Ship of Fools: Dead Horses: Distressed by homophobia

Thread: Dead Horses: Distressed by homophobia Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001354

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

I've got involved, through a friend, with a small church that is being planted in London. They aren't yet big enough to hold services, but they have a few big churches elsewhere in the world, some determined people on board and hopes are high. So far, I've done no more than study the Bible with them and attend a few social events which, even though I'm not (yet) a confessing Christian, I've enjoyed.

My problem is that we went out for dinner tonight and everyone there suddenly seems to have turned into an acolyte of the Alpha Course, HTB and Nicky bloody Gumbel. This involves them coming out with what is, to me, the most appallingly homophobic claptrap which reached its nadir with a comment that 'the Holy Spirit can make you straight.'

At the moment, I feel like I'm in a flat spin and any words would be welcome.

[ 09. April 2017, 00:36: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Masha (# 10098) on :

Personally, the words I'd suggest would be: ' Don't be bloody stupid.'

You may want to phrase that another way if you're more polite than me.

Scary stuff when you first come across it. There are many and varied ways to tackle it but which helps most depends on the particular type of homophobe you're dealing with.

Oddly I've tended to find that this is one issue in which people simply refuse to budge. They are more willing to reconsider their views on atonement or womrn in leadership than they are to question what they've been taught about human sexuality. Which is strange. But I think it demonstrates that a large part of all church wittering about homosexuality is rooted in fear of the unfamiliar. Which is sad.

There will be better qualified people along in a minute, but those are my immediate thoughts!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
'the Holy Spirit can make you straight.'

The Holy Spirit is God, and he certainly can make you straight, just as he can make you gay. It doesn't seem to happen very often, though.

[ 05. July 2013, 23:49: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Run like the wind boy, run like the wind.
[Frown]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Douglas the Otter

This is why I think it's a good idea for people to become aware of a church's position on these issues before they get deeply involved, if these issues are important to them.

If the organisation that's planting the churches allows for a diversity of views on sexuality then someone in leadership should be able to make that clear to you. If the formal position is as your friends have said, then that should be made clear as well. Once you're discovered which it is, then you can decide what to do. If it's the latter, then no amount of argument from you is going to change things.

As for Alpha, I'd be surprised if a church- planting, evangelistic Christian movement in London DIDN'T approve of Nicky Gumbel!! Why would they disapprove of a man whose work has probably inspired many of them and has helped to develop the faith of other people they know?

If you're really not into this line of thinking then you might need to try a different type of church. Perhaps the Methodists or the URC, or some sort of tolerant CofE congregation. Unfortunately, these well-established congregations probably won't be as chummy as your current church, the members will be older, and they might be less keen on small group dinners. But, putting it frankly, they'll be more liberal on these particular issues. Either that, or they'll be the polite sort of Christians who simply keep their mouths shut on these controversial issues.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Run like the wind boy, run like the wind.

Prudent aquatic mammals encountering stuff like this should swim like a tsunami, Otter, swim like a tsunami.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

My immediate reaction was - take a crash course in assertion training, then, strongly confident, confront their ignorance! However, more practical thoughts are - don't go back there, especially as they seem to admire the Alpha course (quick shudder from me!), and as I think I have just read in one of the other posts, a note to the leaders of this organisation would be appropriate.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I'm a not straight Christian, I say this because I am still figuring myself out but I know its not straight. Attitudes like the one you describe seem a fairly common unreflective response in new very enthusiastic Christians. I think for them the root of parroting this 'prayer to make you straight' lark isn't homophobia per se but rather some clumsy attempt to demonstrate an outreach. More like a 'we like you and want to give you what we have'

It is clumsy though and it does start from a wrong place. For me your response depends on a few things. Firstly, how comfortable you are in your own skin and with your own identity because you might need to defend it a little. Secondly as others have said talk to a leader in confidence, its a little terrifying but its better than hiding and will help you decide if you can stay with that church.

I wish you all luck.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Otter--

(Is it ok to call you that??)

Sorry you've run into that situation. Since you said, "I'm not (yet) a confessing Christian", this may be extra tricky.
:votive"

Are you feeling stable enough, spiritually and emotionally, to try a different church? If so, it might be worth trying a service or two somewhere else.

If you need to stay for a while, you might focus on whatever the church offers that helps you, that you feel ok about, that helps you stabilize. That doesn't mean that you need to stay long-term. This might be like pulling in at a truck stop--you can rest, get some things you need--and, when you're ready, move on.

Does the preaching and teaching focus on repairing LGBT folks? Or is that an undercurrent? Or is it just a few people who think that way?

If you feel you need to speak up to individuals about this, you might ask if it's been their experience that the Holy Spirit fixes everything, and does it right away? If you're *really* daring and the person is left-handed, you might mention that people used to think that was unholy, and are they going to ask the Holy Spirit to make them right-handed?

IMHO, since you're clear in your mind that their idea about LGBT folks in wrong and you're not apt to let them convince you against your conscience, you might be better off not picking this battle. Nurture your own faith, for now.

Good luck!

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

On a complete tangent, how can one be 'too small to hold services'? Whatever happened to 'wherever two or three are gathered in My name'?

As to the casual homophobia - very worrying. But I don't think you can blame this on Fr Gumbel and the Alpha course - even if neither is quite my cup of tea, they do not include anything like this, and certainly do not endorse so-called 'ex-gay' ministries...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Addendum:

Otter, I see that Macrina interpreted your OP as you having issues because you're not straight. I interpreted it as just the opposite. If you're not straight, then yes, this church might be a really bad place for you.

If you feel you need to be there, then (as others said), quietly ask leaders what they think. If there's someone that seems especially grounded *and* compassionate, you might start with them. Hopefully, you'd get a more thoughtful and less volatile response.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Let's see a church that preaches hate? Now that is an oxymoron. This is not a Christian church in my book. I agree, run like the wind.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
On a complete tangent, how can one be 'too small to hold services'? Whatever happened to 'wherever two or three are gathered in My name'?

As to the casual homophobia - very worrying. But I don't think you can blame this on Fr Gumbel and the Alpha course - even if neither is quite my cup of tea, they do not include anything like this, and certainly do not endorse so-called 'ex-gay' ministries...

The course itself doesn't, but some of the supporting materials, and Gumbel himself, have said some deeply dodgy things about gay people.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Tell them that you'll pray for them to receive enlightenment and compassion...

eta: ...and that you believe the Holy Spirit can cure them of their homophobia.

[ 06. July 2013, 07:13: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

This may get into DH territory, but it is really fair to equate a belief that homosexual activity is a sin with homophobia?

Suppose he had said of people who are anxious (arguably also a sin - since Jesus' command is: Be anxious for nothing . .) would you equate the statement "The Holy Spirit can free you from fear" with neuroticophobia?

I'd be more put of by the superficiality of instant cures by people standing over who and wobbling a bit and maybe huffing and puffing.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
[A] comment that 'the Holy Spirit can make you straight.'

At the moment, I feel like I'm in a flat spin and any words would be welcome.

I've stopped taking these points of view too seriously so if I knew that I wasn't going to be spending much time with these people in future, my mischievous sense of humour would make me say something along the lines of 'well, I don't think my boyfriend would like it if that happened', quite innocently, and see where the conversation lead after that.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
This may get into DH territory, but it is really fair to equate a belief that homosexual activity is a sin with homophobia?

