special authority to Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. This understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honour his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of “first among equals.”

          • Martin

            HJ

            Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
            (Matthew 16:16-19 [ESV])

            In context the foundation is not Peter, but Peter’s confession. Nor does the passage say that the keys are given, but will be given. There is no evidence from either the New Testament or the early Church that Peter was accorded the authority claimed for him over the other apostles. Indeed, the council in Jerusalem was led by another, James, the brother of Jesus and it was James that drew the discussion to a close by laying down the decision. If Peter was such an authority why did they not just ask him?

            Nor is there any conclusive evidence that Peter was ever a monarchical bishop of Rome, it is clear from the letter of Clement to Corinth that such a role did not exist, since the church at Rome had multiple elders at that time.

            The whole claim by Rome to an authority stemming from Peter is an attempt to gain sovereignty over Christ’s Church, an attempt that was clearly rejected by the Churches of the East on the basis that it had no foundation.

          • He addressed His comments directly to Peter, whom God had enlightened. There is plenty of evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and that this See has primacy over other Christian Churches. The Orthodox Churches recognise this primacy too, claiming the Bishop of Rome is “first amongst equals”, rather than Supreme.

          • Martin

            HJ

            There was no monarchical bishop of Rome in Peter’s day. And why does Paul say say that only Luke is with him, when writing 2 Timothy from Rome, wasn’t Peter there as well?

            If the bishop of Rome holds the primacy why did the Eastern reject Victors demand that they celebrate Easter as he did, and why did Irenaeus rebuke him for this action?

            Then you have the Pornocracy, where the immorality of those who were supposed to be leaders of the church and the periods when there were multiple popes, all completely destroying any claim the church of Rome has to any sort of apostolic succesion.

            Sorry, but your ‘church’ is just a sorry joke.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      G.K.Chesterton made that point most eloquently in

      On Logic and Lunacy.

      As for those who say “Only the Bible”, arguments over how to apply the Word of God have a tendency to multiply like those of rabbis [sic].

      • IanCad

        Thanks for the link to GK’s ramblings. What a wonderful bedside book it would make. I’ll look for a copy on Amazon.

    • Martin

      Ian

      Actually they are both forbidden, clearly, by Scripture.

      • IanCad

        Certainly the one is – the other less so. The, then prevailing, Jewish economy must be factored in.

        • Martin

          Ian

          I really do not follow that.

          • IanCad

            Again Martin, I can only state that the societal norms of the times must be considered. Christ had no female apostles. In those days a woman would not have been expected to adopt such a difficult task. Men were far better able to fend and provide for themselves in that arduous role.

            I do not believe the question is of salvific import, and am wishy-washy about it.

            Male or female – we all have to tread the same path to salvation.

            “When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another. Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering.”
            The Desire of Ages Ch. 70. EG White

          • Martin

            Ian

            But Paul relates the rejection of women as leaders to the Creation ordinances, not to “societal norms of the times”:

            I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
            (I Timothy 2:12-14 [ESV])

            Thus it is clear that women are excluded from leadership roles, not because of the views of men but because God decreed it so.

            God separates the sheep from the goats on the basis that they are sheep and are goats, not because of what they have done.

          • IanCad

            As I said Martin, I’m not too hung up on the issue. Apart from some hermeneutical wriggle room, and a conflict with the fact that many women in both the OT & NT were in leadership roles your cited text is a difficult one to challenge from a purely literalist standpoint.

        • Martin

          Ian

          No, they are both forbidden quite clearly.

  • Little Black Censored

    He had a beard when I saw him recently.

  • Martin

    Why am I reminded of this passage?

    They look through the windows to see the pigs and farmers seated around
    the living room table, playing cards, making speeches and congratulating
    one another. Mr Pilkington makes a speech telling the pigs how
    impressed he is with Animal Farm, especially with the hard work and poor
    rations of the farm animals. Napoleon makes a speech in return,
    expressing his happiness that the mistrust between Animal Farm and the
    others is now at an end. He furthermore announces that the animals will
    cease to address each other as “Comrade,” and that “Animal Farm” will
    now revert to being called “Manor Farm.” As Napoleon finishes his speech
    to great applause, the animals outside seem to notice something
    changing in the features of the pigs, but what?

    It has come to a pretty pass when the ones who should be searching God’s word to see if it is so instead concentrate on the opinions of men.

    Lets face facts, God has decreed that sex is for use within the marriage of one man to one woman, anything outside of that is sin. Those who are clergy within what is claimed to be a Christian church should be teaching that. Thus all those claiming an LGB orientation are presenting an evil philosophy, that it is possible for a human being, by nature, to be different from the norm and that this justifies sex outside that already described.

    Secondly, we are told:

    So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
    (Genesis 1:27 [ESV])

    Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. (Genesis 5:2 [ESV])

    We are not told that God created them in the range male to female so that they could be anything in that range. When it comes down to it, there is no such thing, physically, as a transexual. There are people who believe they are the wrong sex, just as there are people who believe that they have a limb that does not belong to them. Those who pander to such people, who perform surgical operations on them, are not their friends since they are mutilating those who are clearly mentally ill.

