LGBT ideology is ascendant, it is the progressive ideology supreme, the last moral certainty in a post-modern world and has seen off attacks from all major world religions. So it seems an ideal time then to start the discussion on how long this ascendancy will last.
I have three lines of reasoning to suggest that the answer is: "not long". With the caveat that I mean not long in the grand scheme of human history. My arguments are based on three rules:
1. Ideologies are transmitted through families
2. The poor have no choice
3. Survival wins
Anyone paying attention to the times we live in will know that the West is in terminal decline. We feel it in the air, something bad is coming, some form of reckoning, in 50 years, maybe 5, we see the patterns of death and decline in every open newspaper. Those paying attention will know the reasons why this is the case. Those not paying attention will hardly be convinced by anything I can say but I will allow myself the luxury of one question: considering that Western Civilisation was built on the foundation of Christianity, do you really think that it can survive without Christianity?
Despite the evidence of terminal decline in the church, it is hard enough to persuade churches and Christians to pray against it. Either people pretend there is no decline or pretend that God can do nothing about it. There is even a group of Christians who imply that we somehow deserve the decline due to not embracing whatever crazy wokeness is trending at the moment.
Bishop Curry's sermon at the Royal Wedding was everything a modern wedding sermon should be: well presented, well crafted, well sounding and entirely devoid of any depth or meaning. A perfect match for the modern wedding, where the meaning and purpose of marriage has been long lost and shows no sign of being found. The wedding sermon of hidden shallows fits a culture obsessed with how things sound and not with what things mean,
Bishop Curry's message was on love and how love would make the world a better place. Well, duh. This is a message a child could have written. It's like stating that water is wet or the sun is bright to look at. True, but so obvious it's of no value. For what's there to disagree with in his message? A utopia of love sounds perfect.
But there still remains an unanswered question and in the unanswered question there is a big problem: where, Bishop Curry, is this love?
It is hard at this point to say whether we are witnessing the long slow collapse of Western Civilisation or just a blip along the unpredictable path of history. But what can be said is that the central pillars of Western society are under attack: free speech (to the left and the right alike), universal suffrage (to the intellectuals and "the stupid" alike), freedom of conscience (for all religions including those pesky Christians), freedom of the press (for the Daily Mail and Breibart), and rule of law (for rich and the poor).
The traditions of a well ordered society are also under attack, mostly by hypocrites who practice the nuclear family tradition (man and woman, marriage, no divorce), recognising the stability, prosperity and benefits it brings (to children in particular), but preaching and legislating for every other conceivable option other than this tradition. Worse, attacking those who live by the nuclear family and have the gall to preach it too.
Finally the morals of society have been dead and buried for quite a number of years. Good is evil and evil is good and "progress" is nothing more than a byword for evil men to sexually abuse woman. A child is not considered responsible enough to buy alcohol but can choose to delay puberty and identify as a different sex. Women have never been more "valued" by society and never been more exploited and objectified through the porn and sex trade industry. It's never been a better time to be disabled, except if you are in the womb and then you are likely to be killed, as an inferior human being who does not meet the required standards. Right and wrong is this topsy turvy world can change on a daily basis.
This faltering of the West may or may not be terminal, for there is always grounds for hope. But it does force a question to the front of the mind: what can be done about it? The answer is the local church.
After confidently predicting a 80 to 100 Conservative Party majority in last week's election the shock of reality is a slap in the face. This election has been, as the blog Archbishop Cramner put it: “an unmitigated, self inflicting disaster.” A hung parliament, an unsecure Prime Minister, Islamic terrorism and Brexit is not a combination of events that can give any confidence. The hubris and arrogance of calling an early election is blisteringly clear, my own hubris in thinking that this election was in the bag is also painful to reflect on.
There are slivers in the dark clouds to be thankful for. With Conservative gains in Scotland and Wales and a likely coalition with the DUP, we are a kingdom united once more. Scottish independence was dealt a heavy blow, for which we can all rejoice. Many young people registered to vote for the first time, of course, they voted Labour but hey, today's Labour voter is a Tory just waiting to happen. And to the great annoyance of a lot of my friends, my MP Philip Davies (Conservative) held his seat, increasing his votes, in-spite (or because of) a concerted campaign against him by “feminist zealots”.
But these are only the smallest flakes of silver in some very heavy and dark clouds. Serious questions have to be asked: what went wrong? What happens next? Both tricky to get good answers to. But this kind of reflection is needed, for the right lessons need to be learnt. The Bible verse which is solidly in my mind is this:
Disclaimer: This is not a perfect comparison but it is a workable one. It's traditional at this point to say something like: “I'm not a racist for talking about Islamic terrorism” but I doubt that will hold any weight for anyone wanting to call me a racist for talking about Islamic terrorism.
