Rev Jules Gomes: Church says you can choose to be gay but not to be straight

Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, is suffering from chronic insomnia. He reminds me of Eric Lederer, the perpetual insomniac in the novel The Boy Who Couldn’t Sleep and Never Had to. He also reminds me of Evan Michael Tanner in the novel The Thief Who Couldn’t Sleep. Tanner hasn’t slept in more than a decade since a shard of shrapnel invaded his skull and obliterated his brain’s sleep centre. Like Lederer and Tanner, Archbuffoon Sentamu cannot sleep.

Pity the poor man! He hasn’t slept a wink. His mind is on the blink. What ails his anguished soul? What racks his troubled body? Swarms of mosquitoes from the pestilential swamp of his fellow bishops? Shadowy nightmares about Robert Mugabe cutting his arch-episcopal throat after Sent-to-moo cut his dog collar on the Andrew Marr show? Nay!

So what is keeping him counting sheep at night? The terrible scandal of the poor white working class girls from Rotherham who were groomed for rape and sexual abuse by Pakistani Muslim predators while police and social workers turned a blind eye? The blood-curdling persecution of Christians in the Islamic world? Muslim converts to Christianity being cold-shouldered by the CofE in dioceses like Bradford and Leeds under his very own nose in the Province of York? Nay!

Tell us please! The cause of his chronic insomnia must be very serious. We’d like to pray for the poor soul. Surely it must be the Vicious ‘Viv’ Foul bell-ringing fiasco in York Minster? Or perhaps the mutiny led by feminazi priestesses and their supporters, who refused to accept Bishop Philip North as Bishop of Sheffield because he does not ordain women?

Stop the guessing game! We are dying to know! Why can’t His Holiness Sentamu get his hard earned dose of forty winks? Could it be the collusion at the heart of the Church of England that led to the continued abuse of so many boys and young men that is keeping him awake - his and others' disregard of their complaints?

No. What is keeping John Sentamu awake at night is Conversion Therapy, also known as Elective or Reparative Therapy. At the bi-annual gabfest of the Church of England General “Sex” Synod last week, it was this that the Archbishop of York trumpeted as the cause of his chronic insomnia. ‘The sooner the practice of this so-called therapy is banned, I can sleep at night; so let’s encourage the government to do it,’ he said, alleging that the practice was ‘theologically unsound.’

He can rest. The overwhelming majority of participants, including 36 out of 37 bishops, backed Jayne Ozone’s motion calling for its ban. Now, no longer will someone with an unwelcome homosexual urge be able to seek spirit counselling or therapy. Celebrate it and sanctify it, the Church might as well say.

How are we to interpret this diktat?  It is clear - if you are attracted to a person of the same sex this is an exercise of your free will, but if you make an informed choice (as an adult) to ask your vicar for help or to pray that God will take away your homosexual desires, and if your vicar does so, it lands him with a disciplinary charge! In a word there is no choice. You are constrained.

General Synod theology now has it that you are free to choose to be gay but not to chose to be straight. Homosexuality is immutable. Heterosexuality is not.  And God meanwhile is impotent in the matter - heaven forfend he  go  against General Synod or fails to rejoice in every conversion to homosexuality.

Believe it or not, in order to try to protect God’s freedom to intervene (and the Holy Spirit’s freedom to convert a person from homosexual to heterosexual attraction), the Rev Dr Sean Doherty had to move an amendment affirming that ‘pastoral care, prayer ministry: that professional counselling were “legitimate means of supporting individuals who choose them freely, provided that they respect the property dignity of human beings, and do not involve coercion or manipulation or make unwarranted promises about the removal of unwanted feelings.’”

He was roundly defeated for his pains. Synod rejected prayer, pastoral care, counselling and free choice in favour of the new LGBTIQ gender orthodoxy.

If this were not perverse enough, in a gigantic leap of oxymoronic policy-making, General Synod went on to vote for creating new liturgies to affirm the new gender of a person who has ‘transitioned'. Who implored General Synod to vote for such specially designed ‘liturgies’ to welcome a transgender person under their new name? The uncritically accepting Sentamu, who appears to have put not Satan, but science as well as God behind him.