    Indeed, to follow the LGBT agenda is to act in a wicked evil way, opposing God who has made us.

    Then we can move on to the role of women in the Church. The Bible is quite clear on the role of women in life and in the Church. The woman was made to be a helper for the man, she was not to be the leader. Eve, in following the Serpent’s suggestion became the leader, leading her husband into sin and thus God placed an extra curse on her:

    To the woman he said,
    I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
    Your desire shall be for your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.

    (Genesis 3:16 [ESV]) (emphasis mine.)

    Thus it is that Paul says:

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (I Timothy 2:12 [ESV])

    So it is quite clear that women are not to be in the ruling ministry of the Church and the CoE is in serious error in allowing them to do so.

    Without a doubt Martyn Percy is in error and the magnitude of his error, together with the way he seks to impose it on others, makes me question whether he is a Christian.

  • len

    The C of E needs another’ Martin’ but more among the lines of’ Luther’ than Percy.
    (yes ‘Jack’ I know Luther was an anti semite) but it was Luther’s opposition to the false teaching of the Roman Church that brought about the Reformation.
    The C of E needs to go back to the spirit of the Reformation and seek Biblical truth, not the ramblings of secularist doctrines such as espoused by’ the wrong Martyn’ (Percy by name)
    Anglicans , rise up and rescue your Church before it is sold out to the lie of secularists doctrines.

    • Luther wanted to be his own pope and set about reconstructing scripture (literally) to overcome his own scruples and fears about salvation. Martyn Percy is a true son of the reformation. Each person can proclaim his own ex-cathedra doctrine and when enough people do likewise and are in agreement, a new “truth” emerges.

      • Anton

        Thank God for the religious freedom to do that. The new truth that emerged at the Reformation was based on Christ alone as infallible. Not Mary. Not the Pope.

        • Just what “new truth” emerged? Which “truth” do you ascribe to? Luther’s, Calvin’s, Zwingli’s – or the legion of “theological developments” and differences ever since?

          • Anton

            Justification purely by grace through faith in Christ.

          • Dominic Stockford

            …alone.

          • Anton

            Jack missed my own version of “alone”, ie “purely”.

          • Dominic Stockford

            There are so many possible answers to that, but I shall refrain from scoring one of the many open goals lying before me there…….

          • That’s not a new “truth” – it’s a longstanding Catholic doctrine.

            Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification, by remaining in unbelief, or after, by engaging in serious sin. See 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5. Although we cannot earn God’s unmerited favour by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins, that is, by our evil works, and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.

      • len

        Whatever Martin Luther’s faults he couldn`t stomach the Roman Church.Which says a lot to me.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Yes, Len – we need to take back our church, yet again.

      .I like to remember, of course: We didn’t owe our reforming ideas to the German. The Church in England had a very long tradition of thinking and acting for ourselves (including the translation of scripture into our own language). That propensity is one reason why Papaseato Alexander II backed Billie the Bastard in 1066.
      In spite of their nastiness, the invaders didn’t manage to quell the spirit; it showed clearly in the 14th century of Chaucer and Langland, whose contemporaries included Wyclif and the Lollards. Indeed, some suggest that Wyclif’s ideas may have indirectly influenced the German – via John Huss (sv “Wyclif”; OCEL, 6th ed., edited by Drabble).

      • Dominic Stockford

        We use ‘Wickliffe’ at the PTS. Good bloke however you spell it.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Yes, the spelling does vary. I checked this and used the spelling in the “Oxford Dictionary of English Literature” – as I’m referring to their article.

  • It seems to me, as a lowly Reader that the raison d’etre of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel as revealed in Jesus Christ, and not to slavishly follow secular society. If it is discerned beyond all reasonable doubt that the will of God is that the Church should embrace the secular mores of this age, then fair enough. In my humble opinion, it has NOT been theologically proven that that is the case. Therefore there needs to be tolerance on both sides and no exclusions just because people think the Church should not be rolling over with each new secular innovation purely to be “relevant”

    • ChaucerChronicle

      In general, I agree with you.

      This tolerance on both sides business you can forget. Bishop North and now Keller.

      Forget it.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Keller? What has he done now? (Please – need to know, being responsible for a Christian bookshop).

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Dominic

          He’s become a victim. He was awarded a prize and then it was withdrawn.

          • Dominic Stockford

            If he’s the Christian he appears to be he won’t give one jot – we don’t preach Christ for baubles and prizes.

    • Navarth

      As Solzhenitsyn stated, men have forgotten God. The Eastern Church will not accept the secular mores of the age. The dichotomy between Western secular society and the Russian Federation, where the Orthodox Church has flourished, is set to grow ever wider. The West has grown indolent and has forgotten the lessons of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn and Shalamov should be required reading for school children.

  • IanCad

    Totally off-topic – I’m sorry YG – but I will never, ever, ever buy anything Cadbury’s makes after this ad popped up.

