ozanne-tweet-police-2
Church of England

Good Disagreement: report fellow Christians to the police for daring to disagree

It isn’t entirely clear what happened to 1 Corinthians 6 in the Christian pursuit of Good Disagreement. It appears that if certain liberal/progressive Christians disagree with conservative/traditionalist ones, they think it better to run to the police rather than take their complaint directly to them, and engage in reasoned discussion, prayer and mature fellowship. Matthew Henry expounds:

6:1-8 Christians should not contend with one another, for they are brethren. This, if duly attended to, would prevent many law-suits, and end many quarrels and disputes. In matters of great damage to ourselves or families, we may use lawful means to right ourselves, but Christians should be of a forgiving temper. Refer the matters in dispute, rather than go to law about them. They are trifles, and may easily be settled, if you first conquer your own spirits. Bear and forbear, and the men of least skill among you may end your quarrels. It is a shame that little quarrels should grow to such a head among Christians, that they cannot be determined by the brethren. The peace of a man’s own mind, and the calm of his neighbourhood, are worth more than victory. Lawsuits could not take place among brethren, unless there were faults among them.

This doesn’t seem to apply to Christian gay rights campaigner Jayne Ozanne, who talks an awful lot about Good Disagreement, but for whom, in truth, no dissent from her views can be good. Since her overriding theology is that of inclusion, any reasoned proposition for exclusion logically becomes ‘hate’, which constitutes a crime, which must be reported to the police. She’ll probably consider this article to be a ‘hate crime’, too. It’s hard to tell. She blocks on Twitter anyone who disagrees with her, even if they’ve never actually disagreed with her on Twitter. No dialogue at all. Just blocked. Isn’t that just Totally Brilliant Disagreement (© Rev’d Peter Ould) among professing Christians?

According to Jayne Ozanne, the post on Vicky Beeching and vocation was ‘hate’, pure and simple. Vicky Beeching herself called it an “attack“, which is odd, because reasoned argument about an issue isn’t personal attack at all. But perhaps even that observation constitutes an attack? Maybe to disagree with a deeply-held view is to attack? So all must now agree, or else it’s ‘hate’?

“It took a lot of vulnerability to talk about why I’ve never become a priest,” Vicky Beeching explained. To be clear, then, she was feeling fragile and vulnerable, so she wrote an op-ed piece for the Guardian? So a few hundred quid mitigated her fragility and vulnerability? Is it ‘hate’ to ask these questions? Do they constitute an “attack”?

Why should a provocative piece purposely placed in the Guardian – in which the Church of England is maligned as damaging to people’s well-being, and the Archbishop of Canterbury smeared with duplicity – be considered immune from critique? Is it that Good Disagreement can only happen when “attack” is not perceived? Whose threshold of feeling should then obtain? What if no personal attack was intended, but one is felt?

Why should Vicky Beeching feel free to attack the Church of England, which is people, but feel “sad” when her attack on them is met with counter defence? Why should she feel free to attack Justin Welby for issuing a statement which is “less progressive than it first sounds”, but object to a counter affirmation of moral orthodoxy, or the mere questioning of why the Archbishop should need to be progressive on this matter at all? Or is it that not to be progressive is to ‘hate’? So all conservative/traditionalists become “abusive and vile“?

As the College of Bishops meets this week to contemplate the way forward after ‘Shared Conversations’, what if they determine there will be no change in the church’s liturgy to accommodate same-sex unions? Would that constitute an omission of ‘hate’? What if they decide to uphold the essential catholicity of church teaching on marriage, thereby excluding Vicky Beeching from fulfilling her vocation? Would that assertion of orthodoxy be ‘hate’? What if they just meet to pray, explore, meditate and reflect, and not issue any great gay-equality proclamation at all? Would that inaction perpetuate inequality and injustice, and so ‘hate’?

What if the Bishops of the Church of England, as they meet this week, change absolutely nothing on the doctrine or definition of Christian marriage? What if they meet again in February and nothing changes? And again next July and nothing changes? What if the Bishops collectively determine that this is not simply a controversy about one theological anthropology over another, but a matter of Church catholicity, God’s pattern for humanity in creation, the authority of Scripture, and the weight of the experience of the reading of Scripture? What if they decide to place salvation and the Godhead above gender identity and inclusion? Can we not then agree to disagree without hyperbolic screeches of ‘hate’ and the wasting of police time?

  • Mark

    I thought that lady was being sarcastic and parodying things reported to police for “hate”, but it seems not.

    • len

      No she is has thrown’ a strop’ and called for backup.

  • len

    Surprised at her age?….though she was a schoolgirl?

  • bluedog

    Yep. Got a blistering four likes on the tweet, too.

  • John Norman

    I thought about commenting directly to Jayne Ozanne, but guessed that I would simply be blocked. She’s a typical cry-bully. And I notice that she has a book to publicise. If she reads this, I would simply say to her, “You ain’t no Christian, bro!”

    • Pubcrawler

      The subtitle of that book has two too many letters in it.

  • CliveM

    Ah well. It’s what being a liberal is these days. Someone disagrees, you try to shut them down. I think it’s called ‘creating a safe space’ by Universities.

    “Good disagreement ” I think means ‘agreeing with everything I say.

    • DP111

      When these liberals-leftists or progressives have the numbers, they resort to violence and even street/mass murder.

  • len

    Biblical Truth is no longer to be tolerated by those who do not want The Light to shine on their deeds.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I can’t deny that I feel slightly sorry for her. I’m sorry that dhe thinks tbis a reasonable way to deal with a difference of views and that she thinks this can lead to a satisfactory outcome. There is indeed a lot of hate around and it’s all going in one direction: not fron this blog.

  • len

    Either agree with all I say or I will report you to the police as ‘Christianaphobes’

  • IanCad

    The socialist mind is deeply conformist. It tolerates no dissent. Snitchery is the hallmark of the tribe. The Stasi, the KGB, the Gestapo.

  • carl jacobs

    The cardinal tenet of “inclusion” has actually nothing to do with inclusion. The cardinal tenet of inclusion is “My truth is true for me.” Should one refuse to affirm the personal truth of another, then that refusal constitutes an “attack.” Good disagreement then is little more than a discussion between alternate competing personal truths. You are allowed to say “Homosexual behavior is wrong for me.” But you are never allowed to say “Homosexual behavior is wrong.”. That is bad disagreement and therefore “hateful”.

    You can see why Christian orthodoxy falls afoul of this understanding. “Inclusion” is the re-creation of the pagan gods where men become the gods on Olympus. Against this we set “the Truth of God” as a binding imperative. But according to inclusion, there is no “Truth”. There is only “my truth” and “your truth”. So when we say “Truth” they hear “your truth which you are trying to impose on me.” And suddenly the gods on Mt Olympus are at war.

    The purpose of “inclusion” is to expand the moral reach of man to the limits of his Autonomy. Of course Christian are going to reject this. We assert that man is a creature who exists within immutable moral boundaries. We say that men do not have the authority to declare “I define truth for me.” It’s no wonder we are called “haters”.

    Of course, men are acutely aware of their limitations. They do fear the reach of other men. So they try to establish rules among themselves to protect their own freedom to act. The little gods don’t have the power to enforce their own sovereignty after all. So they talk among themselves about the necessity of “consent”. This is the boundary that presumes to establish each man in his sovereignty. It is the one inviolable imperative.