No it isn't fair, to ascribe a secular standing to theological belief is to arbitrarily allow non-Christians to interfere in what is and is not Christian belief when in truth those decisions should be settled by the Church in discussion, not imposed by those who have no understanding or stake in the church.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Go somewhere else. There are enough gay-friendly churches in London.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Churches only work if people actually go to them. So stay away and that will be one less person to give them support in their extremist ideas.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

DTO. I'm sorry again. Are you all alone in this? They are deluded. Strongly. It's normal. Dominant. Lonely are the brave mate. Don't they know Exodus International has given up the ghost? Go to Steve Chalke. Evangelicalism is a zombie.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

Thanks for all the responses.

Yes, I'm straight, but institutional homophobia is one of the things that I most dislike about some parts of the Christian experience as it just seems so stridently and utterly at odds with what I feel in my heart.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Hi DouglasTheOtter. I'm impressed with your website, having myself dabbled in advertising for 3½ years. You have two core principles, and you have a number of sub-principles for anyone interested. And you don't like jargon. (Sorry – bad habit – beginning a sentence with 'And' was essential to writing advertising copy in the 1970's!)
I think a lot of Christians, perhaps including your friends, could learn something from your careful presentation of your own principles. Should condemning homosexuality be so high on their list?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Thanks for all the responses.

Yes, I'm straight, but institutional homophobia is one of the things that I most dislike about some parts of the Christian experience as it just seems so stridently and utterly at odds with what I feel in my heart.

But it's not difficult to find places and people who are not homophobic. For a long time, I used to go to a central London church, whose rector was gay, and had a boy-friend. I don't think the bishop of London was too keen, but his congregation loved him, and vice versa.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If this church is a plant then those who lead it, and their immediate coterie, will be thoroughly on-message with the parent church. Identify that church and its doctrinal basis and you will see where the church you have joined is and where it is going.

If you do walk away and they ask you why, then tell them. Same goes for any church that is so immature as to fasten to one issue for its unity.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I tend to be someone who speaks out if a group is saying something I disagree with, particularly if it is a view that is marginalising or disparaging people. I will state my views, question theirs, etc. I do this because it feels wrong if I don't. But I've learnt that there are plenty of situations where it's unlikely to be effective.

I find if the whole group has a certain view and my view is pretty much the opposite, they will simply see me as wrong and not even consider my views. They will try to correct me, or they will dismiss me as misguided/evil/stupid/other.

This will also be the case if they don't know me very well (they therefore feel no affection/loyalty to me) or if I'm not really someone they feel is one of them - not part of the in-crowd.

I find that things that make people listen to you and seriously consider your point of view are as follows:

if they know you and like you and respect you
if you present your view in such a way that you seem to be agreeing with them, and then you add something slightly different, but in such a way as that it tallies with all they claim to believe anyway. So they don't actually feel they've changed their view, but that you have somehow just expanded on what they already believe.
if you chat to individuals in the group, privately, to see what they think, and find a few people with the same views as yours

As a newcomer, the first on the list won't apply. Also, because views on homosexuality are binary, it would be quite hard to express your views in the way I described in the second bullet point - that works more for subtler things. However, what you could do, if you want to stay at the church and want to challenge their attitudes, is to talk to individuals and see where they stand on issues and why. People are more likely to be honest if they are talking one-to-one, rather than pressured by what the group expects them to believe.

From what I observe of people who change their views on homosexuality, it often seems to be from having a gay family member, or having friends who are gay. This seems to take away the whole fear of the unknown aspect.

It might help if you are able to understand why these people have these views on homosexuality - try to see their perspective, and empathise with how they have developed these views, even though you don't agree with them. It is easier to influence people if you can find common ground. If you can somehow relate their attitudes to any attitudes you've had in your life, it might be easier to understand and therefore to address. We all develop different prejudices and irrational fears in our lives, based on associations and attitudes we are exposed to. If there is anything you can relate it to, then you'll be less likely to have a 'them and us' attitude yourself to these people (not that you necessarily do, but if you do).

For myself, I grew up being taught that homosexuality was a terrible taboo thing, a great evil, something quite fearful and wrong - to the extent that in my mind gay people were almost a different species, and almost imaginary beings, like dragons or monsters, as I'd never actually met one. It wasn't a conscious prejudice - not even something I thought consciously about, although I'd have simply said that homosexuality was wrong if asked, because that's what I was taught. Then when I was 18, I had a Saturday job in a deli, in a quiet shop where I worked with one other person, whom I got on well with. One day she told me she was gay - and my internal response was an astonished 'But she's a regular person'.

Now I was a rational 18 year old who would, if asked, of course have known that gay people were just regular people. But I'd never met a gay person, so it was all very hypothetical, and the only associations I had with homosexuality were those I'd grown up with - those of taboo, fear, horror, etc. So realistically, my response was quite a natural one. The influence that taboos can have on our psyche are incredibly irrational and bizarre. And pervasive. I didn't immediately decide that hey, it's okay for people to be gay. It took quite a few years for me to stop thinking it was definitely a sin.

So realistically, if people have been brought up in this kind of church environment, even if you present them with the most convincing argument in the world, even if they think you're the best, most credible person ever, they're very unlikely to change their views just like that. It's likely to take years. What you say may influence them, but it will be one of many influences, that take place over years.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

I'm getting some great advice here, and I'm hugely grateful for the support I'm receiving here from persons unknown and unseen. It really is genuinely humbling.

The way forward seems to be to talk to the guy who leads the group and see what he thinks, maybe some time next week, and take things from there. At the moment, I'm recovering from quite a bad breakdown and, although I'm working, events last night seem genuinely troubling. It's hard to know whether that's the depression talking or reality, so I'm going to stay away tomorrow and give myself time.

Posted by vw man (# 13951) on :

I used to be a big fan of Alpha but now I am not as keen It has its good poionts but also a few sticky ones,the most important thjing is to know Jesus as Lord once that happens it is up to God to deal with any bad attitudes of other people or even our selfs I used to be anti gay but I have met some brillant gay Christians I dont know if I am right or wrong but God will sort me out God bless

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
My problem is that we went out for dinner tonight and everyone there suddenly seems to have turned into an acolyte of the Alpha Course, HTB and Nicky bloody Gumbel. This involves them coming out with what is, to me, the most appallingly homophobic claptrap which reached its nadir with a comment that 'the Holy Spirit can make you straight.'

However you choose to respond, bear in mind that such wilful ignorance and offensiveness absolves you from any requirement to be even a little bit polite.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm recovering from quite a bad breakdown and, although I'm working, events last night seem genuinely troubling. It's hard to know whether that's the depression talking or reality, so I'm going to stay away tomorrow and give myself time.

Good idea. Try not to invest too much importance in this group so that they don't drag you back down.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
My problem is that we went out for dinner tonight and everyone there suddenly seems to have turned into an acolyte of the Alpha Course, HTB and Nicky bloody Gumbel. This involves them coming out with what is, to me, the most appallingly homophobic claptrap which reached its nadir with a comment that 'the Holy Spirit can make you straight.'
However you choose to respond, bear in mind that such wilful ignorance and offensiveness absolves you from any requirement to be even a little bit polite.

Do you think so? I always try to stick to Winston Churchill's thoughts following the United Kingdom's declaration of war on Japan in 1941:

quote:
[W]hen you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I would say first protect yourself. If something causes you added anxiety in your life then do not engage.

Second I have found that you never change someone's mind by putting them down or saying that they are wrong. I simple state what I believe using only "I" statements such as, " It is my belief, or my experience has taught me, or I used to believe but I have come to realize." All of these kinds of statements tend to make others stop and listen to what you are saying without feeling put down, or threatened.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Frankly I would not even try to talk to the leader of the program. Their mind is made up, otherwise they would not be using the program.