    We need blowback now!

    • The Explorer

      “A match made in Heaven.” I’m sure that whoever dreamed up that advert believes it to be true. God smiles on sodomy.

      Interestingly, a driver who insisted on using a motorway exit as an entrance would be seen as a menace. But whoever does so with regard to sex must be lauded as a hero.

      • Dominic Stockford

        That’s an, umm, cough cough, ‘interesting’ way of putting it!

    • Inspector General

      Those two chocolate munching mincers, Ian, display the narcissistic element of homosexuality rather well. A fellow pretties himself up, falls in love with the image in the mirror, and then goes about finding someone who resembles said image. Such is queer love, but it has a sell by date. It’s only while they are young, unwrinkled and not yet greying or balding. No one wants to be reminded by his doppelganger that he too is getting old…

      • Holger

        I’m starting to understand why you’re alone.

        You had a gay affair when younger, didn’t you? Some poor idiot shagged you, and then dumped you like a hot potato when he realized what a gibbering head case you were. So now all gay relationships are doomed because yours didn’t last.

        Sick old bugger, don’t you realize that your life is not a model for all others?

        • Inspector General

          My dear fellow, one can assure you his anal cherry is very much intact. Anyway, what’s the problem with your people’s narcissism. It’s what drives you odd crowd to couple up. In fact, it’s such a powerful force, that some gay types are embarrassed about it.

          Ah, of course, that’s it! You included!

          • Holger

            Narcissism is a Christian phenomenon.

            Creating god in his image is the most narcissistic act that any human can perform.

            Want to see narcissism in action? Check out any church on any Sunday. Of course you’ll see fewer and fewer Christian narcissists on their knees adoring their own image. As science and education teach us about our true insignificance in a universe huge beyond comprehension, it’s becoming harder and harder to muster the level of narcissism needed to blow one’s own ego up to divine proportions and call it god. But a few stubborn individuals still cling on to their desperate need for self-deification.

            They are the true narcissists. And you are a particularly flagrant example of one. Believing that any random thought straying through your vague and uneducated brain is god’s word and that you can disregard any and every Christian tradition and merely declare something to be true because you say it is … now that’s a level of narcissism that even Happy Jack with his omnipotence fantasy can’t muster. At least he expresses his narcissism according to the conventions laid down by preceding generations of narcissists. You just make it up as you go along, don’t you?

          • It’s you who is creating a god, Linus, based, no doubt, on some unsavoury childhood experiences.

          • Holger

            And what childhood experiences provoked you into deifying yourself and calling the fantasy version of your own consciousness “god”?

            Primal fear of the unknown? Frustration born from the tension created by your desire to dominate and control and your physical and intellectual inability to do so?

            The pathology you call faith and others call narcissistic personality disorder clearly has its origins in some kind of deep-rooted childhood trauma. I’d recommend you see a mental health professional about it, but quite honestly that would be opening a can of worms I wouldn’t wish on any psychologist. He might make a fortune off a basket case like you, but I can’t begin to imagine how traumatic it would be for him to wade through the cesspit of your twisted psyche. Incurables sometimes just need to be locked away, or medicated so they no longer pose a threat to society.

          • Inspector General

            Look chaps. While that blighter Holger is around, it might be best to avoid mentioning the reality of homosexual narcissism. It sends him wild with rage…

            : – >

          • The Explorer

            “Narcissism is a Christian phenomenon.”

            So how come the story was invented by pagans?

          • Holger

            Pagans didn’t invent narcissism. They merely supplied the myth that Christians chose to name it after.

            This is a typical Christian modus operandi. Anything negative is associated with pagan religions. Anything positive with Christianity. Control of the language was one of the methods Christianity used to impose itself.

          • The Explorer

            The story of Echo and Narcissus appears in Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’, and is thought to have been Ovid’s own invention.

          • Holger

            Uh huh, but Jews had been indulging in their narcissistic religion for a long time before Ovid. Not that there’s anything particularly narcissistic about Judaism compared to other religions. They’re all about navel-gazing and self-admiration.

            The story of Narcissus is just elegant shorthand for a tendency common to all religions: trying to cheat death via self-deification.

          • The Explorer

            “The story of Narcissus is just elegant shorthand for a tendency common to all religions.” How about a story common to all humanity? It seems a bit unfair to deprive Ovid of the credit.

    • worrywort

      Blowback? Is that what happens when the one in front has His ring knocked out?

      Seriously though. Two Years ago I was a Pagan following the teachings of “Wicca”.
      Now I’m a Christian and see the push for Priestesses and same sex “marriages” (Hand fasting they call it) is unnecessary. If that is what individuals want why don’t they go and join a Coven. Leave the teachings of YHVH and Christ alone.

      Better still join a Mosque and try forcing your warped ideas on Mohammedans.

      • IanCad

        So glad you found Christ. What a journey you’ve had.

