quote:

---

Why have things gone so badly wrong at the CI?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
The Christian Institute seems to have become widely known as "The Tyneside Taliban" in the gay community of late - especially since it saw fit to launch a series of "pseudo-donor cards" carrying the phrase "In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by homosexuals" (or words to that effect).

From a gay community perspective this was just the final straw in a long line of homphobic tirades from this organisation. It seems to have finally earned them the acolade of being referred to as the "Tyneside Taliban".

---

quote:

---

To what extent is this name justified? Why have things gone so badly wrong at the CI?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:

What pisses me off more, though, is the lack of evangelical voices opposing their tactics and message, which is unremittingly negative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
In terms of orphanned children, I think that the parents concerned would hardly be in a position to make the decision. Personally, I think its 'wrong' because I think it displays prejudice against gay people , but we have already done this on another thread - I think.....I wonder if a similar card saying 'black people' would be as readily defended...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoo:
Of course it is relevant, Mike!

Else, should I only speak out against my own denomination? My own congregation? My own family? Only myself?

Cut the crap.

It is just as condemning to all Christians that Anglo-Catholics, alongside their Evangangelical bretheren, are not publically opposing this stance.

---

What Stoo said. Any condemnation needs to come from all sections of the church - not just one.

And, as has been pointed out before, any anti CI comment is unlikely to be picked up by the media as

• Many evangelicals haven't heard of either the EA or the CI and wouldn't necessarily consider them as their representatives even if they had!
• Such condemnation wouldn't necessarily be considered news-worthy
• I'm assuming my rant about the CI being a bunch of nutters doesn't count as it was in the pub and you didn't get to hear it personally

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
But the CI is an evangelical grouping, Nightlamp : it is from that constituency where they draw their support.

---

Did you know the conservative party draw support support from conservative supporters and the people who oppose them come from the labour party?
The first voice of opposition normally comes from another theological strand rather than the home one. Maybe evangelical christians don't oppose them because they don't see people from different theological strands really caring. I seem to remember reading something about splinters, eyes and planks.

Did you know I haven't heard a solitary gay activist expresses any worry about the Sudanese christains who are persecuted for their faith. Does that mean gay christains don't care about this issue that is important to me?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think I'm talking more about some sort of organised reaction to the CI, who are certainly presenting themselves as representative of that voice at the moment.

I think a reponse which was evangelical led, rather than the usual complaints from gay Christians, liberals, etc. would be a lot more powerful. It would certainly get the ear of the Church press, and thats where nearly all the stories in the nationals begin!

That doesn't mean that other Christians shouldn't express their view - but if I or those like me say something, the response is, understandably ; 'well, YOU would say that, wouldn't you.....'

One more thing, though : is it the tactics, or the actual message, that evangelicals who say they dislike the CI disagree with?
 

---

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :
 
Parents are, of course,perfectly at liberty to carry cards saying "In the event of my death, I do not want my children to be adopted by members of the Christian Institute."
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Oh look, yet another thread where Merseymike can bash evangelicals with his standard brand of bigoted hate.

Viki
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Why not try answering the quite reasonable question asked, rather than responding in your usual condescending way.
When evangelicals actually start opposing these people, then perhaps their claims not to agree with them will be taken a little more seriously.
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
Am I a liar, then, Mike?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
To look at this positively, then : currently, opposition to the CI within church circles is largely organised gay Christian groups and their (usually liberal)straight sympathisers.

How would opposition from other sources best be expressed, assuming we agree about the pernicious nature of both the message and the tactics of the CI ?
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
Merseymike, that's the problem.

Many evangelicals dislike the CI and Reform, and consider their apparent obsession with homosexuality to be pathetic. I don't know how many members these organisations have but I doubt it's very many (they are concentrated in a few high profile churches so attract publicity, and the media generally gives a lot of profile to the gay issue).

Evangelical attitudes to homosexuality do vary considerably.

Many evangelicals (possibly a majority) hold conservative views but don't regard the subject as very important - there are far bigger issues to get excited about. On a day to day level it isn't an issue that most evangelicals and their churches focus on - I've spent the latest 13 years in evangelical churches and can't recall a single sermon on the topic.

A growing number of evangelicals in the pew don't think that all same sex relationships are wrong or are at least open to discussion on this point.

But evangelicals are rarely concerned about homosexuality in isolation - their views on this subject are normally connected with attitudes towards other sexual issues such as extra marital sex, divorce, etc, or with the whole area of Biblical authority.

If those within the church campaigning for acceptance for homosexuals took a conservative line on sexuality generally this would be more acceptable to evangelicals and a proper dialogue could then follow. However when the only people campaigning on the subject are out and out liberals it is not the instinctive response of most evangelicals to join in.

I find your comments about gay adoption somewhat distasteful. This should be primarily a matter about child welfare, not gay rights. IMHO it is ludicrous to propose gay adoptions until many other issues are resolved - not least the possibility of gay marriage/civil partnerships.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Ian : hi. Yes, fair points. I actually think my general outlook on sexual relationships is quite conservative - faithful monogamy and all that, as anyone who knows me will testify. My gay friends think I'm very 'traditional'!

The points you make are exactly why there does need to be distictly evangelical voices making points , however.

I don't agree with you about the adoption issue, but I don't think thats the substantive topic of the thread - gays and lesbians have always been able to adopt, all the rule change does is ensure that in the event of death of one of the partners, the child will not be left without a parent. I think thats about children's welfare, not gay rights - I'm adopted, and I share the same reluctance to talk about 'rights' with regard to the responsibility of childcare.

