Tribunal clears bloke for calling a bloke a bloke

[Imnobody4]

Title is from a comment below the article - I can't claim credit.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9cc794ad-f87f-426b-bcd6-b32dd0e71449?shareToken=affb94156668c582b96b3c286b146d6c

A clergyman who called the Church of England’s first trans woman archdeacon a “bloke” should not be punished, a disciplinary tribunal has ruled.

Turner said that “looking at the overall picture of conduct alleged” in Murphy’s case, “that what was said falls short on the facts of any threshold for further proceedings. It follows that there is, therefore, no case to answer in respect of which a disciplinary tribunal should now be asked to adjudicate”.

Yet another example of the process being the punishment. 4 disciplinaries, no wonder Murphy ended up resigning.

I doubt Murphy and I would agree on much. I nonetheless suspect that Murphy is correct that Mann is being positioned for political reasons and will be appointed as the first transgender bishop. (And how much easier and faster a process that will have been than the CoE accepting women priests.)

I get the feeling there is an awful lot of pressure on the church at the moment. Yesterday had this biased article in the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-68664632. I was expecting it to be an article about women’s football and lesbian culture within, but it span out and started talking about the CofE.

It seems really off to pressurise a religious organisation to go against its beliefs and principles. Even Peter Tatchell was supportive of the ‘gay weeding cake’ bakers’ freedom of speech. I don’t get this fixation on gay couples having church weddings.

I didn't think that article was biased, and not sure it's particularly relevant to this thread?

“Mann is being positioned for political reasons and will be appointed as the first transgender bishop”

There’s “first ‘woman’ to be appointed as an Archbishop” still up for grabs too, in the CoE. Given how long it took to get agreement on female Bishops, getting an actual female in as a first AB might take some time.

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Mann would beat them to the punch.

It just struck me yesterday - I thought I was going to be reading an article about lesbians in women’s football, but suddenly I found myself being told how bad the CofE is for not changing its principles.

As someone who doesn’t know many people who have had church weddings, it seems like a pretty fringe issue to be brought up in the context of women’s football.

It is tangential to the OP, but in the article, Murphy alludes to there being an agenda going on, to change the church from what its congregation wants. The way that I found myself reading about the CofE when I had no interest in doing so, like that, makes me think he probably has a point. Something seems to be afoot.

Beth England herself isn't even a practising Christian.

Does seem like a bit of shoehorning.

How refreshing to see a regulatory body saying that bloke/fella etc are not insults in themselves.
And it also seems that they understood that stating a fact is not harassment.

They can hardly discipline someone for opposing same sex marriage and his other religious / gender critical beliefs no matter how ridiculous they sound to anyone not versed in doctrine, when many of his faith share the same anti-LGBT beliefs.

Referring to someone by their real sex is not anti anything (maybe anti bs?).

To conflate person a recognising person b's true sex with being 'anti LGB' doesn't make sense - after all, you need to recognise sex to recognise sexuality.

@BackCats

It seems really off to pressurise a religious organisation to go against its beliefs and principles. Even Peter Tatchell was supportive of the ‘gay weeding cake’ bakers’ freedom of speech. I don’t get this fixation on gay couples having church weddings.

Hard disagree. I have every right to put pressure on a religious organisation as long as it's MY religious organisation - which is clearly the case for Bethany. It's just as much their church as it is the hierarchy's! And as an aside - it's always astonishing how the atheist left is selling out fellow leftists by going along with the right-wing Christo-nationalist land grab of equating "Christian" with "far right white evangelical" (a presumption no better than TWAW.)

The Rachel Mann case doesnt compare to this. It's not a grassroots issue like gay marriage - it's top level organisational politics. I imagine that would be in line with the Denton's playback.

Cross-posted. If that's the case I stand corrected. Doesn't mean that the rank-and-file probably aren't too different from overall public opinion as far as marriage equality goes.

I presume Murphy is the breed of theologian vehemently opposed to women priests as well - which would make him anything but "gender critical." HTH.

And as an aside - it's always astonishing how the atheist left is selling out fellow leftists by going along with the right-wing Christo-nationalist land grab of equating "Christian" with "far right white evangelical" (a presumption no better than TWAW.)

Particularly as some of the most ‘traditional’ elements of the Anglican communion globally are black / African ministries.

