‘Rebel Priest’ Rev Jules Gomes: Synod puts sex before the horrors of Christian persecution

General Synod is the Church of England’s highest decision-making body. It holds congress twice a year—in Westminster and in York. It is copulating (in the original Latin sense) this weekend in York. Over 400 bishops, clergy and laity will attend its sessions. Members may propose motions, ask questions, discuss positions and raise issues for debate. It is their chance to table the most serious issues facing Christianity and therefore society today.

What are they? The list surely is long from a catastrophically declining church membership and the concomitant collapse of Christian marriage (the very building block of Christian culture) to the sanctity of life (threatened by the normalisation of abortion) to pressure for euthanasia. But of the greatest urgency, surely, is the genocide of Christians in the Islamic world and the persecution of Christians in countries like India, which is ruled by a fascistic Hindu government.

Two months ago, in Civilisation sleeps while a Christian Holocaust takes shape, a response to A Manifesto for Persecuted Christians launched by Barnabas Fund, I set out how Christians today are the world’s most persecuted religious group. The statistics are truly shocking: A Christian is killed every six minutes and 500,000 Christians around the globe are unable to practice their faith freely. No, these are not alarmist statistics provided by advocacy groups. These are understated figures supplied by The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) an independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements. That is the considered assessment of the liberal Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University.

In the book of Revelation the great enemy of the church is personified as the Whore of Babylon. This is the whore who seeks to destroy the church. She is portrayed as ‘drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs’ (Revelation 17:6). Does this knowledge make the slightest difference to General Synod? Do Archbishops Welby and Sentamu, the over 80 bishops and bishopettes, the archdeacons and deans, priests and priestesses, and the laity at the heart of the 80 million strong Anglican Communion attending this bi-annual shindig, even raise an eyebrow over the genocide of their fellow-Christians?

The nitpicking left-wing hierarchy of the British church even seems to have difficulty when it comes to using the word ‘genocide’ to describe the persecution of Christians. Last year, neither the Church of England nor the Catholic Church in the UK were willing to openly advocate for the use of the word. Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham, said it was ‘complicated as many Muslims had been killed too.’ Welby was willing to concede the reality of Christians facing ‘elimination’ at the hands of ISIS but refused to use the word ‘genocide.’

Yet when it come to defending Muslims in a BBC Radio 4 response to the London Bridge terror attack, Welby was quick to highlight the massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica as evidence for the Christian equivalent of Islamic terrorism. Although the Genocide Convention came into force in 1948, this was the first-ever conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for genocide. The massacre was designated as ‘genocide’. It was a  contested and controversial decision even though the numbers killed amounted to between 7,000 to 8,000 military-aged Bosnian Muslim men. By comparison to this, the ‘shy’ Archbishop might note, some 90,000 Christians were murdered for their faith in 2016.

The British House of Commons does not share his reticence. They voted unanimously (278-0) in favour of declaring the attacks against Christians as genocide. Similarly the US House of Representatives made a unanimous declaration in March, and likewise the European Parliament did so in February 2016. The Church of Ireland also unanimously adopted a motion  at its General Synod in Dublin expressing solidarity with persecuted Christians across the world.

What has the Church of England done? Nothing.

While their Christian brethren— bishops, priests, nuns, evangelists and congregation members - are raped, stoned, crucified or machine-gunned to death, while their churches are bombed or burned down, while modern day Neros are throwing Christians to the lions, what the members of General Synod are suffering from is a preoccupation with sex.

As the veteran conservative blogger Adrian Hilton observed earlier this week regarding this week’s Synod:  ‘Of the 85 listed Synod questions, not one – not one – is concerned with the plight of the persecuted church worldwide. There are questions about sex, sexuality, sex, LGBT, sex, LGTBQIA (what?), sex, LGBTI, sex, same-sex marriage, sex, “gay cure” conversion therapy, sex, sex, and sex. Oh, there’s a question on ‘Monitoring air quality’, too. That’s diversity of obsession. Welcome to the General Sex Synod of the Church of England.’