Civil partnerships are vital, though - but, again, the initial voices raised against those proposals came from - yes, the CI!
 

---

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :
 
I think the general impression, within the gay community anyway, is that:

1) The Christian Institute is an organisation rather like the BNP.

2) It represents a very large proportion (perhaps the majority) of Christians.

3) The fact that it has the status of a "Charity" is a joke. This is rather like the BNP applying for charitable status.

4) Its "donor card" stunt is a typical example of the hate campaign it is intent on waging against us. Their current "campaign" is for the right to discriminate against gays in employment.

5) They like to imply that their views are representative of Christianity as a whole - that they are the only Christian lobby group with an interest in public affairs (they say this on their website & in what limited dialogues they have had with representatives of the gay community).

6) Their claim to speak for Christians is reinforced by the fact that whenever gay rights issues come before parliament they are always leading the opposition AND we never see ANY high profile Christian voices in support of any of these issues/in opposition to the CI.

The impression, at present, rightly or wrongly, is that the CI hate the gay community & other Christians are too apathetic/wishy-washy to speak out against them in the national media with anything remotely like a united voice. The impression is that Christians care more about "not rocking the boat" than about bigotry and human suffering.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Very much regret to say that you have it about right, Paul
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If it's true that the CI is seen as the Christian voice in this issues, rather than an evangelical one, as Paul suggests then that means that it is behoven on all Christians to stand up and say "Hey, wait a minute, what the heck are you doing claiming to speak for me?". Not that that excuses us evangelicals for not getting our house in order, but if non-evangelicals aren't obviously concerned about something most evangelicals consider to be of secondary importance why should we be making all the noise?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Alan. You shouldn't be making all the noise : but currently those who are are gay Christians and their immediate sympathisers such as Richard Holloway.
I simply think that if there was a clear evangelical voice opposing the CI platform, then not only Christianity, but also evangelical Christianity may get a better press. The silence just makes me, and others too, a bit sceptical. I think that an affirming evangelical response to a hostile anti-gay campaign would be welcome. How about open support for civil partnerships - which would promote stable relationships and faithfulness ? Or support for anti-discrimination employment legislation ?
If evangelical Christians actually said - we believe in these things - then could the Christian Institute claim to speak either for Christianity or for evangelicals in the Church?
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
As a matter of prosaic fact, in some respects groups like the CI actually DO represent the majority of Christians, at least in terms of the official stance of their churches. Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism (to take three large and widespread denominations/movements) all officially teach that homosexual activity is wrong, although doubtless all denominations contain people who disagree with the official teaching. Now, I know this is a separate issue to gay couples adopting, but obviously they're connected.

Of course people may violently disagree with such a stance and it may be a source of deep sadness to you, but it is no good seeing those who oppose gay's adopting as being a lunatic fringe. As I said above, I find this idea tasteless and personally I don't have a problem with committed gay couples adopting children, but many Christians (evangelical and non-ev, as JL's posts here demonstrate) would agree with their motives, if not their methods.

So, Mike and Paul, maybe, just maybe, the reason evangelicals don't speak out is because they agree, at least in part.
 

---

Posted by day_thomas (# 3630) on :
 
Sean D said

quote:

---

As I said above, I find this idea tasteless and personally I don't have a problem with committed gay couples adopting children, but many Christians (evangelical and non-ev, as JL's posts here demonstrate) would agree with their motives, if not their methods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
As a matter of prosaic fact, in some respects groups like the CI actually DO represent the majority of Christians, at least in terms of the official stance of their churches. Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism (to take three large and widespread denominations/movements) all officially teach that homosexual activity is wrong..

---

As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.

The CI does not therefore speak for the House of Bishops.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Just been round their website.



I don't know where to start. Their obsession with homosexuality? The way they always describe their position as the "Christian" one? Evolution is a faith position? Their glib assumption that government should legislate personal morality?

What a load of cobblers all in one website....
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Sean : I happen to agree with your last sentence. But in saying this, I have often been told that this is in fact not the case, and that the CI do not reflect the bulk of evangelical viewpoints.
If what you say is right, and that is in fact their view, then others should hardly be surprised that those who will be personally affected by their opinions are not prepared to sit back and take it, and will speak out against that viewpoint.
I'd still like to hear some thoughts about the impact of positive , affirming views by evangelicals, and whether they won't happen because, as Sean says, most actually agree with the CI.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Must Not Be Named:
As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.

---

quote:

---

The CI does not therefore speak for the House of Bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Sean : I happen to agree with your last sentence. But in saying this, I have often been told that this is in fact not the case, and that the CI do not reflect the bulk of evangelical viewpoints.

---

quote:

---

If what you say is right, and that is in fact their view, then others should hardly be surprised that those who will be personally affected by their opinions are not prepared to sit back and take it, and will speak out against that viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
* Degs? Who's he?

---

Was my previous incarnation on the ship. I'm being a very good boy and including a reference (albeit oblique) to my former name so that all the nice people on the 'Changing names' thread in The Styx won't shout at me any more.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
No, don't worry. I was being sarcastic.

Thanks for the info, btw. Forgot to say that last time, but triple posting would probably earn me a healthy smackdown.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, Sean - no crusade, but profound and considerable disagreement - particularly on this matter, but also more broadly.

And if you are saying that the broad view of evangelicals ia an anti-gay one, then I think I have got it right all along.
 

---

Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Must Not Be Named:
As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.

