Monthly Archives: July 2014

The Gay Marriage Cake Caper

So we have the spectacle recently of a baker in Northern Ireland being threatened with the wrath of the Equalities Commission for daring to refuse to bake a cake supporting gay marriage for a client. This case must be as famous as King Alfred and the burnt cakes. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of discernment that a Christian baker will not go along with gay marriage as the Good Book clearly condemns homosexual behaviour as sin, so it’s no surprise that our baker is making a stand, and all power to him, because he is simply being true to his beliefs. I am sure a lot of gay people are magnanimous enough to realise that their behaviour is not sanctioned by the Bible but they would not be spiteful enough to pick on an easy target such as Christians are seen as today. There is a general background of course to all this. The number of bizarre and far-fetched cases that seem to end up on the front pages just because of the golden triumvirate of ‘equality, anti discrimination and human rights’ has multiplied in recent years, especially since the reign of New Labour.

This is all so predictable due to David Cameron’s pushing through of ‘same sex marriage,’ a highly contentious and divisive policy. He has now uncovered a can of worms which will prove very ugly and nasty indeed. The craziness of all this is that he has created a problem and potential legal action where there was no problem before. And so the inexorable crushing of freedom goes on in western society, and the presence of an Eton/Oxford educated incumbent of number 10 has guaranteed this.

With the advent of this policy the political class have disqualified themselves from governing this nation, and all the more reason why they all need to be given a good kicking at the next elections, including the big one next year. Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin themselves would be proud of David Cameron, not because they  would have been particularly in love with homosexuality, but because pushing same sex marriage represents a battering ram to destroy Judeo Christian civilisation which they hated with a vengeance.

On the celebration of the first same sex ‘marriages’ recently a picture of two blokes kissing on the front of a Bristol newspaper to mark the city’s first same sex marriage led to a significant fall in sales, prompting an inquiry on the part of the editor as to why people had refused to buy the paper that day. Even in 2014 the universe he inhabits is a different world from the universe inhabited by many ordinary people. Hardly a surprise to me that it didn’t go down too well with some of the good people of Bristol. Plenty of people disagree with homosexual behaviour but have been bullied into silence by the politically correct high priests of the new counterfeit religion of equality and rights, who think they can just jettison the Judeo Christian moral framework sunk into these isles over centuries. However, they won’t be forced into buying newspapers whose front cover they find offensive and they’ll tell you what they think away from any whiff of liberal fascism.

This is possibly the issue that will do for the Conservative party i.e. finish them off as a major political force in the UK, and they will deserve it for this one act of cultural vandalism. But perhaps that is what is meant to happen. To bring in same sex marriage in my opinion is nothing less than deeply unwise and will bring trouble to our nation. Anyone who disagreed with this outrageous piece of legislation is accused of bashing gays in their quest for so called equality. You could not have got any worse than Nick Clegg calling those who disagreed with same sex marriage ‘bigots.’ But where were the street protests for gay marriage, where were the people chaining themselves to railings for the cause, where was the massive public campaign pushing for such a change? Absolutely nowhere, all the evidence being that this was pushed down from the top by an arrogant and ‘out of touch with their heritage’ elite. What on earth possessed David Cameron to pick up on this issue and to make it the lodestone of his modernising agenda I will never know, but one thing is sure, he has badly miscalculated and has encouraged an exodus from the Conservative party that may prove fatal. When a government tries to legislate in areas which govern fundamental relationships between people it has to be loath to get involved. No true statesman would dream of touching marriage by trying to redefine it to appease a tiny proportion of the population.

The most disturbing aspect of this whole affair has been the unholy haste in which the government pushed this measure through which also had no electoral mandate. How much pressure was there from impending legislation in the EU on this issue? There is almost something sinister about the conduct of the government. It is evident that this whole business has been internationally coordinated at a very high (or low?) level depending on which way you look at it. Same sex marriage has been brought in already in a small number of countries including Canada and South Africa, and also some states in the US. At the very same time that the measure has been pushed in the UK it has been campaigned for, and defeated, in Australia, pushed through against massive opposition in France under Monsieur Hollande, and has been enthusiastically embraced by Obama across the pond. It has even been an issue in Puerto Rico, a Roman Catholic country. The question you have to ask is, what do these people want or are trying to achieve by such a policy?

The affair demonstrates the clash we now have between the concept of ‘equality’ and a traditional understanding of what is right and wrong. Every culture needs a clear understanding of some sort of moral framework that the majority adhere to. Things are definitely moving against the traditionalists at present, as LGBT rights seem to trump religious rights or traditional norms almost every time.

Introducing same sex marriage is offensive to many people who are married who will wonder what on earth has taken possession of their Prime Minister that he can decide to redefine the meaning of the word ‘marriage.’ There are limits to the concepts of equality and anti discrimination. Marriage is just not permitted for certain groups of people e.g. if two people are too young to get married, if you are close relations like a nephew and aunt, a niece and uncle, or if you fancy some sort of communal marriage. We do not say that those people are discriminated against. Likewise marriage is just not for two men or two women. Any such relationship you have to call something different.

