The announcement that Stephen Cottrell is to be the next Archbishop of York has been met with almost universal acclamation. Here is an emotionally literate bishop with a passion for mission and a good brain. What could there be not to be liked? Then we have the almost immediate reaction to his appointment coming from a conservative group known as Christian Concern and its spokesman, Andrea Minichiello Williams. She protests at the appointment because the Bishop, in his current post as Bishop of Chelmsford, had been drawn into the case of a transgender child at a church school. The attempts to support the child, who may possibly undergo treatment for a sex reassignment, led to the local Vicar, John Parker, resigning his post as a school governor and as Incumbent. It was claimed that the Diocese and Bishop Cottrell had previously told this Vicar that his ‘biblical views on sexuality were not welcome in the Church of England and that he could leave’. This account of what passed between Bishop and the Vicar is a matter of dispute. On the face of it, the use of such words by a bishop does seem somewhat unlikely.
As I began to think my way through this very untidy situation, I asked myself what would have been my own reaction as a Vicar. I realised, somewhat thankfully, that a situation like this had never come near to my attention. The open discussion of transgender issue seems to be a new moral topic for the church to face. I then thought back 50 years to ethics lectures at college and the way we were introduced to various theories of ethical reasoning. The subject was never one of my strongest areas of study and, in the General Ordination Exam, I only received a bare pass. My understanding of ethics has of course grown since then. One of the main insights that I have since acquired is the realisation that ethical dilemmas seldom, if ever, result in a clear-cut resolution. Over my years of ‘doing’ ethics in the parish, the best I have been able to achieve is to have accompanied someone else as they attempted to work through and resolve an ethical dilemma. It was never a matter of applying the ‘the clear teaching of Scripture’. At best it was looking at numerous potential outcomes and trying to discern what was the most loving and productive way forward. Ethical reasoning for me and, I suspect, for most clergy is almost never a matter of straight application of texts or long established norms. If it were, I imagine that the life of clergy (and social workers) would be so much easier.
The difference that exists between me and conservative evangelical ethicists, like Andrea Williams, is to be found in this divergence in the way we do our moral reasoning. I am acutely aware of the way that all moral decisions take place within a setting or a context. Unalterable principles like the indissolubility of marriage or the fixity of gender identity are fine when printed in text books. Somehow the moment these unbreakable principles leave the text book (or the pages of Scripture), they become extremely difficult to apply. There are just so many variables in every situation to be taken account of. Ethical reasoning takes enormous wisdom and insight together with compassion for real people and their situations. The last thing that someone wants to hear is an inflexible declaration of moral certainty. There are few people or situations that welcome the approach that says: ‘This is what you must do, it is God’s will and there is no room for disagreement or even discussion.’
The fact that ‘clear biblical teaching’ is so difficult to apply in practice has led me to ask where it is able to be enforced consistently. The answer has to be that the only people who can readily hear uncompromising inflexible moral teaching are those who are already part of the same tribe as the moral enforcer. Conservative groups, in other words, can enforce their uncompromising teaching on those who have surrendered decision making on all things religious to the leaders. While there may well be many other Christians outside these conservative groups who have accepted the principle that to be Christian is to ‘hate gays’, it is likely that the great majority of such people have never knowingly met a homosexual or got close to them at any rate. Their principled stand has come about, not through wrestling with the moral issue but adopting a particular tribal label which has given them a sense of belonging. In a dramatic reversal of the words of scripture, it could be claimed that for many, Christians are known for the fact that they hate or distance themselves from the right groups of people.
All in all, I find myself having to declare that I sense a sizeable chasm between the position I hold and that of Andrea Williams. If biblical principles really could be applied seamlessly to complex moral problems, then this would be very convenient. It would save a lot of time because it would sidestep all the complex and nuanced moral reasoning that seems to belong to every ethical problem. When we deal with actual breathing transgender or same-sex attracted people, we find that is that there are a myriad of details of fact and science to be faced before ethical reasoning can even begin. The science part is also important since questions of normal and abnormal cannot just be left to our feelings about such matters. My reluctance ever to use words like deviant or abnormal comes from a variety of reasons. While not claiming to be in any sense an expert in ethics or moral philosophy, something seems very wrong when opinions are offered by Andrea Williams and John Parker which use bible texts as tools to undermine the reflections of scientists and philosophers alike. Quoting scripture as a way of cutting through incredibly complex scientific/moral issues does not appear to lead to any of the insights we need to hear in the 21st century. The victims of bullying, who already suffer because of their possibly unconventional life-styles, deserve something far more generous from Christians. Jesus after all was one who went out of his way to reach the outcasts and the sinners. Should hatred be what his followers are heard to say?