---

quote:

---

“The report as a whole is NOT supportive of homosexual relationships. Which would seem to put the CofE on roughly the same side as the CI.”

---

quote:

---

“History attests that the Church has been the foremost persecutor of gays for almost two thousand years. During the Dark Ages, they were punished, if they were lucky, by excommunication, denial of last rites and burial in unsanctified ground. But many, not so lucky, were submitted to torture, mutilation and death by burning. The very term "faggot" refers to the bundles of sticks over which known and suspected gays were burned alive by Church authorities. Such barbaric treatment is comparable to that perpetrated by the Nazis who incarcerated gays in their concentration camps where they were brutalised and subjected to medical experiments.

All this is of course in the past and best forgotten as far as the Christian Churches are concerned (as is their persecution of the Jews, "witches" and other "heretics") but that does not mean that gay people - whether Christian or not - no longer suffer at their hands. The feelings of guilt experienced by some can be so corrosive that they lead to suicide.

At its General Synod in 1987, the Church of England voted overwhelmingly to condemn homosexual acts and called on gays to repent, and this remains its official stance. After a debate on homosexuality at the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops worldwide, the overwhelming majority of delegates (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) voted for a motion that rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with the Bible and rejected same-sex unions. After the debate the Archbishop of Canterbury commented: "I see no room in scripture for any sexual activity outside matrimony for husband and wife. I believe this says what we have all held Anglican morality stands for."

The Roman Catholic Church has always taken a hostile stance on homosexuality. A Vatican document issued in 1986 states that by choosing a partner of the same sex "homosexuals are annulling the rich symbolism and meaning of the Creator's designs". Another document issued in 1997 described "the particular inclination of the homosexual person" as "a more or less intrinsically moral evil". The Roman Catholic 1994 Catechism (summary of doctrine) announces to the world: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered'."

The Salvation Army is equally convinced by Biblical pronouncements, declaring in its most recent policy statement: "Same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of Scripture and attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God's will for society."
Then there are those evangelical Christian groups (the Courage Trust, Exodus, the True Freedom Trust, etc.) which seek to "cure" or "heal" homosexuals by persuading them to "follow Jesus" - a futile exercise which can cause immense psychological harm.

Given this appalling record - past and present - it is very hard to understand why even the most masochistic of lesbians and gay men can happily adhere to the Christian religion and its institutions, let alone seek moral guidance from them. However, many must find it extremely difficult - indeed painful - to make an honest appraisal. They have often been immersed in the dogma and teachings of organised religion from earliest childhood.”

---

quote:

---

Even if you unavoidably share some views with people like the CI,

---

quote:

---

personally I don't have a problem with committed gay couples adopting children

---

quote:

---

There may be many Christians who due to their upbringing have doubts about homosexual adoption,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So presumably JL, If Ian Paisley decided to launch a campaign for people to carry donor cards saying 'In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by papists' that would be an example of noble parental choice and not bigotry?

---

quote:

---

After all many people sincerely believe that Catholicism is wrong according to the Bible and Catholicism is a 'choice', so therefore presumably you deserve all you get from them?

---

quote:

---

The Southwark service went ahead and over the weekend of the 16th of November the press fascination continued. The LGCM hailed the service as a step towards "equality" while orthodox Christians lamented such extravagant official endorsement of gay sex. Bishop John Gladwin, an erstwhile evangelical, preached at the event. During his sermon, in an attempt, perhaps, to assuage his critics, he stated that cohabitation and same-sex "marriage" were less than the Christian ideal. However, his very presence and his otherwise affirming message pleased the congregation and he received prolonged applause as he returned to his seat.
At every stage of the debate Archbishop Carey and the hierarchy in general, together with the Church of England press office, seemed to be legitimising the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and, if anything, opposing their critics. The final insult came on the evening of 24 November when Dr Carey addressed Great St Mary's Church, Cambridge. Mentioning the Southwark debacle as an aside, he referred to "bullying, loud mouthed controversialists" who "make a mockery of our own faith". While he talked of "pressure groups on both sides" (7), it seemed clear to all his listeners that he had aimed his comments directly at opponents to the service. Replies are no doubt winging their way to Lambeth Palace as this article goes to print.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
It wouldn't be bigotry. Paisley talks a load of crap, but a lot of sincere Protestants think Catholicism is evil, and for one of them to not want their child adopted by people within what is for them a demonic system is totally understandable.

---

It's understandable, sure, as a historian I could give you a good account of anti-catholic prejudice in Scotland and Ulster so that it would be comprehensible, but that wouldn't make it right. It is bigotry and it does destroy other people's lives - so does anti-gay prejudice. I see nothing to choose between the two.

Personally I'm just sad that people still want to use Christianity to legitimise treating others as lesser beings than themselves.

Sorry if I got you slightly wrong Sean!

No, to be less sloppy, of course I believe that people can hold these views in good conscience because they give a high view to scripture and interpret certain bibilcal passges in a different way to me.

Loving and knowing my GLBT friends as I do, I just really really wish people would realise that those anti-gay views should go the same way as 'biblical' support for slavery. That's just my opinion on it!

L
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Ken : the CI's main institutional links are with Reform and what is I think best describes as the 'far right' evangelical wing of the Church of England, although, they have supporters in other groups as well. Jesmond Parish Church are particularly important in providing them with a base,and they have some wealthy supporters who finance them, who have quite a history of right wing political activity. Colin Hart, for example, was an opponent of the miners strike in the 1980's, and was active in funding campaigns against gays and lesbians in that same era, for the Conservative party.

