Open Letter to the Archbishops of the Church of England

 

 

Subject: Radical inclusion,

Your Excellencies, I was one of those who stood outside of Church House in February 2017 where the General Synod voted not to take note of the Bishops report on Human Sexuality and remember the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury at that time is that there needed to be a “Radical Inclusion” in the Church of England – then we heard about the initiative called Living in Love and Faith – to explore the issues of Human Sexuality and Gender Identity  as Christians, with a promise that findings would feed into the policy of the Church of England going forward.

I am a gay man who identifies as a baptised, confirmed Anglican Christian. I used to have a very conservative perspective on these matters but came to a point of view that my sexuality is in no way in conflict with my faith, and that there is no need to for me to suppress my sexuality in order to remain faithful to my Christian calling. I am very grateful that I am a member of a vibrant Church of England parish in the Diocese of Chelmsford. I make no secret of my sexual orientation and nobody in that parish tells me I am wrong to be gay. I am also not the only openly LGBTQ+ member of the congregation. Not long ago, our parish became a part of the Inclusive Church Network. Some years ago, I started a group which was for LGBTQ+ Christians and allies in our borough – we participated in London Pride March. We met monthly in some members’ home and talked about all sorts of issues that touched our lives as Christians. (We have not done so since before the pandemic – but I hope that we will be able to revive those meetings) However, although my fellow parishioners and I enjoy a great deal of inclusion at a local level, the truth is LGBTQ+ people still experience official discrimination.

We were encouraged to engage in the Living in Love and Faith course, which we did in the genuine belief that it would result in the Church of England hearing from us. This is not the first time we did this. As a parish we were asked to feed into the “shared conversions” with our stories and we did this with enthusiasm. Regarding the latter, we received no response at all as to how what we shared was received and with regard to LLF there was no mechanism by which we could feed into the discussion in regard to the questions that the LLF was seeking to answer. I have no idea if this was a serious mark of incompetence that we did not get a means feeding back, or a cynical deliberate omission as they were not really interested in what the people think, but an excuse that the programme was run so that the Church can continue with its discriminatory ways.

I want to believe Archbishops that you were sincere in your call to radical inclusion when you made it, and I am not naïve, so understand that this would be a process and that is why, despite many of my LGBTQ+ Christians saying we should avoid LLF, and that aspects of it were in fact traumatic and difficult to face for people like me because of our experiences in churches, that we as a parish should nevertheless do the course – I personally urged the rector to do the course and a number of us did it over Zoom. The course itself was okay, though I felt it was too brief and only scratched the surface, but most frustrating of all was that there was zero opportunity for us to give our feelings back to the Church of England. So, what was the point of us doing this course? Were my friends right to say it was a waste of time?

A process it may be, but five years after the call to radical inclusion the Church is still in the same place that it was then. Still, it is not possible for a same-sex couple to seek a blessing of their marriage let alone a church wedding, a gay or lesbian priest is still prohibited from marrying a person the same gender, or if they do, they could face a CDM and their job is threatened. How is that radical inclusion?

What provoked my decision to write this letter was the motion at General Synod in Pride Month to ban the flying of the Pride Rainbow flag from Church buildings. The Dean of Southwark rightfully called out this nasty proposal for what it is, exceedingly homophobic. I would have liked to have read that the chairperson would have vetoed the message at the very beginning, and certainly hope that this motion is not carried or if it is, that parishes up and down the country will defy that rule and fly the flag.

Why, might you ask does it matter to me that the Pride flags fly from church buildings? What is so important about this gesture? To answer that question, I point you to The Great Commission, that appears in different places in the New Testament. We are called to the preach the gospel and to make disciples. LGBTQ+ people have been alienated from churches for a long time, told that we are perverted, that we do not belong. Had it not been for my already well-established faith and belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, I have no doubt that like many people from my LGBTQ+ Community, I would have turned my back on the Church and walked away? But having realised that being gay, and even having sex with men would not separate me from the steadfast love of our God and that God would not let go of me because of something I have no control over and in no way, chose. I am very fortunate that I have met many others, who believe as I do that God loves LGBTQ+ people. That flag on that Church building is a loud declaration to members of the LGBTQ+ community that there is a place of welcome and non-judgementalism. That they can come and be themselves and be among people who care for them and love them. The flag on the building can say words that spoken words cannot – that this is not an act or trap – that they truly WILL be welcome. To deny us the right to hoist the Pride Flag is essentially to silence us and prevent us sharing the gospel with this community.

