A “Terror” Sermon? – Podcast

The Good Creation Podcast – A “Terror” Sermon?
Rev. Dr Bernard Randall, former chaplain of Christ’s College, Cambridge

Podcast Script

Rev. Dr. Bernard Randall, 48, an ordained minister in the Church of England, former chaplain of Christ’s College, Cambridge, is out of a job and is suing his former employer, Trent College, for discrimination, harassment, victimization and unfair dismissal.  After a sermon he preached in the school chapel, Trent College reported Rev. Randall to the UK government’s terrorist watchdog, Prevent, as a potentially violent religious extremist and then dismissed him.  The sermon was entitled ‘Competing Ideologies’ and it encouraged respect and debate on ‘identity ideologies.’  He had been approached by students at Trent to discuss the LGBT issue.  One student indelicately asked: “How come we are told we have to accept all of this LGBT stuff in a Christian school?”  So he wrote and delivered a sermon to help his young pupils sort things out.

You may read the sermon in full here and judge for yourself whether the School’s actions were appropriate.  

After delivering that sermon he was summoned to a meeting with the Deputy Head (vice-principal) and the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL).  The meeting did not go well.  He was told his talk had hurt some people’s feelings and undermined the School’s LGBT agenda.  After the meeting, and without his knowledge, he was reported to Prevent, the government’s counter-terrorism watchdog! In addition to that, the DSL reported him to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) as a danger to children!  

Additional details here. And video of the chaplain describing his ordeal is here.

If you read the sermon that brought about his dismissal, and I hope you did, ask yourself the following:  Is this how we want to order our lives together?  Our Christian lives (for those who are Christian)?

In his sermon Randall explained to his young students what the Church of England’s historical teachings are on marriage sexuality and gender. He reminded them they are not required to embrace the claims of LGBTQ activists, and are entitled, under English law to believe what they wish on such issues.

Randall’s main point in the sermon, was that people who hold to profoundly different ideologies must treat each other with respect:

“Now when ideologies compete, we should not descend into abuse, we should respect the beliefs of others, even where we disagree.  Above all, we need to treat each other with respect, not personal attacks — that’s what loving your neighbor as yourself means.  By all means discuss, have a reasoned debate about beliefs, but while it’s OK to try and persuade each other, no one should be told they must accept an ideology.  Love the person, even where you profoundly dislike the ideas.  Don’t denigrate a person simply for having opinions and beliefs which you don’t share.”

This is a point I’ll make repeatedly going forward.  Some listeners will not share my basic assumptions about life, assumptions which flow from my understanding of God and the world created by that God, conscience forming beliefs that cannot be easily undone.  We will differ.  Which brings me to my next point: No one should be compelled to go against their most deeply held beliefs.  That’s why Religious Freedom is a high priority for me.  Moving forward I’ll be devoting some of the content of this blog/podcast to defending that basic Constitutional principle. 

Religious Freedom was placed in the FIRST Amendment of our Constitution for good reason.  Unfortunately, Rev Randall lives in the U.K. and must rely on the British courts and British Common Law for legal relief, if any.  But first he must encounter the British Administrative State.  An employment tribunal hearing is expected to be heard on June 14, 2021.  If you sympathize with his plight, you might want to include him in your prayers.

***

Sometimes our beliefs are wrong.  Therefore humility calls out to humility as deep calls out too deep.  We dialogue, we discuss, we mutually respect, in hopes of bridging the gap between us.  But not necessarily.  That is one characteristic about deeply held convictions, the chasm width may ultimately prove uncrossable.  The distance is too great, like trying to build a bridge to the moon.  (Needless to say, coercion on either side is wildly inappropriate and dehumanizing.)  A New Testament scholar I know once spoke about how at Harvard Divinity School the staff and students were so anxious not to offend that everyone gravitated to a “lowest common denominator.”  They would say, “oh well we can’t agree on that one so let’s lay that denominational distinctive aside.”  But after going down the distinctives list, so as to throw out any offending thing, they ended up with defacto Unitarianism, “well maybe we can agree that there is a God,” although none of them were actually Unitarian.  Sometimes setting aside crucial beliefs for the sake of agreement leaves you with very little to discuss.

You could bring up race as an example of how deeply held beliefs were used to justify the enslavement of blacks in America, but the analogy doesn’t work because the reality of immutable characteristics, like race, sex and ethnicity, are precisely what most Gender Ideology Activists deny. This is not your parents or grandparents civil rights movement.