        • worrywort

          Thank You. I don’t often tell anyone about my past but I’m anonymous here.
          I don’t often contribute anything to this Forum as I don’t have the wisdom or eloquence of the majority of the posters. And when the “Promo Homo brigade” start, I really have to button it.

          • My good man, you need neither wisdom nor eloquence to join in. Just read some of the Inspector’s or Carl’s posts. Jump in.

          • carl jacobs

            Was that kind? Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for what you have done to my self-esteem?

          • Jack offers his profuse apologies, Carl. He keeps forgetting you are a snowflake.

          • carl jacobs

            No, that isn’t good enough. I think I will require monetary compensation to pay for all the counseling. I was severely traumatized by your callous exclusivism.

          • Anton

            I think you have the wisdom.

          • IanCad

            Modesty becomes a Christian. You are a shining example to us blowhards.

      • Dominic Stockford

        I repeat Ian’s comment below. Praise the Lord.

      • David

        Welcome brother. All are equal in Christ.
        I have met Pagans, and noted their consistently anti-Christian stance. You have accomplished a difficult journey, so as I say, welcome !

    • Holger

      Oh no! Christian boycott! Sales will plummet by millions thousands hundreds a couple of quid!

      • Martin

        Holger

        Actually I think a lot of people are boycotting Cadbury’s already because they broke their word and moved production out of the UK.

        • Holger

          Brits love the sickly sweet pale brown vegetable fat that Cadbury markets as chocolate. They don’t care where it’s made. They’ll keep on buying it.

          By all means, boycott away. I doubt it will make much of a difference, and whatever difference it does make won’t alter the company’s strategy. You haven’t worked out yet that most people aren’t gibbering zealots like you and couldn’t give a damn where their “chocolate” is made. Or whether straight people or gay people appear in the ads.

          • Anton

            Who’s “they”? Cadbury’s milk chocolate marketed under its own name hasn’t been worth eating for a long time. Cadbury’s also owns some brand names that make decent milk chocolate, however.

          • IanCad

            Your duty is to tell us who they are.

          • Anton
          • Dominic Stockford

            There only seems to be one there – Green & Blacks. Or am I missing something?

          • Anton

            Just loose wording of mine.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            There could be worse.

            In April 2006, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association in the United States, whose members include Hershey, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to change the legal definition of chocolate to let them substitute partially hydrogenated vegetable oils for cocoa butter in addition to using artificial sweeteners and milk substitutes. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration does not allow a product to be called “chocolate” if the product contains any of these ingredients.

            The Hershey Company (Wikipedia)

          • Martin

            Holger

            Actually I suspect that Cadbury’s have been losing market share since the time when I bought 1d bars.

      • IanCad

        Holger, Most of us on this blog accept that what is done in private is none of our business, even though we hold homosexual practise to be abhorrent and a threat to Public Health. We seek no legal remedy in order to curtail the behaviour but we do wish to be able to freely criticize and oppose the spread – especially among the young and impressionable – of a lifestyle that is more hazardous than smoking.
        Tobacco ads are banned on the basis of health; I believe this one deserves equal treatment.

        • Jack would reintroduce the law banning councils and schools from promoting homosexuality and, furthermore, would widen its scope to include all media and broadcasting companies.

          • Anton

            Given the choice in our wonderful democracy then I too would vote for that.

          • IanCad

            You pointed to a flaw in my reasoning. Had I written “Stop” it would have made more sense. As to “Curtailing.” Yes! That is fine. The proselytising must cease.

          • Holger

            So a gay couple doing what any straight couple might do is “proselytizing”, is it?

            Vicious bigot. We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re not going away. Get used to us. You’ll be seeing a lot more of us.

          • IanCad

            The Homosexual lifestyle is being promoted out of all proportion to the number of its participants. It is never criticized on Radio4. Schools dare not speak out as to the hazards of the practise. Those who do are immediately vilified as your post attests.

          • Holger

            The American public needs to wake up to the most sinister plot ever levied against our great nation: the Heterosexual Agenda. Figures in the media, universities, and schools continue to push this unhealthy lifestyle choice on our vulnerable youth. The damage caused by this choice is undeniable.

            Almost all teen pregnancies and unintended pregnancies are caused by irresponsible, reckless people who have been convinced that heterosexual activity is somehow acceptable. The need for birth control and its associated medical industry is necessitated by wanton heterosexuals.

            Choosing to engage in the heterosexual lifestyle is harmful to children. Recent studies of lesbian parents found zero substantiated cases of child abuse. Most documented cases of child abuse, poverty, and neglect are a result of heterosexuals who refuse to take responsibility for their promiscuity.

            The United States pays a heavy price for heterosexual behavior. In 2015 the Federal Government spent $8 Billion year supporting state level child welfare services, and $6 Billion more feeding the unfortunate offspring who resulted from the scourge of heterosexual acts. In 2012, states spent over $28 Billion on welfare to clean up the financial mess created by irresponsible, self-proclaimed “heterosexuals.”