    Men declaim their personal sovereignty even as they secretly fear that another will remove it from them. Even so, they still seek to be like God as much as possible. They seek to sit on His throne, even if they don’t have the power or the wisdom to fill the role.

    But what does that matter when men can say “I will be like the Most High.”

    • IanCad

      Carl, It is worse than that (your last paragraph)
      No! The Most High will be like us. At least that is what I learned as a child in a Marxist household.
      We went to church. Perfectly consistent as it was held that the teachings of Jesus broadly mirrored those of Karl Marx.

    • Excellent.

  • Dreadnaught

    Its very much a sign of the times. You can’t say that… You can’t have an opposite position… I’m not listening – I’m offended. I won’t discuss. You are a racist; living in a white-man’s world…
    What did I say? I value my culture as a white English-European that was shaped by the legacy of the British Empire. [Triggered by my comment on the appearance of EU flags at Last Night of the Poms ( my joke)]

    This was from the closed mind of a friend’s daughter aged 20 and starting University. I’m hoping she at least joins the debating society.

    • Pubcrawler

      Have you confirmed that ‘she’ is her pronoun of preference? The snowflakes can take offence at the most unexpected things these days, it’s a minefield for us oldsters.

      • Dreadnaught

        As far as I am aware she don;t mind she, but I did advise her that in Freshers Week the Society of Lets be Friends would be recognisable by the pink balloons, rainbow coloured hair, laddered tights and Doc Martin Boots.

        • Pubcrawler

          They sound like a great bunch of lads.

  • Graham Smith

    I don’t understand why, until you have removed the personal references (and deleted some of the unreasonable comments made by others), the Archbishop Cranmer blog doesn’t hide the article from public view, and apologise for causing offence.

    • carl jacobs

      How about “Just because you claim offense, that doesn’t mean you have legitimate cause to be offended.” In fact, maybe you could do what your allies have so far manifestly failed to do, and provide some justification for your accusation.

      • magnolia

        From decades of observingf Anglican ministry you need elephant hide towards your own feelings and sensitivity towards others, together with a still centre and an abundance of prayer and listening to God and His word in order to survive and the church to thrive. Too much navel-gazing and caring deeply what others think of you and jumping in the air at the smallest perceived slight and you have no energy to help others who do these things, as well as have genuine tragedies like teenagers killed in RTAs. In fact you are a prime candidate for burnout and nervous breakdown.

        Not at all sure Vicky Beeching even wants to have these qualities.

        • carl jacobs

          I don’t think this is about ministry at all. This about coercing approval for homosexual desire. Every power and principality must be brought under subjection. Every tongue must confess that homosexuality is good, and every knee must bow to the idol of man’s sovereignty. The ultimate goal is not homosexual ministers, but the obliteration of any moral condemnation of homosexuality.

          Once the church is co-opted, it will be discarded as it will possess no further use. The point is only to discredit it by forcing it to change.

          • Graham Smith

            Speaking personally, as a man who has many faults (not to mention having said and done some dreadful things), I’d rather like to give other people the same loving care and compassion that many have shown to me.

            So far as I can make out, no-one is saying that being homosexual is good; it’s just the way some people are made.

          • dannybhoy

            It’s not good, as it is clearly condemned in Scripture; but the point is that some people are, are happy to be or struggle with being. But there does seem to be an obsession with homosexuality that is not reflected in Scripture. The emphasis in Scripture is on SIN in all its ugliness, and our separation from God. When I was a young Christian the evangelicals called people SINNERS. There was no emphasis on categories of sinners.

          • Graham Smith

            I think you’ll find it’s the use of male prostitutes (who could be found in various temples) that’s condemned.

            But the condemnation isn’t nearly as serious as that experienced by those who didn’t take the opportunity to welcome strangers into their homes, as the people of Lot’s city discovered to their cost.

        • dannybhoy

          Our vicar was a godly man, but the more I saw/see of the Anglican hierarchy and how things work, the more down I feel about it.

          • magnolia

            It’s becoming riskier to be faithful. In some ways this is no bad thing, as it will weed out the cowards, timeservers and false shepherds, male, female and confused gender alike…Britain was evangelised in the early centuries by brave people, men and women, who stuck close to Scripture, and were few in number so we know that a few people with a heap of faith can work wonders, and we do have more than a few!

    • len

      Hide?…..Apologise for having a view?. apologise for being a Christian who believes what Gods Word says?..Are we living in a police state ?.

      • Anton

        The answer to that question is obvious. There is now a secular Inquisition.

        • carl jacobs

          And remember. The purpose of the Inquisition was to suppress heresy. The parallel is obvious.

      • IanCad

        Getting close – very close.

    • The Explorer

      “Christ nailed to a cross is a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Greeks.” (1 Cor. 1:24). That’s two groups of people offended!

      Which should we remove from the Faith: a) the nails, b) the Cross, c) Christ?

      Perhaps we should remove all three. We’d then have something very like liberal Christianity. And we could be assured of giving offence to no one, including the Muslims.

      • Graham Smith

        If, Mr Lewis, you believe that Christ died for all, I don’t see what the issue is with accepting anyone else (whatever their status in society, sex, race, or gender disposition) as an equal.

      • Graham Smith

        If, Explorer, you believe that Christ died for everyone (regardless of their status in society, race, sex, or gender disposition) then surely it follows that everyone should be treated as your equal?

        • The Explorer

          1. That Christ died for everyone is not a given for all Christians. The L of the Calvinist TULIP is Limited Atonement. (I’m not a Calvinist, by the way.)

          2. I try to treat everyone with courtesy, but I don’t regard everyone as my equal. Some are my superiors, and some are not. Courtesy will not exclude challenging people with whose opinions I disagree.

    • William Lewis

      My understanding is that the Cranmer blog believes in free speech even unto the point of causing offence. Perhaps an apology for causing offence where none was intended could be contemplated but a removal, or self censorship, would be a dereliction of duty.

  • Orwell Ian

    Well it looks like the gloves are well and truly off in the C of E.
    Has Cranmer really been reported to the Police or was that tweet a bit of psychological cry-bullying.
    Either way, hate crime legislation was supposed to protect people for who they are and should not be misused to protect their actions, attitudes and opinions. Yet that is precisely what is happening. “Hate” is now the most overworked word employed by self-appointed PC enforcers to silence dissent against their “progressive” agenda. They are impervious to reasoned argument. This is all about winning.

    • carl jacobs

      The fact that she reported this to the Police (assuming she did report it which is a big “if”) is actually a good thing. It will impeach her credibility.

    • Anton

      “hate crime legislation was supposed to protect people for who they are and should not be misused to protect their actions, attitudes and opinions”

      Ian, I have no idea what you mean by “protect people for who they are”. Either you have free speech subject only to the criminalising of direct incitement to violence, or you don’t. And if you have that, why do you need hate speech laws? Would you explain, please?

      • Orwell Ian

        Hate crime has been defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic’ eg race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity.
        Prosecutions have been brought for alleged verbal hostility or prejudice so unfortunately we no longer have free speech subject only to the criminalising of direct incitement to violence.