Another failure, as I see it, was your failure to call out and remonstrate with the bishops of the Anglican Church of Ghana when they were actively supporting the government of that country in a plan to bring forward legislation that was going to be devastating to the LGBTQ community. It cannot be argued that you are taking a neutral position, since, when the Episcopal Church in USA and I think Canada voted in their synod that they would recognise same-sex marriages and would permit priests to consecrate same-sex marriages just as they do for opposite-sex marriages, the Church of England sided with those who would sanction the Episcopal Churches – despite the supposed independence of the provinces. If there is an agreement that homophobia and bad treatment of LGBTQ people should not be tolerated and whether carried by individuals who may identify as Anglican and are in our parishes or by governments or institutions, from the Anglican pulpits and on the Anglican church websites and in the public media, the Church should be of one voice on this matter of homophobia and transphobia in all their forms just as we are on racism. I appreciate that this stance is by no means easy in every part of the Anglican Communion, and where the governments are anti-LGBTQ and where LGBTQ people can be arrested, imprisoned and even killed – for the leaders of the Church in those countries to stand up and say that those laws are wrong and go against the human rights of LGBTQ people. I am not expecting churches in every part of the globe to accept same-sex marriage or gay clergy but simply that they regard the humanity of LGBTQ people and stop punishing us for who we are. We need to however be ready to stand up for justice, regardless of the fall-out that we might experience.

 I believe that like the Commonwealth has moved away from being Anglo-centric and having a secretary general who is not from the UK, so too the Anglican Communion should move away from its Anglo-centrism and that the independence of the provinces should be emphasized on all matters ecclesiastical – that the provinces elect to belong to the AC or not. In the Anglican Communion today, we have churches that ordain women as deacons, priests and bishops and there are other provinces that will not ordain women. This is a fundamental difference over which people on both sides have very strong feelings and are convinced that their position is scripturally and theologically sound. However, despite this dichotomy of views, the Anglican Communion manages to accommodate people on both sides. I wish that we could have such magnanimity when it came to discussing matters around human sexuality and gender identity.  If the more conservative provinces could hold their view while accepting that other parts of the Communion, like the Episcopal Churches of USA and Canada have a different more accepting view and look at that which unites us all, that we are Children of God and that he loves each and every one of us, as we all believe and preach from our many pulpits. Not only should the Church of England be recognising the independence of the Anglican Provinces in the Anglican Communion but we must also insist on our independence and the Church of England must follow through on its pledge to review and reform in regard to issues of human sexuality and not be dictated to by conservative voices from outside.

This state of limbo that the Church of England seems to be in must move in one direction or another – sitting on the fence is not a sustainable position. We, as a community, need to know if we are in or if we’re out. If we are in, then, it’s time to change the rules:

• ·         Permit churches to bless and officiate same-sex marriages - and as with opposite sex marriage, publish the banns of marriage for same sex couples.
• ·         Allow gay, lesbian and bisexual clergy to be treated exactly like their heterosexual colleagues – to be allowed to marry, and if they have a partner, that intrusive questions about sexual activities be left unasked.

I am sure there are other things that could make churches more welcoming for LGBTQ+ people.

I think it is safe to say that in whatever direction the Church moves on this matter, there will be people who will say that they cannot remain in the Church of England. If we move in an inclusive and make radical inclusion reality, then conservative Christian will desert and join more conservative denominations. If, however, the Church remains adamantly anti-LGBTQ+, the LGBTQ+ people will know where we stand and will know that not only are not included but we are not welcome, and I for one will seek out another denomination, but I shall do so, with tears in my eyes.

In closing, I implore you as leaders of the Church of England, please seek Justice for everyone in our community, whether they subscribe to our doctrinal views of not. You said there must be a “radical new inclusion” in the church – I agree, and it’s time we started seeing the effects of this inclusion – not only in terms of race and disability – both very important, but also for LGBTQ+ people too.

Since writing this letter it has come to light that with the upcoming Lambeth Conference there is a call to endorse Resolution 1.10 from Lambeth 1998. This has annoyed many of my LGBTQ+ Christian siblings and sparked more Open letters – I have just read one from Changing Attitudes UK dated today, 24^th July 2022. (An Open Letter to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England — Unadulterated Love) This letter says much more eloquently than me, what I am saying in this letter.

I now feel that Radical Inclusion  and the LLF programme was a metaphorical rainbow coloured fishing-fly cast out in order to fool us (Rainbow Trout) by the Angling Anglicans – and that our ultimate destination, if we remain in this lake called The Church of England will be the frying pan.

