RSS

Gay marriage, and whether the State should even be involved in marriage in the first place

13 May

I see that people in our part of the tradosphere / manosphere have been talking about gay marriage again (occasioned by President Obama’s coming out in favour of gay marriage) – see Elspeth’s post here and Ulysses’ post here – same as has been discussed before in the manosphere and tradosphere, e.g. twice by Ferd himself (see here and here) and once at Ferd’s by Johann Happolati, here, and also over by Alte at TC a while back, here.

As anyone will see who reads my previous comments on Ferd’s and Alte’s posts, I do care about the issue (it affects how I vote, or rather, how I don’t vote), and am opposed to institutionalizing gay marriage, for the reasons I gave there.  (BTW, like Ulysses and Chris, I, too, have known a number of gay people, both IRL and online, and get along fine with them; doesn’t mean I endorse their lifestyle, though; as a Christian, I cannot.  Simple as that.)

Now, Chris has come at it from a different angle – see his comment here, and his post here.

Chris asks if the State should even be involved in marriage, in the first place, and gives his opinion that it shouldn’t.

This is the libertarian perspective, of course; I recall, back in the days when I used to read paleolibertarian sites like Lew Rockwell regularly, similar arguments put forth there; in fact, a quick search reveals several hundred articles on the subject there.

Chris writes:

If the state is not involved in families, and I consider this is the correct place for the state and  the more sustainable position to take, then the state will not pay when things go wrong. Instead, people will have to rely on their extended family and charity.

This need to rely on those you love puts a brake on things. It means that there would be some very hard conversations about adoption — as some families would not be able to keep and feed the next child — and clear consequences to playing the field.  For as a male, you cannot assume it is ever safe to have sex: If you do have intercourse with a woman you are leaving yourself open to having to provide for any child of that act.

And biology will win out. No contraception is foolproof. And rewarding irresponsibility… which is what the state at times does to gain control over more of our lives, increases the rate of such behaviour.

Which, in the end, is a road that leads to the state defaulting, the people struggling to survive, and those dependent on the state having to find another source of support. In the end, a man, though imperfect, is more secure.

I see Chris’ point, and see much wisdom in it; forcing people to rely on their extended families / charities / the Church, rather than the State, would disincentivize both gay marriage and frivolous divorce, certainly.  Plus, I have never liked the State declaring people who live together in sin to be considered as married according to “common law”, as is the case in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, thus giving them the privileges on the one hand, and responsibilities on the other, that those who have consciously chosen to join together in the act of marriage, have; it has always struck me as unfair in both directions.

At the same time, however, I am hesitant to embrace such a stance, of getting the State completely out of the marriage business, because, as a traditionalist conservative / reactionary, I would prefer to see the State actively support and stand for the good, rather than being morally neutral, on moral matters.

That said, though, I certainly would prefer the State be neutral rather than be actively encouraging ill, as I believe it is doing now, whether unwittingly or deliberately.

The thing is, though, even if the State were to no longer officially recognize either the married or single state of its citizens, it would still be involved in the enforcement of contracts, if the parties in question appealed to the State to resolve any disputes they might have.  So I can’t see that the State would ever be fully removed from involvement, regardless…

So…  I have much sympathy for Chris’ POV, without being able to fully embrace it, myself, at this time.  My views may evolve, though.  We’ll see.

 
85 Comments

Posted by on May 13, 2012 in government, law, religion

 

85 responses to “Gay marriage, and whether the State should even be involved in marriage in the first place

  1. Ulysses

    May 13, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    It is a tricky issue. Though my libertarian leanings rarely arise these days, and though I full well understand the importance of traditional marriage to society, I just have a hard time caring about legal gay unions while the state is still usurping church authority when it comes to divorce (no-fault) and the like. Slippery slope arguments are generally weaker than they sound, but in the case of marriage the federal government has become the national church. (Of course this is true for more than just marriage and isn’t isolated to the U.S.) As such, I’d rather get govt out of the defining marriage business altogether.

     
  2. Branden Sullivan

    May 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    I firmly believe the state should remain in the marriage business. Remember that the state will never, and I cannot emphasize that enough, NEVER, be neutral. It shall always a take a side on all issues by the fact that if you do not actively promote the good/virtue then you are permitting the ugly/sinful. If the good is not constantly being affirmed then evil has been introduced and it shall feast like a parasite upon the good. The gay activists may proclaim “it has not affected your life”, but they only get away with this because people are ignorant to how society actually functions. Let a skin lesion become infected on your hand, yet they will say “ignore it, do you feel pain anywhere else?”

     
  3. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    @ Ulysses: “I just have a hard time caring about legal gay unions while the state is still usurping church authority when it comes to divorce (no-fault) and the like.”

    I can appreciate your way of thinking, there. But indeed, the slippery slope argument I made on Ferd’s and Alte’s posts, has been shown to be true here in Canada, at least, as regards the ‘fundamentalist Mormon’ polygamists, invoking gay marriage as a legal precedent, arguing they equally ought to have their ‘marriages’ recognized under law… So far, the Crown hasn’t agreed. But who’s to say that will last forever? I think, at least here in Canada, it’s only a matter of time…

    “As such, I’d rather get govt out of the defining marriage business altogether.”

    The libertarian arguments make a lot of sense to me, certainly…

     
  4. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    @ Branden: “Remember that the state will never, and I cannot emphasize that enough, NEVER, be neutral. It shall always a take a side on all issues by the fact that if you do not actively promote the good/virtue then you are permitting the ugly/sinful. If the good is not constantly being affirmed then evil has been introduced and it shall feast like a parasite upon the good.”

    I am inclined to agree; hence my reservations…

     
  5. pukeko60

    May 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    The classic position — from the glorious revolution and the installation of WIlliam I (of Orange) to the throne — was that the church was part of the state and headed by the King. In that case, the church (as an arm of the state) regulated marriage… in fact catholics and nonconformists had to argue to get their unions legalized.

    The state was not seen as neutral, but instead part of a holy nation or Hobbsean Leviathan.

    This no longer exists. The state is not neutral, and is actively (in most of the commonwealth) disincentivising traditional marriage. Now,,, if we say that religion and the state should be seperate, then does the state run marriage (meh, in my case — but an intrusion into a sacrament if you are Catholic). Do we move to the European compromise where a civil marriage is a completely different thing from a covenental one?

