The National Trust is said to be facing a membership boycott over their Prejudice and Pride gay campaign.
Reported in the Telegraph: The National Trust is facing a membership crisis over its policy to “out” a country squire and make volunteers at a Norfolk mansion wear the gay pride rainbow symbol. Volunteers at the Jacobean mansion had been told if they refused to wear the gay pride rainbow symbol they would not be allowed to meet and greet visitors to the estate.
The charity has been accused of being excessively politically correct over a high-profile campaign to mark 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Scores of Trust members wrote to the Daily Telegraph saying they would either cancel or not renew their membership. A former supporter even said he had removed the charity as a beneficiary in his will.
One long-term volunteer said: "It's very upsetting. We are like a family and this feels like a break up. I don't think Felbrigg will be the same again." She said she did not think the film should have been made because Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer was "a private man".
The question posed at the beginning of the National Trust video is "How do you feel about National Trust promoting the 'Prejudice and Pride' programme? I suspect Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer along with many other homosexuals who just want to lead a quietly normal life would have been horrified by the blatent flaunting of their sexuality.
This blog offers an opportunity to comment on topical news/events with reference to politics, society and religion. Critics rarely, if ever, do so. Instead they comment on the messenger because he refuses to sing from the current LGBT hymn sheet.
It was right that homosexuality was decriminalised but few expected the celebratory consequences with the BBC, the Anglican Church, government ministers and now the National Trust so brazenly advancing the LGBTQI+ cause.
[06.08.2017]
'National Trust U-turn over LGBTQ badges at Felbrigg Hall'. Read here.
[09.08.2017]
'National Trust must return to Core Business'. NT members petition here.
Postscripts
[07.08.2017]
The National Eisteddfod of Wales is an annual Welsh language cultural festival where everyone is welcome, as they are in the church.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/40225649
Yesterday on the Feast of the Transfiguration surrounded by impressionable youngsters, "Wales’ first woman bishop" took to the festival stage to deliver a sermon. It was not about poetry or music but LGBTQIA diversity.
Christians in the past have refused to accept lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc, she alleged, adding that "we have ignored so many talents and so much talent."
Even if that were so, their numbers in the church render the observation superfluous other than to saturate people with LGBT propaganda in the 'Prejudice and Pride' campaign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/40842360
[09.08.2017]
The Prejudice and Pride assault on the Christian faith continues (H/T Voices for Justice UK).
"In a report of September 2016, Wilton Park (an executive agency of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) branded religion an enemy of LGBTI rights, and called for state funding to reinterpret the Bible to make it compatible with LGBTI ideology. It further called for the new belief system to be required teaching in all churches, Sunday schools and theological seminaries, highlighting Evangelical Christians as being especially prejudiced against homosexuality. It accused them of disseminating hatred and intolerance, seen especially in the pernicious influence of missionaries working in the Global South." Links here and here.
[10.08.2017]
Preschool children targeted. Lesbian behind Disney cartoon pushing LGBT to preschoolers: ‘We’re political’ here.
One of the creators of a Disney cartoon that promoted same-sex "marriage" to preschoolers has admitted that they specifically aim to promote political messages on the show.
SIGN THE BOYCOTT: Say NO to Disney pushing LGBT agenda to preschoolers here.
This is what I have been trying to express in my comments in your previous post Ancient Briton. The majority of homosexual individuals simply want to lead a quiet life. Unlike Scapegoat and his kind, who appears attracted to almost a language of dogging on here, the decent, considerate majority do not want or need to flaunt their sexuality.
ReplyDeleteMr Marsh, I fully agree with you that the majority of homosexuals want to lead a quiet life. Nevertheless, Scapegoat has been trolled on this website for some considerable time. The reason he has been trolled is because he has tried to be the voice of reason. He has asked contributors to be kind, rather than use inflammatory language about those with whom they disagree. He has asked people to give the new Bishop of Llandaff a fair chance, not to be so judgemental on female priests or gay people, and not to be so derogatory about the Dean of Llandaff. If he has employed the language of dogging, as you suggest, then the apostles, and Jesus too, must stand accused of the same thing in the New Testament. If you think that I am one of "his kind", as you so ungraciously put it, then you are wrong. Our scriptures use the term righteousness quite liberally - and righteousness has to do with justice. There are too many Christians who stand back and play Pontius Pilate, but I am not one of them. Scapegoat is a child of God, and it is high time contributors realized that and treated him with the dignity that a child of God deserves.
