Don We Now Our Gay Apparel

Is the decline in Christianity among Anglican clergy moving pari passu with the decline in Western civilisation? Good question. Indubitably, is the answer.

Read an article in last Saturdays Weekend Australian by Jamie Walker about new Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Jeremy Greaves. Among his libertine views on sexual matters, I was struck by his reported comment that he has never questioned the Resurrection. Why in the world would an Anglican priest ever need to provide such an assurance; I thought, quizzically. Reading on, I found that whatever his version of the Resurrection, to quote the article, “it is possibly not as described in the Gospels.”

I would say it wasn’t resuscitation – so if it’s not resuscitation, what is it?…It’s an event that is so far outside of human experience that for 2000 years people have struggled to put language around it. And so what you find in the creeds and many founding documents of the church is an attempt to give language to something that doesn’t have language.

Notice he says what it wasn’t; that is, resuscitation,  without saying what it was; namely, resurrection. He says it was an event that people have struggled to put language around it. Well, no, they haven’t. It is as plain as a pikestaff in the Gospels. No struggle required. It’s only a struggle if you find it hard to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God was able to rise bodily on the third day. Of course, that is a struggle to understand if you are not really a Christian. Thought I’d find out a little more about Rev. Greaves’ views.

Ten years ago, when rector of St Mark’s Anglican church in Buderim (Queensland), Greaves was reported in The Courier Mail as saying that “all the statistics show there is a growing acceptance amongst Christians across churches for same-sex marriage [and that] “it seems slightly odd we can bless pets, but can’t bless a relationship between two people who love each other.”

It’s a hard discipline, this Christianity. It has a one-to-one correspondence with the Bible. And nowhere in that book does it say  we should celebrate sin or bless those who are setting out to sin. And, for the avoidance of doubt, fornication — meaning having any sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman – is a sin. There are so many attesting biblical passages that it makes your head spin.

Let me put it indelicately. Stop reading if you are easily offended. As one example of fornication: two men wishing to couple-up and engage in buggery are not entitled to have their relationship blessed by a Christian priest. And, there is no untoward discrimination going on here. The disentitlement applies equally to an adulterous heterosexual relationship. A blessing is just not doable. Of course, a Christian priest in name only might do it. But it’s a meaningless sham.

Back in 2010, as recounted by David Ould, the Rev. Greaves, then Anglican Dean of Darwin Cathedral, said in an ABC radio interview that he would be happy to abandon the Apostles’ Creed. Which particular part he believed to be redundant, I am not sure. The virgin birth perhaps? Jesus’ crucifixion, his bodily Resurrection, his return to judge the living and the dead? All of them are absolutely central to the Christian faith. None are dispensable. None can be nuanced or converted from a transcendental to a material realm. Of course, if you believe that nothing exists outside of what you can see and feel then atheism is for you. There is a third kind of person who manages to invent a category of spiritual life detached from scripture. They just make it up.

Among priests who occupy this category of the third kind — think, say, of the Archbishop of Canterbury — you will find such overflowing bonhomie that everyone knows they’re really good and generous people. Virtue positively pours from their pores. They are forever adjusting their theology to suit the times. Apropos the Archbishop of Brisbane – again in the Weekend Australian:

We have to find ways of engaging with a generation of young people for whom, largely, issues around sexuality are not issues – they have friends who are gay or trans, they have friends with two mums or two dads. It’s just part of the world they live in.

So instead of standing on the rock of the never-changing Bible (i.e., of God’s revealed truth) progressive priests like Greaves, are dedicated followers of fashion – à la The Kinks. Where that will lead who knows. They don’t know. Perhaps they gaze into a crystal ball to try to work out what young people will turn to next and therefore what they should believe next. And they actually think, delusionally, that pandering to fashion will attract people to Christian churches.

Meanwhile, Brother Muhammad of the religious opposition, at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown in southwest Sydney, is reportedly calling for a Muslim army to defend Islam and fight against the West. (The Australian, December 18.) Let me guess, he doesn’t believe that the Koran is outdated. He doesn’t believe that his so-called Prophet of Allah should move with the times. Who’s going to win, do you think? Jeremy Greaves or Brother Muhammed?

Mosques are crowded, churches are emptying. To have any chance of turning the tide, Christianity needs biblically-based priests. Priests like Glenn Davies; Bishop of the breakaway Diocese of the Southern Cross and former Anglican Archbishop of Sydney. Woke Jeremys are not what is needed.

At this Christmastime, let’s remember that Christ came with a figurative sword (Matthew 10:34-36)  to separate wheat from chaff; good from evil; muscular churches from tepid churches. Of the latter: “I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (KJV, Revelation 3:15)

37 thoughts on “Don We Now Our Gay Apparel

  • Daffy says:

    The Anglican church does seem to weave a wandering path through what once were its beliefs. I see that slowly the Sydney Diocese seems to be courting a similar approach, what with parishes often ‘acknowledging’ pagan ‘country’ before they acknowledge their saviour. Strange priority, I’d think.

