The Daily Mail appears surprised that a couple who have been running what it calls ‘an x-rated fetish website’ have not been banned from attending their local church.
But why should they be? I would have thought that these were precisely the sort of people one should be welcoming into a church. The church was never set up to be a meeting place for saints, but rather as a place where everyone is welcome. Everyone. Especially those whom the Daily Mail would regard as sinners.
Reminds me of a story in the Bible. Jesus, not really one to turn down a good feast, went to the house of a tax collector, where he ate and drank with people of dubious moral fibre. The ‘righteous’ men of the day were shocked, and muttered amongst themselves. When Jesus realised their displeasure, this is what he said:
They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
So yes, the x-rated fetish-loving couple are welcome in their local church, and with open arms, too. That’s the way it should be. Reminds me of an old saying among Protestant circles, and one the Daily Mail writers would do well to keep in mind:
‘There is no such thing as a perfect church. However, if you ever find one, don’t join it, as you would ruin it.’
July 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Great post Bel - I told you before, you’re that loathsome thing: a likable Tory.
The offices of the Mail should be torched and any survivors shot without mercy.
Oh, and I’d have the head of Melanie Philips on a spike in my driveway (that should scare away the local misfits and troublemakers).
July 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Spike: maybe that should be pike?
Whatever.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
tyger,
spike/pike …
either way, sounds jolly painful ….
Poor Mel.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Poor Mel?
You should what I plan to do to Littlejohn… ouch!
July 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
*hear*
A bad day…
July 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I think you are a little disingenuous about the troubled relationship at the core of Chistianity with the body Bel.
I have always been open minded ,not to say , I hope , creative ,at times about matters carnal but I begin to wonder. The proliferation if pornography on the web and in the street is becoming oppressive . We hear more and more about child abuse and the expression of dangerous and power related fantasies. On the other hand as far as I can tell people are as unhappy about their sex lives as ever and marriage goes backwards every year.
So I begin to think perhaps there may be some freedoms that would be worth sacrificing in this area for the moral and societal health of the community and if the Church were to signal that a new concern about the effects of tolerance was in the air isn`t that its role if it has one .The attitude of the West to sex has gone wrong at some point it has become intertwined with imagery of power, taboo and perpetually un satisfied appetite . If you read Boswells Diaries and in fact anything from the pre romantic era you can see that sex was not stuck in adolescence.
” His Lordship came home and pleasured me thrice in his riding boots”.. is a typical line I recall from somewhere. Then it is forgotten like a good meal not regurgitated to be re worked and teased out all day.At the same time as the advent of late religiosity and the romantic period the sex crime sprang into being .It simply isn’t true that it has always been there it absolutely has not and there is every reason to suppose that such activities are highly culturally specific.
So just maybe , just maybe , its time we began to think of fetishism which has become mainstream as not as innocent a pastime as it may appear. if noone else is grateful for some prescription the fetishists will be and I have a sneaking suspicion that you Bel cannot resist spoiling their fun . Its like the old gaga
“ Hurt me “… said the masochist
“ No “said the sadist
BTW if you want me to stop you `ll have to say the “safe word”……Brown…that should do the trick. . Its full of contradiction isn1t it I remember John Hayes the Cornerstone Group chap gave a speech saying he liked marriage so much he did it about once every ten years , thus far I am on course to match him. So if you wish to convice me ,Bel, of the great advantages of a dark and ferocious element to some hypothetical intertwining , it would be easy.
OK now I `m getting into single entendre
BROWN
August 1st, 2007 at 1:31 am
Thank you tyger, you are very kind.
Dave, I agree, poor Mel. Tyger, if I could be grant one Daily Mail journalist a free pass to escape the punishment, may I nominate Benedict Brogan? Only because I would miss the gossip from his blog if he were shot along with the others.
And newmania, you will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with you in almost every material particular. Will set out my reasons shortly.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I am suprised actually
August 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I like the church pragmatism on this.
One should never turn your back on those you disagree with unless absolutely necessary. After all how are you going to convince them that you are right if you refuse to talk to them?
Politics could use a dose of that on the international stage sometimes.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
One should never turn your back on those you disagree with unless absolutely necessary
Quite so and especially if you disagree with their sexual practices , yes indeed , and yet are we not supposed to turn the other cheek
August 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Wonderful story about Jesus and who needs a doctor. More churches should be out there.
And, Newmania, it’s about changing from within. I’m sure the church in question doesn’t approve of the website but, like God, can hate the sin but still love the sinner.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
psychic medium from medium tara psychic