 |
| Dr Mackereth says he lost his job doing assessments for the DWP because he believed using transgendered pronouns were against his conscience (Picture: Christian Concern/BPM Media) |
It has been widely reported that a Christian doctor was ‘sacked’ for refusing ‘to call any 6ft bearded man madam’:
"Dr David Mackereth, 56, claims the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) discriminated against his religious beliefs because he would not use pronouns relating to people’s ‘chosen’ sex.
"The disability claim assessor has taken his case to an employment tribunal after allegedly being suspended from his post following a conversation with a manager at Birmingham’s Fiveways assessment centre in June 2018.
"‘In truth, the argument between us arose not because of any realistic concerns over the rights and sensitivities of transgender individuals, but because of my refusal to make an abstract ideological pledge to call any six-feet tall bearded man “madam” on his whim,’ Dr Mackereth said in a statement."
The 'gender identity' crisis continues.
An explanatory note appears below examples of gender pronouns on the "Transforming Education" site Trans Students Educational Resources:
There are no “male/female” or “man/woman” pronouns. All pronouns can be used for any gender and are gender neutral.
We also do not use “preferred pronouns” due to people generally not having a pronoun “preference” but simply having “pronouns.” Using “preferred” can accidentally insinuate that using the correct pronouns for someone is optional.
[image description: a chart of some gender pronouns by Trans Student Educational Resources. The columns are the “subjective, objective, possessive, and reflexive” part of each pronoun set and an example.
The first pronoun set is she, her, hers, and herself. The examples are “she is speaking. I listened to her. The backpack is hers.”
The second set is he, him, his, himself. The examples are “he is speaking. I listening to him. The backpack is his.”
The third set is (singular) they, them, theirs, themself. The examples are “they are speaking. I listened to them. The backpack is theirs.”
The fourth set is ze, hir or zir, hirs or zirs, hirself or zirself. If used it would be ze/hir/hirs/hirself or ze/zir/zirs/zirself. The graphic happened to combine them into one row. The examples included “ze is speaking. I listened to hir. The backpack is zirs.”
A note at the top reads “Please note these are not the only pronouns. There are an infinite number of pronouns as new ones emerge in our language. Always ask someone for their pronouns.
Got that?
If not you are likely to be labelled phobic for not lapping up the latest trend even if the evidence before your eyes contradicts what you are instructed to believe.
The situation has become so confusing that school pupils in Brighton were given pronoun stickers to "help" transgender children.
Concern is now being expressed over the "rocketing number" of children seeking to change sex. It has become a national scandal according to a powerful coalition of whistleblowers, academics and medical experts'.
 |
| Source: Daily Mail |
"Heather Brunskell-Evans, a former research fellow at King's College London, who co-edited the book, said that 30 years ago the thought of a child being born in the wrong body would have made no sense to the public.
"She added: 'Now the idea, which was invented by specialists in gender medicine and transgender activists, has become universally accepted.
"'But we are collectively arguing that this unquestioning acceptance poses a serious threat to children's well-being and safety. We hope through this book to bring the world's attention to the public scandal of transgendering children.'"
Next up, 'normalising paedophilia right in front of our eyes':
"Follow the trajectory and it is not hard to see where we go next. Ten years ago, there was no such thing as "drag kids" or drag queen story hours. Leftists would have called you a paranoid lunatic had you predicted that such things would come to pass. Now both are utterly commonplace, yet leftists will insist that even though grown men in dresses like to hang out with little children at libraries, and adults like to go to gay bars to watch boys dance around in skirts and high heels, there is nothing sexual about any of it. Ten years from now, or maybe sooner, they will admit that it is sexual but insist that there is nothing wrong with a young boy and a grown man getting together, so long as it is consensual. You do not need to be Nostradamus to see this next step. It is right in front of us, clear as day." [H/T Anglican Mainstream]
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
— Nelson Mandela, Former President of South Africa
Postscript [17.07.2019]
Mail Online: Branded a 'bigot' for standing up for his Christian beliefs, Dr Mackereth who refused to call a 6ft bearded man 'madam' take it as a 'badge of honour'.
Postscript [21.07.2019]
Bishop Gavin Ashenden: "Have a look at what is actually taught in LGBT lessons in UK primary schools. Take the time to watch this so that you know what is really happening. It’s not what they said. It’s not what you thought."