Your brother in Christ,

John Fairlamb

 

 

 

55 Savushkina Street

Vaccination isn't new

In centuries it's been a few

Lady Mary’s pox vaccine 

Constantinople 1717

These amazing remedies

Fight those deadly enemies 

All that terrible disease

With death and disabilities

Since the greatest generation

People take their medication

Without corrupted hesitation-

Victims of disinformation

Trusting doctors with their lives

Sleeping soundly under knives

Anything to stay alive

Until this poison starts to thrive

Sadly though there has erupted

Duplicity that has disrupted

Trust tradition now corrupted

Life saving therapies obstructed

From the depths has emerged

A malignancy that’s purged

Common sense from planet earth

Devoid of evidence and worth 

Poem written collaboratively by James Fairlamb & John Fairlamb  January 2022

Epiphany

 Epiphany

Appearing:

Genuine appearing rather than a misleading apparition.

Understanding:

A genuine understanding and appreciation of the facts instead of illusions and alarmist conspiratorial theories. 

Like an oasis in the desert as that inspires relief and hope in the weary traveller rather than mirage that plays mind games with desperate travellers who have already lost their bearings. 

Religion:

Are the fruits of your faith, joy and peace and love 

Or will your beliefs end in disappointments and frustration and anger?

Is your religion a crutch? 

Is it full of fairy tales and simplistic moralism?

Or does it help you get in touch 

with the person that you really are, and were meant to be – 

the truth that lies beneath?

Rose Bowed Down

She stood tall with her back to the wall,

Gracefully and cheerfully with peachy roses on display.

She stretched up to the sky, as if about to fly,

But her feet were firmly rooted to the soil,

Stretching out her branches, like arms, in a wide embrace. 

She clung with tenacity to the trellis that was her support,

Weaving her branches 

out and in, 

in and out,

To hold on tight,

To keep upright. 

Then one day, out of the blue, the tellis lost its grip, and came adrift, from the wall on which it had been mounted.

Now, no longer the support on which she so relied,

The trellis had become a burden,

Which weighed her down - 

She silently cried.

Bowed down low,

bowed but not broken,

She yearned to be relieved of the heavy weight that bent her.

There was only one solution, 

So every branch and stem that weaved about the trellis was trimmed,

Freeing her from her life-long friend,

Lifting off the trellis on which she used to depend,

Straightening her up again,

Pruned, but by no means defeated,

She stood, as tall as she could,

With a promise that she will bloom again.

Guidance and Glory

 Listening to morning prayer on St. Mary's, Walthamstow Facebook live, (at 8:30 a.m. weekdays) you will hear, in Ordinary Time , the lines "Lord, you guide me with your counsel and afterwards receive me with glory". 

For some time now, that statement has caught my attention. There was something about it that I felt needed exploring further. So I am writing this blog to do that. 

Knowing "God's will" has to my perception, been something of a preoccupation of Evangelical religion in my lifetime. The quest of every Christian teenager leaving school and making decisions about what career path was often overshadowed with "What is God's Will for my life?" With the understandable trepidation that they would get it wrong. In the Torah, and Judaism,  matters seem, to my view much more concrete and clear cut. If you were in a certain family, you were to be a priest, a Cohen, and if you were were not a decedant of Aaron, you were a Levite, and you had a religious role, in the Temple,  but not a priest. Others followed in the footsteps of their parents. Jesus followed in the footsteps of his earthly father, Joseph, learning the trade of carpentry.  John, the Baptist, should, on paper, have followed in Zechariah's footsteps and become a priest, but it turned out that he became the "voice of one calling in the desert,'Prepare the way of the Lord.' I could point to other Biblical people like Abraham, Samuel, and David who had very specific and clear direction as to God's will for their lives and they were able to follow this direction and to varying degrees of success, do God's will.  (They often slipped up and did not do God's will, despite clear direction - and their failures often brought about serious consequences - Moses was not allowed to set foot in the promised Land, despite being the one to lead the Children out of Egypt and through the Wilderness - He, and all but two of the Generation who left Egypt,  died in the Wilderness. Such narratives are often more than a cautionary note, and strike terror into the hearts of serious Bible believers, that they must not get it wrong, when it comes to doing God's will. 