We have a responsibility to pass on what was been bequeathed to us by previous generations, a common culture that means something, that is almost unconscious to our senses but that we understand naturally. It is a given. Our heritage is a Judeo Christian one whether we like it or not, and at the heart of that culture is the union of a man and a woman to nurture the next generation. You tamper with this at your peril. If you change the meaning of a word such as marriage you will introduce a spirit of confusion into the nation which not least will harm our children and grandchildren. Marriage will be not only between a man and a woman, but also potentially between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. The way will also open for virtually any relationship that expresses ‘love and commitment’ to push for marriage rights. It is disingenuous to oppose this argument because already polygamists have been pushing for marriage rights in Canada, and polyamorists doing likewise in Australia. Then there is the position of children. All the evidence supports the view that children brought up by a mother and a father have the best outcomes. Yet how many combinations of marriage partner will be able to bring up children as traditional barriers crumble? Is it wise to legitimise any and every form of relationship in the eyes of the law so as not to offend anyone?

You are also adding layers of legislation to our society that will further diminish our freedom as a people. The government has had to go back hundreds of years to amend legislation to make allowances for his unwise step. Whatever is said by the government, pressure will be on to protect the concept of same sex marriage by trying to shut down free expression of opinion on the subject and to prevent various organisations from ‘discriminating’ against same sex marriage in their ethos and employment law. It is sad but true that pandering to the LGBT agenda by successive governments has increasingly proscribed speech and behaviour in the UK. Brendan O Neill picked this up recently in the Telegraph.

Finally, in the eyes of many people, both religious and non-religious, we are dealing with a moral issue, and no matter how you dress up same sex marriage as an ‘equality’ issue, homosexual behaviour is morally unacceptable for those people. And when I say behaviour I think this strikes at the heart of the whole way in which people think of this issue today. In my opinion we have confused identity with behaviour. The whole concept of identity politics has a lot to answer for. Human beings are people first and foremost, that is their identity, male and female. Whether they are homosexuals, heterosexuals, or whatever is a secondary issue. These things are expressed as behaviour but are they really core identity? The jury is still out on homosexuality. At the very limit it may be a mixture of nature and nurture, but what percentage of each? What you are in effect doing in the eyes of many is state sanctioning immorality, enshrining behaviour at the heart of our national life that has been seen as immoral and fringe sexual behaviour over the history of western culture. Again is this really what we want for society? There is a right and a wrong meaning of the word equality. The right meaning is that we are all equal in value, no one is worth more than any other despite all our differences, and everyone is worthy to be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other person. However, that does not mean equality of behaviour. Some behaviour is still moral, and other behaviour is immoral. State sanctioned immorality is no less immorality.

In this regard the church in the UK has to look at itself on this issue. If anybody in society has a responsibility to give a clear sound on moral issues it is the church. You cannot just have a moral free for all, somebody has to give a lead for the majority of people for the majority of the time. Sadly the Church of England is agonising over this issue when the Bible is crystal clear. In the end this does no one any favours. In a free society people should be able to do what they want behind closed doors provided it is of a concensual nature, but don’t push such sexual individualism to the heart of our society in the form of same sex marriage.

In evaluating this issue, it may be offensive to many, but there is a bullying and intimidating spirit behind the militant gay rights agenda which will do great harm to the country if continually appeased. The aim of that agenda is to ‘normalise’ gay behaviour so that it is fully imposed on society, if necessary through the full force of the law. You have to understand the spirit that is driving militant gay rights, it is totalitarian in its mandate. Some people would like to criminalise criticism of homosexual behaviour. This is the direction in which we are going, and the bringing in of same sex marriage will only accelerate this process.

If we want a relatively peaceful and united nation we have to rub along together somehow. That means physical and verbal abuse of homosexuals is totally unacceptable. But it also means that people who disagree with homosexual lifestyles or same sex marriage must be completely free to express that disagreement. Because surely freedom of speech has been cherished in Great Britain but is now under enormous threat. You have no freedom if people are only free to express one point of view. You cannot make ‘offence’ the measuring rod for what is acceptable and unacceptable speech, otherwise you have lost the battle for freedom.

If Great Britain wants to recover its tarnished reputation as a nation of liberty the awful imbalance that has developed in this area has to change to make proper room in the public space for more than one point of view. At present we are sending out a confusing and oppressive sound to the rest of the world by harassing a Christian baker over a cake! Perhaps things will find a more healthy balance, as this article suggests:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702229/Public-backs-bakery-gay-cake-row-says-poll-Six-ten-believe-proposed-court-action-owners-refusal-bake-cake-wrong.html?printingPage=true: .

The British have their weaknesses but can suss out a bully instantly. There will be plenty of sympathy for those who wish to protect rights of conscience.

Female bishops?