I still wish that there was a public, organised, evangelical voice opposing their perspective. I think that it might even encourage others who attend evangelical churches, but themselves feel quite comfortable with gay people, to speak their views, which I know from friends isn't particularly easy in some church environments
 

---

Posted by Canucklehead (# 1595) on :
 
I've never heard of the Christian Institute before today but I sure would like to get my hands on one of those cards, anybody know where to get them?
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I have a better suggestion for a card for you

In the event of my death I would like everyone to know what a bigot and a moron I am.

There you are, print off, cut out and keep.

L
 

---

Posted by Canucklehead (# 1595) on :
 
Don't be an ass Louise, I have no intention of carrying the thing around in my pocket in the event I should drop dead. As if some wallet card could over-ride my will anyway. I simply want one because I think it would be an interesting conversation piece.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Canucklehead,
You should have said that you only wanted it for 'research', I nearly had heart failure thinking that anyone here would want one of these things for real.

Naturally if you only want one to discuss it, that's different and I'm sorry for saying to you what I actually think of the originators of this stunt.

Nonetheless I wouldn't order anything from them, as they will count you as another 'supporter' for their cause.

L.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Thank you for your niceness Louise Is this really hell?!

Wood: Well said on the biblical stuff, and on ++Rowan.

And Canucklehead, claiming things are for research purposes has a pretty bad rep in the UK at the mo... (Sorry, not seriously suggesting there is a similarity, just couldn't resist.)
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Talking of research....I am actually doing a PhD in this area ( and I am writing up, which is why I'm always on the computer!) and I need to read the CI bilge. I too refuse to buy it, but so far I have got photocopies sent to me which gives me some satisfaction, that I've avoided paying for it and can still analyse their 'research'
 

---

Posted by Canucklehead (# 1595) on :
 
The internet is a very good medium for transmitting words but at times is remarkably poor at transmitting actual meaning.

Louise is quite correct, my initial post was not nearly as clear as it should have been, partly because I was posting from work and was a bit rushed at the time, but also because I simply didn't make myself clear. I knew what I meant, why didn't you? Anyway, as I said, I have never heard of these people before but I am quite sure that their little donor card is quite useless for anything other than to make some sort of a statement. I didn't say I wanted it for "research", but I do think I could have a lot of fun with it nevertheless.

My apologies Louise for misleading you
 

---

Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I don't know who the Christian Institute is. They certainly sound like toads.

But use of terms like "Taliban" strikes me as an even deeper bigotry. I'm not just trying to chide people for hyperbole and intemperate language here. It has become common for people to use phrases like "storm trooper" or "jihad" in the most inappropriate contexts. It is ultimately a denial a reality to equate people who get their knickers in a knot* about homosexuality with people who publicly execute their political opponents.

* a strangely appropriate metaphor, eh?
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Then how about the "Tyneside Toads"?
 

---

Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 
I can understand why people want evangelical christians to be the most vocal in opposing CI (where and if they do disagree with CI's stances). The way I see it, Christians are the family, and that includes CI. If a member of the family is being naughty you would expect those in the family closest to that member to tick them off or to try and get them to hold back a bit. The other problem is that if the more distant members of the family (anglocaffs, libs) give the naughty member (CI) a ticking off, that member is likely to just dismiss it as being what you would expect from a bunch that are degenerate and bereft of the gospel (which libs and anglocaffs are sometimes considered to be).
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by logician:
But use of terms like "Taliban" strikes me as an even deeper bigotry. I'm not just trying to chide people for hyperbole and intemperate language here.

---

After the events of the last year and a bit, maybe it's time for a revision of Godwin's Law, eh?

Taliban just seems to be becoming an alternative way of saying "Nazi", really.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I can't speak for all CI supporters, but certainly in their ideal CI world, the pre-1967 situation may well re-emerge, where 'practising homosexuality', as they would put it, would be illegal.
Execution, maybe not, but certainly not equal citizenship if we have the temerity to love another person. Prison, maybe.

Icarus Coot : right on.... (are these allowed in Hell? a and a for the Christian Institute , then.
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
I can understand why people want evangelical christians to be the most vocal in opposing CI (where and if they do disagree with CI's stances). The way I see it, Christians are the family, and that includes CI. If a member of the family is being naughty you would expect those in the family closest to that member to tick them off or to try and get them to hold back a bit. The other problem is that if the more distant members of the family (anglocaffs, libs) give the naughty member (CI) a ticking off, that member is likely to just dismiss it as being what you would expect from a bunch that are degenerate and bereft of the gospel (which libs and anglocaffs are sometimes considered to be).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Its not so much about changing the minds of people like the CI, though, for there will probably always be people holding that view. There is plenty of evidence that they are losing the wider argumant.
I'm thinking more about the effect that a more affirming public position, by declared evangelicals who are not affiliated with either anything gay, liberal or catholic, on the broader evangelical constituency.
It reminds me a bit of a talk I gave at an evangelical CofE church a couple of years back. Good for them for inviting me, for a start - they were prepared to hear both sides - but after the meeting, at least three people came up to me and said 'well, I agree with you, but I wouldn't want to say so openly here'. Simply because, there wasn't the space, the permission, in their eyes, to express an alternative view than the 'party line'
I think its that sort of situation that could be assisted.

---

quote:

---

“it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to…to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships.”

---

quote:

---

“I don't currently see this happening, but the evangelicals aren't at fault for that. “

---

quote:

---

“Once gay relationships are recognised in civil law then there may be an opportunity for a proper dialogue on this issue.”