‘Sex’ is to General Synod what the ‘bell’ was to the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov’s salivating dogs. The Church of England has sex on the brain. Four African nations face one of the worst famine crises since World War II yet all the Church of England can obsess about is what lies below, not above, the belt.

So why this fixation on sex? And at a time that Justin Welby is facing serious questions regarding two of the most significant sexual abuse scandals in recent archiepiscopal memory? Could this be another diversionary virtue-signalling media tactic as was scapegoating the former conservative ABC George Carey, while letting the former liberal ABC Rowan Williams get away with a rap on the knuckles?

Last week, another skeleton came tumbling out of the C of E closet when ‘Michael,’ a victim of sexual abuse shed his anonymity and revealed his identity as Fr Matthew Ineson. Fr Ineson says he was molested, raped, and tortured by an Anglican priest, that he complained to a whole platoon of bishops, including Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft, Bishop of Leicester Martyn Snow and Archbishop of York John Sentamu, and finally that. he wrote to Archbishop Justin Welby 12 times in 2016, all ignored,’ he states. Fr Ineson will make his protest in full view of General Synod this weekend. The media will be agog - but not perhaps if Welby feeds them a diversionary sex agenda.

There is perhaps another more disturbing reason. The Church of England in recent years has begun to worship at another altar - the Unholy Trinity of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. ‘It’s all about power,’ said Friedrich Nietzsche. ‘It’s all about sex,’ said Sigmund Freud. ‘It’s all about class warfare,’ said Karl Marx. General Synod is all about power politics.

Discussing pansexuality in a manner that would frazzle even Freud, the mania with sex keeps General Synod stimulated. The Marxian thesis of class warfare has morphed into a cultural Marxism of identity politics where the division is not so much between bourgeois and proletariat but between pansexualists and those who prefer the traditional position on sex.

Instead of having Bibles in the pew, it is likely members of General Synod will be given an illustrated copy of the Kama Sutra! Watching the antics of the General Synod Sex Circus, the Hungarian-born British journalist George Mikes, would have to rewrite the chapter on sex in his very funny book How to be an Alien. ‘European men and women have sex-lives; English men and women have hot-water bottles,’ he wrote in 1946. Not any more! And certainly not if you are on General Synod! You are more likely to get a sex therapy session.

Rev Jules Gomes

  • James Chilton

    I don’t think the agenda for the General Synod in York this weekend contains any surprises. What questions would you expect to be raised in a gathering of social engineers?

    • Colkitto03

      I expect them (behind the scenes) to do a rendition of ‘anything goes’ by Cole porter

  • Tricia

    The church of Jesus Christ morphs into the Church of England. They all seem to have forgotten or never known who the head of the church is. There are many true believers on the ground in the parishes – they will soon be withdrawing the money which gives this hot air tank its oxygen.

  • Coniston

    The General Synod of the CofE is only following the descent of the nation into total licentiousness. If you can get hold of it, read Hugo Rifkind’s review of ‘Love Island’ (ITV 2) in The Times’ Saturday Review, 8 Sept. Liberal on most things, he states that Mary Whitehouse was right, and so was Aldous Huxley.

    • James Chilton

      I read Rifkind’s review in yesterday’s Times. It’s written in a knowing style that would not be any different if he was praising what he’s supposed to be condemning.

      As for ‘Love Island’ – which I haven’t seen – it appears to have gone where a ‘reality show’ that has scraped through the bottom of the barrel would end up.

  • Snoffle Gronch

    Brilliant article.

    The strangest thing of all is that have all previous generations of Christians have revered the memory of their martyrs. These mitred boobies only want to slobber and fawn over their persecutors.

    “Contemptible” hardly begins to describe the mock-leadership of the Anglican Church. I am beginning to ask if Orthodox Christians are so obsessed with cheap fashion?

    • Merchantman

      That is precisely the view one gets, that the Synodd has subtley changed sides. From the look of it Nero and Caligula would now applaud not persecute it.

