You are here . on the pale blue dot

Blog notes

Anonymous comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.
The blog owner is unable to ‘unfollow’ Followers.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

Synod fallout

"Rev Andrew Foreshew-Cain, right, with his husband Stephen."             Photograph: The Guardian

The General Synod Report from the House of Bishops Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations GS 2055 was debated on Wednesday 15 February after group discussions. Ahead of the group work there was a presentation by the Bishop of Norwich and the Bishop of Willesden.

What was said in the presentation should be broadly acceptable to anyone who wants to uphold the Christian faith. Church Doctrine must inform society not bend to it. That society takes a more liberal view of sexual activity today is irrelevant.

Most regrettable is the need constantly to apologize for upholding the Christian faith. The Bishop of Norwich said he regretted the pain and anger felt by those who were disappointed adding an apology to those who thought the tone of the Report was wrong.

Worse, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have written to members of the General Synod setting out the next steps following the vote not to take note of GS 2055, a procedural motion allowing Synod to move on. Their tone is worrying.

In their letter they write "How we deal with the real and profound disagreement - put so passionately and so clearly by many at the debate - is the challenge we face as people who all belong to Christ...The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our common humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to Christ - all of us, without exception, without exclusion."

Inclusion for LGBT campaigners means having their demands met, for same sex marriage in church to be accepted on a par with traditional marriage regardless of the consequences for the Church. Learning from the movement for the ordination of women they will agitate until they have what thy want. Ironically the lost vote was counter-productive as explained here.

When the Archbishops of Canterbury and York write about our belonging to Christ - all of us, without exception, without exclusion - they seem to forget the thousands who have left their Church in despair at the constant pandering to minorities who have no interest other than their own satisfaction.

Last year a group of gay Church of England clergy revealed that they were defying the official line taken by church leaders on same-sex marriage (the first pictured above). Ignoring the authority of their bishops and the teaching of their Church, half the signatories declared themselves already to be in a gay marriage. Why is the Church apologising to them?

Another Anglican priest, George Pitcher, writing in the Telegraph sets out the position plainly: "I'm a bleeding-heart liberal cleric – but the Church of England must not accept gay marriage". That is more like the authentic voice of the Church. If gay activists find that unacceptable it is they who should leave, not cradle Anglicans. LGBT people can live together. They can have civil partnerships. They can attend Church but they cannot be married there. Those are the rules. Greed does their cause no credit.

As the CEO of Christian Concern wrote, It's time for the Church of England to lay down the law on marriage.

Also, from a Christian Today memo, To Bewildered Bishops - Please Be Shepherds, Not Sheep

A desire to satisfy the wants of the few must not obscure the need to keep the many.

Postscript [23.02.2017]


  1. Every picture tells a story!
    Two men in a lecherous posture.
    The photograph shows these men in a child-like submissive and obsequious stance looking for a reward, and indicates that the relationship between these two immature men is about perverse sexual gratification.

    1. Why are so many of the clergy gay??? It seems to be the norm these days. I cannot understand it.

    2. You interpretation of this picture shows your extreme homophobia; that you can read so much into this image tells its own story: you are a disturbing homophobic individual. Far from simple, your views are dangerous

  2. Humans are nurtured in social bonds to their kin,and I have a suspicion that something is awry in the maternal-child bond in these men.
    If the childhood relationships are misshapen, then this will be brought forward into fallacious adult sexual relationships.
    Looking again at the photograph in this blog ,I recognise a child -if not two children- seeking approval from a mother figure.
    Why priests? They have a desire to nurture and in some ways protect their flock : and so does a mother.
    This is very simple psychology ,but maybe a pointer.

  3. Warped and simplistic opinion not anything approaching psychology. Laughable if it were so dangerous to be peddling such hateful quasi-analysis.

  4. There is a large number of people who fail to see how sexual relations between two men may be understood as part of the mastery of God's creation, or offered to the glory of God.
    It is not a question of 'hate' ,nor a question of 'phobia' ,but the question is - how can such relationship be part of God's plan. It is part of free will but not part of the goodness of creation.

  5. God you talk sh**e. Utter drivel. But harmful.

  6. Twopenny - God made man and He made woman. Why did He do this? Then ask yourself why so many people will never accept the validity of gay marriage.

    Orient (pseudonym)

  7. Some are more equal than others.
    Heterosexual couple lose civil partnership challenge
    Why aren't the gay corner and fag hags up in arms demonstrating about this discrimination?

  8. I personally don't object to those who disagree with same sex marriage just as I fully support those who would like to see civil partnerships open to non-samesex couples. What I take issue with is simple simon's pseudo-psychology. I'd admire his views more if he stuck to basic theology. His type of "psychology" belongs to the hugely discredited ex-gay movement and has no basis whatsoever in scientific study. Just an observation.

    1. What has your bullshit to do with me?

  9. True colours simple, true colours

    1. Ninepence short of a shilling21 February 2017 at 19:24

      The difference between "Simple soul" (a lady contributor) and "Simple Simon" (a gentleman who has not contributed to this thread) should be obvious even to an intellectually challenged pygmy.

  10. Please read my comment on the post, 'Why are so many of the clergy gay?'