            Heterosexual pressure on vulnerable, impressionable youth is omnipresent. Nowhere can it be seen more than in the relentlessly conservative movie industry. In 2015, you could count the number of movies featuring healthy lesbian and gay relationships on your fingers, and still have digits to spare. Heterosexual relationships are portrayed in nearly every movie, without ever addressing the astounding harm they cause. Meanwhile, Poe and Finns’ relationship in “The Force Awakens” is left at no more than a lip bite.

            Militant heterosexuals have abused the law to spread their agenda. The heterosexual mafia have formed secretive organizations around the nation to forcibly indoctrinate youth into the heterosexual lifestyle. They have abused the Constitution to make religions out of pulling youth into their “death cults” of heteronormativity, yet claiming religious freedom when rightly accused abducting and brainwashing youth.

            Inside these “religious” based re-education camps children are forced to endure endless hours of chanting, memorizing heterosexualist propaganda, punished for questioning dogma, and rewarded with a little extra “freedom” for successfully parroting the propaganda.. Eventually, those who have been turned are used as adults by these “churches” as willing slave labor to go out and recruit the next generation of victims.

            When confronted about their so-called heterosexual identities, purveyors of the heterosexual agenda can only offer up lame, liberal rationales for their self-destructive behavior. Heterosexualists often say that people are born this way, without offering any scientific proof. Instead, they give only subjective evidence like “I always knew,” or “I experimented in college but it just wasn’t me.”

            Most militant heterosexuals claim they can’t change, because God made them that way. Yet somehow, when asked if they ever tried being homosexual, they vehemently deny it. As a result, these self-proclaimed “heterosexuals” have never even made the attempt to be gay, yet claim that change is impossible. They are like petulant children screaming they hate a particular food, without ever actually having tried it.

            The goal of the heterosexual agenda should be clear by now: to ensure that every single child in America is corrupted into heterosexuality, one by one. They use the media, religious brain washing, and coercive behavioral modification to convince these children they have no choice but heterosexuality. When anyone tries to leave this deadly lifestyle it results in social, economic, and physical exile from the cult that they have become dependent on. Survival is based on complete and utter orthodoxy.

            But there is hope for our children. Getting them involved in wholesome, appropriate activities can prevent them from being consumed by the heterosexual agenda. For example, introduce your boys to musical theater, men’s fashion, and the complete works of Barbara Streisand early. Getting girls involved in fast-pitch softball, LPGA golf, and vocational summer camps for arc-welding will help prevent bad lifestyle choices.

            Impressionable children should know about the danger of strangers knocking at your door, particularly when Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons have been seen lurking in the neighborhood. Protect kids from the unhealthy influences of heteronormative movies like Titanic, or The Notebook. Provide them with role models like George Takei and Ellen DeGeneres.

            Sometimes, confused youth will express heterosexual attractions. The appropriate response is to tell them you love them, but that this sort of thing isn’t acceptable in your house. If they persist in these assertions, you should consider sending them to theater camp. The success rate of these institutions has been phenomenal, and largely ignored by the conservative media and a conspiracy of biased scientists.

            Remember above all, only you can prevent the heterosexual agenda.

            You can trust HuffPo to cut through the heterosexist crap.

          • chefofsinners

            The 95% of the population who are heterosexual, whether religious or not, feel attraction for the opposite sex and repulsion for same-sex acts. This is quite natural. I use the term ‘repulsion’ in a factual, descriptive way, not in a perjorative sense. It is part of our given identity.
            This is why the advertising campaign will fail. Such things work by appealing to basic instincts, not to higher notions of equality. You do not and will not see a flourishing of such adverts, except possibly on niche websites known only to you and the Inspector.

          • Holger

            I missed the bit of the ad where they were having sex, did I?

            All I saw were two people sitting on a sofa talking to each other. How repulsive can that be?

            If we follow your logic though, everyone gay must repulse everyone straight because straights can’t stop thinking about them having sex. So for example, Ellen Degeneres can’t possibly be the most successful talk show host on American TV. Elton John can’t be a hugely successful musician. George Michael was an absolute nonentity. Nobody had ever heard of him and his death passed unnoticed. 95% of people were so disgusted by the thought of him having sex – which is all they could think about whenever they thought of him – that they refused to buy his music, so his career never took off and he never became a household name.

            Only he did…

            You may be obsessed with gay sex. Most heterosexuals are not. They view gays as their friends, family members, colleagues and neighbours. They respond to them as human beings, not as sex fiends.

            The fact that you can’t stop thinking about gay sex says a lot about you though. And about your sexuality. Do you dream about gay sex too?

            Heterosexual, eh? Pull the other one.

          • chefofsinners

            It is homosexuals who insist on defining themselves in terms of their sexual behaviour.
            This physical contact in this advert and it’s promotion of a same sex relationship simply is repulsive to heterosexuals.
            The claim that it is a match made in heaven appears to be a deliberate insult to just about everyone: if you are religious you’ll be offended at the suggestion that God condones homosexuality and if you aren’t religious you’ll be offended at the suggestion that God arranges your relationships. Not the advertising agency’s finest hour.