Time to shake off the dust on your feet.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
the most appallingly homophobic claptrap which reached its nadir with a comment that 'the Holy Spirit can make you straight.'

For a start, you could stop using the Orwellian and manipulative neologism “homophobia”, the purpose of which is to suggest that all those who disapprove of homosexual activity must hate and fear gays.

This is simply untrue.

Yes, you should probably avoid any church which displays an obsession with homosexuality, because the Bible doesn’t, and yes, the idea that same-sex attraction can be “cured” is almost certainly chimerical.

On the other hand, historically all orthodox Christian traditions (not just evangelicalism) have always taught that homosexual behaviour - and heterosexual behaviour outside of marriage - is wrong, because there is a prima facie case that that is what the Bible teaches.

If you study relevant material on the subject, and decide that this two thousand year-old tradition is mistaken, then go and find a church which thinks likewise.

However if you are considering the claims of Christianity, just be careful that you keep an open mind, and try not to fall into the trap of an a priori insistence that it must conform to the shibboleths which you have inherited from the zeitgeist.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Fineline [Overused]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

OK, I have to start this post with a disclaimer, and that it that I hold the the view that all sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, However, you will notice that

(a) I have not said that homosexual orientation is a sin. It is not.
(b) I am not claiming that any of the many ways one can enjoy oneself sexually outside of the marriage is the sin against the Holy Ghost - because it ain't. Those conservatives/traditionalists who single out homosexuality as being somehow worst than the rest make me very angry indeed.

The whole discussion really belongs in the confessional, and needs to stay there for the most part. The fact that one is theologically and morally conservative should not prevent one from thinking pastorally when dealing with those who find "the conventions" impossible.

The thing that appals me is the fact that some, not all, Evangelicals and, for that matter, some Liberals flog this issue to death. However, I think it is a bit crass on the part of the management to lay a lot of emphasis on this when there are better things to talk about - like the atonement, justification, and sancification, and how we need to make God's love real in our every day thinking and doing.

Here endeth the rant.

BTW, this incident may be a hint to find a church which, if not gay-friendly, at least has the gumption to deal with it pastorally, not with the waggy finger.

PD

[ 07. July 2013, 04:56: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Kaplan, if the term homophobic doesn't suit (and I agree that there are problems with it from an etymological pov), maybe you should coin a term such as "orientationist" to be analogical to racist". In the meantime, the rest of the world will continue in the common useage. Etymology is not meaning, as they say.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm getting some great advice here, and I'm hugely grateful for the support I'm receiving here from persons unknown and unseen. It really is genuinely humbling.

The way forward seems to be to talk to the guy who leads the group and see what he thinks, maybe some time next week, and take things from there. At the moment, I'm recovering from quite a bad breakdown and, although I'm working, events last night seem genuinely troubling. It's hard to know whether that's the depression talking or reality, so I'm going to stay away tomorrow and give myself time.

I just noticed what you said about your own personal state - seriously, man, avoid a group like this, which disturbs you. Just look after yourself.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
the rest of the world will continue in the common useage.

Here in Australia it is very common to hear refugees described as "illegal immigrants" or "queue-jumpers".

I refuse to use either term, and object when others do.

You are quite right in claiming that it is almost certainly a waste of time to oppose an entrenched usage, but as Orwell demonstrated, the debauchment of language is far more than merely an issue of pedantry.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For a start, you could stop using the Orwellian and manipulative neologism “homophobia”, the purpose of which is to suggest that all those who disapprove of homosexual activity must hate and fear gays.

I don't think the OP is necessarily doing that. DTO could have been clearer about precisely what words and conduct he takes to be manifestations of homophobia, but he does appear to be objecting to more than a dispassionate view of sexual ethics.

'Homophobic', like 'racist', covers a a wide variety of faults. But with 'racist' we are mostly comfortable with that. I can, for example, describe a vulgar witticism as “a racist joke” without anyone thinking that I'm necessarily accusing the joke teller of the sin of hatred. With 'homophobia', though, most supporters of anti-gay discrimination don't seem capable of recognising that there are degrees of homophobia analogous to the degrees of racism. Opposing marriage equality, for example, is blatantly homophobic, but it is psychologically possible to be opposed to equal rights for gays without being conscious of feeling any hatred towards gays, so by calling it homophobic, I'm not accusing the homophobes of malice, but of injustice.

'Homophobe' can mean 'someone who unfairly discriminates against gay people', just as 'racist' can mean 'someone who unfairly discriminates against black people'. Both words can also mean 'someone who hates...', but they don't have to, not all the time. DTO appears to me to be accusing this church of a failure of compassion and understanding amounting to homophobic, and not necessarily of actual hatred, and he's using the word in a quite ordinary and unexceptional way which, outside certain enclaves of anti-gay sentiment, will usually be perfectly well understood.

quote:
the idea that same-sex attraction can be “cured” is almost certainly chimerical.

But it isn't just factually wrong. You can't hold the idea that homosexual orientation is generally curable unless you've made a determined effort not to listen to, understand or empathise with gay people. To do it is to treat other people's experiences, feelings and loves as inconvenient but trivial data that may safely be ignored if one's preconceptions so require.

It is fair to describe that attitude as 'homophobia' – homophobia at the 'failure of compassion' level, of course, rather than the 'burning hatred' level, but still homophobia.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Peddling the delusion that God 'heals' homosexuality is homophobic.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
'failure of compassion'

Accusations of “failure of compassion” are problematic in at least three ways.

First, they amount to a tactic of emotional blackmail.

Secondly, they disrespectfully treat a genuinely held belief as a mere quirk of temperament.

Thirdly, their application in this context is broader than to just homosexual behaviour.

It is possible as a Christian to believe that homosexual activity, as well as heterosexual activity outside of marriage, is forbidden by God, and at the same time sympathise with those who experience same-sex attraction, or who are heterosexual but unmarried, or in (for whatever reasons) sexless marriages.

My attitude toward practising gays is the same as my attitude toward those of other faiths – I happen to think that they are wrong, but I don’t hate or fear them, and I try to treat them with respect.

In India I knew a number of very fine Hindus with whom I got on very well, and would have been furious had someone labeled me “Hinduphobic” just because I believed their religion to be mistaken.

In the same way, I absolutely refuse to wear the term “homophobic”.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

What about gay Christians?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

This thread is a DH. Feel free to continue down there.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I don't think that someone who believes that all extra-marital sexual contact ('homosexual activity' makes me think of some kind of gay leisure centre) is sinful is homophobic. Believing that non-heterosexual sexual contact is sinful but the other kinds aren't is homophobic imo. That seems to be the attitude the church in the OP displays. Alarm bells are also ringing since there seems to be no acknowledgement of celibate gay Christians - unfortunately, a lot of conservative evangelicals I've encountered do not believe it is possible for gay people to be celibate. Now that IS homophobic.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

'Homophobic', like 'racist', covers a a wide variety of faults. But with 'racist' we are mostly comfortable with that. I can, for example, describe a vulgar witticism as “a racist joke” without anyone thinking that I'm necessarily accusing the joke teller of the sin of hatred.

I think we cheapen the notion of racism by using the term in this careless way.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

People aren't racist or homophobic. They do, however, have racist or homophobic attitudes, and telling a racist joke and expecting people to laugh might be indicative of holding them. Either that, or they're just stupid. Either way, not a desirable state of affairs.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

My own objection to the term "homophobe" is that it dignifies hatred by making it sound like an illness. It isn't. Personally I prefer the term "vicious gay-hating bastard".