    If the church cannot be part of the state, then the state should not be part of the Church. The Churches have run charities for thousands of years. Get the state out of it.

     
  6. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    @ Chris: Indeed, you raise a good point, for those who are Catholic or Orthodox: does the State’s involvement interfere with what should only be a Church prerogative?

    I don’t agree with you, that William of Orange’s ascension meant the church and state were one; on the contrary, his ascension, through the Glorious Revolution, guaranteed religious liberty, while at the same time, establishing the primacy of place of Protestantism in the U.K. Nobody is forced to belong to the Church of England, after all – or any other denomination… Yes, there may have been some inconsistencies in application of the priniciple at the beginning, requiring Catholics and non-conformists to fight for State recognition of their marriages alongside those of their Anglican neighbours, but it did happen…

    Why even bother with civil marriages, or common-law marriages, if marriage isn’t to be a religious matter? Frankly, I’ve never understood why heathens bother marrying…

     
  7. Ulysses

    May 13, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    @Branden – No the state has never been neutral and my proposal, which would require the state for the contractual angle, would not pretend the state would then be neutral. Rather, I do take a sacramental view of marriage and it bothers me that the state can dictate such blessings.

    I do not think SSM is a forgone conclusion and I will not be voting on it. I suppose it comes down to my tactical side. I would rather neutralize the issue and focus on strengthening marriage, though the latter may be the key to neutralizing the former.

     
  8. Jehu

    May 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    There are two big reasons why the State has to be involved in marriages—both created, incidentally, by the state
    1) The tax system—because we tax income and not imports or consumption or ‘heads’, we need a system for defining households/dependents/etc that won’t be gamed too terribly much. The ‘not gamed too terribly much’ is starting to break down as marriage loses its sacralized status though.
    and
    2) Our system of Social Security and the like, for the same reasoning as in 1)

    It’s possible to break out of the lock that 1 and 2 put us in—you’d have to change the tax system and probably scrap entitlements/transfer payments and replace it with something like the Alaskan citizen’s dividend on steroids. But doing so would be a profound change to society as we presently know it (I think it’d be an improvement in that it would suck less, but it is a radical departure).

     
  9. Ulysses

    May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    @Will S – “Why even bother with civil marriages, or common-law marriages, if marriage isn’t to be a religious matter? Frankly, I’ve never understood why heathens bother marrying…”

    In my kingdom, marriage would mean marriage. Contacts would be contacts. A marriage would necessarily be contractual; a contract would not necessarily be a marriage. As to your question, if kids are part of the picture then even heathens can appreciate the value of marriage. If not, then at least we can be glad some mores and shame still exist.

     
  10. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    @ Jehu: Good points.

    @ Ulysses: Fair enough. In which case, though, if marriage is a social good, it doesn’t seem wrong to me for the State to recognize it as such, and actively encourage it, as something good for all society. Though again, then the question of who gets to be called ‘married’ arises…

    I do like the idea of private contracts, but what way is there around the possibility that, as with other legal contracts, the State might be called in to mediate in disputes? It would only be definitely so, if both parties (a) agreed not to involve the State, as part of a pre-nup, and (b) stuck to that…

     
  11. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    @ Ulysses: Never mind, I see you recognized that: “which would require the state for the contractual angle, would not pretend the state would then be neutral”.

     
  12. More Anon

    May 13, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    State neutrality on marriage, in the context of a liberal bureaucracy, means hiring a bunch of otherwise useless activists to purge “heteronormative” assumptions from law, business, education, pop culture, and the news media.

    I would much rather build a bureaucracy dedicated to the defense of public morals and traditional marriage. Patronage is inevitable, and it’s better to have patronage for *my* useless fellow travelers than theirs.

     
  13. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    @ More Anon: “State neutrality on marriage, in the context of a liberal bureaucracy, means hiring a bunch of otherwise useless activists to purge “heteronormative” assumptions from law, business, education, pop culture, and the news media.”

    That’s exactly the sort of thing I fear…

    “I would much rather build a bureaucracy dedicated to the defense of public morals and traditional marriage. Patronage is inevitable, and it’s better to have patronage for *my* useless fellow travelers than theirs.”

    Hear, hear! If I have a preference, it’s that way…

     
  14. Laceagate

    May 13, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    There is a bigger problem here than the state’s involvement in marriage.

    State involvement is concerning because it takes sides. The issue here is these “sides” aren’t exactly opposite of each other, as it is in the U.S. Hence we have an underlying problem. We have people on the “one man, one woman” camp, stating marriage is a sanctified union. The other side says marriage can be between a man, a woman, or between two men, and two women, and their unions are sanctified, too. Then it becomes an problem is deciding whose marriage is truly representative of sanctity.

    We find ourselves in a further mess as churches are starting to “bless” homosexual unions and are considering them on the same covenant level as heterosexual unions. When we can’t even find cohesiveness in Christendom, how can we expect the government to support what is really right and moral? Especially since it is now justifiable for homosexual unions to be right and moral, too? Homosexual want more than just a contract now– they want to be just like heterosexuals, too!

    The state’s current involvement in marriage also dictates how churches conduct marriages. Why should a couple have to obtain a marriage license first, if they consider the church marriage the “true” marriage because of its holy nature? I think the state needs to step out of this part, at least.