DeleteTiglath Pileser
I agree Tiglath Pileser. All people should be treated with respect and courtesy irrespective of race, colour,sexual orientation or any other differences. The problem arises though over certain marked differences of opinion where red lines must be drawn. The most significant of these is same sex marriage. I respect Scapegoat and his right to express his views on whatever subject he wishes but I wish that some members of the gay community would also respect the right of those who cannot in all conscience accept the principle of same sex marriage. Why can't we simply agree to disagree? If reports are to be believed, the response in the recent general synod to those who voiced genuine concerns over this and related matters was hardly christian. It is time for the church leadership to clarify its position on this vexed question. It simply will not do for Justin Welby to say that the problem is "intractable". Is he or is he not the leader of all anglicans? As such, he should fearlessly endorse established church teaching ie. that all are welcome in the church and all should be supported by genuine pastoral care,concern and love. The sacraments, however, cannot be altered for the sake of societal changes and marriage, as the lifelong union between a man and a woman, needs to be endorsed without fear or favour. Several gay friends have recently told me that they find this on-going argument bewildering, as marriage is "not for them" as they wish to live their lives quietly and privately, going about their daily business and worshipping at their local church on Sundays where they feel welcome and among friends.
DeleteNemesis
Thank you Nemesis for writing a post with decorum and respect, and showing other contributors how it should be done. There isn't any need for anyone to descend to basest level of humanity. Of course, we are not all going to agree on everything, but we can make our point clearly, and then agree to disagree. God bless.
DeleteTiglath Pileser
If Justin Welby had it in him to show firm leadership without fear or favour Nemesis he would not be Archbishop of Canterbury. The self serving liberal political establishment of middle England would have seen to that. Put not your trust in Anglican bishops !
DeleteIf - as you claim - Scapegoat has been trolled on here, it is because they (he/she/ze/it/whatever they think they are today) is a Troll.
Deletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40837709
ReplyDeleteThe National Trust has reversed a decision to make some volunteers work away from the public after they refused to wear sexual equality symbols.
Too late. My standing order has been cancelled.
At last some common sense. Totalitolerance gone mad, Dame Helen Ghosh should resign for not respecting her volunteers freedom of conscience.
DeleteSo much for the National Trust being for ever, for everyone, what a joke. I hope someone with a keen mind exposed her hypocrisy to her or was it the hundreds of cancelled Direct Debits that focused her mind.
I never joined, Bugger the National Trust; that organisation ceased to represent traditional rural Britain when it went with the suburban majority in banning hunting on its land. Since when it has compounded the offence by a consistent policy of 'dumbing down', on which see Harry Mount's lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-PKi2NAA8&t=5s
DeleteAs you have written Ancient Briton, this blog provides an opportunity to comment on issues. I just wonder why the normal central stream of minds,( including yourself,) are shouted down and verbally bullied to conform to liberal views, verging on decadent way of living.
ReplyDeleteSociety cannot live in peace without 'rules' and respect for the dignity of the minds of others. There are now so many fringe ways of life, bordering on anarchy.
The Church has not benefited from the introduction of female ordination- it has just torn the Church apart.
The Church has not benefited from LBGTQIA chaplains -it has simply alienated mainstream traditional minds.
Worship accompanied by balloons on the altar is simply a distraction from the spiritual aspect.
The new generation seem to be obsessed with entertainment, self satisfaction, instant gratification, and distraction from the Truth we should be seeking.
Libby Purves in the Times today on 'coercive liberalism' https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/national-trust-chases-rainbows-to-its-cost-2039mnvwk has an interesting take on this.
DeleteThe thought Police are everywhere.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40859004
Google fires diversity memo author
A Google employee who wrote a controversial memo about workplace diversity has been fired, the BBC can confirm.
The controversial memo broke the firm’s code of conduct, Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai said on Monday in an email to employees.
The memo, shared widely at the weekend, suggested there were fewer women at Google due to biological differences.
Entitled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, the paper argued that "the abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership”.
The author wrote: "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."
Google has not confirmed who the employee is, but US media reports name him as James Damore.
In his note to staff sent on Monday afternoon, Mr Pichai spoke at length about protecting free speech in Google’s ranks, and that "much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it”.
But he added: "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
"It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects 'each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination’."