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
My attitude toward practising gays is the same as my attitude toward those of other faiths – I happen to think that they are wrong, but I don’t hate or fear them, and I try to treat them with respect.

And if you're sincere in that (and I've no reason to think otherwise), and would therefore support the legal right to live freely as a gay or Hindu (or gay Hindu) with the same freedoms as everyone else, I wouldn't call you a homophobe. Or a vicious gay-hating bastard.

I get the impression that this is not the attitude which the OP is complaining about, however, though I do think he could have been clearer about what he objects to.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think that someone who believes that all extra-marital sexual contact ('homosexual activity' makes me think of some kind of gay leisure centre) is sinful is homophobic. Believing that non-heterosexual sexual contact is sinful but the other kinds aren't is homophobic imo. That seems to be the attitude the church in the OP displays. Alarm bells are also ringing since there seems to be no acknowledgement of celibate gay Christians - unfortunately, a lot of conservative evangelicals I've encountered do not believe it is possible for gay people to be celibate. Now that IS homophobic.

I agree with you here. The idea that gay people (or anyone else) can't be celibate is shocking to me.

My problem with what these people said isn't that they have a theological problem with homosexual sex. I find it theologically challenging too. But I can't accept the notion that the Holy Spirit removes anything from our lives that we might find difficult to deal with. We're told that Paul himself had a problem, a thorn in his side, that the Holy Spirit didn't remove, despite his closeness to God, his spiritual dynamism, and his prayers. (Some people suggest that the problem might have been homosexual urges, but I don't know where that idea comes from). Paul's often criticised by liberal Christians for his teachings, but his experience surely shows that it's possible to be an evangelical yet still not be relieved of a distressing situation in one's life.

However, I think Douglas the Otter might have problems arguing about this with these people, simply because he's not yet a Christian. He may not yet be convinced that the Holy Spirit even exists, much less that the Spirit can change anyone's life.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

'Homophobic', like 'racist', covers a a wide variety of faults. But with 'racist' we are mostly comfortable with that. I can, for example, describe a vulgar witticism as “a racist joke” without anyone thinking that I'm necessarily accusing the joke teller of the sin of hatred.
I think we cheapen the notion of racism by using the term in this careless way.

Then you're wrong. Morality, and the language we use to describe it, needs words that describe the quality of wrongness as well as the degree of wrongness.

"Unfair" includes the case of me taking one more M&M than you if we've decided to share a bag. It also includes me defrauding you of your pension. "Dishonest" includes me saying I'm too busy to go to your party, and it includes falsely accusing you of rape. "Racist" includes not sitting next to you on a train because of your colour, and it includes putting you in a gas chamber because of it.

Are those sins all seen as the same, because the same word is used? Of course not. But the suggestion that the greater offence is somehow diminished because there is a much lesser offence in the same class is an absurdly foolish one.

Personally, I prefer a morality which requires integrity in the small things. Selfishness in trivial things is still unfair, small lies are still dishonest, little prejudices are still racist, and, yes, discrimination against gays in ways that unthinking straights don't consider to be important is still homophobic. If our aspiration is to love our neighbours as ourselves, then we should not tolerate any injustice in the way we treat others.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

Yep. Amen.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Eliab

But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eliab

But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?

I don't know about Eliab, but I will give you one killer example from work. If anyone uses some "vulgar witticism" that relies on some stereotype then they will get less say in future appointments, because they won't be on any interview panels for a while.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eliab

But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?
I don't know about Eliab, but I will give you one killer example from work. If anyone uses some "vulgar witticism" that relies on some stereotype then they will get less say in future appointments, because they won't be on any interview panels for a while.

In other words it IS a big deal, as it should be. I simply feel that the word 'racist' should be meaningful. It should incite real change. It shouldn't be tossed about lightly, with no real consequences. I can't see how ethnic minorities (of which I am one) would benefit from that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.

When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.

That sounds unfair.

Why not turn it around and say that DouglasTheOtter has something to offer this group but this group won't accept his contribution?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

leo

I think it's difficult to go to a church as someone who doesn't accept that church's theology (even at a basic level), and then teach and expect them to listen. It think it would be just as unlikely and as unrealistic as an evangelical Pentecostal going to a Quaker meeting, trying to 'teach' them and expecting them to take it on board.

An invited speaker is a special case, but here we're just talking about someone who attends the meetings like other people but without even having made any formal commitment of faith.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.

I don't want to break bread with homophobes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
leo

I think it's difficult to go to a church as someone who doesn't accept that church's theology (even at a basic level), and then teach and expect them to listen.

Depends on the sort of church.

If a church is for people to SHARE their faith rather than merely a place to sit and be indoctrinated, then it should be.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.
I don't want to break bread with homophobes.

So you think the 19 and half centuries of christianity before some mainline denominations in USA/Europe started to accept homossexuality was entirely composed of false churches and false christians? You wouldn´t want to be in communion with most of the saints of the past, including St. Paul, for example? How incredible that you believe "true" christianity merely started a few decades ago, and is still confined to a minority of churches in the northern hemisphere.... Why do you WANT to be a christian anyway, if that´s the case?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

gorpo, you'll find that few of the churches of the past made such a song and dance about homosexuality. Then again, they were fairly happy for people to be imprisoned, enslaved or put to death for it, so there was little need to construct an entire doctrinal basis on a few half-forgotten verses.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

What's your view of slavery, gorpo?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?

I hadn't said anything about how my friends might react to the word. FWIW, some of my friends would be mortified to learn that I thought something they said racist, and others wouldn't give a fart either way.

My point was that I can disapprove of racially motivated mockery, and racially motivated murder, without thinking that they are exact moral equivalents. I don't think it devalues the most horrible forms of racism also to refer to less serious forms of racism as racist. And in my experience that is hardly controversial.

But it does seem to be controversial amongst anti-gay campaigners to be called on their homophobia. They seem to think that because they aren't actually going out and physically assaulting gay people, it's somehow unfair to call them homophobes. Everyone else seems to get that 'homophobia', like racism and sexism, has gradations of seriousness.

The ideal, of course, is to treat people fairly. There isn't an acceptable level of unfair treatment of people because of their race, sex or orientation, which therefore doesn't deserve to be called racist, sexist of homophobic, even though some ways of being unfair are nastier than others.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I had a long answer to the homophobia derail, but I'm simply going to say - etymological quibbling about the 'phobia' suffix as a tactic? Really?

You could post "I hold some anti-gay views and object to them attracting the same social stigma as racism and anti-semitism". It's much shorter and has the same effect in a more credible way.

Now, to turn to Douglas's query.

When I converted back to Christianity in my twenties after a rough time emotionally, I found myself in a very similar position. The popular evangelical church a few doors up from me was full of people my age and even some I went to university with, it ran a busy and attractive social programme for people my age.

It also quickly turned out to be keen on anti gay views. Coming from about the first generation of university students to go to uni with openly gay student friends and only coming back to Christianity after that, after having learnt first hand that gay people are just like anyone else, I was never able to swallow the anti-gay stuff. It appalled me in the same way that racism does, and it does to this day. Many churches are institutionally anti-gay which means you get the usual spread of good, bad and in-between people in them but they hold anti-gay views and think those views are correct. Many hold anti-gay views and deny that those views are anti-gay.

eg.
Person A "I am not anti-gay, our church teaches against all sex outside marriage. This applies to everyone."