  • DougD says:

    Why the surprise at what Anglican priests do? That Irish meteor that blazed briefly on the literary scene in the 1960s wrote:
    The Church of England and all its frolics
    Originated in Henry the Eighth’s bollocks.

  • DougD says:

    That Irish meteor – Brendan Behan

  • lbloveday says:

    “Christ came with a figurative sword (Matthew 10:34-36)”
    Peter Smith has previously pointed out that I was wrong to think that sword meant sword (and subsequent readings have confirmed that is generally accepted). But I have the ongoing problem of not knowing which words to take literally and which figuratively (was “the first stone” a rock or was it perhaps a verbal admonition?; which stories are parables and which are real-life?). And most importantly to me, who makes the determinations?
    I take words literally unless the writer/speaker indicates otherwise. A Federal Court Justice admonished the hapless lawyer cross-examining me “Mr Loveday is pedantic, (looking at me) I mean that in the positive sense, You said “…..” and he took your words literally – what else should he have done?”

  • Alistair says:

    I came across this quote from an Australian theologian, Prof Tracey Rowland, who also seemed to be dismayed by this desperation to stay relevant :

    “It is sometimes joked that the only moral principle upon which all members of the C of E (Church of England) can agree is that a failure to separate one’s recyclable rubbish from the food scraps bin is gravely anti-social behaviour.” [1]

    In Australia, Christianity appears to eke out a miserable existence as a quasi-secular delivery vehicle for the left’s social welfare policies. Rowland continued …

    ” If the only thing uniting a community is the desire for the community to hold together regardless of the actual beliefs and values of those in the community, then that community may well hold together as a mutual social welfare support service for the weaker members who rely on social welfare, but it will lose its character as a church, as an ecclesial body, and it will hold no attraction for the stronger members of the community who don’t go to Church for the free cup of tea and opportunity to pick over the goods on offer at the second-hand clothes stall. If the provision of social welfare, kindness, care and concern, rather than a common creed, becomes the glue that holds a group together, then the sacramental participation in the life of the Trinity will be very much occluded and ecclesial communities will become hard to distinguish from gatherings of secular humanists and political moralists.”

    She appears to be agreeing with my “mate” Oswald Spengler :

    “A religion that has got as far as taking social problems in hand has ceased to be a religion.” [2]

    Major Barbara of the Salvation Army has certainly forgone the ‘Army” part by also the ‘salvation’ part as well and aligned herself with her socialist creator, George Bernard Shaw, while the venerable Saint Vincent de Paul has become simply the proprietor of ‘Vinnies Op Shop’. Under successive, ‘progressive’ governments, Christianity appears to have been reduced to the same ‘dhimmi’ status as Christianity has under Islamic governments in various Muslim countries.

  • sabena says:

    I am glad you included the clip from Yes Prime Minister.It is a reminder that Justin Welby is exactly the person Canon Mike Stanford was.

  • cbattle1 says:

    Leviticus 20 verse 13 of the KJV seems to state unequivocally the Bible’s position regarding male homosexuality:
    “And if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
    The “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures”, the JW Bible, makes it a bit clearer for a modern readership:
    “If a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.”
    Allowing that we live now in different times, it does appear to be a stretch too far to interpret the above passage as recommending a blessing for the marriage of two men to each other!

  • john mac says:

    If the Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Francis swapped places , would anybody know (or care) ?

  • Stephen Due says:

    Sydney Anglicans, at least, have not always been prone to “adjusting their theology to suit the times”. I recall Peter Jensen. In an interview on ABC radio, he was asked whether his uncompromising position on issues such as sexual morality would make the church unpopular. His unexpected reply was “I certainly hope so”.

  • Geoff Sherrington says:

    While I have never found as need for religion, I do share the concern over the current wave of decline of old standards such as honesty, ethics and morals and help for the person next door who might know how to use knofe and fork at table. We have a duty to arrest this decline, so that this degrading type of view of San Francisco does not spread. (Link might not work). Geoff S


    The new Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Jeremy Greaves is apostate because he has blatantly twisted and perverted Holy Spirit breathed scripture for his own rebellion against God in order to fit today’s morally corupt zeitgeist. He has been appointed to lead other spiritually dead people down the broad highway to Hell. In Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:23-24 Jesus compares the narrow gate to the “broad road” which leads to destruction (Hell) and says that “many” will be on that road. By contrast, Jesus says that “small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” A great religious painting by Hieronymus Bosch, The Haywain Tryptich, illustrates apostasy in church leadership. The central panel shows that amongst a variety of people on the road to Hell on a hay cart are kings, but notably followers of religious fashion such as bishops, monks and nuns. All the while, Christ looks down on the scene of debauchery from his position high in the sky. The hay wagon and its accompanying sinners are progressing inexorably into the next panel which shows damnation. I’m sure a large copy of Bosche’s Haywain Tryptich would go well in the cathedral. Whether or not the Archbishop or the parishioners would appreciate its allegory is likely to be witnessed on Judgement Day.