Really surprised by this blog entry if I am honest. Many of those who post on this site have no problem calling the Archbishop "Shirely" and refer to +John as she. So what's all the fuss about? I just thought this was one area that AB and his/her crew were quite relaxed about.
ReplyDeletePilgrim: once again you have lamentably failed to make an iota of progress morally or spiritually. You are a corrupting menace!
ReplyDeleteRob
I like your description of me as a 'corrupting menace' if by that you mean I am a menace to the diabolical (lit: 'of the devil') sentiments of this blog. So thank you for the compliment.
Delete[I note Ruth in another recement (nasty and infantile) post uses female gender terms to refer to +John - I would have thought she would be the first to disagree with gender fluidity of that kind. Shame on her]
If you can't recognise a scathing criticism, does that indicate that you are dim as well as a corrupting menace?
DeleteRob
Talking of the Archbishop, has anyone seen the latest? If not: https://swanseaandbrecon.churchinwales.org.uk/news/2019/07/archbishop-honoured-to-be-awarded-honorary-doctorate/
DeleteThe Pro Vice Chancellor said, “Today, more than ever, this country is in desperate need of strong leadership. Good, resilient, trustworthy individuals who are willing to stand up for social justice, to challenge wrong, unfairness and inequality, and who have a strong commitment to try and make the world a better place for all of us, where people with deeply-held differences can live together in a spirit of love and respect. Throughout his ministry, Archbishop John has shown agile and strong leadership with a genuine sense of purpose. It has not been business as usual under his guidance and leadership.”
Is he talking about the same person members of the Church in Wales have come to know? A person who has turfed out Jesus and his Gospel in favour of societal norms? A person whose concept of justice is to promote the episcopal agenda of traditionalists, and those who disagree can go and whistle? A person who is so agile, his yes means no, and his no means yes.
Jesus said, "By their fruit you will know them", and clearly, the Pro Vice Chancellor has not got near enough to the tree to test the fruit.
Seymour
Try 'moron' on for size.
Delete"Recement"?
DeleteEnough said, Cretin.
Oh dear, Ruth, how unfortunate of you to use a term that owes its origin to eugenics. It's not a term that intelligent people use these days (much the same as Nig***).
DeleteAs for "Recement" Simple Simon, please forgive the simple typo (recent). Meanwhile I forgive you the unkindness of referring to a fellow Christian so unkindly.
Much love to you both.
Moron is Welsh for carrot so stick your eugenics where, no doubt, you will like it!
DeleteNot sure about shoving my eugenics where I might like it, but now you mention the carrot, i'd be well up for that.
DeleteI suspect that once paedophilia has been normalized in society, the next step will be to promote incest. After all, since the Government has brought in marriage of same-sex couples; why shouldn't brothers and sisters who are "in love" be allowed to marry? And no doubt, the idiotic Bench of Bishops will get the idiotic Doctrinal Commission to write a paper on it to justify it; followed by the Liturgical Commission producing an order of service.
ReplyDeleteWhen are people going to stand up and say: "This is not acceptable."
Seymour
I note that a fair chunk of this post is a direct quote from "The Mail on Sunday". Just sayin' ...
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, this cautionary letter, signed by a long list of academics (including Brunskell-Evans) appeared in "The Guardian" a few months ago: https://tinyurl.com/y7ebyrm9.
Should a middle-aged gay man be allowed to tell my 7-year-old son that anal sex is perfectly normal and acceptable?
ReplyDeleteThat's not education - it's grooming
This is child abuse under the banner of LGBT.
DeleteLW
What evidence have you that this is happening? According to the UK Government, primary school pupils need to be taught "relationship education" including families; friendships; respectful relationships; online relationships and being safe. The guidelines for secondary education do cover intimate and sexual relationships.
DeleteWhat possible benefit can it be to a 7 year old to learn about 'two daddies' or 'two mummies'. It is conditioning the child to accept LGBT and all its connotations prior to later schooling in the actual practices at secondary school.
DeleteThe claim is that it furthers acceptance - the opposite will be the result.
LW
You guys see your patriarchal, heteronormative powerbase evaporating before your very eyes. It must feel uncomfortable and accounts for how angry you come across in your posts.