        • Anton

          I believe that the parliamentarians who enacted such laws knew what they were doing.

          • Orwell Ian

            It all boils down to motivation. For example a Polish man was recently murdered in Harlow. That may or may not be a hate crime. It depends on the motive.

          • Anton

            But murder is a crime whether or not it is also a hate crime. That is not the case with speech.

          • Orwell Ian

            Quite so, but speech that offends someone from a minority whose cause has been adopted by the progressive consensus has effectively been criminalised if it is regarded as hostile, prejudiced and personal. There is never any neat or fair definition for thoughtcrime. Its a crime if “they” say it is.

      • magnolia

        So much awful syntax with these activists. There is no necessary correlation but the prose, even amongst those with doctorates is often really poor. I hate reading it, as I care about good language.

        • Anton

          Ian’s not in favour of hate speech laws. I think he simply hasn’t thought through what he was saying on this occasion.

          • magnolia

            True. Apologies. I was recovering from the “myself” in place of “I” which is a particular hatred of mine in the original quotation on the previous post! I am also a bit allergic to all this guarding who I am business, whatever it relates to. Can’t stand the average CV bigging self up either. And there’s rather a lot of self-speak around on this topic. Ministry is about serving others almost to self-oblivion, and that accords with Jesus’ words in the gospel. Everyone else who ministers has to take up their cross, whatever it might be, it’s written into the agreement, and no, it’s not comfy, for anyone. Jesus was crucified. None of the disciples and few early church leaders died an easy death. No cosy niches..

    • bluedog

      And she’s lost.

  • Joe Stocker

    LOL There’s no way a conservative straight man vs. progressive gay woman disagreement is going to take place on a level playing field. Just apologise for your existence already!

    • William Lewis

      Quite. Has Cranmer checked his privilege?

  • len

    There are those who see it as their duty to act as ‘informants’ to ‘the thought police’ informing on anyone they dislike or they think will oppose them or even make a case to publicise their latest book.All publicity is good publicity?.

  • magnolia

    I am surprised she didn’t research before taking to the police. A bulletin board doesn’t , I believe, have any greater status than “common gossip” and if the police policed them for this “hate crime” business as well as all the other things they need to do like catch rapists and murderers they would need 50% of the population in the police force full time, and the nation would get little useful work done, and much of the population would starve. Which doesn’t sound too good for any of us, does it?

    Of course go far back to TGI Monday and there is a gay man abusing the wheelchair bound. Would she like to report that too? If not, why not?

    • The Explorer

      It’s a matter of priorities. Forget about trivialities like rape and murder, and focus on the important things like hate crime.

  • Jack can imagine Mx Jayne Ozanne and her motley crew assailing Heaven and stomping around, clip boards in hand, giving God grief for all His patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia and bigotry.

    Will He will be impeached for crimes against humanity women, homosexuals and transsexuals, with Lucifer presenting the evidence? Lucifer, the true frien and liberator of humanity earth creatures. He (or is it she?) who understands rejection, loss and abandonment because of bad disagreement. The spirit who actually freed Eve from subjugation to Adam, and s freedom for all earth creatures.

    Will God apologise for all the sadness, upset and hurt caused to these fragile flowers of creation? Or will He create a special abode where they can live together, happily, sharing their good disagreements for all eternity?

    • The Explorer

      If Lucifer’s busy, I can think of a good stand in whose name also begins with ‘L’.

      • Jack doubts Linus would be willing to accept the position of Junior Counsel.

  • Coniston

    It is very fortunate that we didn’t have ‘hate crime’ in the 1930s, as it would probably have led to Winston Churchill being prosecuted, fined & perhaps imprisoned for ‘naziphobia’.

    • The Explorer

      Certainly for his Islamophobia.

  • Mark Downham

    Being a Faithful Witness takes spine, Vision, resilience and the Burning Spirit of a Romans 8:37 overcomer – because it is clear that we are dealing with a great deception and in a free-falling situation where certain commentators have become openly “bent on rebellion” cf. Psalm 106:43 against the Authority of Scripture and need to be resolutely confronted and challenged – I really like fearless commentarian like Archbishop Cranmer.

  • Janet Lees

    Such perverse action trivialises genuine hate crime and she should be thoroughly ashamed.
    Misuse of public funds and services should in itself be a crime, particularly when it appears to be merely a childish response to a temper tantrum.
    We can all be upset or offended when things aren’t going our way but, seriously, a hate crime? Get a grip woman!

  • The Explorer

    If we assume that Mx Ozanne’s statement is not bluff, and she has reported the Cranmer Blog to the police, would I be right in assuming the targets for her accusations to be these?

    1, Cranmer for writing the article.

    2. Cranmer for failing to censor comments that Mx Ozanne finds offensive.

    3. Certain commentators for making comments that Mx Ozanne finds offensive.

    4. All regular commentators for failing to disengage themselves from the blog.

    5. All white heterosexual theologically-conservative Christian males for being white heterosexual theologically-conservative Christian males.

    Hope I haven’t missed anyone out. If I have, I’m sure she hasn’t.

    • Not all theologically-conservative Christians are white males.

      • CliveM

        No but black or female ones, she’d have a breakdown trying to work it out.

      • The Explorer

        I didn’t say they were, any more than I said that all white males were theologically-conservative Christians.

        Here’s a PC scoring mechanism that more or less works.

        White -1 Black +1
        Male -3 Male -3
        hetero -4 Gay +5
        th-con -2 th-con-2

        TOTAL -10 TOTAL 7

        • Joe Stocker

          “Nothing is higher than gay in the hierarchy of values”

          Not so anymore for gay men. They have been demoted. Muslims can throw them off the top of high buildings and and progressives will turn away muttering something about Islamophobic framing of a problematic cultural misunderstanding.

          Transgender Muslims are at the very top of the victim pyramid

          • The Explorer

            You’re absolutely right. I worked out my understanding of the PC pecking order a few years ago, when transgender wasn’t really an issue. I’ll have to update it. Bu the pecking-order principle still holds good, I think.

          • The Explorer

            I recall the early Taliban requiring all of their members to grow beards, and shooting any of their number without a luxuriant enough growth. Are there many transgender Muslims? Female to male would presumably not be given the opportunity, and the reverse would be to make a most unwise announcement about yourself.

          • Mungling

            Allegedly Iran caries out more sex changes than any other country in the world.

        • grutchyngfysch

          I’m glad someone has been tracking this as an index. Can we have a rolling feed where we can see the relative social purchasing power of different identities like Bloomberg?

          • The Explorer

            My own very rough scale , devised before transgender.

            Gay +5
            Muslim +4
            Female +3
            Black +2

            White -2
            Male -3
            Christian -4
            Hetero -5

            So a black counsellor who refused to counsel a gay couple would gain two points for being black, but lose three for being male and another four for being Christian. The gay couple would lose six points for being male, but gain ten for being gay. and so on.

            Transgender is complicated. I haven’t worked out how to allocate it yet. For instance, do you give equal weighting for male to female and female to male, or do you penalise anything that wants to become a male?

          • Lot of truth in this.

          • The Explorer

            I began it as a joke, but then came to the conclusion that it wasn’t.