     
  15. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    @ Lacey: It certainly seems, the State getting out of it, could solve much of the current conundrum, I can well see the wisdom of such an approach…

     
  16. Will S.

    May 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    I guess I remain ‘on the fence’, uncomfortable as that is…

     
  17. Svar

    May 13, 2012 at 11:34 pm

     
  18. Svar

    May 13, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    Also, I think we should all take a good hard look at this comment by W.C. Taquiyya:

    “Mr. Buchanan,
    So, is Joe Biden the Union Army forcing Lee to fight at Sharpsburg and likewise forcing Obama to play his gay hand? Is Obama a latter day Lincoln needing a victory to wave his gay marriage proclamation from? I don’t know, the reference to Antietam confuses me. Maybe some smart person can explain how the coming election is like Antietam, because I can’t see it. If Mr. Buchanan sees homosexual marriage as the watershed issue in a bloody, hard fought battle this November, I would have to digress. I don’t disagree that some folks are trying to change the definitions of things as Mr. Buchanan says. I don’t disagree that Obama wants to change the Supreme Court so they legalize gay marriage either. But the thing is, this here battle between ‘traditional’ marriage and ‘gay’ marriage is a lot like a battle between traditional gravity and gay gravity. What does it accomplish to ratify traditional gravity by law or to enshrine gay gravity in the Constitution? I modestly submit that gravity will be completely unmoved in either case. If I’m wrong, maybe we should pass laws respecting traditional heat as the one true hotness in case someone gets the idea there should be a gay version also? Along with traditional marriage, gravity and heat, there seems to be no end of things gays might like to define in a homosexual manner. I wonder, will water still be wet if Obama is re-elected? Probably not, lets pass some more laws. While we are busily engaged in codifying our separate realities we should not forget to dump traditional insanity into the dustbin. The new, improved insanity will be defined as the denial or break from unreal realities as defined by law. So anyway, what’s the point? Yes, that’s it, this so-called battle is being waged by people who have a very tenuous grasp of the basics. Basics like calling a rose an automobile doesn’t make it so. Not even if you pass a law or Constitutional amendment saying so. And, passing a law in support of traditional gravity is just as stupid since gravity will only procreate with an opposite sex partner no matter what any judge may rule. Thus, I see people straining themselves in desperate battles for and against reality wielding swords of illusion. Maybe we should just laugh at the silly homosexuals and call it a day?”

    To be honest, that is basically my attitude towards gay “marriage”: “Awww… look at the sodomites trying to be like people!”.

    They deserve my contempt, but they are not worth my rage.

     
  19. Will S.

    May 14, 2012 at 2:45 am

    @ Svar: “They deserve my contempt, but they are not worth my rage.”

    Of course.

     
  20. Will S.

    May 14, 2012 at 3:51 am

    Like I said, I find myself sympathetic to both sides; there are good arguments made by those on both.

     
  21. He dwelt amongst us

    May 14, 2012 at 6:33 am

    Patrick Deneen has a great article on what happened to the natural law, which of course should accurately be reflected in our laws. http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/

    And WWWtW has a long conversation http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/01/why_the_government_should_be_i.html

    Quote from Clare Krishnan:

    “(so-called ‘free’ markets are only truely open when commerce between voluntary subjects to trade can decline the terms or price demanded for entry into binding — constrained in time and place and therefore able to be “hedged” with insurance — contractual relationship). Marriage is a covenant not a contract precisely because we cannot know the constraints of time and place and attach price or terms in advance. The bond is one-ended (unconditional, lifelong, exclusive fidelity) and cannot be hedged. What unmarried cohabitors attempt is to hedge before price discovery (illogical of course, such a calculation can’t be done if you don’t know the value of the polynomial expression you seek to optimize). I know. I tried it. My son (daughter-in-law, grandchildren and step siblings) is still paying the premium on his parents’ failed hedge.”

    Does the state have the authority to abolish what this natural thing is? by the ‘state getting out of the marriage business’ it really means giving the state the power to reduce everyone’s marriage to mere contract. Isn’t that a hideous loss and astonishing claim to state power? If marriage isn’t a natural institution, the most obvious of all, why is the state itself? Recipe for a massive crack-up, and big-man corporate tribalism.

    There can be no life in a marriageless polity, but we already knew what would happen to a people that became human sacrificers after 1973. Wonder if the marriage issue isn’t moot, when does the debt house of cards fall? which as Spengler argues is a sex. rev. demographic crisis at root.

     
  22. Elspeth

    May 14, 2012 at 7:02 am

    Thanks for the linkage Will.

    I agree with Patrick J. Buchanan that Obama’s “revelation” was politically timed and motivated. I think he gives too much ink to the theory. This is a matter of conviction with Obama. This wasn’t a flip-flop on his part, and it wasn’t an “evolution” as he called.

    This was a coming out. At least to those stupid enough not to have been able to see that this President has always been in favor of same-sex marriage.

     
  23. Will S.

    May 14, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Hey Elspeth, you’re welcome.

    Yeah, it’s no surprise Obama favoured it; he just waited till what he figured was the most opportune time to reveal that.

     
  24. Will S.

    May 14, 2012 at 8:45 am

    @ He dwelt amongst us: Good arguments, indeed.

     
  25. Brendan

    May 14, 2012 at 9:32 am

    We find ourselves in a further mess as churches are starting to “bless” homosexual unions and are considering them on the same covenant level as heterosexual unions. When we can’t even find cohesiveness in Christendom, how can we expect the government to support what is really right and moral? Especially since it is now justifiable for homosexual unions to be right and moral, too? Homosexual want more than just a contract now– they want to be just like heterosexuals, too!

    Indeed this is the “bigger” issue that is lurking in the shadows right now, but is going to de-lurk once the civil aspect of homosexual marriage is fully established — namely, deligitimizing socially the Christians who refuse to marry same sex couples in their churches as being the equivalent of racist bigots. This is coming next, folks. Be ready, because it’s going to come good and hard when it does.

     
  26. Ulysses

    May 14, 2012 at 10:01 am

    . . .deligitimizing socially the Christians who refuse to marry same sex couples in their churches as being the equivalent of racist bigots.

    That is definitely a possibility, but civilization tends to move in zigzags and parabolas rather than a straight line. I’m not sure public opinion is as much on the purported “right side of history” as the echo chamber proclaims.

     
  27. katmandutu

    May 14, 2012 at 10:13 am

    I disagree with Brendan.

    Here in Oz, the Church frowns on same sex unions and is actively campaigning against acceptance of homosexual marriage.

    Indeed our own Cardinal Pell, has spoken out on many occasions against such unnatural unions, even going so far as to refuse communion to homosexuals wearing Rainbow sashes(a mark of their homosexuality) as they approached him for communion at Sunday Mass.

    My own Archbishop in my state of Westerrn Australia publicly stated that the diocese would refuse to perform marriages if gay Marriage was legitimized, and the Church was forced to accept this.

    This would mean that a Catholic would have to undergo a civil ceremony in order for the state to recognize the union, then be married by a priest in order for the marriage to be valid in the eyes of God.