          • Holger

            This ad will have been focus tested like every other ad is before it goes to air. Feedback will have been overwhelmingly positive or they wouldn’t have broadcast it.

            The reality of public attitudes towards homosexuality is very different to the pathological repulsion you feel. Gay couples are an accepted fact of life now. Nobody but gibbering religious fanatics are repulsed by us. And who cares about gibbering religious fanatics? Let them gibber.

            Boycott companies that use gay couples in their advertising if you like. There are so few of you that you won’t make any difference to their profits, but feeling like you’re actually doing something – no matter how ineffective your action may be – instead of just passively accepting what you can’t change might make you feel slightly less emasculated.

          • CliveM

            “This ad will have been focus tested like every other ad is before it goes to air. Feedback will have been overwhelmingly positive or they wouldn’t have broadcast it”

            Pepsi/Kendall Jenner ‘Black lives matter’ ad.

            And many others to numerous to mention.

          • Holger

            So where are the cries of outrage over the Cadbury ad?

            Here? Half a dozen negative comments from a group of religious fanatics does not count as public outrage.

            This ad hasn’t caused anyone except the most dyed-in-the-wool homophobic religious nutters (aka most of those who post here) to bat an eyelid.

            The problem with you people is that you want to hold society hostage to your views, but there just aren’t enough of you to gain the critical mass that any protest must gain in order to effect change.

            Who cares if some Christian loons are offended by a gay couple? They’re offended by just about everything. Let them be offended. What can they do about it?

          • CliveM

            The problem with you Linus, is you seem unable to follow a simple thread of thought.

            I suppose we could pretend you’re French and put it down to language differences.

          • Sarky

            Your second to last paragraph is spot on. I could not care less where people stick their bits, all i care about is how i relate to people on a basic human level.

          • Holger

            Jack is not absolute monarch and can therefore introduce no laws at all. Jack is just a gibbering old religious freak with an omnipotence fantasy.

          • And you’re a nasty old queen with an omnipotence fantasy, equally unable to introduce laws. You’re not even in the UK so I don’t know why you get so lathered up.

          • You tell I’m, Gal.

          • Holger

            When did I say I wanted to introduce any laws? In typically Christian fashion, you impute your own prejudices and hatreds to me because everyone has to think exactly like you, don’t they? You’re the model for all humankind, after all. In your own estimation.

            I don’t live in the UK. But many gay people do. I’m just pointing out that Jack’s omnipotence fantasy can have no effect on their lives because he’s a powerless nobody who vents his frustrations on a Christian blog where a handful of other bigots applaud (some of) his tirades, which makes him feel powerful and relevant.

            But how many people post here regularly? Maybe 20 individuals. Out of a population of over 60 million. That hardly constitutes a majority, so the UK’s LGBT population can sleep easy.

          • You are a quick to attribute all sorts of nasty traits to various people here when you don’t like what they are saying. Just face up to it and accept that LGBT’s have no right to force their perversions and unhealthy lifestyles on the rest of society through promotion in schools etc.. Jack made a fair point.
            He can discuss his concerns with his MP to ask him to introduce a bill in parliament. He can get up a petition to take to Downing St.
            He can organise a protest march.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Me too. That’s just awful in a sad way.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      But is an Oreo a good symbol even for heterosexual conjugality? It seems to suggest a woman lying between two men.

      • chefofsinners

        You have a vivid imagination. To me it suggests a nice cup of tea.

        • Dominic Stockford

          I was never that keen on Oreos. But children are, they love them, which adds another level to the unpleasant danger of this advert.

        • IrishNeanderthal

          This is not my imagination at work, but my mathematical logic in the context of the advertisement.

          • Then you’d be imagining two black men sandwiching a thin white man. Ugh yuck! Which sums up the biscuits totally.

          • Holger

            I’ve heard about women like you. Prurient straight virgins (or near as damn it) who fantasize about men doing it together.

            I see your fantasies run to “interracial” gay threesomes. There are websites specializing in that kind of porn, you know. But of course you know. When you’re not commenting here, that’s where we’ll find you, isn’t it?

            So do you flagellate yourself in contrition after your bouts of Internet porn consumption? Or are you Opus Dei with a cilice or hair knickers on under your bloomers?

            Oh the twisted sexual fantasies of uptight Christian women! And men too, of course.

          • chefofsinners

            Holger, the glory of God is shown in this: He loves you.

          • Holger

            Another unsupported claim from a Christian who says he can read his god’s mind.

            Difficult considering the god has no mind to read. Imaginary beings can’t think. All their thoughts are thought for them by humans foolish enough to believe they’re real.

            What you really mean is that you believe your god loves me because that’s what’s written in your holy book. But where’s your proof that any of that far-fetched story is actually true?

            Until I can see some incontrovertible proof that this god of yours exists and the bible is accurate account of his story, I’ll just file your claims in the drawer marked “Christian delusions and other religious codswallop”. That’s where it clearly belongs.