Person B "Good news then! Our country is just legalising gay marriage!"

Person A "But we teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman - it's not for gay people!"

Person B "It doesn't apply to everyone then, does it?'

This is institutional anti-gay prejudice whether Person A is in every other respect nice to gay people or not.

If like me, you regard institutional anti-gay prejudice as wrong, then you need a different institution, one where subscribing to such beliefs isn't a public badge of right-thinking membership.

What happened for me was that I found somewhere old-fashioned where the issue wasn't on anyone's radar ( if you'd questioned people most of them would have held the old anti-gay view, and some of us wouldn't but it was live and let live) and where this was not a shibboleth of membership. This was a tiny old fashioned, as non happy-clappy as you could get, evangelical Church of Scotland group within a bigger very liberal church. It therefore didn't get in the way of worship and nobody campaigned on it. This meant worshipping with and befriending older people who were not my own age - and you know what? I enjoyed it. Nothing wrong with unaccompanied psalmody followed by scones.

Later in life, with a CofE partner I found that I also enjoyed High church anglo-catholic liturgy and could find congregations which weren't into institutional sexism. It can be surprising where you can find a prayerful space. It can also be surprisingly upsetting and jarring when people bring prejudices that upset you into that nourishing space for worship and contemplation.

I'd suggest trying different churches and different styles of worship, until you find one where stuff like this doesn't get in the way. If you're healing from a rough time, it's perfectly fine to find a prayerful and nourishing space where you don't have to deal with this. You can, if you feel so moved, make a habit of tackling it later when you feel stronger. As they say on the plane 'affix your own oxygen mask first, before trying to help others'

Best wishes,
Louise

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I don't want to break bread with homophobes.

quote:
What's your view of slavery?

I couldn't be a Christian if I felt that Christianity was irrevocably tainted by the personal histories of many people in the church in the past, and indeed into the present. I want God to forgive me of my sins; I therefore have to believe that he can forgive others of theirs also. If this concept disgusts you then Christianity will be hard for you.

On the other hand, there should be no obligation to worship with people whose theology you abhor.

I write as a descendant of slaves.

[ 07. July 2013, 23:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

A couple of things.

Christianity is hard for me but then my understanding is that it can, at various times, be hard for everybody, each in their own ways. We don't get to decide which bits are hard and which bits are easy. And writing 'I say this as a descendant of slaves' doesn't give your arguments or opinions extra value. They stand and fall on their own merits.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

DouglasTheOtter

Look, if you don't approve of these people's theology about homosexuality (or anything else) the answer is simple: move on and find a some other Christians whose beliefs align more closely with yours, or who are willing to come under your instruction. Plenty of folk before you have had to do this. This website is full of people who've moved from one church to another. Some of them spent years with evangelical outfits before realising that they had serious issues with evangelicalism. You're lucky it hasn't taken you so long!

By the way, you're the one who brought up slavery, not me. I've probably misunderstood how it's relevant to the conversation, but if you believe your thoughts on the subject are superior to mine, then please share them.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It does seem like it's simpler to move on to a compatible group if the people you heard at dinner are typical. If you're not sure, the leadership will clarify that quickly.

It's more likely they are going to go through a long long struggle with this issue, in the same way that many racist churches in the U.S. took a century to move past their scriptural interpretation of the mark of Ham. You can see it here in this thread with the people who are busy claiming they aren't homophobic because there's no such thing as homophobia and besides the scriptures made them do it.

You should take care of yourself first in an environment that doesn't leave you as a participant in an organization that will leave you embarrassed. There are plenty of ships in the sea. Coming in as a newcomer to change this, even if leadership supports you seems like an un-needed stress on you.

Vote with your feet. If you feel super conscientious, let them know why you left, but don't stick around to argue or be cited as the snitch on bad behavior.

Regards

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

SvitlanaV2, I think the slavery issue was raised because of gorpo's claim that centuries of a belief in the inadmissibility of homosexuality as a good was more important and correct than the newer assessment, as a comparison. For the church for centuries accepted that slavery was OK, and even took part in delivering people into that state (such as the wives of priests in the early Middle Ages). When a contrary view arose, it was opposed in the same way as an acceptance of homosexuality is now being opposed, but that opposition has now vanished. It is accepted that the centuries before were wrong. And is it could be wrong over that, it is possible to consider that it might be wrong over other issues as well. The sanctity of centuries is not impregnable, and that is why slavery was referenced.

Given the number of slaves in the past, we of European heritage are probably all the descendants of slaves, or near slaves, just not so recently that it shows.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Penny S

Well, the Transatlantic slave trade has left its psychological mark on the descendants of both slaves and slave masters. The churches haven't escaped that.

As for homosexuality, it should become a theological matter like any other issue about sexual behaviour. Different churches take different theological approaches towards divorce and remarriage, pre-marital straight sex, celibacy, etc. There should be more church options for SSM-affirming people, but a new evangelical church plant isn't the best place to go for that, is it? If it were, then in this day and age that should be a big selling point, not something that requires detective skills to discover!

Churches are just people. People should develop the churches they need and want.

[ 08. July 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.

Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.

Unfortunately our language mixes the two. 'Homosexuality' means both the nature or character of being homosexual, as well as homosexual behaviour or activity. One isn't a choice. The other very much is.

Is it possible that there is just a disconnect between the way you and the people at your dinner table talked about this subject? Perhaps when you talk about gay people you refer to their nature and become offended when others decry gayness as you assume they are refering to the same thing. But they could be referring to behaviours that they disagree with rather than people's innate nature. You've quoted them as saying that "the holy spirit can make you straight". Are they referring to an adjustment in behaviour here and you have just misunderstood them to mean that their nature will be changed?

Of course this distinction may not make any difference to you. Perhaps you are equally offended at someone disagreeing with another's choice of behaviour as you are at them disagreeing with someone's innate nature.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.

The 'act'?

What act?

What they do together? Shopping? Arguing? Hugging?

Or?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

SvitlanaV2, I wasn't trying to diminish the effects of recent slavery (and there are people in my ancestry I suspect probably had investments in sugar that I'm not happy about - except that they lost all their money and their biggish house and lands), but to point out that there's no great "virtue" in not having been obviously the descendant of recent slaves (and there are some odd physiological features in the other side of my family that hint at the possibility of that, as well). I was somewhat horrified when some of the discussion of Obama seemed to find it better that he wasn't the descendant of slaves in the States. And when an Afro-Caribbean student on teaching practice at our school told us that Africans looked down on people of her heritage because they had been slaves.
As that's still going on, I can imagine how sensitive the subject can still be. I just don't always remember. Sorry.
Does the remark about slave masters also apply in the UK? There has been longer since they stopped having that status.

quote:
Hawk quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.

Does this imply you believe that all people who have the character of feeling love for the same sex are called never to act according to it? Seems a bit unfair if they are not also gifted with celibacy.

[ 09. July 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Hawk quote:
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.
Does this imply you believe that all people who have the character of feeling love for the same sex are called never to act according to it? Seems a bit unfair if they are not also gifted with celibacy.

What do you mean by 'gifted with celibacy'? Do you mean that only some extraordinary people are capable of living celibately and others are free to rut like bunnies since they can't help themselves?

IMO God calls us all to obey his will, we are all capable of celibacy, just as we are all capable of sexual activity (barring accidents). It is our choice whether we choose one or the other according to God's will or not.

