It was just over 50 years ago that the leader of the radical German Student Movement, Rudi Dutschke (aka ‘Red Rudi’) called for a ‘long march through the institutions’ to realise the ideal of what has become known as cultural Marxism. This was the brain child of the Italian neo-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci whose key idea was that of ‘hegemony’, the process whereby a dominant class could exert and maintain its influence over people through on-coercive means, such as schools, the media and marketing. The aim is to get people to think and especially feel for themselves that certain values and practices, such as same sex marriage, are ‘obvious’, ‘common sense’ , ‘fair’ or even ‘natural’. Whereas Marx spoke of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy- Gramsci’s vision was to undermine and eventually take over, the ‘commanding heights of culture’. One of the main cultural heights in the UK is the Church of England. And it would seem that with the appointment of Stephen Cottrell as the 98th Archbishop of York, the long march in this institution is more or less over- the progressives have their man in place.
The worst of both worlds
Cottrell combines the worst of two theological worlds, the authoritarianism of Catholicism and the subjectivism of Liberalism.
In his presidential address to the Diocesan Synod of Chelmsford in March 2017, he began by reminding his audience that he was their ‘Father in God’ and ‘all clergy and licenced ministers make an oath of canonical obedience to me, regardless of disagreement on some issues.’ This is the Catholic authoritarian speaking, softening up his hearers to make them more pliable to receive the progressive views he then goes on to espouse regarding homosexuality and same sex-marriage. To the innocent onlooker this seems remarkably reminiscent of the kind of language used by spiritual abusers- whether intended or not.
The poison of the subjectivity of Liberalism is also evident, ‘I want people to fall in love with the Christian faith. For me, being a Christian is not giving intellectual assent to a number of abstract propositions [is it for anyone?]. I feel that on the journey of my life I met Christ, and it was beautiful. His vision of what humanity is supposed to be like is a beautiful vision, and the beauty of that vision in music and art and literature . . . are the ways that we will connect with a lot of our culture.’ This could have come straight from the father of modern liberalism, Friedrich Schleiermacher, who in his book, ‘On Religion’ argued that religion is pure feeling which can exist without ‘miracle, inspiration, revelation, supernatural intimations.’ This is not to say that for Cottrell ‘the Gospel’ as he sees it doesn’t have content, it does, ‘it is about what it means to be made in the image of God and of the new humanity God has won for us.’ This is hardly the Gospel of the apostles (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:1-8) for, as with Jayne Ozanne, that from which we need saving is notably absent, namely sin, the belief that we are corrupted by the spiritual and moral virus which infects everything, including our ‘sexuality’. As is often the case ‘theology’ is reduced to ‘anthropology’ or in the words of Karl Barth, we end up ‘talking about man in a loud voice.’
Culture not Christ
One of the main life and death issues the early Christians had to face was who was to be Lord: Christ or Caesar? The underlying challenge still exists but cast in slightly different terms. The anti-God challenge for us today is, ‘who is to be Lord: Christ or Culture?’ For Cottrell the answer appears to be Culture, ‘neither can we ignore the culture in which we are set where same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage are not only considered normal, but positively taught and encouraged in many homes and schools as a social good….it would be particularly foolish for us to ignore the missiological damage that is done when that which is held to be morally normative and desirable by much of society and by what seems to be a significant number of Anglican Christian people in this country, is deemed morally unacceptable by the Church. As I have said before, I am not sure the church has ever before had to face the challenge of being seen as immoral by the culture in which it is set.’ No one is arguing that culture should be ignored, but what Cottrell seems to be proposing is that culture should be King when it comes to questions of behaviour. This is not responding to the missiological challenge but wholesale surrender. Neither is it the case that the church has never been thought of as immoral by the culture in which it finds itself. Augustine’s ‘City of God’ was in part a response to the accusation that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of Rome, what could be more immoral than that? The Confessing church in Nazi Germany was certainly considered to be ‘immoral’ by the cultural regime of its day not least for its positive attitude towards the Jews. It was the Reichskerk who heeded the Nazi culture’s ‘morality.’ It is only when Christ is acknowledged as Lord, that the church is free to challenge culture rather than, as in the case of the progressives like Cottrell, simply echo culture.