One brave enough to vote against him was Ed Shaw, an evangelical member of General Synod, worried not simply that no one had defined exactly it was that was to be banned under the general term ‘conversion therapy', but also that genuine pastoral care of LGBT people could  be badly affected by the ban. No one else cared. No guarantees were given, no amendments considered. But will Ed Shaw’s fear of the CofE’s new totalitarianism keep Sentamu awake at night? Not, I fear, in a million years.

Yet Sentamu has yet to tell us why the practice of conversion therapy is theologically unsound.  The ploy not to define it worked magnificently. With theological illiterati dominating the House of Bishops there was no theological debate. Nor was there scientific debate, the medical condition of gender dysphoria presumably deemed irrelevant.

Just as the Holy Office issued a condemnation of Galileo’s heliocentric theory in 1616, General Synod voted to condemn science and scavenge for scraps in the garbage can of the politics of identity, sexuality and gender.

Nihil desperandum! Despair not! The most important agent of Sentamu’s chronic insomnia was tamed. Now the Archbuffoon of Dork can pray his Nunc Dimittis and get a good night’s sleep.

Rev Jules Gomes

  • Bik Byro

    Dear Jules Gomes. How many psychiatrists do you think receive calls from straight people wanting to be converted to homosexual ?

    If anyone needs proof that some people in the church haven’t moved on from the middle ages, then this article is it. Maybe you’d like to burn some witches while you’re at it, eh Jules?

    • Charitas Lydia

      The church does not ‘move on.’ It seeks to remain faithful to ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints.’ Have you not heard the saying, ‘If you marry the spirit of the age, you will be a widow in the next?’

      • Bik Byro

        Have you not heard the saying “If you don’t move on, you’ll get left behind”?
        You’re making typewriters and horseshoes in a world that has word processors and cars.

        • Charitas Lydia

          You are imposing categories on the church that are foreign to it.

          • Bik Byro

            If you want to stay in the middle ages, then it’s no skin off my nose. I think it’s quite comical in fact watching the church of england self destruct.

          • Charitas Lydia

            Actually, that’s where we agree. I am praying for the cofe to self destruct! At least then people will rediscover authentic biblical Christianity.

          • Bik Byro

            A few retired accountants with their wives in floral hats will rediscover biblical christianity, the other 99% of the population probably won’t care.

          • Charitas Lydia

            Following Jesus is a choice. Christianity will never be popular. The cross is a scandal. Jesus had only 12 followers to begin with. Numbers don’t matter. You’ve missed the point.

          • Bik Byro

            Have you noticed that the popularity of a religion tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of scientific enlightenment in its home country.

          • Charitas Lydia

            Poor reasoning. Popularity does not determine truth.

          • Bik Byro

            You are right. Many years ago, popularity said that Eve was made from a man’s rib, and the sun revolved round the earth. And it didn’t make it true.

          • Charitas Lydia

            Quite so. Don’t forget Copernicus was a priest.

          • Benjamin William Champley Wate

            Look at Wikipedia, which is not about truth but totalitarian consensus

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I agree.
            “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” (often
            attributed to Augustine)

          • Busy Mum

            Goodness me, there are about 300 people in my village, but only one retired accountant as far as I am aware…and I have never seen his wife in a floral hat. Maybe she counts for one half of a wife. Hopefully there is another retired accountant I don’t know about, with either half a wife or a floral hat.

            I like to think my village would be a representative sample.

          • Bik Byro

            I’ve got half a hat you can have. It’s not a floral one and it used to be a complete one before the dog got hold of it when I wasn’t watching. I’ve not thrown it away yet; it’s in a bottom drawer. PS retired accountants are everywhere, they just feel embarrassed admitting to it.

          • Busy Mum

            Maybe they could get some sort of therapy whereby they can come to believe they were not accountants really, after all, or at least to help them get over any embarrassment about it. On the other hand, we wouldn’t want Sentamu losing sleep over this cruelty to retired accountants. So, no help from ‘the church’ and no help from members of society either, who persist in holding bigoted and stereotypical views about them.