---

How much time do you think we have? Are you not aware that there are some within the gay community who argue for a “new vision” of sexual relationships – they see themselves as pioneers and prophets of a new age - an age in which sex is viewed as a pure "recreational" activity. Their message has strong appeal within the gay community (and without for that matter). Whilst the “evangelists” wait for a proper dialogue, the prophets of the new age evangelise.
 

---

Posted by He Who Must Not Be Named (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theophilus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by He Who Must Not Be Named:
As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.

---

Not really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
[Evangelicals] are responsible for ensuring that young gay people grow up believing that they are inherently immoral and that, for this reason, they see no value in the concept of sexual morality at all – only oppression.

---

quote:

---

“Are you telling me that it is the fault of Evangelicals that young people are promiscuous?”

---

You genuinely don’t see do you. That is frightening. I am not getting at you, its just the way it seems to be. People in the gay community seem to get this – in fact I was talking to a lesbian about this a few weeks ago – she empathised straight away.

Think - how are heterosexuals brought up? During their teens they are told all about their sexuality and the relationships they might expect to have in their adult lives. They receive advice about adult relationships from their parents, they receive advice from their teachers, they receive advice from their religious communities, they are also presented with a wide variety of heterosexual images (although not always good) through the media. Therefore, by the time one reaches 21 your average heterosexual has received a considerable volume of information from the adult community with regard to sexuality and relationships as it relates to them. The pervading image being (still) one of monogamous, long-term relationships usually resulting in marriage at some stage.

How is a young gay man or lesbian brought up? Typically, the big issue of your teen years revolves around – why don’t I find the opposite sex attractive when everyone else does - AND THEN - am I gay? Often you have a big turmoil over simply coming out – that’s without even having time to think about what KIND of gay relationship you might want etc. PLUS you are basically told next to nothing at all about your sexuality and the relationships you might expect to have in your adult life. If anything the message is simple – “you are crap”. Even at best, they often receive NO advice about adult relationships from their parents, they receive NO advice from their teachers, they receive NO advice from their religious communities, they are also presented with next to NO positive gay images through the media (at best they get spoon-fed stereo-types). Therefore, by the time one reaches 21 your average gay/lesbian has received approximately no advice or guidance whatsoever from the adult community with regard to sexuality and relationships as it relates to them. More likely than not the only things they have heard are all negative – being gay is immoral – gay people are “perverts” etc.

So, at 21, you have learnt not to trust what heterosexual adults – be they parents, teachers or religious people say. In particular, if you come from a conservative Christian background, you may well have learnt not to trust Christian views on sex and sexuality. You know for a fact that their views on sexuality are crap – who is to say that they have not got it equally wrong on the subject of promiscuity. You are simply in the position that you are out on your own – your can’t trust the opinions of the wider community – all you have & all you can trust is the gay community.

If people criticise you for being promiscuous – SO WHAT? Have you really not noticed Stoo? In today’s society the message is that being promiscuous is OK – look at all the images of heterosexual promiscuity on TV. Is homosexuality viewed in modern society with the same degree of glamour? Basically, the impression most young gay men and women get left with is that, in terms of society’s perceptions of morality – being gay is WORSE than being promiscuous. In particular various Christian groups like the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance and Reform send this message out loud and clear. What do they spend their time harping on about? Is it the evils of promiscuity or the evils of being gay? So, their message is – “if you are gay you are doomed – it doesn’t matter how else you behave”.

I shit you not – I have read the account of an Episcopal Priest who asked a gay man who was totally into the drugs scene and a promiscuous hedonistic lifestyle. He asked him why he did it – the man replied “I am damned anyway – so what does it matter – I may as well make the most of it in the here and now if I’m going to burn in hell forever whatever” – the man turned out to be a gay ex-evangelical Christian.

So, these particular Evangelicals ARE to blame. Of course they are not the only ones who have created the situation BUT they are largely responsible for making it worse.

Given a different, more positive upbringing most gay/lesbian people would probably be no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But, to be honest, I think it is very hard for anyone to turn things around for themselves at the age of say 31 after having been through a young adult life like I have described. For Evangelicals to then turn around and criticise gay people for turning out promiscuous under those circumstances is then a bit rich I think.
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Careau:
...they often receive NO advice about adult relationships from their parents, they receive NO advice from their teachers, they receive NO advice from their religious communities, they are also presented with next to NO positive gay images through the media (at best they get spoon-fed stereo-types). Therefore, by the time one reaches 21 your average gay/lesbian has received approximately no advice or guidance whatsoever from the adult community with regard to sexuality and relationships as it relates to them. More likely than not the only things they have heard are all negative – being gay is immoral – gay people are “perverts” etc.

---

quote:

---

In particular, if you come from a conservative Christian background, you may well have learnt not to trust Christian views on sex and sexuality. You know for a fact that their views on sexuality are crap – who is to say that they have not got it equally wrong on the subject of promiscuity.

---

quote:

---

In today’s society the message is that being promiscuous is OK – look at all the images of heterosexual promiscuity on TV. Is homosexuality viewed in modern society with the same degree of glamour?

---

quote:

---

Basically, the impression most young gay men and women get left with is that, in terms of society’s perceptions of morality – being gay is WORSE than being promiscuous.

---

quote:

---

In particular various Christian groups like the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance and Reform send this message out loud and clear. What do they spend their time harping on about? Is it the evils of promiscuity or the evils of being gay? So, their message is – “if you are gay you are doomed – it doesn’t matter how else you behave”.