And yes, I do personally believe this means that those who feel same-sex attraction are called not to choose to act on those attractions. Is it unfair? I don't know. But I don't think life is very fair to anyone. Is it unfair that some people are born rich and some poor, some healthy and some disabled? That seems pretty unfair to me. But IMO we are called to follow God according to what He has given us, however jealous that may make us when we see others we think have got it easier, or have things we don't.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.
The 'act'?

What act?

What they do together? Shopping? Arguing? Hugging?

Or?

We're talking about homosexuality. The clue's in the name. Try to keep up.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

No it isn't. 'Sexuality' covers all our affections, desires, fantasies. So a sexual 'act' is anything done by a sexual being, including chatting someone up, flirting etc.

As for 'genital acts' - is 'the act' a reference only to anal sex? And if so, is a person who engages in mutual masturbation, fellatio, intracrural etc. NOT a homosexual? And does the Bible 'forbid' these acts as well as anal sex?
(Saying 'do keep up' is rude - what you mean is 'understand words the way i understand them, eve though I haven't defines them yet. You are supposed to be a mind-reader.'

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

Does the remark about slave masters also apply in the UK? There has been longer since they stopped having that status.

One argument is that the Transatlantic slave trade reinforced (or even created) anti-black racism rather than being the product of it. Consequently, the end of the slave trade didn't mean the end of ideas about racial superiority and inferiority, but gave them a new life in a different form. It's in this sense that the descendants of slaves and of slave owning nations have been psychologically affected by slavery.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

If I'm reading this correctly, then God, who makes us all, also makes some people gay. All fine so far. And if he makes you gay, then the answer to the problem, is for you not to have sex. Call me pedantic and all, but I've spotted a huge logical flaw in this argument.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
If I'm reading this correctly, then God, who makes us all, also makes some people gay. All fine so far. And if he makes you gay, then the answer to the problem, is for you not to have sex. Call me pedantic and all, but I've spotted a huge logical flaw in this argument.

But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?

Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.

*I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality itself, but I'm just suggesting how that logical flaw you noted might perhaps be removed.

[ 09. July 2013, 21:24: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?

Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.

*I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality itself, but I'm just suggesting how that logical flaw you noted might perhaps be removed. [/QB]

Classifying Homosexual attraction as a pathology isn't going to work anymore. There are too many homosexuals leading normal happy lives for that trick to work.

Now the brain failure that leads one to make such nasty scriptural interpretations is clearly a sign from God that you have been damaged and are counseled to silence on the subject lest you hurt others.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I just meant that even if one grants that sexual orientation has a genetic component, it doesn't have to mean God approves of it. DouglastheOtter said holding any other view was logically flawed, and I explained why I disagreed. Apologies for not being clear, but I intended no equivalence between homosexual orientation and cystic fibrosis etc., except on the genetics point.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Indeed. Are 'forbidden sexual desires' (however one defines these) a (natural bi-) product of God's creative impulse or the Fall (without wishing to head off in the direction of another Dead Horse)?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Seems like it is time to remind everyone of this statement from 2001 . You might as well decide on your preferred number and quote that.

This discussion ain't going anywhere that hasn't been seen before, so don't get too excited.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?

Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.

*I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality itself, but I'm just suggesting how that logical flaw you noted might perhaps be removed.
Classifying Homosexual attraction as a pathology isn't going to work anymore. There are too many homosexuals leading normal happy lives for that trick to work.

Now the brain failure that leads one to make such nasty scriptural interpretations is clearly a sign from God that you have been damaged and are counseled to silence on the subject lest you hurt others. [/QB]

I guess homophobia is the new pathology/sin. Is there a cure? Possibly, there is a market for a new reparative therapy technique, which will help homophobes deconstruct their own defensive attitudes, get in touch with their homoerotic side, blah blah blah. I feel keen to start this up, I reckon the fees should be pretty high, treat them mean, keep them keen, eh?

[ 10. July 2013, 16:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
If I'm reading this correctly, then God, who makes us all, also makes some people gay. All fine so far. And if he makes you gay, then the answer to the problem, is for you not to have sex. Call me pedantic and all, but I've spotted a huge logical flaw in this argument.
But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?

Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.

But see, that is bullshit. God, as the Bible(Koran, Torah) describes him created the game, the rules and the playing field. He is by definition and circumstance completely responsible for every good, bad and indifferent. Completely responsible for every fucking variable.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I guess homophobia is the new pathology/sin. Is there a cure? Possibly, there is a market for a new reparative therapy technique, which will help homophobes deconstruct their own defensive attitudes, get in touch with their homoerotic side, blah blah blah. I feel keen to start this up, I reckon the fees should be pretty high, treat them mean, keep them keen, eh?

Pathology? No, not typically. Sin? If you believe in sin, it surely is one. Well, depending on if you really listen to that hippy in the second half of the bible.
Cure? does not exist. Reduction in occurrence, perhaps. You know, when homosexuals get accepted as being real people. Given how quickly this has worked out for black people, though....

Really spell-check? Hippy is not in your dictionary?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

Does the remark about slave masters also apply in the UK? There has been longer since they stopped having that status.
One argument is that the Transatlantic slave trade reinforced (or even created) anti-black racism rather than being the product of it. Consequently, the end of the slave trade didn't mean the end of ideas about racial superiority and inferiority, but gave them a new life in a different form. It's in this sense that the descendants of slaves and of slave owning nations have been psychologically affected by slavery.

There are still complexities, such as the ordinary people of Britain sticking up for black GIs during the war when white GIs thought them uncivilised for not applying segregation, which was viewed with some disgust - an attitude which shifted afterwards.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Returning to the main thread - it is odd how this sort of discussion always seems to function on the assumption that heterosexual relationships are about love and homosexual relationships are about sex.

I'm, as far as can be determined in the absence of any practical opportunity for demonstration, heterosexual. I am also quite lucky in that the absence of sex has not been, for the relevant 50 or so years, a serious problem.

Having, however, having to deliberately keep myself to myself for someone else's wellbeing has been a bit of a pain, and not something I would inflict on anyone else, which is what Hawk is trying to do. No cuddles, no hugs, no kisses, no nothing physical at all because we humans link all those sort of things with the more serious stuff, and they might lead further.

If you can live happily* celibate, fair enough, but it's not something anyone has the right to inflict (I'm using that word again deliberately) on anyone else. And it isn't any use saying that that is what God has clearly said he wants, because the sort of God who wants to put people through a sort of hell because of the way they are made (genetics, epigenetics, whatever, it isn't a choice) isn't a God whose word is worth taking notice of.

*(Oh, and it has occurred to me that some people may find a sort of happiness in succeeding in being triumphantly, miserably celibate, but not everyone is made like that.)

[ 10. July 2013, 18:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Penny S

That example you gave of racism is still pretty ancient! My guess is that you don't live in a big multicultural city where some of these psychological issues are much more recent. That's not a criticism BTW! We can live where we want.

Going back to the OP and homosexuality, I think the basic problem now is that the most liberal Christian movements tend not to be the ones doing the church plants and the evangelism. People in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are often attracted to dynamic church movements, to churches that put an emphasis on relationship. And then like attracts like, so once these people are there, they attract others. But if it's the evangelical churches that are doing the work, it's their theology that's going to be presented, be it about SSM or anything else.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future. It may be that such churches eventually become more tolerant simply by virtue of attracting younger worshippers. Perhaps this tolerance will grow as their churches gradually age and become more settled and respectable. Or maybe as the number of Christians continues to decline in general these churches will just accept their marginal status and won't feel the pressure to be part of the liberalising trend in society.