            I will ask the one retired accountant I do know if he feels distressed and offended by your comment. I will tell him that he really ought to be upset about it. I will tell his wife that you have implied she cannot be a real accountant’s wife because she doesn’t wear the proper hats, so even if she does identify as his wife, you persist in the lack-of-floral-hat taking precedence over her self-identity when it comes to establishing the truth. I will write to my MP proposing that ‘retired accountant’ be classed as a protected characteristic. Then you will need to watch your step, Mr Byro. No more hate speech about retired accountants, and their wives, and their hats.

          • Bik Byro

            How on earth anybody could call themselves a retired accountant’s wife when they don’t even wear the appropriate hat is beyond me. It’s like calling yourself a member of Momentum without having a Che Guevara tee shirt. Now, if the retired accountant’s wife turns up on Sunday in a Che Guevara tee shirt, *that* would really be something to worry about.

          • Busy Mum

            Tut, tut. Fancy judging somebody by their clothes in this day and age.

          • DespiteBrexit

            For someone that claims not to care, you’re spending an awfully long time on here.

          • Bik Byro

            You are confused and muddled. Not caring is not the same as not finding entertaining.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Addicted to the attention he gets here (but likely nowhere else).

        • Daniel

          When people are jumping of a cliff I’d say getting left behind is a jolly good thing.

          • Bik Byro

            Even when jumping of the cliff means landing in a lifeboat and getting left behind means being burned in a forest fire.

          • Daniel

            I do not suspect jumping of the top of a cliff into a lifeboat is a very good idea, the margin for error is too great and should one succeed he would expect a very hard, life threatening landing. But this is beside the point there is no lifeboat, at least not a progressive one, and most of the world is now divided between those who are willing jumping of the cliff and those sliding there on the preceding slippery slope.

            The only forest fire is the one lit by ‘progressives’ which is destroying humanity, it is we who are attempting to flee from it whilst you revel in its flames and the burning of human flesh.

          • Bik Byro

            Yes of course, far better to go back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition which was so nice.

          • Daniel

            Opposing the trajectory of the contemporary world does not equate to supporting an wicked practice in a small section of the world during the Renaissance. It is like replying to someone in the 20th century opposed to Communism in Eastern Europe that they must be a supporter of the Norman Invasion. Nevertheless, to ignore your foolishness and bit the bullet, the crimes of Spanish Inquisition pale in comparison to the crimes of Progressivism. You are like a man pointing out the crimes of a retired mugger whilst murdering someone in the street.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Good points. But I advise that you avoid feeding the trolls.

        • Coniston

          Technical and scientific advances are not the issue.

    • TheStoneMan

      So, you prefer the idea of “no choice”. Even if someone asks for help you must not give it. Great, I think I’ll keep to the old ways I was brought up with, of do unto others…

      • Bik Byro

        So if a young black girl approaches her religious elders and “asks” for FGM “honest, honest, nobody put me up to it” then that religious leader should give help and do it. OK.

        • Charitas Lydia

          The church does not practise FGM. Please don’t throw up specious arguments. It makes you look like a fool.

          • Bik Byro

            The Stone man implied that anybody asking for help anywhere must be given it regardless. Please don’t throw up specious replies. It makes you look like a fool.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck… then you are going to have to expect it to smell fowl as well.
            (Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1)

    • Snoffle Gronch

      Even sillier than your usual remarks.

      But there’s no telling airheads obsessed with fashion, is there?

      • Bik Byro

        And yet it motivated you to reply to it.
        But there’s no telling airheads obsessed with replying, is there?

    • If arch anti-Christian Bik Byro agrees with the CofE I think it is safe to say that the CofE is no longer Christian!