          • Lucius

            “Uncontrovertible proof.” Eh? But you know good and well this demand is a “Catch 22,” because if I can distill down God through the scientific method into evidence admissible at court, then he wouldn’t really be God, would He? Regardless, if someone like you saw Jesus walk on water, you would argue that it was the result of an unusually high saline content in the Sea of Galilee that year. If you saw Jesus heal the sick, you would call it a Placebo Effect. If you saw Moses split the Red Sea, you would chalk it up to a strange tidal and wind event that day. In short, if you don;t want to believe, you will always find a reason not too. The irony is that if you are at all familiar with the Gospels, you will know that not even the Son of Man can work a miracle in your life if you refuse to let Him in.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Gosh, Lucius! It’s a while since I saw that type of ‘happenstance’ argument! My Scripture teacher addressed it some 60 years ago with: ‘The miracle is less that the natural phenomena occurred than that they COINCIDED

          • chefofsinners

            And still God will love you.

          • Holger

            And the unsupported claims keep coming.

            There are many examples of your god hating us in the bible. He hated Esau, for example. He hated

          • Lucius

            Yet another example as to why I am fairly certain that you live in a room with white padded walls. Do the nurses know you jump on the internet?

          • CliveM

            Sadly in an era of the ECHR, they are no longer allowed to remove accessible o the Internet. It’s a ‘uman rite’.

          • No, I don’t watch any of that filth. You’ll find me watching more spiritually uplifting and soul satisfying stuff rather than humans degrading themselves on film through the pleasures of the flesh.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Holger is right about one thing, that was prurient.

            As I must say again, my grasp of the situation is mathematical (even the sandwich part relies on the axiom of betweenness, a necessary expansion of Euclid’s five axioms), and bringing race into the equation was unnecessary. I am fed up with the way the Inspector General goes on about black people in general, which has the effect of vitiating his salient recent observation about Darcus Howe.

          • But Oreo’s are black (must have liquorice in them) with white in the middle. Darcus Howe condoned the London riots and looting a few years ago. He’s black. The maths says that there are now more black people in London than white people. Whites are sandwiched between blacks.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Darcus Howe is one of the few black men in British public life whom I have taken a great dislike to. The Inspector’s very valid point was that many years ago DH was saying that in effect the police should let black people get away with blue murder. Those liberal folks who praised him were complicit in that.

            However, although I do not know the Inspector personally, I do know a lot of black people, and given the opportunity to compare, I think I would find their company much more agreeable than his.

            But your bringing of race into the Oreo discussion was making the same category error as those who compare opposition to same-sex marriage to those who opposed mixed-race marriage. It is wrong to conflate (or conflatulate) the two.

          • OK I take your point.
            Yes they do outnumber white people in London. White flight out of London has been going on for a couple of decades now.

      • Well, an Oreo is a sandwich consisting of two chocolate wafers with a sweet creme filling in between.

        • No it’s not it’s some sickly fake crème filling between two black tasteless biscuits. American junk laden with palm oil.

          • Jack shall never look upon the biscuit in the same way after your two posts, Marie.

        • IrishNeanderthal

          I’ve explained below that it is a matter of logic, in the context of the advertisement. But you seem to find fault with my comment. So, as Stalin said to Bulgakov over the telephone:

          “How have we offended you?”

        • IrishNeanderthal

          Or did I completely misunderstand the import of your comment? On second reading, it could be taken as being in agreement with mine.

          Even mathematicians vary, with some being rigidly analytical (such as Edmund Landau who dismissed applied mathematics and geometry as Schmieröl meaning “grease”), whereas others have vivid geometrical or other types of imagination.

    • chefofsinners
      • IanCad

        There is hope!! Thanks Chef.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      I’ve just watched it and can’t see anything wrong with it. But what you do or don’t buy is entirely up to you.

  • chefofsinners

    Hebrews 6 could have been written about Martyn Percy:
    “it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.”

    • len

      Problem is with people like Percy is he will get listened to by young Christians who will take his heresies on board.
      There seem to be very few preachers of the unadulterated Word of God (which seems now very much like the time when preachers were locked in prison for preaching the Word of God)

      • chefofsinners

        It wasn’t so long ago, and it won’t be long before the time comes again.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Yes. Maybe we’ll get an article about the struggles of a faithful preacher in a wealthy and self-centred world. That would be good.

      • IrenaSerena1984

        I wouldn’t worry about him. What he’s saying is boring and the very opposite of rock n roll – not the recipe to influence and inspire young people.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Yes. Can we talk about someone nice now please.

      • chefofsinners

        Yes, how are you and your church? Anything wholesome planned for Easter?

        • Dominic Stockford

          #LessIsMore We have a Good Friday service, and two Easter Sunday ones. And a meal together after next Sunday mornings service. Mark 15:1-39 leading the way this Sunday, with its reminders of how alike we can be to those who opposed Christ, and yet how Christ STILL loves us and saves us.

          Are you doing anything good?

