Somehow, I think that we have heard this "argument" before. We make comments on the lax state of public morals and talk about the decline of society and imply that somehow "getting back to some old-time" religious morals will make it all better.
The problem with the church's message is not that it has not "held us back" from the "moral decay," but that it has failed to continue to evolve fast enough to say relevant things to a post-modern, transnational culture.
We have heard numerous times the "getting bogged down" about homosexuality when there are "more important" (read non-minority) concerns to deal with, as if creating for justice for an oppressed minority will prevent us from doing anything else. The logic is flawed, and it needs to be labeled as such each and every time that it is advanced. The other "argument," that we are too focused on overseas mission, is also a fallacy. Too often, those who argue for "charity begins at home" will be the last to do anything charitable and are saying more about bigoted attitudes than anything recognizably Christian.
I believe that the church needs to carefully reconsider its message and, if there is nothing relevant to the questions being asked today, it needs to engage in prayer and work in the Spirit to seek answers. We must get over the aversion we have to "being relevant" as if that were some surrendering of our cherished principles and consider that the alternative, irrelevancy, is the inevitable consequence of failing to be relevant. We are living a version of the "children asking for bread" and "giving them a stone." The "answers" that we offer are, too frequently, just no longer helpful. For our answers to have a "saving" quality, they have to be appropriate to the needs of those being saved. It does no good to throw the drowning woman a parachute; she needs a life preserver. All too often our "answers" to these needs are in that character however. When we hear the trumpet sound the call for battle, we need to surge forward, not retreat. (Sorry, I generally do not like military metaphors, but I could not resist).

Jeffrey Shy, M.D.
Mesa, AZ

Dr. Shy makes some excellent points. I'd like to add a few further....

A basic problem with Christian responses to what is happening in England is the residual idea that Christianity should dominate the culture. That's a problem, not a solution. Serious consideration needs to be given to the possibility that the rapid rise of secularism reflects rejection of Christian hegemony... and that people have good reason for such rejection, as they associate Christianity with the defense of social hierarchy, repression, and the like.

There may be some nostalgia, amongst some people, for "the good old days"... but when one shines a bright light onto the past, it doesn't seem quite so "good."

So does "moral decay" refer to sex? Is that what the deal is? That always seems to be the underlying meaning of moral decay, that too many people are having too much naked fun and the Church or whoever is powerless to stop them.
What about all that bullying in British schools that is a blight upon England's green hills? What about all that greed that is ravaging the British economy and the lives of ordinary citizens? Need I go on and on? The Church and Christianity have a lot of work to do that is far more pressing than policing the bedrooms of the faithful.

I think the phrase "moral decay" is a little histrionic, but I have some sympathy with the notion, which goes beyond sexual morality. In fact, I would agree that there are more pressing causes for concern.

I think the use of the term "losing their morrings" reflects my feeling that this is a failure of guidance by a generation that was trying so hard to be nice and non-judgmental, and doing anything to avoid providing any kind of framework, any kind of boundaries apart from the criminal law. Any such impulse has become unfashionable in a country increasingly dominated by fashion as the main vector of proper conduct.

From my distant memories of childhood, the nature of the framework doesn't matter over much, there just has to be one. I think that's a human need. In the 60s, we had something to rebell against. For today's young people, rebelling against a bunch of multi-cultural and inclusive platitudes is rather like wrestling with a sponge. Anomie is the consequence. We're scared stiff of making definite statements lest we offend someone's sensitivities.

I'm certainly not advocating bigotry, homophobia or racism. But if we stand proclaiming our mealy-mouthed uncertainties, we should not be surprised if we have spawned a generation that doesn't believe in anything, or see anything as worthwhile. To proclaim our own beliefs is not to force others to believe, but I think it's a possible way of intellectually seeding the moribund desert of value-free Britain. Forget the "old days". Let's have standards and live by them. Let's lead by example. Let's give our children some positive role models. at least that will give them the opportunity to decide what they don't want to be when they grow up.

Reg Webb

That our Lord Jesus Christ is the reason Salisbury Cathedral was created and has remained all of these many centuries is implicit and explicit in its very foot-print: it is cruciform and the Cross is the tree of life.

Therefore, as the Cross is both symbol and sign, the cathedral church itself serves as ancient marketing device and modern-day house of the Church.

Forgive me, but this whole piece strikes me as (translation) "I'm getting old, I don't like it, and these #@&%!! fun-loving young people remind me of it!"

When the Church offers something better, they'll come to Church. Till then, fuhgeddaboutit! [Hint: stop being "knotted up over homosexuality", and embrace it in the SAME way as the Church embraces heterosexuality. Young people WON'T STAND for status quo CofE homophobia!]

JC Fisher