    • Joe Stocker

      She mentioned reporting an unpleasant incident earlier in a year – stones being thrown at her door – so “reporting the Cranmer blog” could just mean a follow-up conservation with her original police contact. Clearly she has made a connection between the two entirely different things – what could be a very real hate crime (she doesn’t provide much detail) and strangers being rude to her on the Internet.

      • The Explorer

        Interesting point. Personally, I’d never heard of her before yesterday.

        • Pubcrawler

          Nor I. And I hope to have forgotten about her by, oh, let’s say Tuesday.

          • CliveM

            Who?

          • Pubcrawler

            On first base.

      • dannybhoy

        The Inspector General can be very rude and abusive, even to his fellow bloggers.
        But stone throwing?!
        Hmmm….
        well, possibly. ;0)

        • Dreadnaught

          Getting stoned is more the IG’s style.

    • dannybhoy

      Come along lad; you’re nicked!

      • The Explorer

        You’ll never guess who’s in the cell next to mine!

    • Joe Stocker

      Her pinned tweet says “I have been subject to some pretty horrific trolling recently, and have been advised to make the following statement….

      In response to a number of comments and queries I need to make the following plain:

      Since I became publicly involved with these issues I have, with others, become involved in a series of online discussions, debates and exchanges. The majority of these by far have been healthy and constructive despite their robustness and it has been a privilege to engage with Christian thinkers in this way.

      Some material, however, has been deep within the territory of that which is hateful, personal and offensive, and I have taken advice from the police in respect of some of it. This followed on from an incident in July where I was subject to a physical attack on my home.

      I have many caring Christian friends on both sides of the debate and together we have been
      attempting to model “Good Disagreement” as a way of handling issues of potential toxicity, and I am grateful for the support I have had from across the spectrum of opinion.
      However, the hateful material is what it is, and I am taking advice about the best way is of dealing with it.

      It will be understood that I can make no further comment on this at this time.

      • “I have many caring Christian friends on both sides of debate and together we have been attempting to model “Good Disagreement” as a way of handling issues of potential toxicity … “

        Considering her reaction to yesterday’s article and comments, she’s not much of a role model.

        What is “good disagreement”. Do not be “hurtful”? Those poor, misunderstood Pharisees. How could Jesus have been so mean. And His treatment of the money changers. Shocking. Jack has noticed that many “progressives” exhibit passive-aggressive tendencies. It’s a good tactic. The Church is being feminised into silence – “feelings” and “gentleness” are to take precedence over robustness. On some issues there can be no via media.

      • CliveM

        If she is talking current events she really is a thin skinned drama queen. I dread to think think what she considers to be robust.

        • If you can bear it, watch one of her videos in the link provided.

          • CliveM

            Hmmm, maybe I should.

          • See how far you get ….

          • CliveM

            I’ll try later after much fasting and prayer.

          • CliveM

            I see what you mean.

          • Condescending or what?

          • CliveM

            I’d tell what I’d like to do to a man who spoke to me like that, but in the current atmosphere of judicial imposed terror, better not.

          • Psychobabble bullshit with an air of feigned graciousness – until one says NO.

          • CliveM

            Listening to her was like listening to nails being scraped along the blackboard.

          • The Explorer

            Not sure if I had the right link, but I went to her blog and watched her Oxford Union speech on marriage. Not bad: I wouldn’t have extrapolated the woman who went to the police from the one speaking there.

          • Watch the “Good Disagreement” tapes and afterwards speak the truth about them gracefully, embrace her and move forward in love …. in unity.

            Personally, Jack regards the talk as modernist tosh.

      • The Explorer

        Certainly explains why she’s on edge.

      • Old Nick

        The rhetoric of that statement is a pure Oxford sandwich:
        Awfully nice fellow
        Hasn’t published a great deal
        Charming wife.
        The meat is in the middle.

        • Pubcrawler

          Tsk! It’s vegan ‘meat’ substitute now. And don’t forget, the bread must be gluten-free. Gotta be inclusive.

      • Martin

        If she wants to see some trolling she should post a Creationist comment on Twitter.

  • Redrose82

    That Jane Ozanne could even think she has a case to put to the police is a measure of how much our right to free speech has been eroded.

  • I know what I would do if I was on the wrong side of a lie. I would seek to shut down all debate.

    Inclusion of sin is exclusion of truth. Put me down for a visit from the rozzers.

    • “Error has no rights, since rights are a claim given ultimately by God.”
      (Declaration on Religious Liberty; Vatican II)

      • Anton

        Does that mean Catholics believe pagans and atheists should have no rights?

        • No …. just laws that permit child sacrifice and the like.

          • Anton

            Of course I’m against such things too. But “error has no rights” has been used to justify such things as promising a man free passage to and from a meeting to see whether his views were counted heretical, and if Rome decided that they were then it broke its word and burnt him anyway. Which also raises the issue who decides who is in error.

          • Oh, for God’s sake. Do read the document containing the quote. It’s about religious freedom in secular democracies. Stop living in the past.

          • Anton

            You chose to bring in a notorious phrase. “Error has no rights” makes protestants shudder.

          • Notorious? It’s a phrase from Vatican II. Do you disagree with it – in context?

          • Anton

            It goes a lot farther back than Vatican II, Jack; I suggest you google your own church history. It is a phrase that still makes protestant blood freeze. I am happy to join with you ecumenically over the issue raised by His Grace in his essay at top, but please in that case avoid such pregnant phrases (and please note that my original response to your use of the phrase didn’t mention the Reformation – deliberately).

            As to whether I disagree with it in context: what is the context to which you refer, please?

    • David

      Spot on !

  • dannybhoy

    Surely our police service has more things to worry about than alleged playground fall outs?
    You weren’t abused or harmed; you were disagreed with, and we explained why as Christians we disagreed.

  • Hi

    What crime has been committed here ? I read through the comments and the post. I couldn’t see what would justify several arrests and trials.

    • The crime of “bad disagreement”, Hannah.

      • CliveM

        I read some bad news for the Inspector. The English and Welsh Police are considering treating mysogeny as a hate crime.
        We may also now have something to pin on Linus!

        • dannybhoy

          What’s wrong with having a sogeny? Is my sogeny any worse than your sogeny?

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Clive, I’m sure the inspector won’t be troubled by that. If the arresting officer is female she’ll be advised not to worry her pretty little head snd besides, what is she doing out of the kitchen anyway?

          Snort! ……

          • CliveM

            I look forward to him telling us all about it!!

        • carl jacobs

          Linus is (allegedly) hiding in France.

          • CliveM

            With European arrest warrants it doesn’t matter!

          • He’ll have numerous fake identities and false passports.

        • Pubcrawler

          But mysandry will still be OK, presumably.

          • CliveM

            It wasn’t mentioned. Which means you’re probably right.

          • Old Nick

            And the Hunt Saboteurs Association allowed to behave exactly like the masked thugs they are.

          • Pubcrawler

            Likewise the UAF/Hope Not Hate (sic). One bunch of anarchist scruffs in three personae…

    • len

      ‘Good disagreement ‘turned out to be a bit of a farce, agreement with JO is ‘good agreement’ anything else is not.

      • Uncle Brian

        The only ‘good disagreement’ is no disagreement.

  • Albert

    How utterly horrible. I’m sorry about this Dr C.