Speaking of hiring and firing, one hears the Lucy Morgan school of HR is still at work. It seems that "Nicola", one of the agency workers in the Office at Llandaff Cathedral has been given the heave-ho. Having been there for 1 year and 11 months it was time to let her go before she acquired Employees rights as a result of being in the same job for 2 years. Bully boy --Bazza's sick brand of socialism lives on under the glove puppet.
DeleteAn inside source tells me the HR department at 39 Cathedral Road are focused on preparing a dossier for a disciplinary tribunal into the conduct of a senior llandaff cleric. Open the sluice gates June.
DeleteThank you for your postscript reminding us that the National Eisteddfod exists to promote and display all that is unique and excellent in Welsh culture and to ensure its' growth into the future without limit of time.
ReplyDeleteThe Wench of Abergwili caused those high ideals to stall on Sunday morning and the "Uchafwyr" of the National Eisteddfod must accept responsibility for that. They were duped into allowing a religious service to be hijacked by a monoglot proponent of a socio/political agenda which was delivered parrot fashion to a congregation consisting mainly of young people who deserved better.
Yesterday the Daniel Owen prize was withheld despite 13 entries from fluent and fluid Welsh writers who submitted their own work without outside assistance.
The reason given in such rare circumstances is "Neb yn deilwng" "None was worthy". That same verdict applies to yesterday's "sermon" and to those who permitted it to take place. "Unworthy".
Re Wilton Park:
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that they slam evangelists past & present then spend the report calling for the 'right' sort of evangelism; their evangelism. Similarly they slam colonialism and then call for what is to all intents & purposed a 'north European' intellectual colonisation.
It is all so reminiscent of those who only want the 'right' sort of democracy which only gives the 'right'result.
Although they do mutter about Islam, they would be more credible if they widened their criticism to both Christianity and Islam. No mention, for instance, of reinterpreting the Koran just the Bible.
The notion of some sort of LGBTI sex education programme for Sunday schools is frankly an anathema. The risks inherent in any such programme, let alone the inappropriate nature of it in a Sunday school context, do not even bear thinking about in terms of Safeguarding. No wonder these 'experts' are hiding behind a wall of anonymity after dispensing their 'pearls of wisdom'.
I am such a happy Welsh person who was raised in a good Christian home on Anglesey A.B. The latest copy of the North Wales Chronicle contains several pages of detailed and extensive coverage of The National Eisteddfod but not a single mention or photograph of the Wench of Abergwili's Sunday performance. Faithful Christians have responded appropriately. The don't like the tune being played on this old Joannah !
ReplyDeleteWhen are the Christian LGBTI community going to tell us that there is such a thing as gay porneia? Will Tiglath Peleser tell us that gay porneia is disgusting? Or is it Tiglath bach, all sex that is gay is innately good and of God? Will Bishop Joanna and Bishop June as diocesans say O.K. pro-gay as I/we are, there is such a thing as gay porneia and fornication and adultery and yes in theory there is a possibility that gay sexual activities at times could be a cause for scandal and offence. If we could hammer this out together there might be more common ground. Let us go from love and mutual respect to the need for order. Let us cherish together the Scriptures that Jesus cherished.
ReplyDeleteSilence on this matter could only mean that the inclusivity that they demand is actually quite conditional. We are not the golden calf. "What my body tells me that I must do." Really? Justine politician's body has told her different things at different times; c.f. Wiki
What is good for the heterosexual goose is also good for the gay gander.
You can't get round Acts 15.
Thrupence, I have been deliberately silent for a while, but since you ask a question of me; and since I have spoken of the need for us all to be respectful of one another, it would be disrespectful of me not to reply.
DeleteYou speak of gay “porneia”, but I suspect that you do not know what “porneia” actually refers to. The Greek word “πορνεια” was used of prostitution, and hence women being immoral through having sex with numerous clients. This word was never used in classical Greek in any other way. It is wrong of you therefore, to see a gay relationship in the same context as porneia.
You speak of the scriptures so cherished of the Lord, and hence we are talking of the Old Testament. The favourite passage often thrown up is Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Yet the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is not homosexuality, it is refraining to keep the code of hospitality. It was the duty of a town to look after the sojourner in the gate, and Lot goes to extraordinary lengths to keep his visitors safe. He even offers up his own daughters. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes his own views clear on Sodom and Gomorrah. The disciples are sent out, and are told to find a suitable person to lodge with in each town they come to. They are to bid peace to the occupants of the house. If the household are welcoming, their peace shall remain on that household; and if not, it will return to them. Where they are made unwelcome, they are then instructed to shake the dust from their feet. “Truly I tell you, on the day of judgement it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” (Matthew 10: 15) Clearly, according to the Lord, sodomy should not be about gay sex but about inhospitality to strangers.