      • Bik Byro

        Not anti-christian, just generally against regimented organised religion. One of the main reasons being organised religion’s general refusal to move with the times. You’re getting left behind in the world, SeriouslyMedieval

        • “Not anti-Christian”…come on BB, even you must have had a smile on your face when you wrote that one!!! Your posts on this site attest that you are the epitome of “anti-Christian”. You are not just anti-organised religion as you claim, you are against the actual teachings of the God of the Bible, regardless of “organisation”! I am also against any organised religion that tries to force it’s religion on non-believers but you and I still disagree on most every issue. The problem you have as I see it is that you fail to see that you are an adherent to the religion of secular humanism… a very organised religion that is utterly intolerant of dissenting faiths. Your wish to ban people from seeking to get help with unwanted “same-sex attraction” demonstrates the totalitarian nature of your faith!

          • Charitas Lydia

            Bik Byro can start a new party in the UK called HATE CHRISTIANITY.

        • Coniston

          The purpose of the Church has never been to be changed by the World but to change the World. Otherwise it has no reason to exist.

  • The problem with this line of thinking is as to how far you go. What happens if you feel a tendency to what to have sexual relations with under-age children, you know it is wrong and want help? Clearly no point in turning to the Church as they don’t don’t believe in therapy, so where do you go knowing that you can do so in confidence? What happened to the old idea of “retreats” when you could have spiritual guidance and contemplate on your problems?

    • Busy Mum

      Exactly – and if you feel a tendency to be a paedophile, how do you know for sure that it is ‘wrong’?
      The homosexual argument is that feelings of guilt are due to how others perceive their tendencies, rather than due to their own conscience telling them that it is wrong.

      • Gone is the Christian belief of right and wrong according to the Biblical teachings. Do we have to obey the ten commandments or not? Does the Church still believe in repentance or not? Does the Church no longer believe we should try to convince an individual that something is wrong as that is “so-called therapy” which should be avoided? Following these type of arguments to the limit raises the obvious question, what is the point of the Church if it doesn’t teach right from wrong?

      • Bik Byro

        Whether or not you would know if it is philosophically “wrong”, you would surely know not to do it due to the fact that there would be a massive prison sentence for it.
        I have a simple benchmark for right and wrong, maybe over-simplistic but in general it works : “does it cause any harm to any innocent non-willing people ?” If yes, it’s probably wrong, if no, it’s probably OK.

        • Sargv

          > “does it cause any harm to any innocent non-willing people ?”

          Is a consensual sex of a 60 years old man with a 11 years old girl passes your definition? “Harm” is a very vague term after all, especially when it comes to delayed psychological traumas (highly variable by temperaments and life experience). You can find it – or fail to do so – anywhere.

          > “does it cause any harm to any innocent non-willing people ?”

          If some action (say, reckless and highly promiscuous behaviour) spreads the STIs – is it wrong?

          • Bik Byro

            I did say it was a “general guide” and I admit it is very simplistic. But in general in life it has served me well over the years.
            In your first example, I, hopefully along with most people, would say although the girl is ‘consenting’ (in the example), she is not old and mature enough to make such a decision and therefore not “willing”. The same would apply if the girl was 32 years old but of immature mental condition.
            And in the second example, I would say it is not the promiscuous behaviour that causes the harm, but the recklessness in not taking precautions against STIs. So – promiscuity in itself, provided your partner is willing is fine – doing so without precautions against STIs is wrong.

          • Sargv

            > she is not old and mature enough to make such a decision

            But you do think that it is ok for a society or a state to dictate the allowed boundaries of sexual behaviour of individuals (on a set of arbitrary traits, such as age, or maybe the gender of potential sexual partners) given that no violence was involved, and criminalise such a behaviour when it is not in line with social expectations or state guidelines?

            > I would say it is not the promiscuous behaviour that causes the harm, but the recklessness in not taking precautions against STIs

            Fair enough. If not using precautions against STIs is wrong, what can we do about the groups that are not using them (i.e. have significantly higher prevalence of STIs)?

          • Bik Byro

            Making any judgement on age alone can be fraught with criticism – as you know some young people are mature and responsible and many older ones can be reckless and stupid.
            But the only real *practical* way forward is for society to agree certain legal ages for certain things (join the army, buy alcohol, drive a car, drive a lorry, fly an aeroplane, buy cigarettes, own a shotgun, vote in a general election etc etc etc) and accept that it will not be entirely perfect in every individual case. I cannot think of an alternative system that would be better.