---

quote:

---

Given a different, more positive upbringing most gay/lesbian people would probably be no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But, to be honest, I think it is very hard for anyone to turn things around for themselves at the age of say 31 after having been through a young adult life like I have described.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoo:

quote:

---

In particular various Christian groups like the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance and Reform send this message out loud and clear. What do they spend their time harping on about? Is it the evils of promiscuity or the evils of being gay? So, their message is – “if you are gay you are doomed – it doesn’t matter how else you behave”.

---

Yes, I agree. I am surprised, however, that they have the impact that you claim they do, especially in a society such as ours in which less than 10% of the population are practising Christians.

---

And what about the other religions - Jews and Muslims for example - who also teach that homosexuality is "an abomination". They are equally hardline but I don't see them being targetted (or blamed) in the same way.

Tubbs

PS You're right, I am stirring
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think its more the climate that they create : despite some of the surface gloss, Stoo, it is still not easy to grow up gay. Many young people go through considerable difficulties.Ask any youth worker and they will tell you!

I actually DO think that things are getting better and that the CI and Co . are on to a loser - but thats because people have challenged their assumptions.
 

---

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think its more the climate that they create : despite some of the surface gloss, Stoo, it is still not easy to grow up gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
I can understand why people want evangelical christians to be the most vocal in opposing CI (where and if they do disagree with CI's stances). The way I see it, Christians are the family, and that includes CI. If a member of the family is being naughty you would expect those in the family closest to that member to tick them off or to try and get them to hold back a bit. The other problem is that if the more distant members of the family (anglocaffs, libs) give the naughty member (CI) a ticking off, that member is likely to just dismiss it as being what you would expect from a bunch that are degenerate and bereft of the gospel (which libs and anglocaffs are sometimes considered to be).

---

I agree that we should be the most vocal in condemnation - but in my experience, it doesn't matter who criticises nuts like these. The moment anyone, no matter how "sound" they may have previously been thought to be, attacks one of their sacred cows, these people immediately lump their former comprades in with the enemy.

---

Very good point. I was being a bit rose-coloured glass-ish and utopian. But if there was one... one unimpeachable, irreproachable, eminent person who could make a statement that everyone would listen to as authoritative. Erm. Cough. Yes. We already had him. I wish he'd spelled it out a bit more so we don't have to have these arguments 2000 yrs later.
 

---

Posted by whitelodge (# 3339) on :
 
I suspect the broader evangelical Church is drifting into a sort of "don't ask - don't tell" position. Nobody (and this probable includes the un-gay-sympathetic members) wants to be the one to bring up a subject that could split their congregation in two.

My own (M.O.R. Methodist) church has a pair of middle-aged women - prominent and popular churchmembers - who are clearly living in something pretty analogous to a marriage. The nature of their relationship is simply not mentioned.

I don't think the not-mentioning is because the church is universally accepting of committed same-sex relationships - though, doubtless, many of us are. It's more just old-fashioned discretion combined with a fear of openly discussing an incendiary topic.

Just don't look at me like I've got to get this discussion going. Let somebody else do it.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelodge:
I suspect the broader evangelical Church is drifting into a sort of "don't ask - don't tell" position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Stu : I said earlier that I agree with that. However, they do help to promote a climate of negativity - its a drip feed effect - and within the Church, I think they are certainly the ringleaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Actually, although everyone knows about us, and we are certainly treated as a couple, I don't actually talk about it all that much in church - I do think that actual contact with 'real people' makes a huge amount of difference to attitudes of others, actually.

---

I'd go along with that. In one of our congregations we have a single, middle aged woman who is very actively involved with the church. Although nothing is said outright in the church, I know she is a lesbian, and so do a number of others. But first and foremost she is a member of our church family - she belongs in the same way as everyone else.

As a result of knowing and loving her for who she is, I suspect that a number of prejudices about homosexuality have been severely weakened. Hell - once you've got a friend who is gay, it is nigh on impossible to rant on about the iniquity of those (impersonal) "queers"!
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
I'd wondered if I would come to regret replying to this thread......

Note to Paul C:

It's amazing how influential evangelicals are. I had thought they were about 2% of the British population with absolutely negligible influence on public life. But it seems that they dominate the church to such a degree that they determine the way it's seen by non-Christians. I do hope someone has told Rowan Williams, David Hope and Richard Chartres this. And the only voices from within the church on this subject are from evangelicals? No doubt LGCM and non-evangelical groups are taking note. Evangelicals control sex education in schools apparently, even though the curriculum is set by a secular government which has more homosexuals than evangelicals among its ministers. And evangelicals are responsible for young people's self-image problems as well, even though most young people have probably never met any evangelicals and wouldn't pay attention to them if they did. Obviously they don't have any non-Christian role models. Then to cap it all, evangelical Christianity encourages promiscuity (though not among heterosexuals?).

And you're think you're a moderate! Well I suppose I must be a moderate evangelical (otherwise - let's face it - I wouldn't be prepared to debate this issue at all). But it appears that we're miles apart........

I know many people have been badly hurt by the church over this issue. I very much regret that. As Ken and Merseymike noted, attitudes are changing; there is less latent homophobia and more people are willing to consider the issues.

But we all consider the issues within the framework of our existing beliefs. For evangelicals that is biblical authority and a conservative approach to sexuality in general.
So I don't see much point in you asking for unconditional acceptance for all homosexual relationships - you won't get that any more than if you asked for unconditional acceptance for heterosexual relationships.