     
  28. Will S.

    May 14, 2012 at 10:22 am

    Well, Kathy, Australia seems to be a bit (thankfully) “behind the times”, meaning the trends of North America and Europe take longer to get there. So maybe it’s not going to happen there as quickly as it will come to North America. But whatever happens here, will eventually impact there.

     
  29. Will S.

    May 14, 2012 at 10:25 am

    i.e. Australia is sadly not immune to the trends of the wider world, even if they take longer to get a foothold there.

     
  30. Ulysses

    May 14, 2012 at 10:27 am

    I wonder if this is another iteration of the Taranto principle? The polls keep showing one thing while election results show another.

     
  31. Brendan

    May 14, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Kathy —

    I don’t understand what you are disagreeing with. I wrote that the deligitimation campaign will be social, not legal. The state isn’t likely to force churches to marry gays. What will happen, however, is that it will become viewed, sociallu, as bigoted and intolerant to refuse to do so, particularly given that there will be (and already are) churches who are marrying them.

     
  32. pukeko60

    May 14, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Kathy,

    I think that all orthodox churches are going to have to take the position that Cardinal Pell and WA are considering. Let us make a church marriage mean something, not a means to registering your relationship with the state and an excuse for a party.

    What I cannot understand is why getting married costs so much, It used to be read the banns, choose a date, and have a reception… about 10K at most. Now you need a designer everything. I would rather we got married, as they used to, as part of the usual Sunday services. Like we do for baptisms.

     
  33. Laceagate

    May 14, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    Indeed this is the “bigger” issue that is lurking in the shadows right now, but is going to de-lurk once the civil aspect of homosexual marriage is fully established — namely, deligitimizing socially the Christians who refuse to marry same sex couples in their churches as being the equivalent of racist bigots. This is coming next, folks. Be ready, because it’s going to come good and hard when it does.

    Oh yes, I could see this coming years ago. It’s going to be a real nasty confrontation, too, when it gets to the point where the State starts taking action to mandate churches to “bless” homosexual unions. There isn’t much to stop a couple of gays from suing any church refusing to wed them, and I anticipate within the next 5 years, we’re going to see tons of infighting within the Lutheran Church. They’ve already split so much in just the past 2 years.

    What I cannot understand is why getting married costs so much, It used to be read the banns, choose a date, and have a reception… about 10K at most. Now you need a designer everything. I would rather we got married, as they used to, as part of the usual Sunday services. Like we do for baptisms.

    Wasn’t it this way which allowed communities to have a say in whether or not the couple in question should even get married? In other words, it was part of a community’s responsibility?

    I am also of the camp where the wedding day should be focused on the marriage, versus a party. The cost of a wedding and wedding planning eventually engulfs the true focus of a wedding– starting and focusing on married life.

     
  34. Will S.

    May 17, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    @ Kathy: If you think same-sex marriage is impossible in Oz, think again

    You and David Collard have indicated that feminism appears to be not as strong in Oz as elsewhere. But it, and gay rights, will surely come to Oz as they have to the rest of the West. Your Antipodean continent / island is not immune to the trends affecting the rest of the West, just because you’re far away from it. Best to avoid emulating your country’s well-known flightless bird, the ostrich, and get your heads out of the sand, now; then maybe you can fight it, and actually try to stop it or at least slow it down. Instead of rushing to jump in and disagree with Brendan and others about trends that are very much present here in North America, you should worry about them coming to Oz. Because they will, unless you and your fellow trads there fight like hell to stop it.

     
  35. David Collard

    May 18, 2012 at 1:18 am

    Will, we have emus not ostriches. I have been reading about historical laws, and the lack thereof, today, funnily enough. Trends may not be followed. Here is something I wrote in another place, just yesterday. I am referring to a case in which some Protestant ministers were charged over supposedly offensive remarks about Islam:

    “The Evangelical pastors eventually won their case, as I recall. A lot of these half-baked laws that social progressives pass end up either backfiring, or being overturned in appeals courts, or simply being abandoned. For example, affirmative action has largely been a flop in Australia, mainly due to a lack of public support. It really only applies in a few areas, like the manning (personning?) of Government boards and the like.

    Likewise, sexual harassment laws have not had much traction in Australia, perhaps due to some high-profile losses by litigants. And I suspect that progressives are less enthusiastic about rape-in-marriage laws following at least one notorious miscarriage of justice in WA, which led to the imprisonment of the women complainants and the suicide of the man. A sticky business all round.

    Laws have to work in real life, and some simply don’t and become dead letters. I notice that Andrew Bolt is still dining out on his lost court case, and one can hardly blame the guy. To some degree, he is in show business, in which they say that all publicity is good publicity.

    There is also a long list of famous men who were once convicted and/or jailed under bad laws. Blessed John Henry Newman was found guilty of libel, for example.”

     
  36. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 1:23 am

    Pardon me re: ostriches.

    Well, one hopes you’re right. Nevertheless, prudence dictates that one doesn’t think “It can never happen here”, because that’s why people thought once here, about gay rights, etc.

    I do think you two are naive, to think trends here won’t affect y’all down there, eventually.

     
  37. katmandutu

    May 18, 2012 at 8:55 am

    “Laws have to work in real life, and some simply don’t and become dead letters.”

    This!

    David you have eloquently stated that, which clearly I was unable to articulate..

    BTW, Brendan is not some oracle.. He may understand how things work in America, but not here in Oz. ;)

    David hits the nail on the head in his post!.

     
  38. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 9:25 am

    I still think you two are overly optimistic, and your ‘Aussie exceptionalism’ is not permanently sustainable, to the extent that it is a real phenomenon.

    You yourself have admitted that feminism and liberalism have infected the cities there, even if not so much the smaller towns and suburbs. But that’s always how it happens; that’s how it happens here: the cities are always more liberal than the suburbs, which in turn are more liberal than the small towns / rural areas. But wherever the cities go, the rest of the country is sure to eventually follow. A Reformed pastor in rural upstate New York, which is far more conservative than the metro New York City area, lamented to me a year ago that a mainline church in his area had recently ordained a homosexual pastor. I was saddened to learn the news, but not altogether surprised.