  • I had problems with deciding whether today’s posting by Archbishop Cramer in his blog entitled “Church of England votes to ban Religious Conversion” was real or a spoof! It is just the policy I would expect these days when the CofE must be all things to all people and never, ever, upset anyone.
    http://archbishopcranmer.com/church-england-votes-ban-religious-conversion/

    But perhaps it isn’t a spoof!

    • Notforinfants

      EP I too was unsure of Cranmer’s post today, and therefore turned to the clearer comment above by Jules Gomez. However both are clearly travelling in the same direction in their contempt for the hypocrisy of the current leadership of the C of E.
      I am not a member of the church but take seriously JG’s comment that Synod is the highest decision making body in the church, and therefore one can take it that the sex obsessed agenda does sadly reflect the thinking and priority of the leadership (or non leadership) over that of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
      Unintentionally, but in reality what we have here is a strange ‘replacement theology’ or perhaps a new form of Gnosticism which places the self and the self life well above biblical orthodoxy.
      By its own confession then the C of E has by its own admission formally re-defined its status and it has morphed into something else, a sub-Christian sect. By implication it is questioning, or arguably has formally abandoned its historic creeds and confessions in belief of the Christian Scriptures in general, and not least belief in the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in true conversions. By implication too it appears to directly contradict the teaching of its Head in John 3 about the crucial need for a new birth through the Spirit.
      Although the declension in the Church’s stance had been evident for many years, yet this weeks Synod must IMO mark a watershed that biblical believers must now ponder, and then seriously consider whether there is still a place in the church for them.

      • What particularly annoys me is that in the past, those who didn’t agree with the Church’s teachings had the courage of their convictions and went off and formed an independent church, hence the existence of the non-conformist churches and other smaller sects.
        These days most wouldn’t have the courage to do this, or don’t wish to lose their status and pay, so they try to change the church to their beliefs forcing those of us who don’t agree to seek refuge elsewhere.

        • Notforinfants

          Agree, and not like the wholesale departure of about 2000 C of E dissenters after the Act of Uniformity in 1662, and also a long and honourable history of other dissenters before and since whose faithfulness to the Gospel cost them very dearly, (and for which they will be honoured by Christ) and they most certainly lost their status and pay (such as it was then).
          It is my belief that yet again a church split will be inevitable between those who are modernist/liberal and those who stand openly for the older doctrines of the C of E and the authority of the Bible

          • I think it’s not a matter of “if” a split will take place, but “when”.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          From the early Church’s schism with Judaism to the Reformation to the formation of ACNA in the USA, God has blessed such divisions when they have occurred in protest of corruption, heresies, and promotion of blatant sin.
          http://www.virtueonline.org/schism-and-sword-spirit-bruce-atkinson

      • Phil R

        Very good satire

        Canon Dr Olam Haba (New Jerusalem)……!!

        and

        “Should we listen to the voices of those we and others have unwittingly harmed by coercing them into being ‘born again’; to be subject to inner transformation and renewal of the mind in the pursuit of eternal salvation?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Almost certainly spoof in my opinion. I think he’s parodying the Synods recent call for a ban on conversion therapy for homosexuals. However, it may also be a premonition ; it seems that if anyone knows how to do the work of satan it’s the CofE.

  • The_Mocking_Turtle

    More religious fretting about sex again. If Freud were still alive he would have a field day.

    • Phil R

      Sex has always mattered to Christians and immorality has always brought with it negative repercussions for the individual and society.

      Immorality doesn’t work.

      The CofE however, seem to have decided it is a virtue.

      • The_Mocking_Turtle

        One man’s immorality is another man’s virility.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          No one has yet died of avoidance of sex (unless killed by a spouse) but millions, perhaps billions have died of promiscuous sex. Christians promote life and health and self-control.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            We are creatures made of clay, Bruce, and everything we do has risk associated with it.

            People have died of sexually transmitted disease and women in childbirth but so have countless people because of war, plague and famine (a nod to three of the four horsemen there) and in the modern world by smoking, drinking, drug taking, traffic accidents, falling down in their bathrooms and choking on fish bones. Everything you do carries a mortal risk to a greater or lesser extent. In the modern world, thanks to medicine and science, if you are sensible and take precautions the risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexual infection can be reduced to negligibility: education is the key not abstinence: it is neither normal nor healthy to deny the forth most important and powerful human need.