That's why I say it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships. You are trying to change the established position of all the main Christian denominations. The burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to make your case. The way I'm suggesting you do this is to accept the core beliefs of the Christian faith, and then say when it comes to this particular issue it's time to look again at what the Bible actually says on this issue (as opposed to the way it's been interpreted in the past). This is how women's ordination, for example, got accepted by many (not all) evangelicals.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 

quote:

---

My own (M.O.R. Methodist) church has a pair of middle-aged women - prominent and popular churchmembers - who are clearly living in something pretty analogous to a marriage. The nature of their relationship is simply not mentioned.

---

quote:

---

“It's amazing how influential evangelicals are…”

---

quote:

---

“I do hope someone has told Rowan Williams, David Hope and Richard Chartres this.”

---

quote:

---

“And you're think you're a moderate!”

---

quote:

---

”attitudes are changing; there is less latent homophobia and more people are willing to consider the issues.”

---

quote:

---

“That's why I say it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships.”

---

quote:

---

“You are trying to change the established position of all the main Christian denominations. The burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to make your case.”

---

quote:

---

“The way I'm suggesting you do this is to accept the core beliefs of the Christian faith, and then say when it comes to this particular issue it's time to look again at what the Bible actually says on this issue (as opposed to the way it's been interpreted in the past).”

---

quote:

---

However, the majority is largely silent therefore giving the impression of tacit approval for the views of this minority.

---

quote:

---

A case in point. I have no idea who David Hope or Richard Chartes are – I know who Colin Hart is on the other hand.

---

quote:

---

They won’t listen to Evangelicals because as far as they are concerned Evangelicals = Christian Institute et al. Evangelicals would have to reach out to them with a positive message and convince them that they have something positive to say.

---

quote:

---

You direct your comment at the wrong person.

---

quote:

---

As far as many people in the gay community are concerned not only Evangelicals BUT Christians in general = either Reform/Christian Institute OR a group of people who silently disapprove of/dislike them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I suppose the point we are making, though, is that open voices from the Church supporting gay issues are very much quieter than those who are hostile. In this situation, then all Christianity tends to be seen as hostile.

---

There's a pro-gay Archbishop now, though. So it can't stay the same, can it?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think Rowan will be sensitive and respect the fact that the Church remains so divided. But, yes, I think his quiet and thoughtful approach, where conversation is still very much open, will help matters a good deal.
Put it like this, the G&LHumanists, who loathe religion with a passion, do their best to try and portray him as less sympathetic than he is, which suggests they recognise that he may make a real impact - curiously, their loathing of religion means that they would almost rather Christians hate gays, as then religion is easier to call homophobic!
 

---

Posted by Paul Careau (# 2904) on :
 
Unfortunately, people like the CI and Reform are a propaganda gift to people like GALHA. Obviously, you need to bare in mind GALHA's objectives are ultimately aetheist humanism. Any opportunity they get they tend to pump out the message "we told you Christians are bad - you can't trust them". This, coupled with the propaganda from the likes of the CI simply serves to plant doubt and fear in many people's minds. That is why positive/pro-gay messages from mainstream Xians are so important.
 

---

Posted by Linus (# 3961) on :
 
As an evangelical christian in Newcastle, i feel i might have a couple of points to make. First of all i want to say i think the CI are PR muppets. Paul is absolutely right to say they shoot themselves, and unfortunately the rest of us, in the foot by the way they act. The whole card carrying fiasco was in my opinion foolish, insensitive, counter-productive in the extreme, and actually the more i think about it, the more i'm disgusted by it. Even though i share a fair amount of the CIs theology up to a point (and believe me i'm not comfortable saying that, but its honest at least) I think the way they express it, in terms of language and emphasis, and in their sometimes one sided / seemingly uncaring statements, leaves a fair amount to be desired.

Having said that, they are i think at least attempting to provide a sincere and honestly arrived at a theological response to the parliamentary issues of the day; as their theology is that the Bible is authoritative and inerrant, that means they have to make strong statements in order to remain true to the beliefs they hold. I'm the first to say, however, they could do a better job of expressing those in a less offensive and prejudicing way - after all we're all very far from perfect. Whilst i accept that there is some truth in the statement that they single out this one issue, its importance to remember there's been a lot of legislation affecting it recently and the CI do act in response to what is going before parliament at the time. They do speak out on other issues equally fundamentally.

I'd also like to inform people a little of my impressions of Jesmond Parish Church. I know they support CI but i think having looked at the CI website, albiet fairly briefly, i'd say there's some daylight between a CI press release and a JPC sermon. I'd estimate i've been to 15 or so services at jpc in the last eighteen months. Only one of these as far as i recall even mentioned homosexuality, and this was in a sermon talking about all aspects of human relationships. As i recall it wasn't a particularly large chunk of that sermon either. You might be interested to know that although CI rang a vague bell when i saw the OP title, it wasn't until looking through the above posts before i was sure jpc were involved with them at all, so its not like they plug it incessantly. I know a fair few people who worship at jpc and i wouldn't say any of them could be described as homophobic, strongly held and carefully thought out positions over the inspired nature of scripture notwithstanding.

I don't think anyone will change evangelical christians' position unless they can make a case from scripture for Homosexual sex being an acceptable act before God. By definition they take the Bible as their ultimate authority. However, there are ways of stating your position and there are ways of acting, which could show Christ and christians in a much more positive light, and i'm in total agreement with you on hoping and praying that will happen.