For many Christians, the attempt to root all Christian ethical behaviour in relevant scriptural verses may seem a commendable enterprise. But for others, particularly those who live life-styles that challenge the norm, these same verses from the Bible add to the burdens that they already have to carry. Should Christians ever read the Bible and use select passages from it in a way that harasses and bullies people. Battering people with texts is not a helpful approach; indeed it is completely contrary to the spirit of acceptance and love shown by Jesus. Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop designate, is to be commended because his attitude and approach allows people of all situations not only to exist but to flourish in the church. This flourishing is what he believes to be God’s will. This blog readily accepts that disagreements about ethical issues among Christians are going to be inevitable. Such disagreements might even be welcome if they force everyone to think deeply and reason carefully about matters of faith and belief. They become problematic when they lead disputants into words of bitter hatred and contempt for one another. The spiteful homophobic letters sent to Richard Coles on the death of his partner David have cast shame on the whole body of Christians. They contain what one tweeter described as ‘diseased theology’, a theology that easily infects others. Can ethical convictions ever justify such terrible sentiments towards another Christian believer? We end by quoting the paraphrase from St John’s gospel, the passage that simply says ‘by this shall all know that you are my disciples if you have love one for another’.
Bp Cottrell has not denied making such remarks about ‘those who do not like the trajectory may leave’, which were apparently made either twice or a minimum of twice, once with 30 clergy present and once with less. Hence the ending of his Ad Clerum when he says he has not always met the best standards with regard to diversity (understand – he has been known to sideline those holding the normal / majority Christian position).
These 3 concurrent factors: (a) that he did not in the Ad Clerum deny these words spoken in a plenary context, (b) that he did not address the topic of these words directly, when there was nothing preventing his doing so, and everything requiring that he should; (c) that he made the substitute and irrelevant denial that he had spoken such things in a context of meeting with John Parker individually (when the allegation was about words said in a plenary context), and (d) that he ended the plenary in this particular way, by speaking about his failure to have a spotless record re sidelining certain positions and not respecting the principle of diversity (somewhat of a bogus principle anyway that needs a lot of unpacking, whose upholding would have been the least of the conservatives’ concerns!) -this fourfold combination leads one to think that he did say such words, he later regretted doing so *not* because he did not believe them but because their utterance works against another core liberal principle, that of diversity – and that all of this was expressed in a cagey way which was (a) often unnecessarily vague and indirect leading one to question *why* anyone should be so indirect, (b) did not address certain central issues, as detailed above.
The Mermaids incident was indeed a nadir. (a) They are not renowned as a group for being at the cutting edge of academia. That is to put it mildly. (b) They required everyone to agree that, at the end of the session, they were now an honorary mermaid. (c) Their particular set of beliefs are so tenuous, it is no wonder that academics everywhere are taking stands against them. (d) Their failure to respond to academic criticism is rivalled only by Stonewall, as is their incapacity and inability to do so, leaving shutting down dissent as the only option, if an illegitimate and arrogant one. (e) They deliberately characterised their school meeting as didactic, not the sort of forum where questioning was allowed. That is all on tape.
For ‘3 concurrent factors’ read ‘4 concurrent factors’. For ‘ended the plenary’ read ‘ended the Ad Clerum’.
Thanks again, Stephen.
The phrase situational ethics comes to mind, and a few reminiscences.
When I was ten, I remember a discussion at a meal with some other boys about whether we would have killed Hitler if we had had the chance. Opinion was divided. I forget what I said.
Then when I was a teenager, I recall another meal time conversation with my parents, one of whom said it was OK to tell a white lie if the circumstances required it, e.g. to spare somebody’s feelings. This came up again for me yesterday, when I was watching Virgin River on Netflix: a woman explained to her young son that she had told a lie to save hurting her friend’s feelings.