Another two passages are Leviticus 18: 22 and Leviticus 20: 13. Both passages are part of the “Purity Code”. The Code made Israelites live in a very different way to their Canaanite neighbours. Yet Jesus dispensed with the Purity Code. His disciples ate food with unwashed hands, and when the Pharisees complained, Jesus gave them short shrift. Paul also states in no uncertain terms: “We are not under Law, we are under grace.” More to the point of Paul’s argument, if you rely on the Old Testament Law then you have to keep every single part of it, or else face sure condemnation at the last.
Those who are fond of quoting the Leviticus passages to justify their positions on homosexuality, always seem to forget the verses either side of the passages. Those who disagree with their parents must be put to death. Adulterers must be put to death. If a man has sex with a mother and her daughter, they are to be burnt to death. I suppose it would be one way of cutting the population down, but I do not believe that Jesus would have any truck with these laws. Read John 8.
What no-one on this blog seems to get is that you cannot force anybody into the Kingdom of God, you can only love them there. Over the years, Christians have driven so many people out of the Kingdom with their dictatorial, hard-faced and self-righteous attitudes. When are we going to learn the lessons, and try doing things Jesus’ way? The Lord didn’t begin conversations by pointing out people’s errors; he began by seeing the child of God in the person in front of him. St John states it unambiguously: “We cannot say that we love God whilst despising the person in front of us.” From what I read in these pages, if a gay man stood in front of many of you, he would be undeserving of your Christian love. Yet in so acting, you demonstrate your lack of love for God. What makes the situation worse is that you go to the altar and partake of the Sacrament, and thus eat and drink condemnation on yourselves, for you have failed to discern the Body of Christ.
My brothers and sisters, be very careful; God knows the secrets of our hearts. He resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Be humble, and worry more about your own sins than those of someone else.
Tiglath Pileser
"What no-one on this blog seems to get is that you cannot force anybody into the Kingdom of God, you can only love them there. Over the years, Christians have driven so many people out of the Kingdom with their dictatorial, hard-faced and self-righteous attitudes."
DeleteWhat you do not get Tiglath is the red line that is same sex marriage. Never satisfied with any advance in the LGBT cause, supporters of the Coalition for Marriage continue to be subjected to verbal abuse for holding an opinion contrary to those espoused by the LGBT+ lobby whose presence at every level should be obvious to you from current campaigns on the BBC, the National Trust, government ministers, Anglican bishops and much of Synod.
The only people to be “driven out” as you put it are Christians who do not accept the secularization of the Church. The numbers speak for themselves.”
Same sex marriage is a very different issue from gay relationships. I, for one, am not in favour of same sex marriage, believe it or not; since it requires a redefinition of marriage. More importantly, the gay community had everything it needed in civil partnerships, and many from that community said as much at the time. Nevertheless, we are where we are; but we should not blame the gay community for taking advantage of the change in national law. Instead, the politicians who voted for it should be held to account.
DeleteOn a regular basis, I meet people who at one time belonged to a Christian church community, whether Anglican or otherwise, but because of the hypocrisy and the judgemental attitudes they encountered among so-called "Christian people" left and have never returned. It is all too easy to blame others for the ills that we see in the Church; yet fail to see that we might be the cause of some of those ills ourselves.
Similarly, I have met people who have been deeply hurt that when they were up against it; none of their fellow Christians or clergy seemed to want to know. If that is repeated over and over again, the dwindling numbers are not necessarily about people being disillusioned with same sex marriage or any other moral issue. It is more to do with Christian people not living up to the high calling of their baptism.
Tiglath Pileser
Thank you Tiglath. My experience has been similar in that none of my friends, gay or otherwise, has expressed a preference for same sex marriage over civil partnerships. Quite the reverse. More the pity, then, that a vocal minority is causing so much damage with silence being interpreted as approval. The Coalition for Marriage needs the support of the silent majority.
DeleteWow" Tiglath old fruit. You sound just like an Anglican bishop. All gas and gaiters.