I don't pretend to have vast insight into these matters but i hope this post is constructive and useful information.

Cheers.

L:>
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
That the CI takes a stance against homosexual persons indicates judgment of homosexuals as a class without bothering to learn anything about them individually. It is, like any other general judgment of a group without information about the members of that group, irrational. Prejudice is never pretty. The denizens of the CI believe homosexuality is a sin and say this is sufficient grounds to not want their children to be adopted by a homosexual. Since the Bible tells us that being judgmental is a sin shouldn't they also hand out cards saying "In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by a judgmental person" ?

As an aside, my will asks that my children be adopted by a specific couple in the event my wife and I die while our children are minors. We chose the couple because one is related and they will make excellent parents. That they happen to be homosexual was not a factor in the decision.
 

---

Posted by Linus (# 3961) on :
 
I've already said i thought the card thing was dispicable. There's no way that that particular act represented mainstream anything and it certainly didn't represent me.

Having spent the last 5 years in a single parent home environment, I feel very strongly, both due to experiences from before and after this point, that a child should grow up in an environment which is as stable as possible and contains input from parents of both sexes who love and are committed to each other, however this is my personal opinion and i would not expect anyone else follow it, nor would i wish to force it upon anyone.

You say the CI condemn "homosexuals as a class" Whilst i cannot speak for them nor would i want to defend them too much, my own position is that i feel it is important to distinguish between deciding, based on a careful study of scripture, that a specific act is wrong, and thus living personally within that boundary, and your statement about judging a group of people because of their association with this act.

I have made a decision to avoid personally acts of homosexual intercourse. I hope and pray i also avoid judging others, which as you say is clearly frowned upon. I want to make it clear i'm not trying to make myself look holier than anyone else - i'm a wretched sinner, especially in terms of my sex life, and i certainly won't be throwing any first stones.

In case you think i'm splitting hairs with the whole act and person thing, let me provide you with an example of how this works in practice. I live in a house with a bunch of non-christians and nominal christians in Newcastle. My housemates regularly get drunk and some have girlfriends they sleep with. I have chosen not to do these particular things in a response to what i believe the Bible says about how to live in response to God and His amazing sacrifice for us. Again, i don't expect others to live by these rules - their decisions are entirely there own, and i am not to judge. My flatmates know my position and why i hold it. I don't think any of them feel judged by it. Despite their different lifestyles i get on well with them, and enjoy living with them.

I use these roughly parrallel (and i know they're not great) examples cos it just so happens that none of the people i live with are in homosexual relationships, but if they were i would act towards them according to the same principles i have explained above My decision affects the way i act and the worldview i hold. Everyone else's decision is between them, their concience and God. I hope that makes sense and that i am not sounding bigoted or prejudiced - its not my intention.

sincerely

Linus:>
 

---

Posted by Sooty Puss (# 4155) on :
 
An interesting debate.

I think calling the Christian Institute the 'Tyeburne Taliban' might be an accurate reflection (particularly in the light of the appalling 'donor card' episode) but perhaps not particularly charitable in my opinion.

Living under Taliban rule would be a lot more brutal and restrictive, believe me!

I have been very disappointed by the actions of the Christian Institute, Reform and the Church Society particularly on the homsexuality issue. But one should realise that these supporters are on the fringes and most evangelicals I know have no idea who these groups are or are not slightly in the bit interested in their agenda. To me, these groups are probably aligned to the similar groups in the United States of which there are plenty, unfortunately.

With the enthronement of Dr. Rowan Williams later today I think we we will perhaps see the Church of England adopt a more enlightened view of gays and lesbians in the church.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Linus : I think the question may be - do you think that Christians who are gay can have different views to you and still be regarded as fully Christian.

The CI is actually run from JPC; David Holloway is one of its leading lights. However, I think the days when they could be assured of success are fast disappearing. They have few ears inside the Labour Party, and many within the Conservatives are equally sceptical now.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
MerseyMike unless your braincell is misfiring again, you know that discussions of whether one can be a Christian and homosexual belong in Dead Horses. For the newcomers here, who probably don't know this, there is a 9 page thread in Dead Horses to discuss the tangent Mike has been busy setting up in this thread.

Oh, and welcome to Hell SootyPuss and Linus. Enjoy wandering the decks, and reading all the boards. I suggest you both become familiar with the Ship's 10 Commandments, and the guidelines for each board - it'll help in the long run.

Viki, hellhost
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

I think that's insulting to the Taliban. The CI are much worse!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

I think that's insulting to the Taliban. The CI are much worse!

---

Scary. That's all I can say about this comment. I assume it was supposed to have some degree of humour about it, but frankly, it's not funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

I think that's insulting to the Taliban. The CI are much worse!

---

I believe within my lifetime, evangelicals will become a hated and persecuted ethic minority people group in Britain
matt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Linus : I think the question may be - do you think that Christians who are gay can have different views to you and still be regarded as fully Christian.

The CI is actually run from JPC; David Holloway is one of its leading lights.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 4v5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linus:

ps shouldn't we all expect persecution as Christians, evangelical or otherwise? In many places around the world what Royal Peculiar describes is happening to followers of Christ right now. We shouldn't be so complacent to presume it won't happen here. Especially depending on your views of certain prophesies contained in scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linus:
I don't think anyone will change evangelical christians' position unless they can make a case from scripture for Homosexual sex being an acceptable act before God. By definition they take the Bible as their ultimate authority.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0