            (After air, water and food, respectively).

            I thought God advised human beings to “go forth and multiply” not keep their hand on their ha’penny. Rejecting physical intimacy with others is not beneficial to mind or body. Maintaining an active sex life gives a person balance. And if we are creatures of spirit anyway how can anything physical that we did while incarnate soil us after sloughing off the body?

            (The last sentence above is of course purely rhetorical since heaven, hell, and the life beyond life are mythological inventions themselves.)

          • Bruce Atkinson

            As we Christians understand it, sex is a good and even holy thing within the bounds of male-female marriage. And among those of the appropriate age, this can yield the wonderful gift of children. Although Jesus said some things to indicate that God has muted the “go and multiply” command (like woe unto women who are pregnant in the latter days), it is still the primary purpose of sex (as I learned early on the ranch where we bred horses, cattle, and sheep). Nothing is wrong with appreciating the pleasure involved, but such fleshly pleasure is not to be elevated very high, certainly never above the virtues of faithfulness, love, wisdom, and self-control. Note that neither Jesus’ nor Paul’s definitions of love ever involved sex (the Good Samaritan, dying for one’s friends, 1 Cor 13).

            We live in an extremely libertine culture in this age in the west. Sex not only sells, it is practically worshiped in the media. Sexolatry I call it.

          • JabbaPapa

            How do you know that “God chose not to intervene” ?

            Do you think that His interventions resemble Monty Python cartoon satires, with giant hands suddenly appearing out of the clouds ?

          • Reborn

            You don’t have to be religious to condemn promiscuity, real promiscuity,
            as damaging to emotional & physical health.
            Pre marital sex is desirable & normal.
            Extra marital sex & promiscuity is harmful in most cases, particularly to the children of such persons.

      • Reborn

        You seem to think immorality is synonymous with sexual pleasure.
        The international arms trade, cruelty to animals & the physically weak,
        theft, murder etc etc are much more immoral

        • Phil R

          Christians actually say you (secularists) don’t have the authority to judge any acts immorral , and we say it because it is true. What authority for example tells you that murder is wrong? I ask this question all the time, but I never get an
          answer. The best I get is some appeal to empathy – making the interest of the self the basis of moral conduct. Yes, that’s a good plan. Or perhaps I get some reference to an abstract entity like ‘society’ that negotiates these things as
          a collective for individuals. Which is another way of saying “Might makes right.” Another good plan. Or perhaps it is tautological. “That which succeeds is the best morality.” A dangerous proposition for you to make as the Secular west hurtles towards its own implosion. Can you give a better explanation?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Yes, all laws and rules ever made are the basis someone’s (or some group’s) sense of morality, of what is right and wrong. The question then becomes, which authority are you going to trust, who are you going to believe regarding right and wrong? Christians believe Jesus Christ, whose authority is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. The Bible is therefore our prime authority for all our issues of morality and spiritual things.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          No one would sin at all if there were not some kind of anticipated pleasure involved. People can argue until Jesus returns on which sins are more immoral, but we have more than strong hints in the scriptures. Lack of love, lack of faith, lack of faithfulness, disobedience to God’s clear commands are what’s immoral. As for sex–adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, etc. are all named clearly to be sin. The New Testament has confirmed the OT prohibitions on homosexuality: Romans 1:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10. There are no exceptions to be found in the scriptures to this divine revelation about homosexuality being sin.

          It is the not the pleasure that is immoral, it is the disobedience. All sin is destructive to self (and/or to others); God loves us and does not want us to destroy ourselves for the sake of temporary fleshly pleasure– so He says “Don’t do that!”

          The vital spiritual principle embedded in our
          sexuality has to do with being created “in the image of God.” Genesis 1:27 asserts: “So God
          created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Jesus Himself, in the context of divorce (and this truth obviously generalizes to homosexuality), said: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

          Observe that it is not a man or a woman individually, but man and woman together which
          make up the image of God. It is the divine design
          for humanity, reflecting God Himself, and homosexual behavior and its acceptance insults and defaces that image.