    • lbloveday says:

      As the end of my mortal existence nears I increasingly strongly hope that there is no afterlife, that death is it, the end. Over the years, I’ve discussed it, together with creation, evolution….. over a beer or 10 with friends – even with one who envisages a “doggy heaven” – but no consensus let alone conviction resulted.
      I ended an eulogy with “If his existence has ended as he believed, then he has placed his last bet; if not, as many of you believe, then he has surely gone to Heaven”.
      Napoleon Hill wrote:
      The entire world is made up of only two things, ENERGY and MATTER.
      In elementary physics we learn that neither matter nor energy (the only two realities known to man) can be created or destroyed. Both matter and energy can be transformed, but neither can be destroyed.
      Life is energy, if it is anything. If neither energy nor matter can be destroyed, of course life cannot be destroyed. Life, like other forms of energy, may be passed through various processes of transition, or change, but it cannot be destroyed. Death is mere transition.
      If death is not mere change, or transition, then nothing comes after death except a long, eternal, peaceful sleep, and sleep is nothing to be feared. Thus you may wipe out, forever, the fear of Death.

      • cbattle1 says:

        Ah, yes, to die, to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream? Ah, but there’s the rub, for in that sleep what dreams may come?

      • Rebekah Meredith says:

        December 26, 2023
        “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”: (Hebrews 9:27). Many people HOPE that there is nothing to fear after death when in fact there is everything to fear–but only for those who are unprepared. The very next verse in Hebrews says, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Hope for now and forever is in Him, but His free gift of salvation must be accepted. Salvation is of grace by “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21)
        Without salvation through Christ, you have no hope. With it, you have all hope.

  • Paul.Harrison says:

    ‘the rock of the never-changing Bible (i.e., of God’s revealed truth’

    Shown above is merely a cut and paste from your article, and it is illuminating. Here are some words to explain how skeptical I am of your revealed position. Nicolaus Copernicus died in 1543 just as his unique findings regarding the movements of the Sun and the planets were published in his book, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium”. Essentially he proved beyond doubt that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, as held by the divine word of god. In this he risked his life, as the scourge of the Holy Inquisition was in full stride and if he had not, conveniently, died when he did, this may have easily become his fate. Hindsight suggests, and I agree, that this man heralded the start of the Scientific Revolution. The Inquisition did intrude, of course, by placing the book on the list of publications banned by the Roman Church, and it was not removed from that list until 1758, a mere 215 years after his death. This reflects a well known practice of the church…..i.e., “Put it in the dark for 215 years and people will forget it ever existed”.

    Obviously, the revealed never changing words of your god, given to man in the bible, are not rock solid and eternal, changing with the fashions of the times. You cannot claim that it is and it disgusts me that you do. Give me any pope today and into the future who claims that Copernicus was in fact wrong and that the Earth regains her imaginary place as the centre of our universe and I will show you a pope who will be interred in the closest lunatic asylum, oh dear, I am mistaken, he already lives there.

    Please, keep your filthy hands off our changing society.

    • lbloveday says:

      “You cannot claim that it is and it disgusts me that you do”.
      I at times also do not accept that what Mr Smith claims is true (often without disagreeing, I simply don’t know) but it is intemperance like yours that disgusts me, not claim(s) he makes that I do not agree with.

    • Rebekah Meredith says:

      December 26, 2023
      Where does the Word of God state that the earth is the centre of the universe? That belief came from Aristotle, not the Bible. Catholicism claims as infallible many things not found in the Bible (the perpetual virginity of Mary, the need to pray to saints, salvation’s being by works instead of grace, etc.). Catholicism, in fact, persecuted those who believed the Bible other than as “the Church” explained it.

  • call it out says:

    At a local Anglican church, the gay priest welcomed all manner of trans and gay couples. I recall a conversation with a deacon, who claimed she was spiritual, but not religious. A large banner was erected on the church wall calling for the worship of Gaia. Not surpisingy, the church is now almost empty on Sundays…more celebrants than congregation.

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Good piece Peter. Spot on as usual, in my view.