The Gramscian strategy has been applied well by gay activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. With the Christian church in mind they write, ‘Gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.’ And to ‘portray such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.’ Such ‘talk’ pervades the whole of Cottrell’s synod address. After affirming those in same- sex relationships he says, ‘our ambivalence and opposition to faithful and permanent same sex relationships can legitimise homophobia in others.’ If even to voice opposition to same sex relationships could legitimise homophobia, what are we to conclude? Presumably that such ‘opposition’ and ‘ambivalence’ should have no place in the church or if it does it should be rather muted. Furthermore, according to Cottrell, while biblical passages on this subject ‘can’t be ignored’, those texts are to be looked at again in the light of what we now know about human sexuality to ‘see what those texts are saying to our situation.’ In other words, we need to show they are ‘out of step with the times and latest findings of psychology.’
Including involves excluding
Marcuse of the Frankfurt School argued against the tolerance of liberal societies which he dubbed ‘repressive tolerance’. In its place he suggested a new tolerance which was positively tolerant of those ‘victims’ of such a society but intolerant of those considered to be responsible for their plight. We find something like this at work with Cottrell. ‘[The Church of England] seeks to welcome all people, including therefore LGBTI+ people, including people in civil partnerships and same-sex marriages. I deeply regret a situation where anybody because of their sexuality feels excluded or alienated or hurt in the way that I know some people are.’ Does the Church of England seek to welcome ‘all people’ in this no-strings-attached- let’s- all- get- on- together- in- a- Kumbaya- kind-of-way? I am reminded of the remarks of the feminist Camille Paglia in her essay responding to the Presbyterian Church of the USA’s report in Human Sexuality which advocated learning from the marginalised and allowing them into the centre. ‘We can move tender, safe, clean, hand-holding gays and lesbians to the center—but not, of course, pederasts, prostitutes, strippers, pornographers, or sadomasochists.’
But what of those who will not ‘get with’ the progressive programme of the Prelate?
Simple- they can leave.
The Church of England saw fit to issue a denial that Cottrell had ever suggested such a thing, (which he himself also denied in his ad Clerum to those in Chelmsford Diocese over the claims of John Parker that that is exactly what he said). Furthermore, a number of evangelical clergy in the Diocese confirmed Parker’s testimony, ‘The truth is that Stephen Cottrell has, on more than one occasion, told clergy….. that if we disagree with the approach the Diocese is taking on matters of human sexuality we should follow our consciences and leave. There were more than thirty clergy at one of the meetings.’ His Grace is coming to Yorkshire, so as a Yorkshireman would bluntly put it, ‘Someone is lying.’ Is it Cottrell or the evangelical clergy? If it was one clergyman perhaps we could allow room for someone being ‘economical with the truth’ or ‘misspeaking’, but this many?! No wonder the C of E publicity machine moved with such alacrity. Just as ‘the Party cannot be wrong’, perhaps Bishops can’t be wrong either. The neo-Marxist Gyorgy Lukacs was fond of quoting the German Philosopher Fichte, ‘If theory conflicts with the facts, so much the worse for the facts.’
This appointment marks a tragic day for Christian orthodoxy and the moral and spiritual regeneration our country desperately needs. The track record so far is that Cottrell is not a defender of the Faith but a surrenderer of the Faith. Cottrell raised the question, ‘Do we really feel safe with Donald Trump’s finger on the [nuclear] button (presumably because he is not considered trustworthy)? Perhaps a similar question could be raised with regards the new Archbishop, can he be trusted at all?
2 Chelmsford Diocesan Synod, Presidential Address 11 March 2017
3 Chelmsford Diocesan Synod, Presidential Address 11 March 2017
4 Marshall Kirk and Hunter Johnson, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (Plume Books, 1989).
5 Chelmsford Diocesan Synod, Presidential Address 11 March 2017
6 Camille Paglia, ‘The Joy of Presbyterian Sex’, Sex, Art and American Culture (Vintage Books, 1992)
7 Ad Clerum, June 2019
8 http://www.gafconuk.org/news/chelmsford-evangelical-clergy-confirm-vicars-testimony
This is a terrific piece by Melvin Tinker.