[ 10. July 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

By happenstance, Fred Clark deals with this topic today, including a Tolstoy quote: "I Sit On a Man's Back, Choking Him"

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Can't email you, SvitlanaV2, so I'm having to tangent again.

I've had an interesting experience in Brixton! And have been in mixed company in South London quite a bit. I think I am suggesting that recent racism is not a hangover, but a more recent phenomenon, with other roots than slavery, with the British response to others' racism not being to support it in the past. (There is a story of a pub where the white GIs wanted a pub to ban the black GIs where the publican then segregated by banning the whites - don't know if it's true.) The change of course came with the civilian arrivals of people who thought they were British, so there was a basic difference. And attitudes were closely related to those to the Irish, not ex-slaves. And exhibited by those whose ancestors were themselves exploited by the upper classes. Much more complex. No less nasty.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Penny S

Well, racism can be directed towards all kinds of ethnic groups, not just one! Anti-Irish racism goes back a long way. Scholars say the ethnic English in Victorian times posited a racial hierarchy, with themselves at the top. Black Africans were usually at the bottom. Different historical influences would have created these categorisations, which is why I don't really agree with your (original?) idea that the more recent British experience of anti-black racism has no historical context.

Obviously, the black GIs were likely to have had a more positive experience in the UK than back in the USA. That wouldn't be hard, would it?? After the war though it was a different story for black people in the UK.

Anyway, unless you want to start another thread we'd better conclude our tangent!

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If you can live happily* celibate, fair enough, but it's not something anyone has the right to inflict (I'm using that word again deliberately) on anyone else. And it isn't any use saying that that is what God has clearly said he wants, because the sort of God who wants to put people through a sort of hell because of the way they are made (genetics, epigenetics, whatever, it isn't a choice) isn't a God whose word is worth taking notice of.

I agree that another's infliction of spiritual morality is wrong. No one should force someone to live according to faith, it has to come from within otherwise it's meaningless.

And your characterisation of God as someone who asks people to willingly suffer for His sake is fully in accordance with Christian understanding. Whether such suffering is a result of the setting they were born into, the particular makeup of their flesh, or events that shaped them. None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering. Such faith may not be a faith that appeals to you personally, but it is the one revealed throughout scripture. If someone rejects that revelation in favour of something else that is their free decision.

But I would dispute that celibacy is a 'kind of hell' as you describe it though. Paul of course described it as the ideal. I maybe wouldn't go that far myself, but it is certainly a condition that can bring much blessing. It is not intrinsically a condition of suffering.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering.

Isn't the standard Christian position that Jesus is God? This seems kind of like a scam. "You should submit to my will, but don't worry, I'll also be submitting to my will, so it's fair!"

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But I would dispute that celibacy is a 'kind of hell' as you describe it though. Paul of course described it as the ideal. I maybe wouldn't go that far myself, but it is certainly a condition that can bring much blessing. It is not intrinsically a condition of suffering.

I wonder what ever happened to "it is not good for the man to be alone"? You seem to be saying that it is good for certain men (and women) to be alone and forgo the joys of having a family. This seems particularly cruel given that gays are far more likely to be disowned by their families of origin than straights, and you come along and say it's not cruel to tell them God hates the idea of them forming their own family.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering? What good does it do? Why does God demand it? Put simply, what has God got against homosexuality? This is the bit I can never quite get over; what's God's problem with it? I can see why he's agin' murder and theft and gossip and loads of other stuff that harms people, but I can't see the issue here. If he's going to issue a prohibition surely he has a reason?

[ 17. July 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's babies, innit?

Or in posh language, sex is procreative and unitive. But gaaayzzz are not.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Nor's celibacy.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yeah, but God only likes certain kinds of two-person orificial enjoyment, doesn't he? There are baby-making orificial events, and non-baby-making ones, and OK, between man and wife, the latter might be tolerated every now and again, but not Mano a Mano in El Baño, or even worse, bottoms. Well, OK, bottoms between man and wife might be OK now and again, as a kind of amuse bouche, but between guy and guy?!?! Dirty, dirty, dirty, and no babies!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but God only likes certain kinds of two-person orificial enjoyment, doesn't he?

No-one's making him do it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It seems simple to me, God likes babies, and doesn't like bottoms, except for faecal whathaveyous.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Not one for dressing up 'haven't you been naughty?' games either then?

[Devil]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering? What good does it do? Why does God demand it?

That's a much wider issue of the whole 'why suffering' question, though, isn't it.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The Fall.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, seeing as we seem to be on glib starters for ten, there's also the thing about identifying with Jesus in His suffering and thus being transformed into His image (sanctification/ theosis/ whatever you want to call it). But this issue is of course not confined to this specific DH topic.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not one for dressing up 'haven't you been naughty?' games either then?

Ah, spanking bottoms! Now why didn't you say, that falls under a different category, acts allowed to man and wife, as preparatory to the procreative and unitive act, which serve to spice it up, or as hors d'oeuvre, or amuse bouches, but should not stand alone as courses in themselves. So, remember the drill, spank and penetrate (wife), and you won't go far wrong. She is also allowed to spank you, as long as you penetrate (wife).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering? What good does it do? Why does God demand it?
That's a much wider issue of the whole 'why suffering' question, though, isn't it.

Yes, but this one's a bit different. The whole suffering is artificially created, apparently by God, by means of an otherwise groundless prohibition on certain types of relationship. Remove the prohibition and the problem's gone. So why have the prohibition?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Why have the prohibition on me and Mrs B entering into a ménage a trois with a third individual? Or sex before marriage? Arguably these are seemingly 'meaningless prohibitions' which can cause suffering if the activities concerned float the boats of the consenting adults concerned yet God prohibits them nevertheless.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering.
Isn't the standard Christian position that Jesus is God? This seems kind of like a scam. "You should submit to my will, but don't worry, I'll also be submitting to my will, so it's fair!"

I fear you may have misunderstood the Christian position. Jesus was fully man, so provides a good example for us of the proper response to suffering for the glory of God.

If the Christological niceties mystify you there are many examples of Christian martyrs you can turn to instead. I only picked Jesus as he is the most well-known.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But I would dispute that celibacy is a 'kind of hell' as you describe it though. Paul of course described it as the ideal. I maybe wouldn't go that far myself, but it is certainly a condition that can bring much blessing. It is not intrinsically a condition of suffering.
I wonder what ever happened to "it is not good for the man to be alone"? You seem to be saying that it is good for certain men (and women) to be alone and forgo the joys of having a family.

Interesting you turn to the creation myth of Genesis to try to trump the writings of Paul. Do you believe that Genesis is more important than Paul? IMO proof texts at dawn isn't the best way of interpreting the Bible.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering?...If he's going to issue a prohibition surely he has a reason?

Of course there's a reason, and we can be assured its a good one. But does God owe us an explanation? Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The whole suffering is artificially created, apparently by God, by means of an otherwise groundless prohibition on certain types of relationship. Remove the prohibition and the problem's gone. So why have the prohibition?

This is a good question. Yet there are very few churches that are inclined to see gay sex as utterly harmless and thus groundlessly prohibited. Actually, it's rare to find a church that will openly declare any sort of sex as utterly harmless; the whole subject seems to be weighted with significance, real or symbolic. Despite complaints about churches being obsessed with sex, there seems to be little internal pressure to demote the subject from its position.