DeleteBut at least patriarchal and heteronormative is in keeping with the Christian Gospel. I don't feel that I need to invade another religion, and then divest it of everything that makes it what it says on the tin. Yet the LGBT+ community thinks that it is OK to do that with Christianity. What has been the Christian Gospel for 2000 years has been watered down to mean nothing, aided and abetted by the cretins who now wear mitres and call themselves bishops.
DeleteWhat the LGBT+ community is looking for is nothing more and nothing less than humanism. And you can take the Bench with you when you go - they will fit in really well.
Seymour
LGBT+. Heteronormative? You give the game away in hoping LGBT will itself become 'normative'. Good luck with that one. Your best bet is just to keep quiet about what you do.
DeleteLW
What psychiatric facility does Pilgrimpogress live in? Change your medication and you may progress a little.
ReplyDeleteMed Aid.
I am keeping good company in this facility: "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3.21) Many of you would have said the same for sure about Jesus - he was pro women and pro the redistribution of power - you'd have hated him.
ReplyDeleteMoron, Cretin and Madman - loving you nevertheless.
I do not recall that the Lord had anything to do with wie!ding power, let alone redistibuting it. This is your hour and the power of darkness. Quite!
DeleteRob
I am sorry but where was this redistribution of power that you talk about? Following the death of Jesus, the Romans were in power for another 400 years. Sadduceeism carried on for another 40+ years. Phariseeism is still with us today. Redistribution of power is absolute nonsense.
DeleteThe Lord's Prayer states that "the Kingdom, the power and the glory are yours", but it is surprising how many say it and then usurp the power for themselves and for their own pet causes. Jesus came proclaiming a very simple message: "The Kingdom of God has come near you. Repent and believe the Gospel." Repentance means having a complete change of heart and mind. It requires us to realize that doing things the human way will get us nowhere. Repentance requires us to do things God's way.
The message of repentance and believing the Gospel has long since left the Church in Wales. Instead, the faithful have been fed the line that everything is acceptable - sin as much as you want that grace might abound. Woe to the false shepherds who have led the people astray!
As for La Sophia below, traditional Anglicanism is based on three pillars - Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Nowhere in Scripture are you ever going to find justification for LGBT+ issues. 2000 years of Christian tradition speaks against it. Therefore, reason itself, would have to say "It is not possible" in a Christian context. That is traditional Anglicanism.
You can forget the Doctrinal Commission's smoke and mirrors report on the subject. In order to produce a report that fits in with their masters' brief, they had to turn to pagan, Jewish and Animistic traditions, none of which commend themselves to Christianity. There are even hints of Arianism in that report, for which the authors should have been censured by the Bench. But it is amazing what you can get away with in the Church in Wales when you play ball with the Bishops.
The truth you speak of is nothing more than a huge lie to add to the many others told to justify the LGBT+ position.
Seymour
Thank you for this but I note that, in your hurried attempt at armchair theology, you miss the importance of ‘experience’ from what’s called the Lambeth Quadrilateral i.e. alongside scripture, reason and tradition. Four legs on a stool are better than three(!) and your omission is a flawed one. Sexual ethics are, by nature, the complex result of theological reasoning on our human experience in the light of tradition and scripture. All four are essential and need to be held in theological symbiosis with one another.
DeleteTo eclipse experience in your theology is to fail to consider what the different sexualities (and to some extent, genders) have to say about our understanding of God, love, and intimacy. Indeed, having reflected on my own experience of same-sex attraction, I have begun to wrestle with two main elements of theological inquiry. First, a growing suspicion – precisely from a position of being a minority - concerning the sacralised tradition that assumes heterosexuality to be a universal sexual identity. Second, the painful reality (again from my own experience) that society’s hegemonic constructions of sexual identity have treated LGBT+ peoples shamefully and imposed upon them oppressive structures of power relationships in the church’s theologising about them.
My experience means I must therefore challenge your attempt to use my sexuality as an excuse to make me the outsider. I believe that Christ is with me when it comes to standing up to oppressive structures that seek to do precisely that; structures that forced a 14 year old Anglican Lizzie Lowe to take her own life in 2014 after telling friends that God could not possibly love her because the Church taught that being a lesbian was so very wrong. What grief Lizzie’s death must have brought to God and what grief God must feel when he reads the posts on this blog – posts that speak of people as cretins, morons and madmen and treat them as less worthy of acceptance on account of their sexual orientation.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the abominable sentiments that Ruth, Seymour and AB peddle on this site grieve the heart of God deeply and are unacceptable in his sight. By God’s good grace, may they be forgiven.