  • len

    Right …if the prisons are to be filled with Biblical Christians we will know what the Church is filled with then….

    • Anton

      Indeed. Check your 20th century Russian history for the alarming proportion of priests in the Orthodox church there who reported to the KGB. This was a necessity for progress up the hierarchy. Meanwhile, the baptists and other evangelicals copped it even though they were not advocating any political program.

  • dannybhoy

    off topic:
    I am finding broken threads, other threads and posts disappearing and re-appearing, but not in the original order.. I take it as being all part of the settling down process(?), but I would like to know I am not alone!
    I do like the fact that so many from different persuasions are joining in here. The blog is being opened up to more people, but at the moment it rather has the feel of Alice in Wonderland..”

  • PessimisticPurple

    Why the surprise? Liberals always assume progress to be inevitable. It logically follows, therefore, that whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is in any given era constitutes “goodness”, and no further moral enquiry is necessary. Since the prevailing orthodoxy is currently proclaiming that same sex physical relationships are righteously comparable to opposite sex relationships, it accordingly follows that any disagreement must, by definition, by evil.

    Morality judged by the calendar. It’s the reason why Hitler was Time magazine’s Man of the Year.

  • chefofsinners

    I look forward to the charges being brought: wasting police time.

  • Don Benson

    Legislation for the existence of ‘hate crimes’ has no place in a free society. ‘Hate’ is an entirely subjective description of an emotion for which there can be no objective proof of existence.

    To circumvent this fact the UK legislation relating to it simply accepts the existence of ‘hate’ if an alleged ‘victim’ believes that he or she has suffered a ‘hate incident’. This is the kind of irrational and wicked nonsense our legislators have passed at the behest of the ‘equalities’ industry. And it is the perfect tool for a totalitarian regime to use when it wishes to close down free speech and incarcerate dissenters. I believe it to be satanic in its intention to remove our God-given freedom to think for ourselves and say what we believe to be true. All citizens should be fighting hard to have it removed from the statute book.

    The idea that any Christian should, by complaining to the police, invoke, or threaten to invoke, or pretend to invoke court action against any other Christian based on such ungodly legislation is beyond belief; at the very least it reveals someone who needs to withdraw from a debate with which he or she cannot cope.

    • David

      Wise words.

    • DP111

      One positive outcome that may come about from Brexit, is that we regain our freedom of speech from the shackles of EU policy of Open Doors, and inclusion and tolerance of those whose ideology and doctrine requires the mass murder of Jews and Christians.

  • Inspector General

    Posters up everywhere!

    There’s a £5000 reward for whomever drags the Inspector General’s beaten hide to the.High Sheriff of Gloucester.

    Could this be the end of everyone’s favourite curmudgeon…

    Tune in tomorrow folks and find out…

    • Royinsouthwest

      Sherwood Forest is a long way away but you could always become an outlaw in the Forest of Dean. The sheriff would probably never find you there!

      • Inspector General

        Certainly not Sherwood Forest, Roy. As you know, the Inspector doesn’t mind ‘merry men’ per se. It’s their lives and if they wish to live it that way, it’s up to them, although the Inspector is keen to point out the downside on this very blog. However, he doubts he would sleep very well in their company…

        • bluedog

          Well there’s always Maid Marian if Little John is not to your taste. You might even bump into Little Red Riding Hood about whom one hears exciting things now she has grown up.

          • The Explorer

            I thought LLRH was Robin Hood’s daughter.

          • bluedog

            Alas, no, it’s more complicated than that.

            Maid Marian was having it off with Will Scarlet and the result was LLRH where Red=Scarlet, get it? A bit of a medieval word play there. Anyway, it was obvious that the child had to be raised in the camp, so to speak, and she was adopted by Little John and Friar Tuck who were in a same sex relationship. Thus it was possible for Maid Marian to keep an eye on her daughter while FT and LJ as substitute parents gave the child the love she could not get from her dysfunctional biological parental relationship.

          • Inspector General

            The only fellow who keeps to the heterosexual norm is the Sheriff of Nottingham and he gets booed when he comes on…

          • One problem. If Maid Marion got too close, Little John might have to consider a new name ….

    • CliveM

      £5000, tempting but I’ll wait for it to rise to £10000.

      • Inspector General

        The Inspector, he no Che Guevara…

  • Mike Houlding

    I do hope the police investigate this issue. A similar case, testing so called progressive thinking is Mark Steyn v Michael Mann re the fabricated “hockey stick” of climate change. Free speech is at stake – not to mention honesty.

    • Anton

      That’s a huge case which has already got legally complicated and in which Steyn *knowingly* used provocative language against Mann inviting a libel case. For multiple reasons I support Steyn all the way, but it’s a very different situation. The USA is better than the UK in not having “hate speech” laws despite Obama’s worst efforts.

  • The Explorer

    Eight men sharing the same body are assisting the French police with their inquiries into misogyny on the Internet.

  • The Explorer

    /*67.

    I don’t understand it either. A contribution from the Explorer’s cat on her way to the window sill.

    • Anton

      The cat knows what it means. But, as ever, she won’t tell…

      • Uncle Brian

        We seem to have acquired a cat in the last month or so ‒ a stray, apparently, who has taken to sleeping on our back porch. He is slowly beginning to gain acceptance among the canine fraternity and the way things are going he may even be on the way to joining the household on a permanent basis.

        • Anton

          Excellent!

    • Uncle Brian

      There are plenty of comments here on His Grace’s threads that make a lot less sense than that one.

  • David

    What a sad state of affairs !
    People decide of their own free will to engage in a debate. Then when the debate leads to strong disagreement, with inevitably some slipping into using plain and pointed language, they blubber “it’s hateful ! “, and run to the arms of Big State.
    Of course Big State is not well designed or equipped to be a moral arbiter, and so is likely to make a complete hash of it, turning a mole hill into a mountain.
    Well if you want to protect yourself from strong words directed against your personal beliefs, don’t venture into the public square, but live your life as a very private citizen – it is your choice !
    Setting the state up as an arbiter of what is nice or nasty is a very dangerous thing to do, and unless it is curbed, it will soon lead us into some very dark places. In an age of Secularism people turn to the State because they have no faith, and therefore no moral compass – I guess that ‘s what this is all about.
    I do hope that his Grace is not inconvenienced by this sad little episode.

    • Eustace

      As far as I can gather, some very offensive comments have been made about Ms/Mx Ozanne here. But very offensive comments are par for the course on this blog. It’s what the conservatives do here: curse the world for daring to refuse to heed their warnings of impending doom and condemn it to hell unless it changes its mind and obeys them unquestioningly.

      The problem is that if we close off this last safety valve for conservatives and bigots, all the pent-up rage will explode in some other, quite possibly more harmful way. Nobody wants to see the next installation of a female bishop turn into a bloodbath as the ladies of the Christian Liberation Army turn up with incendiary devices under their hats.

      Let the bigots bray. I agree, it’s a perfectly rancid noise. But if it helps them to let off steam, it serves a purpose.

      • David

        Oh what fun !
        Let’s make our skins thinner and thinner shall we !
        Then we can lock up more and more people – you know those pesky people who happen to be able to think for themselves and haven’t been ground down by PC.
        What do you want, a democracy or a police state ?
        I think I know the answer.