  • Brian Boru says:

    I am inclined to view homosexuality or same sex attraction more as a genetic disability than a choice.
    I don’t discount though that there may well be some who deliberately engage in the practice as some sort of perversion or misguided preference for sexual pleasure. Any scriptural references were, in the absence of knowledge of genetics, probably directed at these and the societal consequences. (Spectacles such as the heterophobic Mardi gras parades disgust me.) There may also be others who have been hurt by the opposite sex or denied the great joy and fulfillment in the love of a normal relationship. In all cases I feel that the description should be “sad” not “gay”.
    I do not believe that these people fit the definition of the word “marriage” as used in the Australian Constitution and because of that any federal legislation to the contrary is invalid. A blessing or legal recognition of their relationships is another matter.
    I have experienced the acquaintance of a number of same sex couples living as responsible members of their communities and know at least one person who has a deep spiritual connection to his church. I abhor any idea that such people should be killed. I cannot countenance that this could be a tenet of a faith which encourages us to love our neighbor as ourself.

    • Peter Smith says:

      Brian, my niece and her female partner have been together for many years. I love them both. In asking us to love our neighbour Christ did not specify that our neighbour must meet particular requirements. He did instruct us not to judge – which is a good idea in view of the failings of each and every one of us. It comes down narrowly to the question of blessing any activity which is clearly identified as wrong; in this case in both the Old and New Testaments. A Christian priest can’t do that; legitimately.

    • lbloveday says:

      The greatest disgust I felt regarding a Mardi Gras parade was at a float carrying people dressed as Catholic nuns feigning masturbation with crucifixes.

    • lbloveday says:

      “In all cases I feel that the description should be “sad” not “gay””
      In all cases I feel that the description should be “homosexual”, the unambiguous English term commonly used until the homosexual lobby (LGBTQwtf if you prefer) misappropriated the time-honoured word “gay” (remember Gay Paree, The Gay Bachelor, “the company was gay..” from the iconic “No Milk Today” by Herman’s Hermits?), I have never used “gay” in it usurped meaning..
      The kids started using “gay” in a derogatory sense (“what a gay town” said my daughter’s friend as we passed through the mess that was Wilcannia), so their school banned the use of “gay” in other than the meaning “homosexual”.

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    December 26, 2023
    Thank you for this piece, Mr. Smith–an unapologetic upholding of biblical doctrine.

  • Jack Brown says:

    Male SSA arises from a pretty unique cause whereas female SSA arises different causes, none being that which leads to male SSA. For females it might be having been hurt by men and another cause is Asperger’s Syndrome which male or female means having an Extreme Male Brain eg as Tomboy or as Iron Lady (eg Thatcher). Not all female Aspies are lesbian or transgender but given one who is then more often than not there will be Asperger’s.

    For boys their male / female sexual polarities are entangled, criss crossed rather than parallel and opposite. All boys start off like this as babies but come weaning from Mum’s breast the boy needs to have detached from her energy as provider of his attachment needs and aligned with Dad’s. Every homosexual male has parents whereby the energy between Mum and Dad is inverted, Mum dominates Dad who acquiesces to her. This is not sufficient to cause SSA as there can be straight brothers but it is necessary. The straight brothers accept Dad as he is and it never occurs to them that by aligning with him as an infant will mean loss of Mum’s affection, so they make the switch. The gay brother tho will usually be Mum’s favourite and he sees how Mum treats Dad so in essence breaks the 4th Commandment and rejects Dad with contempt for his weakness lest he lose his place in Mum’s heart, therefore dishonouring her love as being conditional. A woman selects her husband on a judgement that he has status to provide for her and her kids and strength to protect her and them. With an acquiescent beta male husband she is disappointed with his failure to be the man she had hoped for and should have rejected and still carries the unfilled hope for an alpha male to come into her life. Her gay son absorbs this psycho-sexual energy (as do his sisters( on his way to puberty, treating his father with the contempt Mum has for him but hidden away in her subconscious, this effect often being taken as cause labelled as the unavailable father problem. He also absorbs her desire for a strong man to appear in her life and now in his life. Older gay godfather types will prey upon this desire and introduce the boy into homosexual practices. It is not so much a sin of practice but as mentioned a sin breaking the 4th Commandment.

  • Bron says:

    What a load of rubbish.

  • en passant says:

    I have been advocating for god to issue a recall on the current Pope, while their remains anything of the catholic church. Anyone who can explain the logic to me of approving same-sex ‘marriage blessings on the one hand while demanding that god’s minions remain celibate and male has lost the plot.

  • Jackson says:

    Excellent article, Peter.
    Puts me in mind of Thomas More’s shrewdly satirical observation in “Utopia” (AD 1516): ‘We’ll never get human behaviour in line with Christian ethics, so let’s adapt Christian ethics to human behaviour. Then at least there’ll be a connexion between them’.
    The fashion-followers are ever with us, but the word of the Lord stands forever.

Leave a Reply