    • Sargv

      It’s not a conservative thing. It is a British thing, and it’s ubiquitous on both sides of political spectrum. For a foreigner, British media is sex-obsessed (probably because ingenious population sucks on doing it, especially so while sober).

      • James Chilton

        I think you mean “indigenous population”, but “ingenious” is an amusing malapropism.

        • Sargv

          Thank you for the correction. Britons are indeed ingenious (maybe not the current batch, but overall through the history) – just not in bedrooms. At least that’s what I’ve been told by Eastern European friends of mine.

          • James Chilton

            I understand the French and Italians are ingenious bedroom operators – and maybe the Russians too, for all I know.

          • Sargv

            I can’t talk from experience. You see, among my generation, early marriage was a norm. If you waited until 30, you got scraps. There are rare over-achievers who were too busy with careers to build their romantic life. But mostly it’s either pathologically shy, emotionally unstable, ugly or just trouble (usually with a divorce and kids). Scraps.

            So, half a dozen of Russian guys in their 30s talking over a third round of shots all too often are five men married to their (still very hot) wives since they hit early 20s – their first or second LTR – listening eagerly to a bachelor describing his experience with locals. Both parties are in envy to each other.

          • ale bro

            there’s loads of divorced people around!

          • Sargv

            I do not follow.

    • JabbaPapa

      Yes, I’m sure he’d have a good belly laff in his psycho-analysis of you.

  • Don Benson

    If you sneaked a peek at the live feed of General Synod yesterday you would have seen the dying convulsions of a church which has ditched its Bible and put its faith in homosexuality. In doing so they created an oppressed minority: those Christians who would have hoped for help with their unwanted same sex attraction. No matter how faithful they are, these folk are to be denied any help from a church which now declares them to be perfectly fine as they are and that any mention of pastoral assistance for change (even prayer) would amount to abuse.

    No church which behaves in this way can retain faithful Christians. Some will courageously fight to the last, perhaps a few good clergy will see out their days till retirement, others will be sickened and leave as soon as the apostasy filters down to their local church. The rest will submit to the diktats of the new rainbow elite. It will be very messy and very destructive. Those who value their homosexuality along with their religion will find their expectations dashed; in eternal life, just as in ordinary life, you can’t have it all. Sooner or later you find out that your love for God is measured to the extent that you are prepared to obey him.

    Yes, there are good and faithful people at the Synod but they were easily outnumbered; the leadership long since stopped listening and no longer offer any pretence of even-handedness and orthodox faith. What a sad
    day for the Church of England.

    • Tricia

      Yes a very sad day for those of us trying to preach the Gospel in our parishes. It shows that Canon Gavin Ashenden was right when he said it was time to leave the C of E. I hopefully await a large pull out to be overseen by the new Bishop of Europe and a fresh beginning.

      • James Chilton

        Maybe the best thing to do, in the circumstances, is abandon institutional religion and become an independent Christian.

        • Tricia

          There is no such thing as an independent Christian. We are one body because we all eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord (in the form of bread and wine). He lives in me and I live in him. This is why it is so terrible that we have not been speaking up for our persecuted brothers and sisters. Orthodox Christianity set up the creeds of belief some 200 years after Christ ascended, precisely because of those who would lead us astray. The Nicene Creed is so long because it covers all bases and we need to stick to the script.

          • James Chilton

            There are people who have been baptised, but never attend any church service let alone take any sacraments. If they call themselves Christians and try to live by the principles that were preached in the gospel, then why shouldn’t they be described as “independent” Christians ?

          • Tricia

            Because we are called to be “the body of Christ” here on Earth. Ecclesia means to gather and He promises that whenever 2 or 3 gather in His name He will be among them.
            If you are alone on a desert island you are exempt, other than that join a church that preaches the Gospel and use your talents to serve in whatever capacity. He said to Peter “On this rock (Peter) I will build my church”. The church is (should be) the living body of Christ.