The American Gun Control problem can be phrased simply as: “Is the gun owner a good gun owner or a bad gun owner?” The bad gun owner is the angry teenage boy who will go into a school and shoot people. The good gun owner is the woman wanting to make sure she can defend herself, if assaulted. The difficultly is twofold: a) determining which is which at point of purchase and b) determining which is which within the gun owning community (36% of US population).
The Islamic terrorism problem can be phrased similarly: “Is the Muslim a good one or a bad one?” The bad ones are the angry men who will drive cars into people and blow up pop concerts. The good ones are happy to co-exist with Westerners. The difficult here is also twofold: a) determining which is which at point of entry into the country and b) determining which is which within the current Muslim community (4.5% of UK population).
In both cases, a minority of each community are violent killers who will show no regard for the sanctity of human life. The very existence of this minority brings the whole community into disrepute.
I am deeply humbled by winning the prestigious award for Feminist of the Year 2016, while not as respectable as Bono winning Woman of the Year 2016, nevertheless this prize will sit with pride on my mantelpiece and in my heart. My fellow two contenders also deserve a mention – Hilary Clinton and Emma Watson, I could not have won without their truly pathetic attempts to further the cause of the Sisterhood. Hilary's “all women should vote for me because I'm a woman” was insulting beyond words, silencing rather than empowering women in the political sphere. And Emma's attempts to spread feminism by leaving the odd book on the London underground is bordering on the absurd. I'm sure the three people impacted by her sterling efforts will go on to change the world.
But I'm not here to deride those who have lost any further. Feminism in 2016 and moving into 2017 faces challenges unlike any other time. These challenges can be summed up in one word and that word is not “Trump”. He is a sideshow, a distraction from the obvious challenge we must all face up to - the battleground for feminism in 2017 is that of consistency.
I am not talking about consistency of action. Whatever the issue, our response in creating internet petitions, calling for resignations and generally heaping scorn on “opponents” seems aligned across all branches of feminism. My concern is with the intellectually consistency of feminism, that is, how well it holds up against its own standards. Consistency is a fundamental part of believability. Human beings, as a general rule, do not hold two mutually inconsistent views. For feminism to survive for more than a few generations it needs to find an intellectual consistency it currently lacks. Consider the following four issues:
Sunday 4 December could likely mark the beginning of the end of the EU, again. Two events occur on this day: the first is a referendum in Italy and the second is the re-run of elections in Austria. Unlike the Brexit vote, the opinion polls are already showing that the anti-EU option is likely to win in both votes.
In Italy, a referendum on centralising political power in order to make change easier to implement is looking very likely to return a no result. If this happens, the Prime Minister has promised to do a David Cameron and resign. It could also lead to the collapse or bailout of the Italian banking system (already struggling with high levels of bad debt). Such a collapse could in turn force Italy out of the Euro or even destroy the Euro.
In Austria, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party is leading (albeit only just) in the opinion polls and could become the President of Austria. His campaign is to put Austria first and end the “welcoming culture” towards immigration.
Somehow, Brexit might not be the worst thing to happen to the EU project in 2016.
Two years ago, I had just started a new job, it was a fancy career job which paid a salary and everything! For the first time in my life, I had an "adult" income stream coming in. And for the first few months I did not give a full tithe (10%), as Christian tradition suggests. There were a whole host of reasons for this in my head, most related to the uncertainty of what expenses I would be incurring and what the taxman would take from me (always too much).
For the next three months, I worried about money a lot. It was on my thoughts almost daily and my income, though much bigger than anything I'd ever earned before, just didn't seem enough for what was required. December was the third month and Christmas was a struggle not to panic at how expensive the festive season is.
Over the Christmas holidays, my conscience finally won through and I was convicted that as my God had given me a salary, so I had to make giving my first priority. So in fear of what might happen and what unplanned expenses would be incurred, I increased my giving to the full tithe.
Almost overnight, my money worries vanished. This surprised me. It should not have. For my story is not unique nor is it out the ordinary, it is the economy of God working as it always does.
For the last decade or so, come general election or referendum, there’s one comment that I always hear. More than Donald Trump, the upcoming housing market crash take 2 and the life and times of J-Dog Corbyn, it makes me worried for the future of democracy and Western civilisation.
“I wish stupid people didn’t get the vote.” It is said as a ‘joke’, you know, the one that will never get a laugh and is completely true but there’s enough residual guilt there to force it across as a lame attempt at ‘wild make believe’. Invariable, the person saying this wishes it was no fantasy, it is always an expression of a genuine desire to limit the voting rights of a certain section of the population.
It involves a line, drawn in the sand, between us and them. Us are the enlightened, the professional classes, the “educated” and “well read”, the “thinkers”, the eaters of avocado toast and the buyers of the Guardian.