I know you didn’t realise that she is not a practicing Christian, but I think it’s pretty shocking that she says she "always wanted this big, fancy wedding". I mean, that is pretty insulting to followers of the religion, to say you just want the big, fancy ceremonies they do well, but not to actually practice the religion- what’s to stop her having a big, fancy secular wedding, or alternatively one celebrated within a religion or sect that recognises gay marriage? It seems to me she has no business commenting on the internal business of the CofE if it’s not her religion.

She goes on to say "As much as I'm not a religious person, I know there's plenty of people out there that are in the LGBTQ+ community," but this is still a tenuous link to an article criticising the CofE.

Why aren’t they picking on one of those fast-growing pentacostal churches like the KICC or something there must be gay people in those churches too?

You say of the CofE that it Doesn't mean that the rank-and-file probably aren't too different from overall public opinion as far as marriage equality goes. What is the public opinion on marriage equality anyway? I got the impression that the public would support gay marriage, but not to force religions to conduct ceremonies if it goes against their principles or to marry people who do not practice the religion, and I imagine the rank and file of the CofE probably aren’t enamoured with the idea of making it compulsory for Anglican churches to conduct gay marriages, otherwise they wouldn’t be pushing back against it.

Although all I know of Murphy is what I read in the article linked to the OP - I don’t see how you could reasonably “presume Murphy is the breed of theologian vehemently opposed to women priests as well”. He seems to be opposed to transgenderism and gay marriage within the church, I don’t see why it would follow that he is against women vicars and bishops. He might be, he might not.

it's always astonishing how the atheist left is selling out fellow leftists by going along with the right-wing Christo-nationalist land grab of equating "Christian" with "far right white evangelical" (a presumption no better than TWAW.)

I don’t understand what you mean here.

The Rachel Mann case doesnt compare to this. It's not a grassroots issue like gay marriage - it's top level organisational politics. I imagine that would be in line with the Denton's playback.

Also gay marriage within the Anglican Church is not a ‘grass roots’ issue, is it? Murphy is a grass roots activist within the church, and Rachel Mann has been promoted to Bishop in a way that seems an attempt by the church to force it (as well as transgenderism, and presumably kink, etc, in the Qii++ part of that acronym) through, in a top down manner.

If Murphy was opposed to female clergy it seems unlikely he’d have not only been a practising Anglican but a C of E cleric. The ordination of women must have begun when he was a child; & that’s a pretty big objection to just wiggle your conscience past.

He feels pretty free to comment on Christianity as a whole - the Catholic Church allowing the blessing of same sex unions (as of course distinct from any notion of same sex marriage; & layered in all sorts of stuff) was greeted with shrieks about apostasy, so 🙄

It seems he’s joining the “Free” C of E, which is one of those “clue is in the name” organisations. Like “lovely ethical we don’t eat children globalmegacorp”, for example. Maybe things have changed & improved since the 1990s/2000s, but the truly off the scale misogyny (girls & women essentially slaves of boys & men - while not allowed to cut their hair, wear trousers, or otherwise dress “immodestly”) & scope for abuse (on top of that, lots of “churches” were basically single family units with father doing double duty as pastor & thus claiming penultimate authority [so unless God made a personal appearance you were shit out of luck, basically]). I was one of very few friends the “Free” girl at my school was allowed & I struggled desperately because I yearned to take her & her mummy & the little ones away to a deprogramming centre somewhere as they were basically brainwashed into believing they were worthless as they were female. (Her mummy had been abused as a child & was sadly young & vulnerable when Mr Abusive would-be-holy swooped in 😡) And the weird Old Testament pick & mix might well have been all his own thing - but his bishop should have stamped on it. Hard.^

He is chums with Calvin Robinson, which isn’t a great advertisement 🫤 That in combination with his general behaviour means it’s very difficult to properly consider the idea there’s a deliberate push for a TW bishop. (There almost certainly is; & I’ve no doubt but that many clergy & laity would prefer a TW archbishop to a female one; but a conspiracy theorist banging on about something is the best way to get people to assume that can’t possibly be the case.)

However, it doesn’t really matter what motivated him to correctly sex another cleric. Nor does it matter he was rude. Nor that it’s a safe bet we’re theologically & socially/politically/morally opposed on pretty much everything going. We’re not planning to hang out; & like most people on here I agree with many Nazis, racists, transphobes, murderers & general stains on humanity that the world is round & there are [roughly] 24 hours in a day - anyone trying to make something of such a correlation is incredibly foolish &/or has no actual argument.

The important thing, of course, is what the C of E has established. Obviously it helped that they had the Forstater judgement & the Scottow case to point to: people are free to be upset & offended all they like. But they cannot silence those who speak the truth, even if the truth comes in a harsh &/or unkind form. That must come as quite a shock to the TRAs in the C of E who’ve got used to having it all their own way.