            With regards the STIs, then for sure, people need to be educated. Ultimately though, if you give someone an STI through recklessness, you have harmed them in the same way as if you had physically harmed them by being reckless in any other form of activity such as driving. In that logic, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be a criminal offence. The only difficulty would be the practicalities of trying to prove it in a court of law.

          • Sargv

            > The only difficulty would be the practicalities of trying to prove it in a court of law.

            That could make for quite a popular TV show for BBC late hours. Say, a branch of a “Love Island”.

            As for age of consent, I’d prefer the olden days, where the coming to age of consent was tied to the ability to fully support yourself and a woman, and was celebrated by a ceremony called “marriage”.

          • Busy Mum

            Exactly – it’s a state of consent, rather than an age of consent, that is needed.

          • Bik Byro

            I can believe it’s only a matter of time before your idea of a new ‘Love Island’ hits our screens. In the meantime, if we are to take it a bit more light hearted, you might enjoy this which always gives me a smile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jKiunSRzAI

          • CRSM

            But by ‘Natural Law’, sex with an 11 year old girl is wrong, as her body is not yet fully developed. Libertarians who follow (where possible) ‘Natural Law’ may well view things differently if the girl was 14.

        • Busy Mum

          I really haven’t got time to pursue this (especially as I suspect you are hoping for me to take the bait….) but firstly, massive prison sentences should only exist for things that are philosophically wrong, anyway. Why should somebody get a massive prison sentence for something that the state has arbitrarily decided to be wrong? Do you really want to live your life refraining from doing things you would like to do, not because you believe them to be wrong (i.e. due to the fear of God), but because of what the state will do to you? (i.e. due to the fear of man)

          ‘The fear of man bringeth a snare’ …..’The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’. References escape me but they are in Proverbs somewhere.

          And ‘willing’/’non-willing’??

          “The good that I would, I do not. The evil that I would not, that I do.” The apostle Paul was very aware of his inability to fully tame his will – and please bear in mind that his ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would be things like giving God sufficient/insufficient glory and honour, rather than outright good deeds or bad ones such as theft.

          So how about the ‘rape victims’ who succumb to the lust of the moment, only to regret it later and plea unwillingness? Bishop Latimer pointed out that the lusts of the flesh are the most powerful temptations and therefore the ones most to be guarded against. We are all capable of falling.

          • Bik Byro

            Well, there are people who do not and never will believe in god. Therefore fear of god will never motivate them not to commit crime, so if a prison sentence is what does motivate them to live a good life, then that’s what it has to be.
            And if fear of God stopped someone being a paedophile, how come so many paedophiles are vicars and priests?

          • Busy Mum

            Because so many vicars and priests do not have the fear of God.

            I know you don’t believe in ‘God’, but you believe there is such a thing as a ‘good’ life, so you must have some criteria of good/god and evil/devil.

          • Bik Byro

            I’m open to the idea of there being a “god” but I’m sceptical about his influence : I cannot resolve the amount of innocent suffering in the world with a caring god who supposedly has the power to reduce it. Every attempt to reconcile suffering (try taking a visit to children’s cancer ward) just sounds like weasel words to me.
            And I think it’s condescending to say that you need a fear of god to understand good and evil. In fact if you can live a good life without fear of god then that is even better because you really are doing it out of your own heart and not doing it because you think you’ll get punished when you die.

          • Busy Mum

            The whole point of Christianity is that living a good life is not the way to avoid punishment after death. That’s religion, rather than Christianity.

          • Bik Byro

            I always thought Christianity *was* a religion.

          • Busy Mum

            ‘Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this – To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world’ James 1 v 27

            The world sees ‘religion’ as something completely different.

        • CRSM

          Valid use of ‘Natural Law’ principles there.