***

In 2018 Rev Randall attended a staff seminar at Trent College, entitled “Educate and Celebrate.”  He raised an objection when the leader, Elly Barnes, instructed the staff to chant smash heteronormativity, smash heteronormativity!

For his anti-celebratory concerns he became a marked man at the college.

The obvious most humane response anyone could offer to Ms Barnes, or anyone like her, is to say, without heteronormativity, without the “gender binary,” humans and many other creatures would not exist.  In the normal course of life, if heterosexual males and females don’t “get together” human life on this planet would end.  Transgender activist Nicholas Teich says, “There is no getting around the fact that the gender binary of men and women—as we always knew it—is not the reality.”  Really! Again, it must be emphasized, in the real world, it was gender binary fruitfulness that gave Mr. Teich his life. 

This could lead us into discussing the Trans-humanism movement or the push for widespread surrogate mothering via in-vitro fertilization, or the rapidly arriving Brave New World of human cloning, to name but two technological developments, but following that rabbit trail will have to wait…

***

Our bodies are a gift from our Creator, says Randall.  So do I.  So did Jesus,

“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’” [Matt. 19:4].

If we find someone’s thoughts morally or mentally (not to mention ontologically) indefensible we must not be compelled to say or act otherwise.  It would be dehumanizing to ask that of anyone, or compel anyone to affirm what they believe is deep psychological disturbance in the case of gender dysphoria.

But today people are being asked, compelled even, to do just that.  Or they will lose their job. And have their reputation besmirched.  A former chaplain at Cambridge University has.  No backwoods Bible-thumper he. Rev. Randall was being investigated as a potential terrorist, and released from his job at an ostensibly Christian Academy for denying the view that people can be born in the wrong bodies.  Among other things.

If you read the details I linked above, you will see that the Reverend’s defense rests squarely on the official teachings of the Church of England, not exactly a non-progressive bunch. The Right Reverend rightly asks, “is the COE an extremist organization?”

“Yet I ended up being told that I had to support everybody else’s beliefs, no matter what, while my Christian beliefs, the Church of England’s beliefs, were blatantly censored. 

“During the disciplinary hearing, I was never asked what I thought, they just assumed that I had extreme religious views. I don’t think the Church of England is an extremist organisation.

And I ask you, is this the world we want to live in?  We need to come up with some answers quick.  Things are moving swiftly.

***

Who Are The Extremists?

Biden Admin’s War On “Conversion Therapy”

Important article by Kat Rosenfield on the distinction between yesterday’s Conversion Therapy and today’s definition. Verbal sands are shifting. Entire linguistic territories are being appropriated.

A few grab graphs:

Eight years after Time magazine declared that we are living through a transgender tipping point, there’s a growing sense of unease in the US, that we might have tipped too far, too fast. The momentum of the movement has given way to unanswered questions and nagging doubts: about the long-term side effects of using puberty blockers off-label, about the revelation that patients who begin to transition as children are likely to experience infertility or sexual dysfunction, about the testimony of regretful transitioners who say they were rushed by a gung-ho medical establishment into lives, and bodies, that they didn’t really want.
Unlike in Britain, stories like this, horrifying to the average person, do not appear to have breached the consciousness of the American government. The Biden White House has enthusiastically taken up the cause of not just ensuring access to medical transition for children who identify as trans, but taking other treatment options off the table. Last week, the White House announced that Biden will sign an executive order which takes specific aim at “so-called ‘conversion therapy’ — a discredited and dangerous practice that seeks to suppress or change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQI+ people”.
Critics have already noted the error in lumping in conversion therapy practices in relation to sexual orientation — which were ineffective at best and barbaric at worst — with the type of therapy that aims to help patients find a measure of peace with the bodies they have; such concerns have already led to the exclusion of transgender people from a government ban on conversion therapy in England and Wales. In the US, it is not yet clear whether a doctor with a patient who presented with gender dysphoria and an eating disorder, for instance, would be guilty of practising “conversion therapy” if he tried to address the patient’s mental health issues before opening the door to puberty blockers, hormones, and gender reassignment surgery.

It’s not the job of a doctor to affirm your identity

Full Article Here [Standard link disclaimer1Links from this blog to online resources don’t necessarily mean I support everything found there. But as adults we should embrace viewpoint diversity. And make alliances where we can.].