I have also heard people talk of white witches as being preferable to black witches.
For me, the difficulty with all this talk in which the end justifies the means, is that it is the kind of argument that would be used by terrorists for letting off bombs in a crowded place. In other words, where does this process of being guided by circumstances end?
Could one, for example, talk about a category of gentle murder, where as long as the victim suffers no pain or distress, the act of killing is somehow better than if they do?
Personally I think not.
When we come to the Bible, it is not right to reduce this collection of writings to a set of rules: however, there are rules within it, and there are plenty of stories which point out the folly of behaving badly. Look at the chaos that enveloped David’s family after the incident with Bathsheba, and the way Solomon inherited an attitude towards women that would eventually divide the kingdom and lead to the exile.
I can see why you imagine people won’t want to hear inflexible rules at a time of distress, but by attempting to save them from such one could be opening a door to much worse in the medium and long term, to my mind. I think we do well to tread cautiously here.
Happy Christmas!
Happy Christmas Stephen and everyone!
Why does anyone worry what ‘Christian’ Concern think?
RIchard, one would want a bit more detail and less airy dismissal in order to be convinced, as it is the more detailed assessments than impress most, and the least detailed that impress least. I imagine you’d not want to be the least impressive – so what is it that you mean?
I see a flaw in a minor point of Christian Concern’s take on Chelmsford, and affirm their central point. Bp Cottrell made clear that when he was saying that anyone who could not in conscience accept a teaching might have to follow that conscience and resign, (a) he was including everyone, even himself in this, and (b) he was making a logical point rather than a threat. He was saying that people should follow conscience wherever it leads. Quite correct. I have often found that people will inaccurately take such logical points as emotional threats when they are not. He was not saying ‘be off with you’ or ‘good riddance’. Bp Cottrell was correct in this minor point.
He was of course incorrect, as Christian Concern says, in his major point: that new ideas that have never been Christian hitherto and are still rejected by most Christians as well as failing to fit into schemes of recognisably Christian thought, and as well as being beyond controversial – that the acceptance of some such ideas is non-negotiable. Well, of course it isn’t. Christian Concern estimates this to be a serious error on the Bishop’s part. They are precisely right.
“The last thing that someone wants to hear is an inflexible declaration of moral certainty.”
I have been reflecting on the words wants to hear. Personally I will want to hear straightforward statements of integrity in 2020. I want this from politicians, friends and family, my GP and my bank statement for a start.
There is a constant temptation to bend the truth to what people want to hear. This path leads to the nanny state, and to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Ugh!
Interestingly, the Bible does not say “Never tell lies” as a bald command, but it does say that the Lord hates a lying tongue (Prov 6:17), that Jesus said the Devil is the father of lies (John 8:44) and that those who love lies will never enter the new Jerusalem (Rev 22:15). The inference is clear, but the presentation is not forceful. Personally, I never feel bossed about when I read the Bible.
OK, point taken – I don’t want to hear people bossing me about in the new decade. Spare me!
Its interesting that his supposed “crime” is telling a vicar that if he doesn’t like CofE policy then he can leave. Its interesting because Andrea Williams also campaigns for those who sincerely believe that the CofE should be more inclusive of LGBT people and/or permit gay people to marry to be forcibly removed from the denomination. Is this not gross hypocrisy?
I think Conservative evangelicals who oppose this appointment must consider two things
Firstly that the majority of people in the CofE are not Conservative evangelicals and dont agree with their theology. Secondly that since Welby was appointed their faction has held both archbishop positions despite them only being a minority of the church.
Lastly the presenting issue was not about trans inclusion in a church, but allowing a trans child to attend a state school without harassment. I find it hard to understand the pov of the vicar who tried to stop it
I’d agree. The problem is some people think trans doesn’t really exist. So they’re doing it on purpose just to upset the evangelicals!
For ‘trans’ to exist, it would first need to be defined. However it is (deliberately?) a hard phenomenon to pin down? When people say ‘trans’, I know they do not mean transvestite. But it is never clear whether they mean transsexual or transgender, which sure as eggs are not the same thing.