Pilgrimprogress, I have done more academic theology than you could ever dream about, and written widely on the subject. The Lambeth Quadrilateral was intended as a means to ecumenism, not as a schedule for sexual deviance. The Roman Catholic Church soon scuppered that attempt with the publication of Apostolica Curae. The "experience" was nothing to do with sexual ethics at all! So once again, I will bring you back to the three pillars of Anglicanism - Scripture, tradition and reason.
DeleteYour statement "the sacralised tradition that assumes heterosexuality to be a universal sexual identity" astounds me. You don't have to read far into your Bible to find that God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Niamh. His command to them was "Go, procreate, fill the earth and subdue it." Don't you think that there might be a bit of a clue in that as to why Christians believe that heterosexuality is the norm?
Secondly, I take issue with you bringing the case of Lizzie Lowe into your argument. We are all responsible for our actions; yet true to form, as a member of the LGBT+ community, you try to use it to pile guilt on people. It is a good way of shutting people down because you don't wish to hear anything other than your own "truth". I don't feel guilty for speaking up for Christ or defending his Gospel. I am not ashamed to own my Lord or to defend his cause, as one hymnist puts it.
Finally, who made you the arbiter over what is acceptable or unacceptable in the sight of God? You have rejected Scripture. You have rejected Tradition. You are left with you own warped reasoning - a reasoning that rejects what you don't want to hear whilst tuning in to those who tell you what you do want to hear. St Paul was so prophetic when he wrote to Timothy: "The days are coming when people will be lovers of self...swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of religion, yet denying the power of it...As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these will also oppose the truth. They have corrupted minds and a counterfeit faith; they won't get far in life, for their folly is plain to all, as was that of those two men."
Seymour
Thank you for this. You're quite wrong about the Quadrilateral and I question why you would want to expunge 'experience' when it comes to (Anglican) theological reflection. Experience has equal weighting to tradition, reason and scripture. And to say 'experience' has nothing to do with sexual ethics makes me wonder where on earth you completed your theological training (far from dreaming I could match it, the theology you've engaged in is the stuff of nightmares). As for taking issue with me mentioning Lizzie Lowe - I am not surprised - the kind of theology you support has her blood on its hands.
DeleteOh, and by the way, I've three degrees in theology of my own, since you mention. Not surprisingly, I have been most influenced by liberation theology (as has the present Pope). Might I suggest you branch into that a little or is God's bias to the oppressed something you have redacted from your scriptural readings (if so, there's not much left in your Bible).
God is his own arbiter of what is acceptable in his sight. All I know is that God lifts up the lowly and casts down the mighty from their thrones. Prepare to be unseated.
I am no great theologian, just a working minister. And I am not a member of the LGBT+ community but believe strongly that everyone's voice (if it does not lead to division or violence) should be heard. So I thank Pilgrimprogress for their comments.
DeletePilgrimprogress, I don't think the current pope has been affected by liberation theology, at all. It is another bit of fake thinking on your part. The papacy has roundly condemned liberation theology and liberation theologians over the years. There is even footage of Pope John Paul II rollicking a priest in front his peers and the press for espousing views of that nature. It was the same pope who elevated Jorge Bergoglio to the cardinalate; and he went on to become Pope Francis. Do you honestly think that JP2 would have elevated a liberation theologian when roundly condemning liberation theology? It is one thing to have a care for the poor; it is an entirely different thing to be wed to the doctrines of liberation theology.
DeleteYour final paragraph shows how deluded you are. You begin by saying that God is the judge of what is acceptable, and you end by judging me. It is the typical "to hell with God" attitude because my choices and my truth are more important. This is what you have displayed in previous posts. It is obvious that you see yourself as "lowly", and me as the "mighty" who needs to be unseated. Yet you are so full of your own self-importance and pride that you cannot see that you are the one who is to be unseated. And you call yourself a theologian - don't make me laugh!
Finally, the Christian Gospel is clear and we do not have to redact it. One day, we are all going to stand in judgement. If you are content to stand there and tell God that you did not need repentance; that Jesus' message was a load of codswallop; and that you have a few issues with his ordering of the world - the best of luck to you.