          • chefofsinners

            There’s a tradition in our area of different evangelical denominations in the villages hosting services from Maundy Thursday through to the Anglicans for sunrise on Easter Day.
            The children’s service, involving over 100 of them, will be a superb retelling of the Lord’s death and resurrection.
            Then some time with the family in the heart of the moors.

          • Dominic Stockford

            That sounds glorious. Great to be able to meet up in that way.

          • chefofsinners

            How true were the words of Mark 15:31: “He saved others but Himself He cannot save.”?
            Since He was God, and God is love, He could not save Himself, not if He was going to save others.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Wonderful indeed — “in that way” and in that place.so dear to God.

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace

    Forgive me for going off topic – but I really need some advice from practising Judaeo-Christians.

    Chaps, some of you may know that I’ve been looking after a retired missionary (88 years’ old).

    She was taken to hospital two weeks ago during a council outing. I remember having a long discussion during the evening before she was taken. She steered the discussion towards how much she longed to exit this life and go Home.

    I presented the arguments that this life was not ours to take; that self-termination would be rejected by God on the ground that ‘we failed to take our fair share of this world’s burdens’.

    This afternoon I visited her and the nurses explained that she was refusing to take food. She seemed uncommunicative. She has an only daughter. Having sifted through documents I need her alive to sign some, to exclusively benefit her offspring.

    She likes some novel called ‘Bob the Cat’.

    On my next visit to the hospital what should I take, say and do?

    I would value your prayers for her. Please. I’ve never had this sort of responsibility before. Her daughter is due to visit her tomorrow evening.

    • IanCad

      Bless you CC. The poor lady is fortunate to have you to watch over her. I’m sure she has thought through how she will handle living in what appear to be her last days.
      Of course, you have a duty to do the best you can for her offspring and for that she needs to respond in a minimal way.
      One possible solution – and I’m not being facetious – may lie in her apparent fondness for cats. Is there any way you could find a friendly cat and bring it with you on your next visit? Once a cat lover always a cat lover and rare are those who would not perk up in the presence of a furry visitor. Perhaps even to the extent of communicating her wishes to her daughter.
      A definite addition to my prayer list. Both you and her.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Ian,

        I shall visit her late, in this evening. I can bring a ginger moggie to her and read extracts from A Street Cat Named Bob.

        Somebody said something that I did not want to hear. Jesus told one of his disciples to look after His mother. She went onto say that he wrote Revelations after that. I do want to write anything of the sort. Inadequate.

        Another interfering brat said I would be blest. Why?

        You know, the old seem to revert to childishness.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Just a thought or two for your consideration . . .
      You don’t give a reason for the hospitalisation – but if it’s prolonging life by artificial means and against her will, then I say she has a right to choose to stop that process. Both my aunts, and my uncle, took that way; I would do the same.

      Not that I would say as much to her; I wouldn’t want to feel that I’d encouraged her ‘depression’ or suicide. Indeed, I’d prefer her to know that I wish she would re-consider her decision and stay with those who love her… .

      You might also grant, however, that at 88 she’s done a sterling job of putting up with her share of the world. So maybe you could suggest that she help her nearest and dearest in their struggle with the same – just in case the worst should happen and she doesn’t get out of there. You might want to let her know that, of course, it would be much better for those who love her if she would stay and help them with her love and wisdom too.

      The very best to you, in this difficult situation: my prayers are with you all.

  • GKStudent

    Not sure why the Reverend speaks on “equality of gender.” The idea of equality is for person’s, not their gender. Essentially, each person should not be discriminated based upon their gender – an attribute given to each person that they are born male or female.

    Perhaps Reverend Marttyn Percy might suggest people become the same gender, so thus we are all the same gender. And thus made equal. Would that suffice his demand?

    Aside the none-sense, two points of fact must be encountered. Firstly, each person through their chromosome building blocks making up their DNA since the point of conception – a known fact, just google it – retain their gender at conception: “In mammals, the genetic sex is established at fertilization with the inheritance of an X or Y chromosome of their father. ” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/#R14 )

    Hence, leading to the second point of fact, that Chromosomial (if I can generously develop the term) identity is inherited our entire life. In fact, even if someone were to transgender and morph themselves with a different set of reproductive organs, their DNA still carries their initial characterization of the gender they were born with. Thus, if they were born male, their DNA will have the representative Chromosomes indicating they are male. That doesn’t change. Even more so, a man who later morphs to carry female reproductive organs cannot bare children. Likewise, a women to change her body with male reproductive organs cannot produce children. Their hormones and skeletal makeup cannot incorporate organs with which they were never originally born with to have a baby.

    The point is nature discriminates against transgender change. And, you cannot make transgender identity on the equal footing to produce and bare children in the same way people who are born with the natural characteristics of being born one male and the other female to give life to an entirely new human being.

    As for equality in title as priest, that is really up to God. And since the Church is the establishment for which God has rested with for centuries indicating priestly vocation, you have to take that up with Him.

  • Jonathan Tedd

    Ben Shapiro making short shrift of gender.