So little are they the same thing that the former would be immediately obvious from a person’s physiological history, whereas the latter remains only an unverified and unverifiable claim that is not physiologically apparent. Quite a difference. So which of the two is meant? (I leave aside the idea that one can say ‘I’m male’ and hey presto be male.) If things were that clear why does a day never go by without academics or medics or parents or just normal commonsense people who do not follow every fad expressing very strong misgivings?
Why would someone require others to accept the existence of an acknowledgedly controversial phenomenon at all, least of all before having defined it, and on an occasion where definition is especially necessary?
Trans means someone whose (apparent) birth sex is the opposite to the gender that they experience being. The definition is no great secret!
Its usually a shortening/contemporary version of transgender, but obviously that would include transsexual people as well.
This child was transgender. (Its illegal for children to have sex change surgery in the UK)
Pete,
(a) You say ‘opposite’ as though everything were at the poles and nothing on the spectrum. No-one will buy that.
(b) You expect us to believe that someone’s ‘inner sense’ (which they have no way of telling is actually female, not being female themselves) is 100% along the spectrum from the chromosomes that are in every minute portion of their body. Is that likely?
(c) The whole point is that ‘was transgender’ is a tenuous description that begs questions. Suspiciously a lot of children seem to ‘be transgender’ in Brighton of all places. Or among their peer group of all places. Especially when that peer group is autistic of all things. And remarkably (by pure coincidence) the number of children claiming to ‘be transgender’ has shot up by thousands of percent at just the moment in history when such things are being talked about.
This is of course nothing to do with ideas being put in precious children’s heads, nor anything to do with their choosing between the array of options that is presented to them as normal.
You asked what the definition is. I gave you the definition.
It’s quite possible to have both a spectrum and an opposite in the same variable. Consider night and day, for example.
I certainly never said that to qualify as trans your experienced gender must align 100% with a particular “pole”. You are complaining against something I didn’t say.
Why does “was transgender” behavior questions? If she wasn’t trans then what was the whole kerfuffle about? Unless either of us is her parent or doctor then it’s not really any of our business! I’m not qualified to make such a diagnosis even if I knew the child and I doubt you are either?
Why cant Christians just treat others (especially small children!) as they would like to be treated? Why does getting Christians to treat others like human beings and not something stuck to their shoe have to be such a battle?
This is a small child. Her medical condition is none of your business. She should be permitted to attend state school whatever her gender. And the Christian bullies should consider what they have become that attacking small children is now the major practice of their faith.
It still doesn’t add up. If we are not speaking of poles, and if we also agree that there is a spectrum, then normal distribution sees a peak in the middle. So if people are somewhere in the middle that is not remotely the same as being the ‘opposite’ to your body. Nor is male the opposite to female in the first place, even granted they are the poles of a spectrum.
As to ‘medical condition’, what misuse of words is this? Medical things like physical things are testable, verifiable and able to be seen. [Claimed] states of mind fulfil none of those criteria or not nearly so well.
As to the points about Brighton, culture, autism – these must be addressed, and have not been.
There’s not a normal distribution!
You may as well argue that day doesn’t exist because there is continual variation between day and night or that there’s no such thing as sea because we have beaches!
You asked me for a definition and I gave you one.
No medical conditions don’t have to be physical. I have no idea if trans people are the way they are due only to mental difference to non trans people or if there is a physical aspect either. We know for a fact that most people with an intersex condition are undiagnosed so I would think it was almost certain that at least some trans people are actually intersex without knowing it.
I’ve no idea why you think conditions that are physical are somehow ignorable? Nor what anything you have to say justifies the treatment of this school and child by this so called vicar – someone who is supposed to be in a position of moral leadership!
I would like to know the crime that this child has committed to justify such cruelty and lack of compassion by people who claim to follow Christ.
I’ve no idea what you are talking about Brighton or autism – I didn’t mention these things!
To answer your second question. The kid was attending a state school at which the vicar was a governor. He felt that he was being required to “accept” her because he was a governor at the school she attended.
I’ve no idea how he would have preferred the school to react? Maybe refuse to teach her unless she dress as a boy?!
The issue of the child has nothing to do with the issue of which I speak, namely Bp Stephen’s requirement that something highly tenuous and historically-unchristian be somehow accepted as nonnegotiable!!