Seymour
What degrees in theology do you hold? I note that Christian Scriptures suggest that the Twelve were not from any Rabbinic School, but were pneumatalogically inspired at Pentecost with all the knowledge they required.
Delete“Not surprisingly, I have been most influenced by liberation theology (as has the present Pope).”
You need to be careful here, as this would imply that you are a self-confessed Marxist who places orthopraxis above orthodoxy; unfortunately, this assertion is an inescapable consequence of Gutiérrez’s expounded central tenets. No doubt, you place an emphasis on the liberation of the Israelites (you would have to as self-confessed liberation theologian). However, given your manifest depth of liberation theology, perhaps you could explain the meaning of Exodus 4:24 in light of your experience and reasoning. On the one hand Moses is instructed to return to Egypt empowered by God and yet we read: “On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him [i.e. Moses] and tried to kill him.” Is this this the God of Liberation Theology to which you refer? Is this how orthopraxis should function? So much for “God’s bias to the oppressed.”
Perhaps we should consider the New Testament. By way of example, let us consider Matthew 10:34-36.
Jesus said: ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.’
Christ comes as the oppressor – not the liberator – the one who divides but does not unite; so much for the violent imagery and divisive tenets underpinning liberation theology.
“Might I suggest you branch into that a little or is God's bias to the oppressed something you have redacted from your scriptural readings (if so, there's not much left in your Bible).”
Given the scriptural evidence above, your liberation stance appears to have been hampered by personal redaction. Whilst Christians assert that all scriptures are God-breathed, they are however, most certainly covered with the fingerprints of human redaction. Given the high number of pseudonymous writings together with the oppression of many of the early 2nd and 3rd century Gospels, your Scriptures seem to lack theological integrity. Perhaps, you should give up on your faith informed by questionable scriptures and appeal to the secular grounds of human experience reasoning – after all Christianity cannot allow this to override the authority of Scripture and Tradition (the Hooker Triad is ultimately hierarchical). You appear to be caught between a secular rock and a scriptural hard place.
Finally, I think you need to differentiate more clearly between Hooker’s “Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie” (Scripture, Tradition and Reason) and the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which is premised as follows:
• The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.
• The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.
• The two Sacraments – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.
• The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.
You appear to have conflated the two in your earlier arguments:
“Thank you for this but I note that, in your hurried attempt at armchair theology, you miss the importance of ‘experience’ from what’s called the Lambeth Quadrilateral i.e. alongside scripture, reason and tradition. Four legs on a stool are better than three(!) and your omission is a flawed one.”
Good luck on your spiritual journey, and as Dave Allen used to say: "May your God go with you".
J R Hartley
Pilgrimprogress. How do you manage to have 3 theology degrees? And what does this make you do you think?
DeleteLW
Rob...your level of bible literacy is appalling...Jesus caused huge power shifts...pilgrims progress...admire your stand against the bigotry and lies frequently espoused in the name of traditional anglicanism...when nothing could be further from the truth...as you have found from the responses you have recieved...wipe the dust of brother...La Sophia.
ReplyDeleteSophia,
DeleteMere unsupported assertions! Provide a single instance where the Lord seized political power.
Rob
Sophia, before you accuse others of illiteracy, examine your spelling of 'received'.
DeleteGrammarian
Rob...in case you had not noticed, this whole blog is full of unsupported and ill informed hearsay...not least of all your angry contributions...go get a life...you to grammarian if all you can do is pick holes in spelling errors...beyond help, the pair of you.
ReplyDelete'you "to"'? If your theology is as careless..
DeletePetty? Of course, but you did ask for it!
Grammarian
Anon:
DeleteI am not angry in the least, not even with you, although greatly saddened.
Rob
Last from La Sophia
ReplyDeleteI once heard Archbishop Glyn Simon (no mean theologian) say that for Anglicans the ultimate moral and spiritual criterion is conscience. Almost certainly Newman would assent to that also. I should genuinely be interested in Seymour's response to this, and the relation of Conscience to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. A serious enquiry, not a trap.
ReplyDeleteRob
It may be of interest to all readers of this blog to read another blog on this topic, Archbishop Cranmer.The latest article (Jul 18th) deals with the same topic & includes in the comments one from Dr Mackereth himself on the article & the whole saga.
ReplyDelete