        • Eustace

          Personally I think there are a great many people here who would love to see the police crack down on this blog. The opportunities for grandstanding and playing the martyr, activities that Christians adore above everything else, would be endless.

          St. Cranmer of The Hate Speech Restraining Order has a nice ring to it. Pity he’s an Anglican and you don’t do sanctification any more. Still, on the bright side, there’ll be no need to invent miracles in aid of his cause. So there’s one instance of perjury and the bearing of false witness that you won’t need to repent of before you croak.

      • Joe Stocker

        If offensive comments have been made about Ms Ozanne here (and that’s debatable), they are not direct forms of harassment. Someone might be trolling her on Twitter but no-one has encouraged that here.

        • It’s here I find myself regrettably at odds with many of my commentators whose comments I normally enjoy, find helpful, instructive and cleverly witty. BUT, that being said, comments are made that ridicule the person rather than countering their views. Often this ridicule (something harsher than satire) is razor sharp and witty which makes it of course all the more cruel. It goes beyond banter and repartee.

          Now I am not saying that the ‘opposition’ is without guilt. In fact, I think their attacks are often more personal and accusatory. They often contain venom that is absent from the worst attacks of the Cranmerites. However, I think Christians should be careful in their use of satirical wit. Though there is a place for plain speaking, even robust words ( Elijah to prophets of Baal, Jesus to Pharisees) , we should remember Paul’s injunction to Timothy,

          (ESV) 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. 2 Tim 2.

          I am not without sin in this matter so I claim no moral high ground. If I had the intellectual and verbal skills many of you have I would be very tempted… here endeth the sermon.

          • Joe Stocker

            I guess I’m so used to being in the middle of non-christian slanging matches that this place seems a bit tame to me (but I accept your point about 2 Tim 2). As for Beeching/Ozanne’s safe space me and my journey type conversations – I just think “Are these people for real?”

          • hi Joe,

            I wasn’t aiming this comment at you in any way. It just so happened that by the time I reached your comment I thought it was a good spot to put in my tuppence-worth. I should probably have put it at the end.

          • Joe Stocker

            No worries – I didn’t think you were referring to me. My reply was a general tuppence worth as well.

        • Eustace

          Are you sure that your definition of harassment equates to the official understanding of the term?

          If the police do act on Mx/Ms Ozanne’s complaint, I expect the CPS will end up answering that question. Let’s wait and see, shall we?

  • The Explorer

    Mx Ozanne would have had a much better case, in my view, if Cranmer members had visited her blog unsolicited. True, the topic was one of importance to her, but she chose to visit us and announce herself.

    Those who run blogs, or stick their head above the parapet, should not be surprised to get reactions.

  • Deimos

    As a very lapsed member of CND I heartily object to the use of the term “mx” which refers to a class of nasty nuclear warhead we fought long and hard to ban.

    In my now grown up personae I would just like to juxtapose that, what was once a liberal curse is now a term of inclusion? How our causes change, once we fought to disarm and protect the world, now we fight to stop pale Christian harsh debate.

    Is it because everyone has conceded the great causes all lost, war, hunger and disease all triumphant? Only perceived rudeness still worth fighting?….

    If nobody minds I’m going to nip back to the seventies and stay there, bye.

    • Anton

      I think a smaller proportion of the world population suffers from famine and disease than in the 1960s?

    • carl jacobs

      “mx” which refers to a class of nasty nuclear warhead we fought long and hard to ban.

      No, it wasn’t. MX was a Long Range Guided Missile System – in common parlance an ICBM. A new RV was not developed for that system. And if the CND tried to ban it (as opposed to, oh say, the SS-18) that just might be related to the fact that the CND was a Soviet front group.

      • Deimos

        Carl
        Undoubtedly correct old chap, it was a very long time and several heart attacks ago. As I said, my membership is long lapsed and my views are rather more pro deterence in my dotage. In those days the Soviet front groups had all the best music and dodgiest cigarettes, now I prefer a nice choir and incense for my thrills.

  • IanCad

    So, we have here a bulldyke who, not contented with the protection our liberal laws offer to her and other chaps, wishes to impose her self-centred ways on the rest of society.
    Yes! We can sympathize – she is a deeply troubled soul. However when she, and others of her like, sic the cops on HG, the gloves come off.

    • bluedog

      One can hear the bells on the front of the Black Maria even now IC. They’re coming to take you away, haha.

    • Inspector General

      Bull Dyke is such an ugly description for the uncompromising, bullying, committed feminist enthusiast for the female form, but then…

    • Joe Stocker

      I assumed she was trans

    • carl jacobs

      You shouldn’t use a phrase like “bull-dyke”. That phrase is offensive and conveys a lack of respect.

      • IanCad

        Believe me Carl; to someone whose first resort in disagreement is to call the police, respect was not intended.

        • carl jacobs

          That’s not a personal epithet. It’s a class epithet. It’s like saying ‘kike’. There is never a reason to use a phrase like that. What ever they do is not justification for responding in kind.

          • IanCad

            It is commonly used within their own communities.
            So? They can say it – we can’t?
            The “Kike” analogy doesn’t hold up. That refers to a race, not a lifestyle.

          • carl jacobs

            They can use it. You can’t. And it doesn’t matter that it is about a lifestyle. It has been culturally determined to be derogatory. You give that impression when you use it.

          • IanCad

            Language is for all. To ascribe meaning according to who is speaking makes communication far too difficult.
            It is easy to become too thin-skinned and over sensitive. I’m not inclined to heed niceties when faced with an opposition that is determined to use the state to foist their proclivities upon all and sundry.

  • Mike Stallard

    I reckon that this person has not only let down the gay community, but also the entire female sex.
    I can remember when feminists wanted to introduce a whole new way of thinking in intellectual circles to balance the male views which had dominated during the past centuries. If this is what feminist thinking looks like, I would rather it didn’t.

    • magnolia

      Many of us have been appallingly insulted, (which did not happen in the case complained about), and not gone to the police. Perhaps this person was an only child spared the rigours of boarding school, for if you have siblings or go to boarding school or live in community you very soon realise how unwise it is to go crying to perceived authority over small things or go behind people’s backs. Always far better to speak directly to the person.

  • Jill

    Apologies if someone has already posted this, but Jayne Ozanne has made a personal statement:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzMyH8nMD_OdbjJCaUd2NW54blk/view

    • David

      It’s already mentioned somewhere else on this long piece, as being a classic “Oxford sandwich.

      • Joe Stocker

        What does that mean BTW?

        • Uncle Brian

          Old Nick explained it yesterday in a comment lower down this thread:

          Old Nick Joe Stocker • 18 hours ago
          The rhetoric of that statement is a pure Oxford sandwich:
          Awfully nice fellow
          Hasn’t published a great deal
          Charming wife.
          The meat is in the middle.

        • David

          The answer to that is easily guessed – a short written piece with the main message in the middle, with top and bottom padding.

    • Eustace

      Am I missing something here? Is this Ms (or Mx if she prefers it) Ozanne some kind of minor celebrity? The rather pompous tone of her “personal statement”, the fact that she felt she needed to issue one in the first place, and the contrived “faux Harcourt” headshot all seem to point to someone who’s taking PR advice.