      • JabbaPapa

        The Ordinariate is orthodox, and it remains anglo-catholic in character.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Well said and exactly correct. Thanks, brother.
      BTW, I have quoted you in my recent article on Virtue Online.
      http://www.virtueonline.org/bullied-canterbury-and-church-england

    • Dominic Stockford

      And those folk are denied it by the Church of England, even if they ask for it!

  • Phil R

    Leadership of the CofE is Reason Number 1 why the Church of England should be dis-established and allowed
    to collapse upon itself. Not only one Bishop opposed the motion that condemened help for LQBT members. How can a church leadership be so corrupt that it
    would tolerate these functional atheists as a shepherds? Set the axe to the root for the tree
    has long produced poison fruit.

    • Reborn

      While some Christians are obsessed with hatred for persons who love their own sex,
      decent Christians are more interested in people loving one another.
      Were I a Christian, I’d be concerned about the persecution of my co religionists
      worldwide by muslims.
      Christians negatively obsessed with sex are rather sad cases
      The equal and opposite of the shallow sex obsessed morons of Love Island and
      similar garbage.

      • Phil R

        “Christians are obsessed with hatred for persons who love their own sex,”

        Christians do not hate people who chose to take part in same gendered sex. They hate same sex activity and for good reason as it undermines marriage, by changing the rationale for marriage and sex.

        Same sex couples are essentially sterile and this undermines the root concept of marriage, which is to provide a stable and secure environment for raising children. It is not about selfish desires, it is about commitment and the ideas that marriage is “all about love” undermines this concept, because it indicates that one should move on when one finds another partner that they love more than the current one.

        Ultimately this has in the past and will in the future destory our civilisation because there are two essential tasks that any civilisation must perform to perpetuate itself. It must:

        1. Produce the next generation.

        2. Civilise the next generation.

        Our present libertine sexual attitudes attack both of those essential
        functions. We aren’t producing sufficient children. We aren’t properly forming
        the character of those we actually do produce. We are sacrificing the future in norder to indulge ourselves the present. The cumulative sum of private decisions is eating at our foundations like acid.

        There is a blithe assumption in the western world that development and
        prosperity once achieved cannot be undone. That is a foolish self-deception.
        Especially in a world with a growing glut of excess labour. That which we
        possess can dissolve in a generation. That which we take for granted as our
        patrimony can disappear like the morning mist. And it will unless we do
        something to change the cultural trajectory upon which we have placed ourselves.

        • Reborn

          You state the position that I generally hold.
          It is obviously a primitive urge to outbreed other tribes that is at the
          root of Judeo Christian hostility to homosexuality.
          Like most Darwinian urges, it is quite understandable, but way past its time.
          We have far too many people in the World, and I’d advocate compulsory birth control as the sine qua non of all foreign aid packages.
          Many noted homosexuals were obviously, bi sexual from Sappho to Oscar Wilde, exclusive homosexuality is relatively rare, though the politicised Gay Pride lot make out it is very common.
          In 50 years of adult life I’ve only known half a dozen gay men & rather more gay women. The latter have not been persecuted in the UK & are perfectly normal, often very caring & hard working.
          I agree strongly with your last paragraph, but not the penultimate one.
          We are producing far too many children as the crises in education & housing attest.
          The Welfare State has been abused by persons who are happy to
          produce children on a regular basis, via assorted partners & expect
          the taxpayer to pick up the bill.
          I believe that the Conservatives have now stopped subsidising
          this repellent practice, but it is not retrospective.
          Then we have the problem of mass Third World, often islamic immigration, and the insane policy of recognising polygamous
          marriages & paying polygamists for up to four “dependents”,
          who will probably produce about 20 children between them once in the UK.
          We have no shortage of people.
          Just a shortage of the right sort of people.

          • Phil R

            If the UK restricted immigration like Japan, it would still experience a need for additional workers in its economy.
            However, the demographic fear would not be present. Japan will eventually suffer for its lack of children. There is basic math at work here. Replace yourself or die. The “Star Trek” vision where every couple has one child and the population keeps growing is a myth.

            Secularism cannot change this demographicThe “Do It for Denmark” type of nonsense is not going to work.