There is absolutely no reason why we in the Church of England should put up with the kind of subversive appointment that Cottrell’s placing as archbishop of York represents. The C of E will not long survive in any spiritual sense if it chooses to be the plaything of a clique of cultural Marxist obsessives – God will honour neither those who are leading the church astray in that way nor those who realise it is already rendering the church apostate but are prepared to put up with it for a quiet life.
I believe this is a pivotal moment by which Justin Welby finally declares, with no obfuscation, his own intention to drive out any final resistance to the program for which the clique has long determined everyone in the church must grant unquestioning acquiescence – or leave. It seems that even basic truth about what people have said and done is no longer allowed to stand in the way of gut determination to push forward regardless. Even the undeniable facts of science may be denied for the sake of the new ideology. The shame of this for our once great church and the personal cost to countless souls who yet remain within it is something which cannot be measured.
I entirely agree.
I drafted a lengthy response which got lost in cyberspace, perhaps mercifully. So here is a shorter version.
Since it began to rear its ugly head in the late 80s, I have been convinced that the issue of homosexual activity would be a watershed for ‘Christianity’. Among many reasons, I suggest the total confusion that’s arisen over the nature of Love. Agape and phileo love have been swamped by Eros love. Most are blindly unaware of this. Had Bishop Michael Curry’s sermon at the Harry/Meghan wedding been translated into koine Greek, which love word would he have used? I think we know the answer. What a missed opportunity to explain to a worldwide audience about the true love of Christ.
It can surely only be a matter of time before the CofE endorses same sex marriage. After all the ABY designate seems to be saying its present stance is immoral. Yet at the same time he claims to hold to biblical truth. Not my bible.
It’s your point about denying the facts of science that should show anyone, not just Christians, how much the CofE is going off the rails. Indeed one could argue that it was that sort of attitude in the metropolitan elitist culture that contributed to the result of the GE. Many years ago I wondered just why God called homosexual acts an abomination, a word which should make any God-fearer pause. Given that the Leviticus code prescriptions are for the flourishing of mankind, one reason is the physical and emotional damage that homosexual activity inflicts. For those of a strong disposition I would recommend reading Homosexuality and the Politics of Power, written by an American psychologist Dr Jeffrey Satinover in the early 90s. It is based on his direct experience of clinical work among the gay community and should leave no one in any doubt about what this lifestyle entails.
That a so called Christian church endorses this is to draw God’s judgment upon it. And to think this stuff, plus the transgender agenda, is being promoted in schools. It is tantamount to child abuse.
There have been several occasions when I’ve posted a comment on Anglican Ink which has not been displayed (one was ‘detected as spam’ by Disqus). The one above took a day to show up. I’m sure it’s a technical issue and not a conspiracy!
I quite agree. I fail to understand the respect and reverence shown by Anglicans to appointments and utterances of individuals who were they in non- clerical apparel, would have scorn heaped on their heads and shown the door.
I always thought a ‘doffing of the cap, or tugging the forelock’ to anyone with the appearance of ‘a real gennulman’ was a thing of the past?
The way Anglican congregants accept clergy imposed/ inflicted on them by those wearing even more gorgeous apparel is very puzzling.
There is a difference between good manners and respect towards the clergy, I suggest, although it becomes ever harder to show either in the face of the developments in the CofE. As for reverence, it is rather the absence of that which is shown by the numerous wacky innovations these false teachers adopt to bring people into the buildings and by the people’s growing reluctance to stay.
Yes there is a basic respect that should be afforded all men, eve when we disagree with them. It may not sound like it but I do try to extend that courtesy! However, when a person takes on holy orders, should they be respected when they begin to teach iffy or false doctrine, or to mock basic doctrines?
Why, in matters of personal conduct or holiness should the wearing of vestments protect us from questioning or concern about our ministry?
If this is really true and he has been witnessed by all these clergy to lie, then one of them needs to put in an official complaint under the CDM.
Many thanks for this strategic posting. How deep go the roots of a false gospel and false teaching.
As a layman from an Anglican background I was appalled by the CofE press statement. To dismiss the criticism by Christian Concern as simply being by a pressure group – a phrase I have not heard for a number of years but intended to be pejorative- is to demean the works of CC and Andrea Williams over many years in seeking to uphold biblical truth. Work which in many cases the CofE itself should have been engaged in.
As to the prospective ABY, he will be known by his fruits.