With maturity and experience of life, I would advise my younger self, and others who understandably want to know and do God's will,  that we should simply follow our hearts, when it comes to making these big life choices. One's natural aptitutes, and what makes us happy are good indicators of what we do in life. That there is also great scope for "course correction" after embarking on a specific career path, realising that it is not really "our thing", we can do something else. 

My Mum, Ruth, when she had completed her schooling, started training as a nurse. It became very apparent to her,  after not too long, that nursing was not her thing. It was by no means an instantaneous switch, but after some years, and through some pretty random circumstances, she became an art teacher, and I would say, if there is such a thing as "God's will for your life", in the sense that it is like an architect's blueprint,  then teaching would have been that thing for Mum. 

To be honest, I am not sure now that God is concerned so much with the minutiae of our day-to-day, or even life decisions, be that in terms of career, or relationships,  or where we live. I think, much higher on God's agenda, is How we live, day-to-day.  What is our character? Not what we DO, but who we ARE, as people. If I look at the Gospels, I see Jesus us telling us in different ways,  that how we treat one another is what identifies us as "one of His". Interesting that in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the religious people, the priest and levite, refused to be distracted from their "mission", in order to help the man in a crisis, but the supposedly secular Samaritan took time to take the man to an inn, and to pay, with clearly no expectation of reimbursement,  where he could recover, despite also being "on a journey". I think that we can be so preoccupied with being "purpose-driven", that we become like the priests and the levites in the parables and not willing to divert or delay our journey. But it was the Samaritan, the "smelly Samaritan", who was a neighbour to the man attacked by robbers. It was the "smelly Samaritan" who was doing God's will on that day on the Jericho Road. (I know the Bible doesn't actually say "smelly Samaritan " but I am using that expression to put across how Jesus' Jewish hearer would have viewed Samaritans.  Today we call the parable "The Good Samaritan ", and yes, he was a good and kind man. Let's not forget that this was a parable, and nor an actual person- he was a character conjured up in Jesus imagination to explain a principle. I am sure Jesus decision to use a Samaritan as the hero of his story was to emphasise his ordinariness as opposed to his goodness - and yet, he chose on that day to do the right thing for the man attacked by robbers. It is important to note that Jesus never refers to the Samaritan as Good. His goodness is reflected in his actions. )

Later on we read the list of qualities that mark people out as Spirit filled - the fruit of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, goodness,  kindness,  faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23). If I might be so bold as to offer my own paraphrase of those verses - The kind of person who is Spirit-filled is loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, good, kind, faithful (reliable), gentle and self-controlled. There is no law against being this kind of person.  

When it says that God will guide us with His counsel I think it is more about being this kind of person,  how to be this kind of person,  having wisdom to do/say the right thing in specific circumstances, or the wisdom to NOT do/say anything in specific circumstances. We DO need God's guidance in our day-to-day lives to be the best ----- (fill in the blank with career/role/etc.) we can be moreso than choosing what that career/role is. 

That said, while we should aspire to be that best person, we are fallable humans and will make mistakes. We will sometimes emulate the focused purpose-driven hard-nosed priest, instead of the empathetic generous Samaritan. Such is our humanity that on some days we will get out of the wrong side of the bed and we may be grumpy.

This is why part two of Psalm 73:24 is so important because,  whether we have heard God's counsel and followed it, or completely ignored God's counsel  and gone our own way, to our short term detriment perhaps, afterwards God receives us with His Glory. 

Ultimately God's love for us does not depend on our effort or achievement but simply on the fact that God is God and God loves us. He will still love and receive us regardless or how good, faithful, kind, loving, etc we have been. Like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, God will receive you and celebrate your return with rejoicing - with Glory . 

Selah

This poem I wrote with Psalm 73:24 in mind. 

Guidance & Glory

How hard it is sometimes to know just what to do or say
When trouble strikes and things breakdown,
When you’ve lost your way. 
What do you do when it’s all your fault, and
There’s no way to fix it, nowhere to hide?
Where do you go, when things go wrong, when it’s all falling apart? 

This isn’t a time to be glib, to give some blasé reply –
Sometimes all we can manage is a deep heartfelt sigh.
There really are times that make no sense at all.
What do we do then, when we're at a loss? On whom then can we call? 

I do not wish to belittle or deny the seriousness of the situation, 
But I do believe there is One we can call on in such a desperate season.
That’s God, our Saviour, who guides us with good reason,

God gives us strength to take each step, and listens as we pray. 
We can rely on God to stay — right by our side.
God loves us and won’t desert us, God will see us through to the end.
Just like the man on the cross,
We'll hear our Saviour say, 

“You will be with me in Paradise at the end of the day."