    It has always been thus; for good or ill, the cities are where change happens first; then such changes spread to the country. In the Roman Empire, the first Christians were in Rome and the big cities; the pagani, or country folks, were the last to adopt the Faith. In that case, it was a good trend that started first. These days, it’s mostly bad trends, because the cities are overwhelmingly liberal…

    Anyway, I still maintain, if you think “It can never happen here”, you won’t be prepared to fight it, to stop it from indeed happening there, and will wonder why it did, when it does. Consider us North Americans the canary in the coal mine, and be prepared…

    And no, Brendan may not be an oracle, but he is bright, articulate, with many trenchant, excellent, intelligent observations, and is accordingly highly respected in the manosphere. At least by non-Australians.

     
  39. katmandutu

    May 18, 2012 at 9:36 am

    It’s really hard to explain Will.. It’s a feeling.. It’s how we interact with one another…

    Australians have a very poor opinion of Academics, unlike Americans..

    We really do not care if our kids attend University or not.. As long as they get a job.. And are happy.

    We just don’t have that rigid mindset that Americans seem to have regarding college..

    I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

    Not saying that things can’t happen here, just that we have a different perspective on what is important in life.

    We are more laid back and less politically correct here.

    In Oz the guys still go on fishing trips and have drinks at the pub with their mates, without the women getting on their backs and nagging..

    It’s just how it is..

     
  40. katmandutu

    May 18, 2012 at 9:38 am

    And I am not trying to denigrate Brendan, here. I have the utmost respect for him.

    He just has no idea how things are in Oz..

    Which is what I said initially. ;)

     
  41. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 9:44 am

    That’s good that things are more conservative there, for now, but don’t think that can last forever, if you don’t fight to maintain it. Maybe being a little less-laid back, in terms of not thinking “It can’t happen here”, might serve y’all well. Just sayin’. I think the vigilance of people like Mark Richardson, who warns about creeping feminism and liberalism in Australia, is what Australia will need to keep things as they are…

    Maybe next time, you could phrase your response to Brendan’s comments a bit differently, then, so it doesn’t sound like you think he’s wrong overall, unless you do think so and are prepared to provide evidence for such an assertion. If invoking Aussie exceptionalism, say so. That’ll avoid misunderstandings.

     
  42. katmandutu

    May 18, 2012 at 10:00 am

    I never implied he was wrong overall. I just don’t always agree with him.

    Just like I don’t always agree with you. ;)

    To be fair to Brendan, he may just have been speaking about the situation in America.

     
  43. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Hey, of course; nobody agrees with everybody all the time. :)

    All of us Patriactionaries, and most of our commenters, are American or Canadian, and our two North American countries are fairly similar, as regards political trends. You might as well assume, whenever we’re discussing things, that we’re generally talking about the North American context, unless the post happens to be about Australia or New Zealand or Britain or elsewhere…

     
  44. David Collard

    May 18, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    There is just a different ethos here in Australia. And I don’t accept that trends must always be followed. Fashions in thought come and go. Mark Richardson is a good bloke, but he tends to be too defeatist.

    Why do you think I am the way I am? (Alte and so on found me alpha, but I am really just an average Australian man of my generation.) Why do you think Kathy knows her place? Many Oz women still do. They are happy as women and are not trying to be something they will never be, men. Her husband calls her “big tits”. He is obviously not scared of her. You would be surprised what I sometimes call my missus.

    I am a keen America-watcher, but I am sure there are nuances I miss (like the emu thing for you). Brendan is a high IQ guy, but he does not live in Oz. So, he is at some level, just an armchair theorist.

     
  45. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Like I said, generally, here, we’re discussing the North American context, so one can have an insight about a matter that is applicable here, even if it apparently doesn’t apply to Australia…

     
  46. Brendan

    May 18, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Which is how my comments should always be read, to be honest. In fact it’s how anyone who does NOT live in Oz’s comments should be read. Most posters are not from Anzed. It’s good for posters from places other than Anzed to understand that in Anzed things may be different, but its downright silly for posters from Anzed to “NAPALT” posters from the northern hemisphere countries simply because their posts don’t represent antipodean experiences. If we do that, then we basically cede the commentary to you all, despite your quite small size compared to the North American and European Anglosphere. The response to the effect that “we don’t care, this is our opinion and how it is here” is acceptable provided that it is qualified by the idea that your countries are different in this respect from the north hemisphere anglo countries.

    This is an issue that comes up again and again, really. And, no, Kathy, I am not ignorant of Australia. My father’s sister moved from India to Australia when the house of cards in India collapsed (my Dad moved to England). I have been to W.A. many times and had great times there. But is IS IN NO WAY LIKE America or European Anglo countries. It is a nice country, but a very small one (population compared to the rest of us) and therefore less applicable generally.

    As for the argument “you could all be like us”, that is also bunk, because of the different historical and cultural circumstances. This comes up with other Aussies on the net as well, including Mark Richardson and Slumlord. Look, guys, it’s best when you are up in the air of ideas, because when you get down the depths of “my experiences are X”, it really isn’t that relevant when Australia has a population of 23m, which is 15 less than the largest state in the US. I mean, it’s likely true that what you say is the case in Oz, and I have seen it myself, but it isn’t relevant at all to people outside of Oz, because conditions ex-Oz are very different and cannot be made to resemble those in Oz. So comments like that are just terribly unhelpful. Mark R is better in that he keeps his discussion mostly on the idea level, because he knows his local conditions in Oz are not really exportable (and perhaps even within Oz outside Vic.).

     
  47. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Well said, Brendan. That’s the point I was trying to make; Aussies’ objections to us discussing how things are in North America – because that’s what we’re ordinarily talking about – are pretty pointless, really. Fine; it’s different down there. But we’re talking about up here, unless specifically talking about Australia, which isn’t that often.

     
  48. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    IOW, to our antipodean friends: unless we’re decidedly talking about you antipodeans specifically, we’re not talking about you. No need to go all ‘NAPALT!’ on us, every time we talk about stuff in OUR context.

     
  49. Chris

    May 18, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    Will and Brendan, well… yes and no.

    David and Kathy are correct about the average Aussie. But the elite Australian is much more comfortable in New York than in Woolongong. That group includes almost all the senior civil servants and academics.

    Which I (as a Kiwi, living in a place that is hard left — Labour MPs for a hundred years now — find weird. I’m not very politically correct… but variations of thought are allowed in NZ. The Australian academy — at least in my experience — is full of groupthink. (When you find an original academic thinker, you often find he trained in NZ).