            Secularization lead to a focus on “Me!” Children interfere with
            “Me!” They cost money, they take time, they impose obligations, they restrict freedom. The secular religion of “Me!” turned children from an obligation into an option. This is the fruit. People now think of women having children as an invasion. Why? Because said people want to maintain
            cultural dominance without doing the work required to maintain it. The religion of “Me!” tends to produce very entitled devotees.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Accurate analysis! The self-centered emphasis in western culture is killing it in many ways.

          • JabbaPapa

            We have far too many people in the World

            A eugenicist ideological statement that is undemonstrable.

            We have to many petrol and oil powered engines.

            We are producing far too many children as the crises in education & housing attest

            We are producing far too few children, as the existence of massive immigration from shortages in the native workforce and the housing crisis that it’s causing demonstrates.

            who will probably produce about 20 children between them once in the UK

            I’ve seen this completely unsubstantiated claim far too many times — no such thing occurred in France, except some small number of individual, rare cases, in the years before the recognition of polygamy was abolished. Very few muslim men have multiple wives, and for each one that does, there are multiple muslim men who are unmarried instead.

  • James Chilton

    As Christopher Lasch observed, the elites (including the bishops), look upon traditional religion with a disdain bordering on hostility. Political dogmatism being their primary concern, religion is merely something useful for weddings and funerals but otherwise dispensable.

    https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/almost-40-years-ago-christopher-lasch-diagnosed-rise-trump-anti-trump-narcissism/

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I feel there is nothing positive I can say about the General Synod. I had been contemplating attending an Anglican service for the first time in years but now my sense of disgust is so great I have changed my mind.

    • Tricia

      Don’t be don’t be put off, just choose one which preaches the Gospel. The Anglican Church is a worldwide orthodox community and the C of E will become an irrelevance.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        My own discernment is in agreement with yours, Tricia.

    • Dominic Stockford

      let us know where you live and we can find one near you, probably, which does preach and stand by the Word of God as it is clearly written better by half would be to find a Free Church congregation near you that is faithful. There are not that many of them either, but they will be there.

  • Ravenscar

    I didn’t know the Anglican church had swapped the Bible for ‘Eros and civilization’ scrawled by one named herbert marcuse.

    Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany when WWII ended. Herbert
    Marcuse, another member of the school, stayed in America. In 1955, he
    published Eros and Civilization.

    In the book, Marcuse argued that Western culture was inherently repressive because it gave up happiness for social progress.

    The book called for “polymorphous perversity,” a concept crafted by Freud. It posed the idea of sexual pleasure outside the traditional norms. Eros and Civilization would become very influential in shaping the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

    Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution?

    Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition of minorities—blacks, women, and homosexuals.

    The social movements of the 1960s—black power, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation—gave Marcuse a unique vehicle to release cultural Marxist ideas into the mainstream. Railing against all things “establishment,” The Frankfurt School’s ideals caught on like wildfire
    across American universities.

    Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct” ideas.
    It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.” It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also
    a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers.

    It is no mystery but for crying out loud! how many times does it have to be spelled out?

    The CoE and the SJs have both been thoroughly compromised, once the hierarchy was corrupted, it was easy to degrade, encourage and teach debauchery in the priesthood.

    ‘;Critical theory’, it is a cancer devouring western society, it is a pestilence only the dark riders of the Apocalypse provoke.

    • Reborn

      Church hierarchies have been corrupt since their inception.
      They are political entities.

      • JabbaPapa

        This is untrue — just because such entities are necessarily imperfect does not make them “corrupt” ; it is unrealistically pessimistic to believe so, and it would seem to lead only to pure anarchism.

  • ale bro

    i agree with the author – christians are obsessed with sex, which i find personally very strange as it is not a topic that is heavily covered in the new testament.

    • Tricia

      LGBT… Are obsessed with sex and continually push the issues. They know what the church teaches – they are just determined to change it. Which will ultimately destroy the Church of England as it has in the American Episcopalian church which has haemorrhaged membership and a new church Anglican Church of North America is growing, as is Christianity in China and Korea.