  • Snoffle Gronch

    The Anglican episcopate long ago substituted The Guardian for the Gospel

    • martianonlooker

      Well said

  • Daniel

    The author is making a fundamental mistake in that he is holding the cofE to be Christian, it is clearly not, like all other sectors of the establishment whether politicians, big business or the media the cofE is Progressive: that is its creed, its religion and its hope.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    Could there be a clearer symptom that the Church of England has turned pagan? Perhaps only Archbishop Cranmer’s spoof on the Synod banning religious conversion would be worse. They are actually saying “No” to change, to transformation into the image of Christ. Sorry, folks, if you have same-sex temptations and especially if you have the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality, you must accept your fate; no attempts at reparation is allowed. What do you then do with a heterosexual person who wants to be homosexual? Yep, no rule against helping them become perverted. Just don’t try to become normal! And shame on any professional who would dare help you to become normal. And all this was voted in overwhelmingly? What it reveals about both the Church of England and the values of the English people in general is not only shocking, but reprehensible, even contemptible.

    • Daniel

      ‘Could there be a clearer symptom that the Church of England has turned pagan? ‘ If only it had turned pagan it would at least be far more sensible than what it is, but the truth of the matter is that the modern world would appear almost as absurd to the pagan as it does to us. The pagan world at least accepted the role of social norms and the importance of virtue, it looked toward the good even if it could not attain it. The modern world wishes has no desire for good it ‘calls evil good and good evil’, it wishes to reshape goodness, humanity, the universe into its own image and likeness, in the original sense of the word it is utterly perverted.

  • PierrePendre

    People who want to undergo conversion therapy are clearly so troubled by their sexuality that they feel the need for professional help. I can’t imagine that it does much good. There’s no stigma attached to seeking psychiatric counselling for other states of mind; why should an exception be made for homosexuality? Indeed, why don’t unhappy gays just take a course of regular psychotherapy?

    Conversion therapy sounds to me like quackery but if it helps – even by confirming someone in his or her homosexuality with an eased mind – and is voluntary, the urge to ban it should be resisted. The new, enforced public idolisation of homosexuality and homosexuals masks the reality that many people, while willing to be tolerant, are still inwardly suspicious of same sex activity. Some gay people may share this feeling and suffer guilt that they think can be resolved by conversion therapy. No one should stand in their way if they can’t cope alone as most of us do whatever our sexuality.

    It has to be said that things aren’t helped by the absurd attempts of diehard anti-gays to keep homosexuality marginalised or by the determination of gay extremists to stuff their sexuality down our throats whether we like it or not. The victims here are people who are unhappy about their sexuality and need help to deal with it.

    • Busy Mum

      I agree with most of this but surely it is not the ‘attempts of diehard anti-gays to keep homosexuality marginalised’; homosexuality keeps itself marginalised by its failure to reproduce. It can only become de-marginalised by proactive attempts to make it so – and then keep it so.

      I do not think I would classify either these proactive attempts, or the attempts of ‘die-hard anti-gays’ to rebuff these attempts, as ‘absurd’.

    • Doesntplaywellwithothers

      “The victims here are people who are unhappy about their sexuality and need help to deal with it.”
      Unhappy about their sexuality? Or just made to feel like they are filthy, disgusting sexual deviants for years on end which has caused that unhappiness plus a great deal of internalised conflict and guilt.

      • Busy Mum

        That may be just plausible enough for people who have lived for ‘years on end’ but how does that work for the current crop of teenagers and young people who ‘identify’ as LGBTQWERTY+++? They have all been made to feel as though they are absolutely wonderful – nobody would even dare to call them ‘filthy disgusting sexual deviants’, even in more polite language – yet still we are told they are very unhappy.

        • CRSM

          They ‘identify’ simply because it’s the fashionable thing to do. They’ll identify with some other group in a year or two,. Perhaps Muslim terrorists?

        • CRSM

          “Sexual Deviants”. Why not call them this, are you saying that they are not?

          • Busy Mum

            No, I’m not saying they’re not – they are, and it is true whether or not it is said.

            But just because the LGBT lobby indulge in name-calling (‘homophobes’) doesn’t mean I have to.

        • Doesntplaywellwithothers

          Then you don’t spend much time on the internet. Have a look at some of the comments on this very thread.

          • Busy Mum

            I can’t help it if you visit a site and don’t like what other people are saying to each other. Either engage with your hosts and the people already present – on their terms – or go away.