The Anglican Church has just voted in favour of women bishops and lots of people will be very happy about that including many with no links to the church who will see this as a positive move which brings the church up to date with the rest of society. Your average punter who reads the Guardian, The Times or Independent will consider this a really ‘right on’ move, the church is getting down with it in 2014. I beg to differ. The trouble is that a lot of these people may not have much idea of what the Bible teaches about these matters, or of ecclesiastical history.

It is never the church’s role to go along with the rest of society, the matter in question here being the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which have governed church teaching for the last two thousand years versus the current ‘God’ of equality, to which every other idea must bow . Of course the modern mind thinks why on earth should women not be allowed to be bishops, surely they are equally capable of such a leadership role? They must have equality. They have a ‘right’ to equality. Surely every self respecting MP and enlightened member of the General Synod could hardly think otherwise. David Cameron himself, sage that he is, said that the church needed to ‘get with the programme’ and ‘be a modern church in touch with society as it is today.’ After the last vote on this by the Synod there was consternation in the ruling elite. How can the church act like this in these days of equality? There was even talk of forcing the church to bow to Lord Equality. Even Frank Field, a Labour MP I have more time for, suggested that coercion should be used. Tradition and even right and wrong, do you not know, must always submit to equality. And so the State strengthens the death grip of political correctness on the Church of England, just as it is doing with the rest of society. For the State’s counterfeit morality must hold sway over every nook and cranny of the nation, even that part of the State which is supposed to bow its knee ultimately only to God. But perhaps that is its ultimate Achilles heel. It is wedded to the State.

But leadership in the church is not a question of equality when it comes to men or women, it is a question of role. It is difficult to interpret the Scriptures in any other way than the implicit default position that church leadership is male. The main characters in leadership positions throughout the Scriptures were almost invariably male, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, the twelve disciples, St Paul and so on. Even God is referred to as male, and the high priests of equality would love to rewrite that bit of the Bible, so that He can be seen as equally female as well. The Scriptures also teach that the man is the head of the home, although this would cause many feminists to foam at the mouth, and not just feminists! We are not talking about headship in terms of some authoritarian Victorian father, a misleading stereotype, but of headship based on servant leadership. The husband is there to cherish and honour his wife as well as taking leadership initiative.

 No true Christian questions the truth that all people are absolutely equal in value or worth regardless of sex, ethnic origin, disability, religion and yes regardless of all nine strands of equality legislation, to which ‘obesity’ may be added the way things are going!. Yet equality of value does not mean equality of role or behaviour. The fact that leadership is predominantly male in the Bible and church history in no way presupposes that women are inferior in any way. It is just that women have different functions, and the function of leading the church as a whole is not for a woman. This does not mean that she has innumerable opportunities to minster and serve in the church in various capacities.

There are exceptions to this preponderance of male leadership in the Bible, such as Deborah the judge in the Old Testament who was hardly a girlie girl! History also has its share of amazing female warriors, think Boadicea, Joan of Arc and some even may invoke the name of Mrs Thatcher. They were no less leaders because they were female, it’s just that they tended to be exceptional.

From a strategic point of view I am not sure this is a good decision. It will increasingly feminise an already female dominated church. If you have been around churches for a while you will know that there is a majority of women in congregations. The difficulty of attracting men into the church is a big issue, and promoting female bishops will not encourage an influx of men. We now live in a society where the question is already being asked anyway as to whether men in the west are capable any more of defending western culture because of the emasculation of so called masculine values in recent years. The church and Christianity are historically part of the core of western civilisation, certainly in the UK, and you need warriors to lead both the church and nation today given the threats to our civilisation. Saints of old like John Wesley, George Whitfield, George Fox and William Booth of the Salvation Army were tough warriors for the Gospel, not cosseted wimps. They were not averse to offending all and sundry by pronouncing what they believed was the truth. So male leadership and some of the traditional qualities it brings with it are even more vital and important. There is of course another religion that is challenging the historical supremacy of the Christian religion in the west and many other countries across the globe. And as we all know Islam is a male dominated religion. Will a church which is now opening the way to be led by women be able to provide robust competition for the souls of men?

When all’s said and done, there is yet another issue. Would the Almighty raise up women to be bishops if the men are not willing to fulfil the role the Scriptures indicate they should take? It has been said that at the Fall when Adam and Eve sinned man abdicated his responsibility and woman usurped his authority. Ursurpation would be a strong word in our modern context, but if men do not take a clear lead as bishops standing for traditional Christian teaching, then women might do a better job of this. Food for thought! The problem with the Anglican Church is that it has decided to move with society rather than stand firm on Biblical teaching. The role of the church generally is to stand like a rock sometimes ‘in the middle of a wicked and perverse generation’ as the Scriptures say. The world may not like it, but many will grudgingly respect its refusal to go along with every fad and fashion of current culture which is a truly moveable feast. That needs rugged warriors who will not flinch an inch. Those sort of men would recognise the bullying spirit behind ‘equality’ for what it is, and tell it to get lost regardless of the consequences.

Just my humble opinion!