Not to mention the Mermaids’ brazen silencing of even the slightest debate, and also their forcing of enthusiastic acceptance. But then when your position would not stand up in debate it is hard to see what other line one could take, dictatorial though it be.
I would equally like the CofE to be able to explain and defend their policies.
However please note this is a state school and the CofE has no business seeking to bar any child from being educated there, regardless of whether they are from a minority they don’t like or not.
I’ve no idea what your problem with Mermaids is. It seems to me they were brought in to educate staff as to how to make this child feel accepted in her school and they did that job. The only issue is that the vicar didn’t want her in his school.
Weren’t mermaids there in order to help the staff know how to treat the teans child well?
You seem to be complaining about them doing exactly what they were brought in to do!
You honestly think that only one thing can be said about the purpose of their visit?
It is obvious that several things can be said about that purpose. Are you denying that?
Further, the complaints about S Cottrell are largely to do with his words to the clergy about strange ideas suddenly being nonnegotiable dogma, effectively. At the Mermaids meeting he was not present, albeit he helped create the environment where its reprogramming-brainwashing (without recourse to either debate or dissent) could flourish.
Can I ask – are you in favour of organisations that allow neither dissent nor even debate – let alone on matters where no-one agreed with them 10 years ago? It’s a simple yes/no.
I’m not sure what you mean by “only one thing”. The school brought them in to help staff understand how they could provide an appropriate environment for this child to learn. As far as I can tell they did exactly this.
The vicar complained, not because he felt they were not providing appropriate training, but because he didn’t want the school to accommodate the child in the first place.
I think it is pretty nonnegotiable that state schools have to accept all types of children – I don’t agree that the bishop, or anyone else in the CofE, has the authority to change this.
I think there are appropriate times and places for debate. I think if the vicar wanted a debate about whether trans children should or should not be accommodated within state schools then he should have attempted to debate that with the appropriate authority, not simply attempt to disrupt his local school. I don’t think every organization should be required to debate with church leaders who don’t want them to exist, no. I think some of you people forget that we have freedom of religion in the U.K. and that church leaders barely have authority over their own congregations, let alone anybody else.
I also think it is unethical and immoral for church leaders to condemn medical advice, especially when they have received no appropriate training. A theology degree might qualify someone to interpret scripture and give a sermon. It doesn’t qualify someone to pontificate against minority traits (or women!) outside the church.
John Parker’s degree is in natural sciences, as far as I remember. If he had one in theology too (I don’t know whether he did), 2 degrees are better than one.
But, as I keep saying, I have been talking not about the Mermaids meeting and the school but about the plenary sessions with clergy where Stephen Cottrell said that his startlingly new and different perspective was already nonnegotiable. He was not present at the school meeting, and only tangentially related to it.
Christian Concern, Reform et al. are always calling for clergy to be sanctioned or dismissed.
It seemed to me that when someone expresses deep unhappiness with an aspect of the Church, then it isn’t inappropriate to suggest an alternative. +Richard Chartres did the same thing when he proposed that at any service where a Bishop was present, then a Church of England rite must be used, as for those who preferred the Roman form there was an alternative Christian community to join.
There is much posturing in this – the cleric who resigned had been planning far ahead, as he had ensured an income and a congregation beforehand to follow him into his new ‘Church’.
‘For ‘trans’ to exist, it would first need to be defined.’
I have been pondering this, and I don’t think it holds water. God exists, and how can he be defined by a finite brain? Can we define the Holy Spirit? What about gravity – that has always existed but wasn’t defined until Isaac Newton got conked on the head by an apple.
In any case, I can’t see that this has much to do with Stephen Cottrell’s suitability to be Archbishop of York. York is my diocese, and I can say that we badly need someone who is a pastor. There is healing to be done, and Bp. Cottrell seems to be a suitable person for the task.
We can always use ‘God’ as the character in the Bible, or as the origin of the universe. That is not a comprehensive definition but sufficient to be able to use the word.
‘Gravity’ is different from ‘trans’, as it was not being talked about before it was (a) defined, (b) found to be a coherent concept at all, as is the case with ‘trans’.
It is a very dangerous road to go down to use a word before that word has been seen to be coherent or express a bona fide reality. And then to force others to do the same is even worse, and dictatorial and intolerant to boot.