^Sorry, I know I digressed there, but the FCofE makes me rage.@

@NitroNine that’s interesting. I’d never heard of the FCoE before. I tried to look at what they are about on their website and it seems that they are like a cross between the CofE and evangelical Christianity- Billy Graham style, but I could be way off the mark. Are they able to keep their parish but ignore the CofE hierarchy?

I find it fascinating that they are trying to go back to the ‘real’ message (as opposed to the more progressive ideas being adopted by the CofE) - it’s like something from the Reformation.

What’s wrong with Calvin Robertson? He always came across as a really nice bloke on GB News.

seems he is the presbyter in charge (whatever that is) at the Emmanual Church in Morecambe, which explains why he has taken a selfie on Lancaster railway station

You are clearly not well versed in doctrine yourself.

I think this is quite typical of evangelical churches which tend to be conservative and rooted in keeping to what they see as the true message in the gospel, rather than (as they would see it) adapting/ ignoring the biblical message to fit current cultural norms.

I suspect that the CoE, as the ' establishment church' has an intrinsic motivation to try to seem 'relevant' and in line with developing social norms, as it needs to do so to try to hold onto whatever dwindling authority and influence it still has within the institutions of power and culture. The independent churches don't need to do this so they are free to develop the doctrine they see as the truth regardless of its popularity in mainstream culture. They still find congregations ( partly because they are really, really good at building community within their churches - they always have a lot going on and lots of opportunity join groups and make friends - and partly because their services are just more interesting and engaging than standard CoE, and partly because a proportion of their congregation will just ignore a lot of the less palatable teachings as the rest of what they get out of an active, friendly, social, genuine church community compensates for that.

Good news about the tribunal result, but this background is depressing. God forbid the church might show some respect for actual women.

Murphy alludes to there being an agenda going on, to change the church from what its congregation wants.

As a practising Christian (and licensed minister) I'd agree with this. Very few of us, clergy or laity, go along with all of this "wokery". We hardly recognise the church today.

Ww have no problem with women priests (the church would have collapsed without them), nor with gay relationships whether married (civil relationship) or not, in our own church - these are God's children as God made them, and are welcome and cherished. However, to say that people can change sex because God "put them in the wrong body" (or whatever the TRA doctrine is now) is nonsense.

Nobody is in the wrong body. You are born in a body. It's yours. Love it if you can, but look after it anyway - it's the only one you'll get and it has to last you all your life.

People are being driven away from the church by this and similar "wokeries". There is a huge tolerance for different lifestyles, but no-one wants to see women or children placed at risk, and no-one wants to be forced to lie to themselves and others, especially about something as basic as biology.

Edit voorspelling

@BackCats
Free C of E are a separate denomination from the C of E: & yes, their name is effectively a nonsense. It’s like someone setting up as RRC (Real Roman Catholicism) & resetting everything to how it was prior to Vatican II. I know you get weirdy groups of Catholics being weirdy; but nobody has, AFAIK, lost the absolute run of themselves to the point of just setting up a competing denomination; claiming to be The Authentic Version of said faith; & holding none of the associated power/property/position.

The back to basics/Biblical Literalism churches baffle me as a historian because we know the Bible has been translated - multiple times - & edited, & generally very clearly mucked about with by men. The insistence it is the perfect pure Word of God & God decided on the Bible’s contents (presumably the Apocrypha are a merry jape🤷‍♀️) is just…

These churches don’t ever seem to focus on loving one another - as per John (& there’s loads more in John) or Romans or Peter - or the Parable of the Good Samaritan or, you know, the positive stuff. It gets a mention, but they’re all about the patriarchy, the punitive, & for some reason, teaching mad shite about Catholics.

As for Robinson, well… did you read the link I posted? He’s a raging Islamophobe, ranging from attacks on the Mayor of London & Scotland’s FM, declaring them unfit for their posts & their jurisdictions “captured”; to wild claims refugees are in fact an invading force set on creating a totalitarian theocracy. He has no scruples about twisting things to manufacture outrage & engagement. He could have caused serious harm to another member of the clergy by claiming he was pro-abortion (& anti-prayer 😵‍💫); but he clearly DGAF. Robinson’s a would-be edgy controversy-courter (had plenty of idiotic shite to say during/about Covid, naturally) who I’d call a weasel if it wouldn’t be so grossly offensive to mustilidae.