          • Doesntplaywellwithothers

            I didn’t say you could… and who said I don’t “like” what other people are saying to each other, I’m merely pointing out a fact, a fact that even the briefest of glances down the comment section will verify.
            And I’ll deal with people on my own terms thank you very much, with or without your permission and if you don’t like that please feel free to block me. Before or after you seek out anger management therapy, I really don’t care which. Your choice.
            Have a lovely day.

          • Busy Mum

            I’m not angry – please tell me which fact it is you are pointing out?

            I just assumed you didn’t like some of the comments. If I was on a site where I found the comments to be really offensive or unpleasant to my eye, or I knew there wasn’t a hope of getting people to see my point of view, I would probably just go elsewhere – ‘shake the dust from off my feet.’

            Deviant = different from the norm.

            Homosexuality is not the norm.

            You are the one who introduced the words ‘filthy and disgusting’, along with ‘sexual deviants’, I think.

      • Sargv

        > Or just made to feel like they are filthy, disgusting sexual deviants for years on end which has caused that unhappiness plus a great deal of internalised conflict and guilt.

        Do you mean paedophiles?

        • Doesntplaywellwithothers

          Obviously not.

          • Sargv

            Zoophiles? Necrophiles? Coprofags?

      • Bruce Atkinson

        I am not shy about telling my drug addicted clients about the consequences of their addictive behaviors (which of course is sin).

        Sin is sin, dude. It is not loving to tell people that sin is not sin anymore. By definition, sin is destructive of both self and others; God hates it because it destroys His beloved creatures. The only time I recall ever spanking my unusually good daughter was when she was almost four and went running into the road where she could be hit by a car. She learned her lesson well and it may have saved her life. Likewise, we must warn against all kinds of sin (and certainly not celebrate it). But of course we sinners want to continue to sin and want it to be accepted by the culture. The Church should be on the side of God in this conflict against sin.

    • JabbaPapa

      Conversion therapy sounds to me like quackery

      Reportedly, if it’s professionally provided (including not being coerced upon someone), it has about a 30% success rate. This, I think, is what bothers the gay lobby more than anything else, as it demonstrates the fallacy of their “born that way” ideology.

      • PierrePendre

        Very few of us of either sex are 100% heterosexual or homosexual although most of us are probably clear about our sexual preference. Some might recognise in themselves a bisexuality which may be troubling. We know that straight men in an all-male environment such as prison will have sex with other men but never for a moment consider themselves to be gay. It’s pure physical relief which is only one aspect of sexuality. Who would undergo conversion therapy? Presumably someone like a gay, possibly weakly gay, man who wanted to father children and rear them with their mother in a traditional family. He might have doubts of conscience about his ability to be true to a wife and hope that therapy could reconcile him to a sexuality that was in contradiction with his nature. If he were predominantly homosexual, reconciliation rather than conversion might be a better way to describe the therapy involved. I don’t see that a form of therapy that is purely psychological, entered into voluntarily and doesn’t involve nonsense like electric shocks or drugs need be harmful. All in all, I do believe that people are “born that way” but it’s a matter of degree and if people on the borderline between heterosexuality and homosexuality can be helped, they should receive it.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          People are not “born that way” and science continues to prove it again and again. If people want to be helped to change their habitual desires and overcome their temptations, they should be encouraged to do so … and professionals should be encouraged to help them to accomplish this.

  • SteadyOn

    I’m an atheist, although I have a great affection for many of the cultural elements of Christianity (and especially Anglicanism). I can assure you that most atheists don’t care how the church feels about this issue, it seems to many of us to be entirely the church’s business and to have no real impact on anything outside of church institutions. No one will be converted because the church is cool with transgenderism or homosexuality and no one expects a religion based on a millennia old book to keep up with this year’s most fashionable additions to the OED.

    So, why don’t you guys stop persecuting each other for a bit? After all, there’s no shortage non-Christians lining up to persecute you.

    • Busy Mum

      “No one will be converted because the church is cool with transgenderism or homosexuality”
      This statement is more true than you realise!