Baseless Hate

 Earlier I came across something that surprised me. First of all I need to give some background,  as some of you may be aware, in addition to my interest in matters of my Christian faith, I am also interested in other religions, but very much, Judaism. 

Judaism has its own calendar. We are in a part of that Calendar which is a period of mourning from 17 Tammuz to 9th of Av.  The 9th of Av is designated a fasting day. 9th of Av in Hebrew is Tisha B'Av. It is believed both the First Temple (That Solomon built) and the second Temple build after the exile with Nehemiah and Ezra were destroyed on 9th of Av. There were many other things that coincided with these dates but these are the most significant I understand.  The First Temple was destroyed about 586 BCE (BC) and the second was 70 CE (AD) . 

Without getting to involved with the details of of these dates and practices I want to get into what I learnt today . It is from part of the Talmud called Yoma 9b It asks why the First Temple was destroyed and the reply is because of idol worship,  forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed. After a discussion of what was meant by these three things it then goes on to say:

However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.

It was not this that caught my attention butan email from Chabad.com called daily dose which quoted this piece of the Talmud that did.  

It translated the Talmud like this: Because there were those who were intolerant of others without cause. Which teaches us that senseless intolerance is equal to idolatry, murder and adultery combined. (Talmud Yoma 9b.)

It was that word intolerance that made me sit up and pay attention. Basically, from reading further and seeing the same word translated as "hatred" was eye opening to me.  

I read this from some Sabbath notes for a synagogue  - story not sure where I will try and find it, but it states this: 

Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz Rabbi of Prague from 1604 – 1619:

It's known that in the first Temple there was fighting and baseless hatred between the rulers of Israel, and that the Temple was destroyed in part because of the fighting between the kings of Israel and Judah. In the second Temple, there was baseless hatred among all of the Jewish people, because they had been afflicted with it to the point that there was no cure...

This is the difference between the first and second Temples: in the first, the hatred was between the leaders about running the kingdom, because the kingdom was divided (between Israel in the North and Judah in the South), and they were fighting about borders...In the second Temple, however, there was hatred about pointless matters, because even the lowest people hated each other for no reason. For this reason, it is called “baseless hatred” (sinat chinam) because they did not actually have anything to fight about.

It started me thinking,  do we allow pointless unimportant issues to cause division among us. Is Sinat Chinam causing us to burn our bridges with people. 

I  must admit when I read "intolerance" my mind went straight to the intolerance of homosexuality by many religious leaders and adherents of different faiths, but being Christian I think of Christian pastors and people.  Could this attitude of intolerance to what they perceive as sin, to the extent that they would refuse communion, expel from the Church and force family members to turn their backs on their own kith and kin, and even their own children., can that be worse than idolatry, sexual immorality  and murder together. The Conservative Christian pastor may say: That's the Talmud, it's not the "inspired Word of God", and will reason that the second Temple was destroyed because the Sacrificial system was replaced by Christ's death on the Cross.  Since we know that Jesus said no-one takes my life, but I lay it down, and yet we know that it was Roman nails that held Jesus on the Ctoss that he died, and it is interesting that Jesus likened His own body to a Temple, when He said "Destroy this Temple and I shall rebuild it in three days. I  think that it is entirely possible that the rabbis are right that the baseless hatred between them was a destructive force that became physically evident in the destruction of the Second Temple. 

I believe Jesus spoke repeatedly about having a judgmental attitude.  Jesus pointed out and rebuked the superior attitudes of the religious leaders of his time.  Baseless hatred often tries to claim a basis or justification- race, social status, residency status (citizen, immigrant, "undocumrnted" , "illegal alien") religion  - where people don't only feel superior to people of other faiths but people who understand and practice the same faith in different ways. 

For the Christian, all hatred is Sinat Chinam, pointless, because we are called to love our neighbours as ourselves. 

In addition to the 10 Comnandments we got through Moses Jesus gave us ONE - I believe that His ONE commandment is as important as all the ten together - namely Love ONE another as I have loved you. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples,  that you love one another.  

In the Talmud - the expectation to love every other Jew as their own flesh. We know that in Judaism there have arisen different groups, Orthodox,  Reformed, Liberal and there are Jews who are not religious. But they say a Jew is a Jew, and it doesn't matter whether they are pious attenders of shul, or atheists,  they are Jewish and the call is to love and accept. 