      What’s she famous for? Try as I might I can find no trace of her celebrity on Google, although that may be due to the French version of the site filtering out someone it considers to have little relevance here.

      • Inspector General

        She’s having her 15 minutes. You, you blighter, have had 15 months…

  • John Main

    There is an aspect to the same sex relationship debate that influences me, but I don’t see discussed (forgive me if it is discussed and I have yet to notice it). I raise it as I am mildly supportive of Christian morality, to the extent that I favour it over the alternatives. I attend organised worship at least once every year (Christmas Eve, since you ask).

    As a heterosexual male, with a merely tangential interest in the established Christian church, I am already wary of the limp wrists and namby-pambyism of some of its adherents. Should the church become more openly gay and/or gay-friendly, it will become even more of a turn off for me.

    I have nothing intrinsically against LGBT people, but I reserve the right to mostly avoid the places where they congregate. I would not knowingly choose to drink in a gay bar if an alternative hostelry was available. I can’t believe I am alone in having these mild and non-judgemental preferences for remaining within my own personal comfort zone.

    • The Explorer

      A book that might be of interest you: ‘Why Men hate going to Church’ by David Murrow. American, but many of the same issues as in Britain.

      • Anton

        It’s an excellent book, but it’s not about gay issues; it’s about the feminisation of the church. (You’ll know this, Explorer; I’m explaining to others.)

        • magnolia

          Sounds like psychobabble to me. Men do courage, women do kindness kind of garbage which is deeply sub Christian, as Jesus lets none of us off the hook on any virtue.

          Unless they have found churches where everyone must do their knitting or paint their nails through the service and then ice fairy cakes after it during which it is de rigeur to gossip about the congregation. Somehow I doubt it.

          Some people just look for excuses not to take part in the rehearsals for the song of all creation to their Heavenly King in the next life. Not a smart move.

          • Anton

            If you are not aware of the feminisation of the church then you have been gulled by the culture.

            Men who, like me, feel slightly sick singing words to Jesus that no man would say to another (You’re altogether lovely, altogether wonderful to me), words the disciples never used to Him that make him sound like the singer’s boyfriend, words more like the Song of Songs than the Psalms – eros-love rather than agapē, appreciate this book. Like King David, men want to sing thanks to God for victory in strife, not beg him for a hug. Here is an excerpt from the first edition that had me cheering (p.140):

            Tony went to the men’s small group at his church – once. First, the men sat in a circle and sang praise songs for about 10 minutes. Tony was asked to introduce himself and ‘share’ about his life. Next, he was paired with a stranger and asked to share one of his deepest fears. Then everyone was asked to share a prayer or a praise report. The men read from the bible, taking turns around the circle. Finally the men stood in a circle and held hands for what seemed like hours, while one by one they bared their souls to God. One man was quietly weeping. The guy next to Tony prayed for 10 minutes straight, and his palms were sweaty. Once the meeting was over, Tony didn’t stay for coffee. He hasn’t been back. Men’s ministry often falters for this reason: It’s women’s ministry for men…

            Murrow [p.136-7, quoted extensively in the present paragraph] sees that the very language we use in church has become feminised – ‘sharing,’ for instance. Regular men don’t talk this way. Imagine a gang member saying to one of his brothers, “Ed, would you please share with us how you hot-wired that BMW?” We are exhorted to have a relationship with Jesus, even a passionate relationship. This is an inappropriate metaphor for what should be called Discipleship. When a man loves another man, he uses terms such as admire, look up to, and respect. Men simply do not speak of passionate, intimate or even personal relationships with their leaders or male friends. Can you imagine a couple of bikers having this conversation:

            “Hey Vic, let’s go for a ride in the hills so we can develop a passionate relationship.”

            “Great, Dave, I’d like to enjoy some intimacy with you.”

            How will a feminised church ever appeal to bikers, or soldiers? Murrow points out that women will follow either women or men, but men will follow only men. That is why men drain away from female-led congregations.

            Feminised churches present Jesus as a friend who can make you feel happy, rather than an infallible guide along life’s thorny path and the supreme leader in the battle between good and evil, within oneself and in the world. But not everybody feels unhappy or wants a new friend, whereas all are sinners. And who is this man?

            I saw… a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire… From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; He treads the wine press of the wrath of God Almighty. On His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Then I saw an angel… and he cried out… to all the birds which fly in heaven, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and commanders and mighty men, and the flesh of horses and those who sit on them, and the flesh of all men, free men and slaves, small and great”… they were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse.

            The Christian faith offers a noble leader who sacrificed himself for his friends yet defeated even death; a freeman’s choice between good and evil; and a hero’s reward for the steadfast. In the early church many brave men of arms became Christians, and spread the faith around the Roman Empire. (Jesus never told any Roman soldier to become a pacifist; Christians should consider resigning only from an army that is set to engage in an immoral campaign.) Christian life is a battle as much as any in the Norse Sagas, Homer, the Mahabharata or (of course) the Old Testament. But Christ as feminised touchy-feely wimp is peddled in too many Western churches today.

          • 1642again

            Excellent piece. Completely agree. I can’t sing some of the new hymns as the lyrics make me feel like a pervert.

          • Jonathan Tedd

            Thank you Anton you have articulated perfectly my feelings on this, and very amusingly told.

          • Rhoda

            Its not psychobabble; try reading it or his other book ” How Women can help Men find God.”
            When we get to heaven we will be praising God for who he is not singing about our feelings.

    • Inspector General

      Well put, sir!

    • David

      Yes I can confirm that the book just recommended to you is most useful.
      In my experience, as a committed, conservative Anglican, your feelings are shared by many of my friends who are occasional visitors to Anglican church services

    • Eustace

      So tell me how calling people “limp-wristed and namby-pamby” fits with your own description of your preferences as “… mild and non-judgemental (sic)”.

      Sounds pretty extreme and judgmental to me. Basically what you’re saying is that everyone must behave exactly as you want them to or they’re not worthy of your company. Next you’ll be calling for “separate development” and straight, traditional gender role zones where all those queers you have “nothing intrinsically against” will be banned.

      This is the true face of Christianity. Everyone must confirm to the straight model or be driven out. And you’re not even honest enough to admit to the prejudice that motivates your desire for apartness.

      The logical conclusion of such exclusive attitudes is apartheid. Why not be honest enough to admit that’s what you really want?

      • John Main

        Haha, good one (LOL). Recently me and my better half were guests at a same-sex wedding. Any comments? Previous wedding we attended, there was a large table of professional rugby playing guests. Not a man over 25 YO or under 20 stone. The drunken banter and high jinks was in full flow and we thanked our lucky stars we were not placed at that table. Any thoughts?

        Couple of weeks back, at my local Chinese restaurant, as I waited to collect my
        carry-out, in burst half a dozen gorgeous ladies out for a night on the town. Hemlines just below the waist, necklines just above the navel, I was physically helpless to control my lines of sight whilst mentally unable to determine their ages within the range 14 to 24. I was glad to collect my order and go. Perhaps you will tell me what is wrong with me? If I am the only individual to feel uncomfortable outside of my comfort zone, how come the “comfort zone” concept is already so widely understood?

        Incidentally, are you sure I am a Christian? I thought my post was clear enough about that. I am awarding your post 5 points for grammar and construction but 0 points for your non-non-judgemental lack of comprehension. Must try harder.

