…had better watch his back:
This is about the extraordinary case of Rev Dr Bernard Randall and the latest developments in his story. In 2019, Dr Randall, an ordained Church of England (CofE) minister, was working without any issues at Trent College in Derbyshire. The college had a CofE chapel and a CofE ethos and Dr Randall was employed to pastor, teach and uphold Christian beliefs in the school. Everything changed, however, when the college invited extreme LGBT group Educate and Celebrate to implement its ‘gold standard’ inclusive curriculum to even nursery aged children.
Please read it all. If afterward, you find that you must lie down quietly in a dark room to de-escalate, I’ll understand. I’ll wait here for you.
David Friedman once wrote that among the great virtues of a free market is that it effectively denies power to any individual provider of a good. When there are many sources for a good or service, no one of them can coerce you. Even in a monopoly situation, such as Alcoa possessed in the first part of the 20th Century, the possibility of competition will keep a company’s voracity in check. Despite its solitude in the aluminum business, Alcoa’s price per pound dropped steadily.
Competition, even potential competition, imposes discipline on the competitor. He must respect the choices of his customers and the efforts of his competitors to win them away. Should he act as if he’s above such things, his revenues will dwindle. Thus, even corporations can feel pressure to act ethically.
It’s the same with authorities. When there is a single authority with coercive power over you, your options are:
- To obey for safety’s sake;
- To disobey but try to escape notice;
- To disobey openly and accept the consequences.
But when there are many competing authorities, even if one is dominant and the others are less, the situation is different. King John learned what can issue from that at Runnymede. The same holds for moral-ethical authorities: interest groups, religions, prominent counselors, affinity associations, families, and friends.
A group or “movement” that seeks to dominate a particular social or political subject will therefore do its utmost to delegitimize its competitors. If it can ally with political authorities, it will do so in hopes of coercive assistance. That’s the path the LGBT movement has followed in both America and Britain. What’s been done to Reverend Randall is an example of what follows.
Even in the absence of political assistance, the LGBT crowd has scored heavily against other sources of moral-ethical guidance. Its “canceling” campaign has been more effective than I would have imagined at the outset. In part, that’s because the Left coalition, which includes all manner of insanities, embraced it and lent its powers to it.
This is a subject with many facets. To us in the Right, probably the most important one is how Leftist attempts to delegitimize or defame traditional alternate sources of moral-ethical authority such as religion should be countered. The Left always attacks in swarms, which makes countermeasures hard to come by.
Probably the most potent weapon in the Left’ arsenal is the accusation of hypocrisy. Hearken once more to Neal Stephenson:
“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of climate, you are not allowed to criticise others — after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?…
“Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all the vices. For, you see, if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour — you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all the political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
“You wouldn’t believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi….
“Because they were hypocrites… the Victorians were despised in the late Twentieth Century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves — they took no moral stances and lived by none.”
“So they were morally superior to the Victorians — ” Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.
“– even though — in fact, because — they had no morals at all.”
There is a great deal of insight in that passage, which is why I’ve used it so many times. It accurately summarizes the Left’s non-standard: “We reject morality and ethics, so you can’t criticize us. You espouse a moral-ethical code, so we can hold you to account for not cleaving perfectly to it!” That accusation of hypocrisy has tormented many who’ve had “spirit is willing / flesh is weak” moments. It’s even been effective when the target was morally blameless: e.g., the many Catholic priests who’ve been wrongly accused of pedophilia.
To return to the Reverend Dr. Randall, what in fact did he say to his young parishioners? Only this: You do not have to accept what the LGBT evangelists are saying:
Dr Randall raised concerns with senior management at Trent College about Educate and Celebrate, but his concerns were swept aside. Implementing the extreme programme into the moral fabric of the school, pupils asked Dr Randall: “Why do we have to learn about this LGBT stuff?” In response, Dr Randall gave a sermon in the school’s CofE chapel, which reflected CofE teaching on marriage and human identity. He said it was okay for pupils to question and debate LGBT ideology. The consequences for Dr Randall, however, were devastating.
Dr. Randall promulgated the doctrine of the Church of England, as was his moral-ethical obligation both as an employee of Trent College and as a minister of his Church. Educate and Celebrate had their “gospel;” the Church of England has its own. But EandC would not tolerate opposition, even from a priest of the CofE. And the college and the CofE, shamefully, folded.
Don’t imagine that this isn’t happening in America. It’s particularly odd that it’s happened in Britain, since the Church of England is “an established church” that receives government support. We don’t have those here. But we do have many Protestant sects that are as “flexible” about personnel and doctrine as the CofE. Female pastors; homosexual pastors; transgender pastors; pastors who openly express anti-Christian beliefs: all these and others can be found in Protestant ministry. No few of them are militant against their more orthodox colleagues. Some invite the attention of LGBT activists to them.
Food for thought, especially if you’re one who thinks about morals and ethics.