      • SteadyOn

        Ha, I had missed the pun there.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Arguing and debating the fine points online is hardly persecution.

      You are right, “there’s no shortage non-Christians lining up to persecute” us. They are in fact murdering us like no other religious or ethnic group ever has ever experienced. Look it up. More Christians are being killed in a year simply for being Christian than any group since time began. The English people seem to be unaware of this fact.

      • SteadyOn

        Quite, and I wasn’t referring to the article specifically, but the seeming imposition of certain fashionable ideas on a congregation that seems largely opposed to them. The church doesn’t need to be at the bleeding edge of identity politics.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Exactly. Especially since there is so much scientific controversy about it. This will resolve over time as all science does, but the moral and spiritual aspects will remain.

  • Brilliant satire.

  • Sargv

    In USSR, those churches that Bolsheviks did not explode, they mostly used as public offices. But some of them were turned into communist propaganda displays: Orthodox icons were replaced with profiles of Marx, Engels and Lenin; and priests were forced to give way to political lectors to use altars as tribunes for Left-wing speeches.

    Maybe that is something CoE should consider. Although I’m not sure anyone will spot a difference by now.

    • Little Black Censored

      “Offices”: that is an interesting old usage. At my village school in the 1940s we had “offices”.

  • Benjamin William Champley Wate

    I thank God I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy fifteen years ago.

  • Coniston

    ‘Muslim converts to Christianity being cold-shouldered by the CofE in dioceses like Bradford and Leeds.’
    I can well understand that some clergy might do this, but is there any more information about this – in Bradford, Leeds, or elsewhere?

    • Charitas Lydia

      The situation is actually very serious. No one wants to know. A number of Muslim converts have even considered returning to Islam. The police keep their heads down. Some CofE clerics and bishop are even known to have told the convert that he should not have converted to Christianity!

  • Arthur Peacock

    “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 10.33)

    Not only are they theologically illiterate, they are also Biblically illiterate. The blind leading the blind.

    • Charitas Lydia

      And the bland leading the bland!

  • Phil R

    The wonderful thing about the CofE’s “generic christian spirituality” is that it moves the focus. It no long matters what you believe. What matters is rather that you believe. Each man is free to define the “transcendent” any way he chooses – subject only to his acknowledgment that all truths are equally valid. Truth becomes the servant of human autonomy. Christianity from the CofE’s perspective no longer has any objective content. Only the individual gives life to it.

    It is perhaps the perfect theology for our narcissistic age.

    • JabbaPapa

      In other words Modernism and Relativism — oh, except that the glory of homosexuality must be affirmed and believed by all. hmmmm, maybe they should rewrite the CoE “credo” …

  • Manheart

    What nonsense! What hysterical nonsense.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, that’s another six inches dug down into the grave of this absurd church of England, founded on a justification of adultery and sacrilege against Holy Matrimony and becoming ever more unchristian since.

  • JabbaPapa

    I take note of the utter lack of any ban on gay propaganda promoting homosexuality.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Exactly.

  • DespiteBrexit

    Furthermore in the CoE we must celebrate people choosing to chop their bits about – or even simply to self-identify as another gender. But there’s no evidence that works either in terms of their improved ability to cope with life.

  • Broadwood

    Gavin Ashenden on Anglican Unscripted has a good comment on this sad fiasco – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYCrz8k2wFc

  • Jolly Roger

    What does the Church of England actually exist for? Or rather, for whom?

    In this matter, her high servants have shown themselves able to pronounce one of the shibboleths of the modern Left. But didn’t the Church always exist for sinners, not merely for ‘outsiders’?

    A transgender person is not a sinner specifically for being so. On the contrary, as far as the modern leftist secular world is concerned, such a person is one of the elect. In the same way are all LGBTIQ people badged and uniformed members of the New Order. All are the acceptable; all are the elect.

    Following that, consider this. Wasn’t it the Gnostics who were solely concerned with the elect? Is that now really the theology of the Synod? Make no mistake, it’s a perniciously alluring theology. But according to the Good News, it’s the sinner who is God’s concern.