    The rebellion is just as deep in NZ as OZ. But it is quieter, and somewhat more deadly. In short, the pro-family groups are kicking out the feminists and gays (and their agenda) at each election, as fast as they can. The Liberals in the church are retiring or dead. And their congregations have left — the remnant are fervent and believe. This means that the church is functionally rolling back things like women ministers… because the congregations that are growing and healthy do not appoint them.

    What seems to hold up the USA is your tendency to have congressional fiefdoms (the seat is gerrymandered so one party will win — you could stand a dog for that seat and the dog would win) and a greater disconnect between the people and politics, shown best in the poor voter turnout in your elections.

     
  50. David Collard

    May 18, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Yes, we are a tiny country in terms of population. Permit me an anecdote. I used to work in an area of technical regulation in relation to drugs. We would hold international teleconferences, with Australian, Canadian and USAn experts all on the line. They were held early in the morning, Oz time. I used to find it hilarious to be sitting at home in my pajamas, balancing my breakfast and technical papers on my lap, the sole Aussie, while I spoke to a range of issues covered by about 15 experts on the line from North America. I used to imagine the Americans in DC, all buttoned-up and serious around a big table. And then just me, with my funny accent I suppose, covering all the issues for good old Australia..

     
  51. Will S.

    May 18, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    @ Chris: The fact that the Aussie elites are more like people here in North America, even if the average Aussie people aren’t, is why I think Aussie trads like David and Kathy (and Slumlord and whoever else) ought to be more concerned about the future of their country, given such elites, because elites often have the power to force their ways on the general public, over time. It has happened here, and it can happen there, despite their historic cultural differences and unique situation – if they’re not vigilant to fight it before it happens; thank goodness for the watchfulness of people like Cardinal Pell; that’s exactly what is needed. And the usefulness of someone like Mark Richardson is precisely in his keeping aware of what’s going on in the wider world, as well as observing what the elites in Australia are doing – because what they are doing IS much in line with the wider world.

    Glad to hear that trads in NZ are turning back the clock on various negative social and ecclesiastical changes; that’s encouraging to hear.

     
  52. David Collard

    May 18, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    Yes, but the elites don’t get the respect. That was Kathy’s point. I remember being on holiday in NZ donkey’s years ago, and the lady tour guide said, “I can always tell when I have an Australian group. They just wander everywhere”. That’s us, in a nutshell.

    You have no idea how much Julia Gillard stinks in the public nose. This woman was foisted on Australians by an out-of-touch elite, and she is shaping up to be the worst prime ministerial flop ever. Australians don’t go much on bossy women. (I quite like her, personally, but she is just terrible as a PM).

    I suppose, in defence of Kathy and myself, we have to constantly make an effort to understand America and use terms Americans will understand, and think like Americans when we post in the Manosphere (by the way, where are all the Brits?) I use American jargon, as far as I can, so I am not stupidly trying to ignore the American experience. And, yes, I do fear that we are next, so I fight in my tiny way in forward defence in the American blogosphere. I think, for example, that I have managed to damage two American Femdom blogs quite badly in just the last few days.

     
  53. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 12:05 am

    @ David: Yes, I’ve heard of the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” culture in Australia, no doubt the anti-elite mentality in Australia stems from the Botany Bay Colony days, when y’all were nothing but a bunch of Irish and Cockney hooligans. ;)

    We have a version of that, too, in North America: it’s called populism. It’s what has inspired movements like the C.C.F. and Social Credit and the Reform Party in Canada; and various movements in the States, from the Free Silver movement (William Jennings Bryan) through to the Tea Party of today… But, despite populism, elites are able to get their way here, perhaps more than in your land. Elites have power; doesn’t matter whether they’re liked, if they can do stuff.

    I’ve wondered where the Brits are, too; I suspect they’re too tied up with goings on in Europe, vis-a-vis the E.U., and the Muslim problem in their own country, to pay much attention to blogs in the rest of the world. Too bad. It’d be nice to have a British visitor or two here, but there don’t seem to be any, alas. Elsewhere in cyberspace, outside the manosphere and tradosphere, I have online Brit friends, and I’ve noticed, they seem quite focused on Britain and Europe, with little attention paid to goings on in North America and elsewhere. I suppose that’s to be expected; not only because of their current issues, but also because, frankly, Old Worlders are snobs, and more inclined to navel-gazing than us colonials. ;)

     
  54. Brendan

    May 19, 2012 at 12:07 am

    I suppose, in defence of Kathy and myself, we have to constantly make an effort to understand America and use terms Americans will understand, and think like Americans when we post in the Manosphere (by the way, where are all the Brits?) I use American jargon, as far as I can, so I am not stupidly trying to ignore the American experience.

    That isn’t the issue at all. The issue is anecdotal experiences should be shared in the context in which they were experienced, and, frankly, that means that Antipodean posters, in particular, should be careful to state things so broadly when based on legitimate Antipodean experiences. Given the population and historical differentials, qualification would be desirable.

     
  55. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 12:09 am

    Exactly.

     
  56. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 12:26 am

    Australia has a population well under that of Texas (I checked).

     
  57. pukeko60

    May 19, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Not arguing about some of this, Brendan and Will, but there is such a variation between provinces in Canada (and within Provinces — Ontario, once you get out of Toronto, like NSW once you leave Sydney, is not that ghey) and states that your mileage will vary with every anecdote.

    And do not get me started on the French and Quebecios.

     
  58. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 12:41 am

    A Canadian comedian once joked that when he visited Australia, at customs, they asked him if he had a criminal record, and he replied, “I didn’t realize you still needed one of those to get in here.” ;)

     
  59. pukeko60

    May 19, 2012 at 12:42 am

    I love being asked if I was a member of the NSDAP between 1933 and 1945 and/or if I have committed gross moral turpitude. (Both on the US border forms). Tempted to say no, I am not a member of the TSA nor the current president.

     
  60. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 12:45 am

    @ Chris: Yes and no; there are differences in political culture, certainly, which are akin to differences in America between Red states and Blue states; but just as Red states and Blue states both have common ground in terms of American culture being a common denominator, so too do Western Canadians, and Ontarians, and Atlantic Canadians, share a common culture.