    • John Thomas

      Perhaps what the author is actually saying is that it is the CofE’s leaders – bishops, etc. – who are obsessed with sex (when they should be speaking up about persecution of Christians abroad) not ordinary and – dare I say it? – real Christians, who have a more balanced view (but they, in my experience, spend their time going on about global warming and refugees – most Christians, in Britain, ignore Christian persecution … for now: just wait until it comes to them …).

      • ale bro

        but why is sexuality such a huge issue? i always thought that “render unto caesar” meant comply with the law and do not use spiritual excuses to start a fight with temporal authority. gay marriage is legal so there can be no fight against it using the pretext of obscure old testament verses.

        • Dominic Stockford

          You are clearly not a Christian.

          • ale bro

            just like the synod it seems

          • Bruce Atkinson

            That too.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Why indeed is sexuality such a huge issue? You will not be able to understand this as it is spiritually discerned. But for our believers on the site, I must repeat myself.

          Jesus was more strict than the Jewish leaders about divorce and sex. Even lust was now a sin. Why is God so strict about sex? The answer requires that we understand a deep and
          difficult concept. The vital spiritual principle embedded in our sexuality has to do with being created “in the image of God.” Genesis 1:27 asserts: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Observe that it is not a man or a woman individually, but man and woman together which make
          up the image of God. The powerful symbolism inherent in the Church’s role as the “Bride of Christ” confirms this Creation principle. It is the divine design for humanity, reflecting God Himself, and homosexual behavior and its acceptance insults and defaces that image.

    • Dominic Stockford

      The Bible deals clearly and accurately (obviously, it is God’s inerrant Word) with the subject. Just because it is ‘little mentioned’ in the New Testament does not negate the Christian teaching on the matter. Jesus stated that he came to fulfil, not to replace, the Old Testament, which has more to say on the issue, and is clearly therefore also relevant to Christians..

      • ale bro

        are you saying that to be christian one has to accept the old testament teachings? that seems a little harsh, e.g. who follows the restriction on wool and linen together?

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Note that most of the Hebrew cultural rules existed to distinguish them from the other cultures. They were to be a “holy nation,” different and separated from the others. Note also that, unlike repealing the food laws, neither Jesus nor Paul (nor any of the NT writers) ever declared homosexuality or any sexually immoral behavior to now be acceptable. In fact, just the opposite; see Acts 15 where the first Jerusalem Council relaxed the Law for Gentile believers, but deliberately kept the requirement of sexual morality in place.

          We should use the word of God consistently, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV). As New Covenant
          believers, we are not to use the Old Testament Law as the exclusive basis for our morality. Rather, we are to study the whole counsel of Scripture and live accordingly.

          Bottom line point: Where the OT and the NT consistently agree on an issue (like sexual morality), then we can totally rely upon it. But that does not mean we are to condemn homosexuals themselves, only the behavior, which like all sin, is self-destructive. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

      • ale bro

        how can the bible be god’s inerrant word when it was written by mortals? i.e. the council of nicea agreed the extant text.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Those who believe and are “born again” have the Holy Spirit to direct them. All scriptures are written by believers especially chosen by God for their roles. Either God is powerful enough to make the scriptures come out exactly according to His will, or He is not God.

          I agree with Dr. John R.W. Stott’s words: “We take our stand on the divine origin of the Bible because we believe the Bible itself requires us to do so. Indeed, it is a strange fact that theologians who are prepared to accept the biblical doctrine of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of man and of the church, are often not willing to accept the biblical doctrine of Scripture. [And yet it is in the scriptures where we find all the other doctrines and it is the only
          place where we can find the words of Jesus Christ.] . So…if
          the Bible is authoritative and accurate when speaking about other matters, there is no reason why it should not be equally so when speaking about itself. “

          So what does Scripture say about itself? For starters: 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Matthew 24:35.
          “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

          “And we have the words of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your
          hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
          (2 Peter 1:20-21) If you choose to not believe this, then you are free to take it up with the Almighty.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Not “heavily covered” but “clearly covered” in the NT.