ReplyDeleteWatchman, thank you for the compliment. Since the Archbishop's post is vacant, I look forward to the Electoral College. If it was good enough for Ambrose of Milan to be catapulted through clerical orders, why shouldn't it happen to me?
DeleteTiglath Pileser
Archbishop of the Church in Wales? In the present climate I would not wish such a fate on anyone.
DeleteTiglath. Tiglath. Easy. Easy.
ReplyDeleteI have no wish to condemn. Love and respect for the other always comes first. We are children of God. We all deserve each other's love in His name. John 8 is paramount and the O.T. can only be read through Christ. But there is a "sin no more" in matters sexual which applies to all, otherwise Jesus would not have said it. This is also the Good News. It should be a focal rallying point. It was because Jesus loved that He said it. And with only that love, we can say such things too.
There should be common ground regards unacceptable sexual behaviour which can be applied to all. This point you have not addressed. Acts 15 is still there.
The impasse on the gay issue is now perniciously poisonous.
I value the Sacrament with my gay friends. In the fraction of the bread, our treasured friendships have not been broken in spite of the harsh words occasions which have resulted in mutual pain and bitter anger for a while. "Let all mortal flesh...."
Thrupence, I am sorry I didn't deal with Acts 15 in my response last evening, but each post can only carry a certain amount of characters. I presume that you are not referring to circumcision in Acts 15, but to verse 20 of that chapter. If you look at the footnote in your Bible, presuming your Bible has footnotes, you will see that the word sexual immorality (or whatever other translation is given for porneia) does not appear in many of the ancient texts. These include the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus, the Ephraemi Rescriptus, and numerous others besides. Just in case you are not aware of it, these are the very ancient texts of our Scriptures. What is evident therefore is that the word porneia has been inserted into the text at a later date. As a result, this teaching is not apostolic.
DeleteThe problem with taking a verse of scripture and using it as a cover-all, is that we end up on very dodgy ground. When Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more", it was an act of grace from a loving Saviour. Being sinless, he had the right to condemn her, but he let her off the hook.
But that is the amazing thing. Just like the woman caught in adultery, we stand condemned by our own sins, yet he took our sin, and bore our punishment.
He let us off the hook.
If Jesus could take my wretchedness, and pay the price for it; who am I to point the finger at two guys who want to sleep together? Who am I to point the finger at an adulterer or a murderer, a liar or thief? Sin is sin. I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; therefore I have no right to point the finger. That is the very thing Jesus is getting at in John 8.
Tiglath Pileser
Tiglath. It is good to talk.
ReplyDeleteMy Bible (BCN) does not confine porneia in Acts 15 to a footnote off the main text. It is there because of the Western text which you do not mention. Codex Sinaiticus is dated late fourth or early fifth, Codex Vaticanus is of the fourth century. Are you saying that porneia came after these dates into the text. The main traditions of the mss records porneia. Interestingly Origen leaves it out. Sorry I cannot buy the idea that it was inserted at a later date. Tell us why you cannot take the Western text on this one.
We are condemned by our own sin-true. But to say that such and such is a 'sin' is not to point a finger. The point I am making is that the gay lobby give the impression that gay sex is sinless. There has to be a Christian gay sex ethic. Perhaps we could approach this together from the idea of self worship and the breaching of holiness.
Thrupence, thanks for your reply and your interest in the Scriptures. If I can play Miss Marple for a moment, I think there are two scenarios with regard to Acts 15. Either the word porneia was in the original text, and the Codices mentioned above removed it (which would be bizarre, to say the least), or the word was not in the original text, (hence its absence from those Codices), and at some later stage a scribe inserted it. As the text was written over and over again throughout the centuries, it then became firmly planted in the text. This would explain for me why the word is not in the earlier manuscripts but is evident in the later ones.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your second paragraph, the Church does have an ethical view on homosexuality - it is intrinsically disordered. That is the Church's moral stance. Yet there are many other things that intrinsically disordered, but we do not concentrate on those. We are back to where my posts began - Christians are obsessed with the sins of the bedroom, whilst ignoring the sins of the boardroom.
Yet you are right - it is good to talk - and at least our conversation is courteous. So thank you for that.
Tiglath Pileser
Yes, the 'sins of the bedroom' in this respect, Me Laud, can be as sinful as the conspiracy 'of the boardroom', or those of 'the club house', following a round.
DeleteWish you were here.
Abercynon.