‘Trans’ is a vague expression, and clear thinkers do not use vague expressions. Ergo, if we listen to people who speak of ‘trans’, we are in danger of listening to people who have not yet (by virtue of clear thinking) gained a right to a hearing.
Transsexual is a reality – anything is a reality if you make it one. Chopping fingers off is also a reality – but only if people go out of their way to make it one.
By contrast, transgender is not a reality of the sort that can be identified , let alone proven, by an examination of an individual, whether of their genetic make-up or of their present physical state. It has to be claimed and that claim has to be taken on trust. That is a low level of certitude or clarity. The fact that it is something that is not particularly seen at all in many cultures does not engender confidence when its ‘reality’ is under scrutiny. And the fact that it suddenly (not by coincidence) mushrooms in contexts of right-on communities (Brighton) and peer pressure (e.g. prevalence among autistic children) and simply wherever it is presented as being one of the main options – these are what the ‘all in the mind’ brigade would have said all along, whereas the ‘natural human phenomenon’ brigade are snookered here, since they would have expected all cultures, autistic and nonautistic, Brighton and nonBrighton, to have the same levels. Consequently the ‘all in the mind’ brigade have it.
The issues with Stephen Cottrell, which I have mentioned above but you did not allude to, are:
(1) treating something highly controversial (scarcely a week goes by without academics questioning it again) as nonnegotiable;
(2) treating something distant from Christianity (historically and internationally and foundationally) as not merely an option (which would be controversial enough) but actually as nonnegotiable;
(3) thinking it is more of a faux pas to fail in the diversity stakes than to commit (1) and (2).
(4) Permitting Mermaids who have no academic weight yet refused even to allow discussion (we know why) and compelled all listeners to say they were now honorary Mermaids. Intended brainwashing – the idea is that your listeners are all fuddy-duddies (you don’t actually take the trouble to learn of their actual qualifications) and are compelled to undergo a Damascus Road conversion to the approved (by whom?)point of view. TINA – there is…
You keep asserting that trans is vague or has no definition, but this simply isnt true.
It may be the case that you dont understand the definition (though I find that highly unlikely), but that doesn’t mean there isnt a definition.
I’ve just checked the stonewall website and their definition is similar to mine.
I’m not sure what you seek to gain by consistently repeating something you know not to be true?
Christopher, I don’t think you know how language works.
And as for ‘The fact that it is something that is not particularly seen at all in many cultures does not engender confidence when its ‘reality’ is under scrutiny’ – in a number of cultures more than two sexes are recognised. Some Native American tribes, for instance, recognise 5. In some southwestern tribes men who choose to live as women are honoured and have a special place. This is true in India too, I’ve read.
‘something distant from Christianity (historically and internationally and foundationally’ – Jesus said there was more for us to know, and the Holy Spirit would lead us into more truth. Opposition to slavery is one of these areas where Christian conscience has led to a change of opinion many centuries on from Jesus. We can expect our knowledge and awareness to develop. I don’t see how transgender issues are a matter for doctrinal stances, except to say that as Christians we believe everyone is made in the image of God and deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Tha tis what Stephen Cottrell seems to have done in this case.
(1) If I don’t know how language works, it is odd that a lot of my qualifications are in that area.
(2) What I said was true: ‘not particularly seen at all in many cultures.’ That already allows that there are also cultures where it *is* seen, some of which you listed. It is obvious that some can be listed where it is seen, just as some can be listed where it is not seen. That is the same as what I already said.
(3) ‘The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth’ – first of all most scholars do not see John as reflecting the words of the historical Jesus. Second, most liberals do not either unless when it suits their case, when they suddenly do a volte face – which is dishonest. Second, it is clear from the context of John that the sort of bits of extra information that are in mind (or the only sorts of extra information that are mentioned) are eschatological (16.13) and recollection (14.26). Third, there are trillions of things that might be extra information. To make Jesus mean things that are so specific to one’s little culture, when his words in context, and also the wider context, bear not the slightest relation to these, is controlling. Not that it is Jesus as opposed to the evangelist anyway, of course.
In short, your argument is:
(a) Jesus said ‘I have more to say to you, more than you can now bear’.
(b) Therefore there is a strong possibility that he was talking about same sex marriage and transgender issues.