    As for Quebec, that’s different. They’re a distinct society, French instead of English; civil law instead of common law, historically Catholic instead of mixed but predominantly Protestant like the rest of Canada, and so on.

    Canada is Two Solitudes, not 13 (ten provinces and three territories; actually, the territories are different, but numerically, population-wise, insignificant). French and English. There will always be a gulf between them, notwithstanding the things we do have in common as Canadians, from hockey to Tim Hortons…

     
  61. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 12:48 am

    @ Chris: Ha! That’s hilarious, that they ask such things, as if (a) it’s worth putting it on all forms because there are so many fitting those categories, and (b) that they figure people will answer honestly…

    Those would be funny answers, but the CBP have no sense of humour. (Sorry, humor.)

    We Canadians have to show our passports, but we don’t have to have visas to enter America to visit.

     
  62. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 12:51 am

    Vive le Quebec libre! (but only if they become good Catholics again).

    Yes, convicts. One of my ancestors was transported to Van Dieman’s Land for highway robbery.

     
  63. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 12:59 am

    Grrr, English Canada needs Quebec to stay put, to keep the two parts of English Canada connected by the Quebec bridge. Though I can understand and have some intellectual sympathy for Quebecois nationalism, I can’t embrace it, as a patriotic Canadian, and I’m always annoyed at foreigners from Charles de Gaulle through to League of the South members and Scottish nationalists, wishing Quebec separatism well. That’s my country y’all are wishing to break up, dammit!

    Thankfully, Quebec’s birthrate has become quite low since abandoning Catholicism; they no longer can actually separate, with the influx of foreigners who have interest in separatism, who have higher birthrates; the separatist vote is swamped by newcomers. A cautionary tale about the perils of uncontrolled high levels of immigration, for the rest of the world – including English Canada.

     
  64. katmandutu

    May 19, 2012 at 1:15 am

    “I mean, it’s likely true that what you say is the case in Oz, and I have seen it myself, but it isn’t relevant at all to people outside of Oz, because conditions ex-Oz are very different and cannot be made to resemble those in Oz. So comments like that are just terribly unhelpful. Mark R is better in that he keeps his discussion mostly on the idea level, because he knows his local conditions in Oz are not really exportable (and perhaps even within Oz outside Vic.).”

    You make a very good point, Brendan.

    On the flip side I have been howled down by MRA’s over the years when I talk about how Australia is different… In fact I have been called a liar, a feminist, ignorant(about the women in my own country. lol.) etc when trying to explain how it is in Oz… Particularly when I naively encouraged some of the young blokes on The Spearhead to come to Australia to find a woman.. I soon learnt that it was pointless , as I was derided and scorned because yes indeed ALL women ARE like that! Even in Oz. Lol.

    You were around a few years ago when I had that heated discussion with ruddyturnstone at Marky Mark’s when I tried to explain how women really do for the most part respect their men in Australia. (it’s a blog after all and people exchange views and opinions).. He was disbelieving and derisive telling me I should listen to how women talk to men. ..” Go out for a walk and see how the women talk down to their men,” he condescendingly sneered.

    Calling me a liar because my experience was not the same as his, and because he could not believe that many women in Oz just were NOT like the women he had encountered in America, was way off the mark, really.

    I never sought a disputatious argument with him. (we had different experiences, is all) However he somewhow twisted what I said to mean that I was somehow dissing his views, experiences with women and opinions. (and also those of the other men there) Which of course was not the case. In fact I was very sympathetic to the plight of many of the male commenters, especially those who had been divorced and taken to the cleaners by their wives.

    Again I was naive, in trying to offer hope and encouragement., (because it was misinterpreted..) Later I realized this to be futile because many there were not interested in an exchange of opinions or customs, just in paying out on all women.. My introduction to the manosphere was a fiery one. Lol.

    I soon learnt, though. :)

    Having a tough skin helps, because if a woman can’t stand the heat she ought to get out of the kitchen.

    I am rather partial to the kitchen.. After all, I DO spend a lot of my time there. ;)

     
  65. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 1:35 am

    @ Chris: Oh, and yes, indeed, there’s a HUGE difference, between the socio-economic-political culture of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), and the Rest of Ontario; it’s like the difference between New York City and Upstate New York, really. Though the rest of Ontario itself is divided – the southwest is generally Liberal, but in the manner of Southern U.S. Democrats, quite conservative for Liberals (time moves slowly there, things change very little); the east is Conservative (and poor, compared to the SW), and the north is socialist, i.e. New Democrat (also poor, with lots of French-Canadians, Italians, Scandinavians, Finns, and natives). But, like the rest of Canada, we all hate Toronto and area, with good reason. ;)

     
  66. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 1:41 am

    Kathy, why do you think Oz women respect men more? A holdover from frontier times? Ethnic makeup?

     
  67. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 1:47 am

    @ Kathy: I guess what we’ve all learned, hopefully, is, given how acute the differences seem to be between Australia and the rest of the Anglosphere, we have to be careful we’re not talking past each other. There’s not point arguing about things that are different, or even getting into such discussions in the first place. Best to, as Brendan says, keep the discussion about ideas on a higher level, rather than arguing about how differently they play out, on the ground, in the different places.

    As for MRAs not listening to others who have different experiences than their own, like at Marky Mark’s site, that’s not surprising. Alas, many MRAs tend to be leftist, almost like a mirror image of feminists, and just as ideological; they make unprincipled exceptions in their opposition to feminism, without realizing they are allowing feminists to set the terms of the debate, and they frame their opposition in terms of just what that term ‘MRA’ indicates, ‘men’s rights’, unlike us Patriactionaries, who critique feminism from a traditionalist conservative POV, seeing the whole ‘rights’ rhetoric as a big part of the problem in the first place, and that men’s and society’s interests aren’t helped by men adopting it themselves.

    But I digress.

     
  68. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 1:55 am

    @ Kathy, David: One thing that has always surprised me, is how conservative the Anglican church is in Australia, unique in the West, compared to in Britain, Canada, and America; I consider Archbishop Peter Jensen and the like heroic, in their refusal to allow the Australian portion of the Anglican Communion to devolve into mainline Protestant liberalism, as has alas happened in the other non-antipodean English-speaking countries (not sure what the situation is in NZ, perhaps Chris can enlighten, as to whether it’s like Australia or the rest of the white English-speaking world).