        • Eustace

          Must try harder? As must you. To lose the habit of condescension, I mean. Who are you to award points to anyone? Who made you head teacher?

          Oh and how tolerant you are! A real equal opportunities dispenser of insulting and judgmental commentary. It appears nobody is safe from your acerbic put-downs. Limp-wristed gays, fat rugby players, provocatively dressed young women … everyone gets judged. Apart from you, of course.

          Christian or not, you seem to be suffering from the same disease as most of the Christians who comment here. Narcissistic personality disorder that makes you the judge and everyone else guilty.

          Get over yourself. Who went and made you king of the world? At least Christians have a modicum of modesty and hide their narcissism behind a fake god…

          • Joe Stocker

            I think you take John’s teasing banter a bit too seriously

          • The Explorer

            Linus/Eustace is like that. Scratches like a wild cat if teased, and always takes banter for insult. It must be exhausting for him, taking so much offence at so little.

          • John Main

            Eustace, The only part of your response I want to reply to is your jibe about 20-stone professional rugby players being fat. That weight is not exceptional for the athletes who play at professional and international level.

            You have a nice evening.

          • IanCad

            And let us all note: Fat folk live longer.

      • Inspector General

        No one is driving anyone out. It’s a damn takeover attempt we’re up in arms against…

  • The Explorer

    A book that might interest you: ‘Why Men hate going to Church’ by David Murrow. American, but many of the same issues as in Britain.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Jayne Ozanne and Vicky Beeching are following the example of St Paul whose story was obviously greatly exaggerated by Luke in order to sell more copies of his Book of Acts. “It took a lot of vulnerability” for Paul to talk about why he became a Christian and he was dismayed by the hate speech he received from his critics in the Sanhedrin. Therefore he complained to Festus, the procurator of Judea, but Festus showed a complete lack of sympathy and just told him to “get a life.”

    Paul was terribly hurt by the sheer lack of commitment to diversity shown by Festus so he decided to go to Rome and complain to Caesar himself. Paul knew that his complaints would be taken seriously there because Rome was a wonderfully cosmopolitan, tolerant, multi-faith society. People there were even free to worship Caesar himself if they wanted to do so. That was something that would never be allowed in a provincial backwater like Jerusalem! Furthermore the Romans were committed to equality not just in religious matters but in all things. They even celebrated diverse forms of sexuality, as Paul himself pointed out in one of his letters to his fans in Rome after he had become a celebrity.

    Caesar listened sympathetically to Paul’s complaints about hate speech and he responded by creating the world’s first “Safe Space” with Roman soldiers to protect him. Paul’s fans were able to come and visit him there and he was able to speak to them without any fear at all because of all the emperor had done for him.

    Surely there are lessons for modern Britain in this?

    • disqus_N9Jawtu8Uw

      Royinsouthwest wrote:
      “Jayne Ozanne and Vicky Beeching are following the example of St Paul”

      Really?

      Try:
      Romans 1 verses 24 to 28
      1 Corinthians 7 verse 2
      1 Corinthians 6 verses 9 to 11
      1 Corinthians 6 verses 18 to 20

      Try also:
      Hebrews 13 verse 4
      1 Timothy 1 verses 8 to 11
      Though these last two may not have been written by Paul.

      … So I put it to you that they are not following St Paul at all.

      • magnolia

        Do you do subtlety? Like irony? You see Roy does…..

      • Yep. You’ve missed that Roy has his tongue firmly in his cheek.

    • chefofsinners

      Lovely bit of satire, Roy.
      If only Jesus had thought of calling the police, we could have avoided all that messy crucifixion business.

      • Yes, there could have been a “shared conversation” with the High Priest, Sanhedrin and the various interested parties, and a “good disagreement”.

        • Pubcrawler

          And then they could have called in Herod’s goons for drinks and canapes on the verandah.

    • Excellent. Loud chortles.

    • And the word is Paul eventually lost his head
      .

  • preacher

    When one accepts the terms of salvation provided by the Lord Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, they are able to call themselves a Christian – with the proviso that they are willing & agreeable to do all in their power to “Leave their nets & follow Christ ” e.g leave the burdens of the old life behind & become a new creation. By raising the flag of Christ, one becomes a target of the enemies fury & be attacked & pressurised on all sides, especially where one previously had a weakness. All believers are tempted at times to capitulate & desire to flirt with their past lives, that is part of the test of moving from being saved to being a disciple, & serving others in one capacity or another, be it in a traditional setting or a free Church. There can be no hate in advising others of the terms of service that they are expected to conform to if they wish to serve in a higher capacity in the Lord’s service. The alternative is to allow anyone who feels the desire to lead, to do so which will eventually destroy the foundations of the Church & lead to a descent into error & heresy.

    • David

      Exactly !

  • Mikhail Ramendik

    Jayne has issued a clarifying statement. Basically, there was a violent incident, someone threw stones at her house. Following the incident, police have asked her to report anything she feels might be “abusive”. It is a far lower threshold than the one for censorship.

    In my opinion, those who don’t like involvement of the authorities might find their energy would be better spent by ending the outdated and unfair arrangement called Establishment, where one church pretends, unrealistically, to represent the diverse Christian faith(s) of a huge nation. (Also one person does not have religious freedom as a side effect).

    People will disagree, people will throw words around. That has been done for as long as the Christian church existed.

    • Dominic Stockford

      It sounds like she is making efforts to find ‘abuse’.

  • Veronica Zundel

    Stop lying about what you did, AC. You made a post which suggested that people like Vicky Beeching onl wanted to be ordained for their own ‘selfish ends’ and then called people like her ‘promiscuous perverts’. This is not reasoned argument, it is ad hominem insult.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      I have to step in again, because since the ice age people like yourself seem to have lost subtlety in the use of language.

      I haven’t yet got my mind around the ‘selfish ends’ bit, but you have certainly not compiled the second bit fully. Here it is in expanded form:

      You [A] may want to quote Scripture to [those whom you regard as] promiscuous perverts and they [B] might seek to highlight the truth of [what they see as] your homophobic bigotry.

      It does seem that most Homo [self-styled] sapiens lack the ability to hold in view both sides of an argument simultaneously. But this appears to be a recent phenomenon.

      One way of putting it is that this [1931] is a psychological age, which is the opposite of an intellectual age. It is not a question of persuading men, but of suggesting how they are persuaded. It is an age of Suggestion; that is, of appeal to the irrational part of man. Men discussed whether Free Trade was false or true; they do not so much discuss whether Empire Free Trade is false or true, as whether it is booming or slumping; whether it is based on an understanding of Mass Psychology, or whether its opponents or supporters have what Americans call Personality. It is all great fun, and there is doubtless a truth in it, as in other things. But, whatever else it is, it is not a mark of stronger mentality, and any old Scotch Calvinist farmer, who could follow his minister’s desolate and appalling sermon to Seventeenthly and Lastly, had an immeasurably better brain.

      G.K. Chesterton: All is Grist, V.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      Accurate tho.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Christian teaching is under attack from many who call themselves Christians, when clearly their fruit demonstrates that they are not.

  • Problems with the ozanne liar? There’s nothing new under the sun.