A candidate for the weakest argument of both 2019 and 2020 combined, surely, IMHO. But very best wishes for 2020 anyway.
We are not going to agree and I’ll leave it at that. Happy New Year.
Aargh! The perennial convenient get-out clause. When the points have not yet been addressed. Till they are addressed, how can the debate be over? However, people want it to be over, so that they can avoid facing up to the difficult questions.
Those who love truth love to learn more and to see as many factors as possible in the debate, in order that their position may be as nuanced and as accurate as possible. We are all continually learning. How can we say that those who seem to duck out of debate at the first or second hurdle love truth at all? It is more likely (from knowledge of human nature) that they merely want to cling onto their cherished position before it is fatally wounded. And thereby accord it the undeserved status of being a bona fide position rather than an ideology (something they like, so who cares whether it is true?) that resists sharpening in the arena.
Agree to disagree? A charter of convenience, for sure.
Continued best wishes. Chris.
Would you care to withdraw your implied accusation that I am not a lover of truth? I am merely obeying St. Paul’s injunction to avoid idle disputes about words. And we cannot even agree on which points are worth debating, so there is no point in continuing.
(1) I never imply anything – there is no point, since if one can speak directly – and one always can – then there is no reason to speak indirectly. Indeed, one could be thought evasive for doing so, which further would lead to examining motivations for being evasive rather than transparent.
(2) Disputes (which are the stock in trade of any debate and therefore of any blog website) are mostly about not words but about the realities to which the words refer.
(3) Whether you are a lover of truth is a matter for those who know you (which does not include me) to say. I think it likely that you are, because you are showing that truth matters to you.
(4) As truth matters to you, you will therefore want to pursue debates not curtail them, let alone at an early stage. Ending debates (a) means that we learn less rather than more and (b) does not show that we are interested in reasoning through to answers and solutions.
(5) ‘Agree to disagree’ is in my experience one of the two main tacks taken by those who in fact do not love the truth (together with ‘you have your view, I have mine’, as though research conclusions and desires, which are both ‘views’, were on an equal footing), but that is not to say that everyone who takes that tack does not love the truth. That would not follow. They may just be polite.
(6) You assert that there is no point continuing. I assert that there is. It is not clear why your assertion is worth more than mine (yet you still expect me to follow it, which out of good manners I will, though regretting every time someone seems to avoid debate and to wish to stick to cherished entrenched positions) whereas it is clear that the more debate is done the more light will be shed.
(7) 31.12.19 (09.42) I made three points, plus a summary. You said that we would not agree. Yet you did not specify which of the 3 points (which were quite different from each other) you were referring to. Therefore your answer did not make sense.
It remains imperative that the debate does continue, rather than people stonewalling, for the latter would lead to their motives being questioned. If a bishop says that it is nonnegotiable to believe something that even nonChristians did not believe till ‘yesterday’, that is not something that I think debate should be shut down on.
It would seem that we believe transsexual and transgender people exist, and you don’t. Not much scope for meeting in the middle there. And let’s face it, if you’re criticising Janet for not wanting to carry on, and you say that people who seek truth are happy to debate, there’s definitely an implication there! Now, you say no there isn’t, I say yes there is, you say no there isn’t, and I give up. That’s how it goes. Yes? Bit pointless in my view. Happy New Year, Chris.
That characterisation of our positions is just an initial assertion. And not a nuanced one at that. The long words you use desperately need defining. Are these essences? States that can come upon a person? If so, do certain circumstances make them come upon a person? If not, how do we account for vastly differing rates in different cultures and milieux?
You see that you are avoiding 99% of the debate. So people will ask – why are they so keen to avoid 99% of the debate? Sounds a bit suspish.
Further, the initial characterisation is not accurately understood. For I do believe transsexual people exist. So does everyone. You just do surgery and voila.
So the debate is at the starting line, and the race is abruptly being called off.
The blog was never really about the finer points of transsexualism. Can we bring this thread to a close? It really has gone too long!
It is vague as to suffix. It does not specify whether the suffix is -sexual, -gender, or something else.
Secondly it is a slang term, and slang terms are not renowned for precision: they are more renowned for laziness.
Thirdly, words that do not describe a reality can still be defined. ‘Muggle’ can be defined.