    The only other places where one finds Anglicans consistently traditionalist, is in Africa; we hear about the Ugandan church, and the Nigerian church, etc., opposing attempts at imposing gay-rights in their countries, and certainly not allowing them to get a foothold in their churches. Unique in the West, it seems the Australian church has remained faithful, like the African churches; yes, there are traditionalist congregations in America, Canada, and Britain, here and there, and individuals, but no Western Anglican church has resisted liberalism as strongly as that in Australia. I salute Peter Jensen, and the faithful of his church, in Australia, for that.

     
  69. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 2:11 am

    Will, what you are seeing in Sydney and Africa is low church teaching and the results of low church missionary teaching. Sydney is sui generis. Other Anglican dioceses in Australia are plenty liberal, tho’ mostly on sheilas not poofs. (Sydney used to be very rich too.)

    The London Missionary Society (low) and the Church Missionary Society (high) both operated. I think the former did the South Seas. So you get very fierce OT type Christians in places like Samoa.

    American Episcopalians can be bloody high. In that movie I like so much, Metropolitan, the cute Audrey Rouget character goes to “midnight Xmas mass” in an Episcopalian cathedral, and it was so like a Catholic midnight mass that it nearly fooled me. That was set in the 1980s I think. These days, the procession would be led by a fat Lesbian, no doubt.

     
  70. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 2:14 am

    I see.

    I know that in Canada and America, there are High-Church, traditionalist Anglicans / Episcopalians. Our own Ulysses is Episcopalian, and obviously not liberal.

    The new Whit Stillman movie is now out here; I intend to see it tomorrow.

     
  71. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 2:35 am

    Let me know what it is like. I gather my heartthrob Carolyn Farina has a small role. I suppose she looks frumpy now.

     
  72. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 2:37 am

    http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=14707

    New Anglican Ordinariate in Australia.

     
  73. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 2:38 am

    I’m a bit pessimistic; this is the first Whit Stillman movie whose storyline is centred completely around women, unlike in Metropolitan and the Last Days of Disco, where it was mixed, or Barcelona, where it was two men. Plus this is the first time there’s a main character that isn’t WASP; one wonders whether that’s a sop to political correctness, or what. Plus I’ve heard some poor reviews from people who were fans of his previous work. Nevertheless, I will see it, and indeed, I’ll let you know what I thought of it.

     
  74. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 2:39 am

    Are lots of Anglicans there crossing the Tiber?

     
  75. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 2:45 am

    I think it will be a succes d’estime.

     
  76. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 3:08 am

    Ah. Just as with the Anglo-Catholicism movement in Britain in the previous couple of centuries.

     
  77. pukeko60

    May 19, 2012 at 3:54 am

    David, NZ varies. The new bishop of Wellington came up from the nonconformists and the Punk Monk movement and looks good. The current local bishop in Dunedin is a good bloke,

    We however, have a floridly gay and liberal end to the Anglicans — the current Bishop of Christchurch, who is not only a feminist but a remarkably stupid Canadian one at that is allowing the cathedral to be demolished out of fear of lawsuits.

    That is from the outside: I’m Presbyterian. I am not sure if they exist in Australia: the Uniting church there is a disaster in my view.

    I think a lot of people who are low church and reformed, like me, would be Anglican in Sydney.

     
  78. pukeko60

    May 19, 2012 at 4:00 am

    Just checked: I was correct — the uniting church is a union of the congregational, methodist and presbyterian, and there is a rump Presbyterian Church. 5 congregations left in Sydney, but they include Scots Presbyterian (link is http://scots-sydney.org.au/). Where I would go / will go if I am ever in Sydney on a weekend (a fate to be avoided)

     
  79. David Collard

    May 19, 2012 at 4:44 am

    The Presbyterians who continued are pretty active actually. There is one church here, with a woman minister strangely enough. Some of the Prezzies actually booted out some women ministers some time back, reversing policy. It caused a big stink.

     
  80. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 9:49 am

    @ Chris: Ah, so it’s like Canada, the U.S, and Britain – and Australia, too, since David points out only Sydney is particularly conservative, there. A mix.

    Is there a Uniting / United Church, in New Zealand, like in Canada and Australia and America? Mainline Protestant, liberal?

    @ DC: Yeah, we have both a mainline Presbyterian denomination – the ones who didn’t join the United Church, but ended up just as mainline and liberal in the end – and a few conservative, traditionalist, confessing ones. The mainlines do have the odd conservative, confessing churches in them, here and there; I can think of at least one in Toronto.

     
  81. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 10:16 am

    @ DC, Chris: I do know there are also conservative, confessing Presbyterians in Australia; I’ve seen their websites. Those ones don’t have women ministers, I can tell you. Probably the Presbyterians that didn’t join the Uniting Church, are like the ones that didn’t join our United Church: mainline, and liberal. But, as here, the ones which are Covenanters, or otherwise traditionalist, reject liberalism.

    @ Chris: One thing I find interesting in NZ, is the Reformed Church of New Zealand, which united confessing Presbyterians with confessing Dutch Reformed immigrants; they adhere to both the Westminister Confession and the Three Forms of Unity (Dutch Reformed) as confessional standards, oddly enough. I find that weird, because there are slight differences, but I actually LIKE that in spite of such, they find themselves able to do so, seemingly without contradiction.

    They’re the only Reformed denomination in the world that does so; there is one other church which is similar: the Église Réformée du Québec, which holds to the Heidelburg Catechism AND the Westminister Confession.

     
  82. pukeko60

    May 19, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    There was an attempt to unite when I was in primary school. The Congregationalists and Presbyterians combined fairly seamlessly. Some parishes combined across Presbyterian and Methodist lines (this has worked in the country, but generally they were more mainline liberal). But they over reached and it was rejected.

    The methodist church is shrinking rapidly. The Presbyterians remain the same, and the Baptists have grown. The big growth, however, is the Pentecostals. I think the RCC has stopped shrinking… there will be some interesting matches there — particularly in Auckland.

     
  83. Will S.

    May 19, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Ah, I see.

    Thanks Chris.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 300 other followers