Relevant previous posts….

I repeat what I said in an earlier post. Who is the Conversion Therapist?

Is it the one who is trying to help a person align their thoughts and feelings with the body they were given at birth or the professional who disregards the body and proposes irreversible radical surgeries combined with life-long hormone treatments in hopes of aligning the outer body with a patient’s inner desires?

Full post:

What about Christian therapists or counselors? Will they be allowed to continue to practice in the U.S. with a state approved medical license? Will the Christian Worldview and its anthropology be respected by licensing associations?

+++

Drawing by T. Cheesman, May 1816
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license
Courtesy of the British Museum

Love Refuses to Affirm Confusion

Yeshiva U. Sued By LGBTQ+ Student Organization

Today I’m on the religious liberty/persecution beat.

The New York County Supreme Court has ruled that Yeshiva University in Manhattan must allow a LGBTQ student club on campus. The court cited the school’s status as “a non-religious organization.”

Yep. Sure did.

However a brief look at their web-site says otherwise.

Yeshiva is a private Modern Orthodox Jewish University. But, according to this court, because Yeshiva is a “place or provider of public accommodation” it has violated the New York City Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations in the city.

It must allow student clubs, organization on campus even if those clubs and organizations have views, beliefs, or practices that are diametrically opposed to Orthodox Jewish teaching.

“Any ruling that Yeshiva is not religious is obviously wrong,” said Hanan Eisenman, a university spokesman, in a statement. “As our name indicates, Yeshiva University was founded to instill Torah values in its students while providing a stellar education, allowing them to live with religious conviction as noble citizens and committed Jews.”

The court’s decision, he said, “violates the religious liberty upon which this country was founded” and “permits courts to interfere in the internal affairs of religious schools, hospitals and other charitable organizations.” (While many non-Orthodox Jewish congregations are supportive of L.G.B.T.Q. rights, Orthodox leaders tend to interpret the Torah as promoting more traditional ideas of gender and sexuality.)

Plaintiffs (Club) seek an order restraining the defendants (School) from continuing their refusal to officially recognize the YU Pride Alliance as a student organization because of the members sexual orientation or gender and/or YU Pride Alliance's status, mission, and/or activities on behalf of LGBTQ students.  Plaintiffs further seek an order granting YU Pride Alliance "the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of Yeshiva University, because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender of the YU Pride Alliance's members, and/or the YU Pride Alliance's status, mission and/or activities on behalf of LGBTQ students."  [emphasis added]

Source

Approximately 80% of its 6400 undergraduates live on campus. This ruling would allow members of YU Pride Alliance to live on campus with a status based on that member’s “perceived…gender.” Pride Alliance Members possessing anatomically ‘male members’ but who identify as female will be allowed to live in female dormitory space. Yeshiva would need to provide full and equal accommodations to any biologically male student who self-identifies as a female or woman.

Why? Judge Lynn Kotler asserted that Yeshiva’s educational purpose took precedence over its religious purpose.

“Yeshiva is a university which provides educational instruction, first and foremost. Yeshiva’s religious character evidenced by required religious studies, observation of Orthodox Jewish law, students’ participation in religious services, etc. are all secondary to Yeshiva’s primary purpose,” Kotler ruled.

Source:  New York County Clerk 06/24/2022

The school’s Religious Liberty constitutional claims were denied. The school is appealing.



A senior at Yeshiva, Natan Ehrenreich, writing in a June 20 National Review piece disputed Judge Kotler’s primary/secondary purpose argument:

It is immediately apparent from the moment one steps foot on campus that YU is a 'religious corporation.'  Pictures of rabbis are plastered on every wall and elevator door.  Study halls are filled with eager men and women who spend many hours each day probing the depths of the Bible and Talmud.  Walk into any YU building at around 8:00am and you'll find at least ten men gathered together to pray, donning their tefillin (ritual phylacteries) as God commanded.  These men are religious.  Their institution is religious.

Similar “place or provider of public accommodation” laws are changing around the country with “perceived gender” or “gender identity” language being added to these statutes.

Religious Liberty claims will be tested.

Religious Schools, Hospitals, Charitable Organizations, Churches. etc., in certain jurisdictions had better get their legal team together. Claims based on religious autonomy, the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause and the Assembly Clause of the U.S. Constitution will be adjudicated.

This case probably ends up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

+++