If Judaism has its different groups, Christianity has splintered into myriad groups. And sadly the animosity between these groups called denominations is horrendous and I am convinced it grieves the Holy Spirit. The fact that there have been wars between Protestant and Roman Catholics, with the most recent bring troubles in Northern Ireland. We worship the Same God and Saviour even if what we think about our God and Saviour is different.  I know many Roman Catholics think they are the only Christians and I know many protestants think Catholics are are not Christian at all. Some Protestants go so far as to describe Catholics in diabolical term. It is ridiculous and it is Sinat Chinam. If there is no room, for some, for diversity within religious faith, then the notion of diversity in terms of sexual orientation of gender identity is totally anathema. But I believe that there too, the judgmental superior attitude is "baseless hatred".  

It is baseless because prejudice is not a valid reason to bully or exclude. Our bodies are called temples, but collectively as a Church we are a Temple, and yet our differences (not our diversity) and divisions are destructive to the Temple. 

If baseless hatred caused the downfall of our Temple, then baseless or unconditional love can rebuild. 

So whether you are fasting for Tisha B'av or not I pray that we may be united 

Where vaccinations come from - Really

Vaccination is definitely the one and only way we can get out of this mess. We cannot continue in this lockdown and social distancing, which though it served its purpose as a stopgap measure was never going to be sustainable in the long run. Vaccinations have been the solution to end epidemics such as polio and smallpox, but how did this miracle in a bottle come about. Many would mention the physician Edward Jenner, and you would be right as he was the first to give this technique of fighting viral infection the name vaccination, but Edward Jenner is not where it started. A process called "ingrafting" was carried out by women in Turkey, in which the pus of an infected small pox pustule was "ingrafted" into blood system of a person making them slightly ill but after recovery, apparently immune from the disease. Now, how did this practice make its way to England you might ask. It did so by a very interesting brave and brilliant woman called Lady Mary Wortley Montague. 

The daughter of an earl, she nevertheless being female was not provided with a great education. She had a governess for whom she had little good to say, but she somehow through her own diligence taught herself to read and write and learnt Greek and Latin to a very good level. Sadly, she contracted small pox and suffered greatly with it. Her face was scarred as a result of her illness, but she survived. 

She met and corresponded with her future husband but him being not as wealthy as another suitor for Lady Mary, was not the preferred option by Earl Pirrepoint, her father. Lady Mary did not like the man who the earl had set his sights on as his future son in law, and so she eloped with Mr Wortley Montague. As it would happen her husband was appointed as ambassador to Constantinople and Lady Mary insisted on going with him (this was not usual in those days) and she wrote about her travels - also unusual for her time. She discovered this practice of ingrafting and secretly and very bravely had her little boy ingrafted. He was about 3 years old and thankfully survived. She wrote about this process and when she returned to England had her daughter publically ingrafted and people observed and saw it worked. Among her friends by this stage was Princess of Wales, daughter in law to King George I . She sought permission to have her children to "have the operation" 

This thing had lots going against it. Firstly it was foreign - what could "Mohamedans" teach Christians. 

Secondly - it was something done by women and being promoted by a woman. What can women teach men. 

Thirdly, the medical establishment had a lot to lose from this process as they made a lot of money from the supposed small-pox cures. 

King George however thought it would be a good thing to investigate and they agreed that they would test it on 6 prisoners from Newgate Prison. He probably thought they would all die of the smallpox and he could put the "silly notion" to bed. But of course they all survivedand so the idea of innoculation gained traction. Ultimately he gave permission for his granddaughters to be innoculated, but not his grandsons.

At some point Edward Jenner made his observation about the milkmaid and realised that instead of using smallpox pus he could use the pus of cow pox instead - this is where the word vaccination came into being - vacca is cow in Latin. The rest h

Is history. 

Maybe we can give brave Lady Mary. Wortley Montague and the Turkish women credit where credit is due.  Like many other scientists, as Isaac Newton said, Edward Jenner stood on the shoulders of giants, only those shoulders were female. 

Lady Mary was a poet and I came across this poem that she wrote: 

For would'st thou fix Dishonour on my Name,

And give me up to Penitence and Shame!

Or gild my Ruin with the Name of Wife,

And make me a poor Virtuous Wretch for Life?

   Could'st thou submit to wear the Marriage-Chain,

(Too sure a Cure for all thy present pain)....

Tho' ev'ry softer Wish were amply crown'd,

Love soon would cease to smile, when Fortune frown'd.

Lady Mary Wortley Montague