I think there are sociological (as well as supposedly biblical) reasons why most churches might be reluctant to declare their internal prohibitions concerning homosexual relationships to be groundless. Nevertheless, there might be some churches that could go successfully down that road. I can't understand why the historical congregational-type denominations don't plant openly gay-affirming churches or fresh expressions of church. They could be leading the way on this, since they're not bound by hierarchical structures, nor by centrally-determined theological positions on sexual morality, nor by the dodgy foreign look of the 'new churches'.

[ 17. July 2013, 17:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering.
Isn't the standard Christian position that Jesus is God? This seems kind of like a scam. "You should submit to my will, but don't worry, I'll also be submitting to my will, so it's fair!"
I fear you may have misunderstood the Christian position. Jesus was fully man, so provides a good example for us of the proper response to suffering for the glory of God.

But Jesus was also fully God, I thought. So God suffering for His own glory? Sounds a little vain.

If the Christological niceties mystify you there are many examples of Christian martyrs you can turn to instead. I only picked Jesus as he is the most well-known.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Interesting you turn to the creation myth of Genesis to try to trump the writings of Paul. Do you believe that Genesis is more important than Paul?

Not at all. I consider them both to be equally important, I assure you!

Still, full marks for completely ignoring the question. Why is it a good thing to be forced to choose between the person you love and the God you love? Or at least forced to make that choice if the person you love is the wrong kind. The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste. In short, is God just a handy justification for "because I said so"?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste. In short, is God just a handy justification for "because I said so"?

If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them. Anyone can be wrong about God, and most of us probably are, but from a Christian perspective this possibility doesn't negate the search to know and to do His will, whatever the outcome.

In the post-Christian and post-secular future there might be an inclination to configure God as a non-authoritarian deity. I'm not sure how that will pan out theologically. Most of our church liturgies and hymns still formally agree that God is Lord and Master of all. Whether we still see God that way is another matter.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them.

I'll agree with you there.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyone can be wrong about God, and most of us probably are, but from a Christian perspective this possibility doesn't negate the search to know and to do His will, whatever the outcome.

But it does negate the need to understand God's will, according to Hawk. If you adopt the position that you should do God's will even if you don't understand it, how would you ever come to the conclusion that you're "wrong about God"?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them.

* Timidly raises hand *

I am a Christian and I mostly dissaprove of appeals to God's authority.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
SvitlanaV2: If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them.
* Timidly raises hand *

I am a Christian and I mostly dissaprove of appeals to God's authority.

Perhaps you're in the vanguard, leading us into the brave new world I mentioned earlier, towards God as a non-authoritarian deity. There has to be an intermediate stage, after all....
[Biased]

To be fair, I don't go around 'appealing to God's authority'! ISTM that Christians often envision their lives of prayer, service and worship, etc. as enabling them better to follow God's will as a matter of course, since this should be the natural consequence of trying to live one's life in relationship with God. It's not something that we normally need to draw attention to. However, we fail because we're human and because our prayer/service/worship/etc. are consequently inadequate. Is this a totally mistaken understanding of things?

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:

If you adopt the position that you should do God's will even if you don't understand it, how would you ever come to the conclusion that you're "wrong about God"?

Well, the alternative is stagnation, isn't it? At some point we have to go forward, in faith, something that Christianity generally approves of. Ideally we should be humble, prayerful, seeking the counsel of others whom we respect and studying scriptural examples. But according to the Bible, God will never desert us, whatever happens. Our mistakes don't represent the end of our walk with him.

[ 17. July 2013, 20:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Interesting you turn to the creation myth of Genesis to try to trump the writings of Paul. Do you believe that Genesis is more important than Paul?
Not at all. I consider them both to be equally important, I assure you!

Still, full marks for completely ignoring the question. Why is it a good thing to be forced to choose between the person you love and the God you love? Or at least forced to make that choice if the person you love is the wrong kind.

Being made to choose between the World and God is a prevelant theme throughout the Bible I think. Not just with sexuality, both hetero and homo, but with all aspects of the human experience. God asks us to sacrifice ourselves. It is a hard command and not everyone can do it. Eye of the needle and all that.

It is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste.

Nice application of Godwin's law. Is 'Nuremberg'y' just shorthand for 'I don't like it' though?

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In short, is God just a handy justification for "because I said so"?

No. At least it shouldn't be. No one should follow what I say about God without believing it themselves from God's revealed Word. I'm just saying what I believe.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
It is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.

As concerns the immediate issue, that would seem to assume that we can 'know' God's will on homosexuality for certain without bringing our own consciences into consideration. I doubt that. I count myself a Bible-believing Christian, but I am a hundred times more certain that I ought not to be an arsehole to my gay fellow humans than I am that some ambiguous passage in Leviticus is God's final word on the subject.

That is, if I was absolutely sure that being who created the universe and is its ultimate moral authority is against absolutely all expressions of same-sex attraction, then I accept that he's right, even if I don't see why. But because it seems such an absurd and arbitrary prohibition, the fact that I cannot see why is a legitimate reason to doubt that God certainly prohibits all gay relationships whatever. God's authority is based on the fact that he is good and right. A command, purporting to be God's, that seems evil and wrong is, for that very reason, a dubious one. Obeying it without question betrays a lack of faith in God's goodness - rather than being a mark of Christian integrity.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I think the apparent prohibition of gay relationships probably is strong enough that, if I were tempted to have one myself, I think I would be uncertain enough to abstain (on the assumption, which must be doubtful for never having been put to the test, that my willpower was sufficient to maintain that resolve). But the Biblical case is certainly not strong enough to justify being an arsehole to other people, by, for example, denying them legal equality. That is homophobia, and the Bible does not even begin to justify that.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the Biblical case is certainly not strong enough to justify being an arsehole to other people, by, for example, denying them legal equality. That is homophobia, and the Bible does not even begin to justify that.

Well I disagree with you that the Biblical prohibition is just one 'ambiguous passage in Leviticus', and I also don't agree that human understanding and judgement is sufficient to test the morality of God's prohibitions. But I do agree that being an arsehole to other people is not justified by the Bible. I'm not sure anyone ever argued that it was though.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Still, full marks for completely ignoring the question. Why is it a good thing to be forced to choose between the person you love and the God you love? Or at least forced to make that choice if the person you love is the wrong kind.
Being made to choose between the World and God is a prevelant theme throughout the Bible I think. Not just with sexuality, both hetero and homo, but with all aspects of the human experience. God asks us to sacrifice ourselves. It is a hard command and not everyone can do it. Eye of the needle and all that.

It is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.

Which would be comparable if Christians were typically expected to sever all ties and contact with their parents, but that's usually not the case. Most Christians will usually get all "honor thy father and mother" in such cases. In other words, you're not asking gays to love God more than a human partner, you're demanding they love God instead of a human partner. That seems a critical difference.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste.
Nice application of Godwin's law. Is 'Nuremberg'y' just shorthand for 'I don't like it' though?

No, just shorthand for the idea that you're not morally responsible for your own actions if you can claim "I was only following orders".

To take a non-Godwin example popular in the nineteenth century, it was widely believed that Africans were created by God as a kind of Aristotelian "natural slave", that their enslavement was ordained by God. If we accept your premise that God requires obedience without understanding, would there be any way for someone raised in such a belief to conclude that slavery is wrong? For that matter, does the fact that people believed it was God's will make it right?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Well I disagree with you that the Biblical prohibition is just one 'ambiguous passage in Leviticus', and I also don't agree that human understanding and judgement is sufficient to test the morality of God's prohibitions. But I do agree that being an arsehole to other people is not justified by the Bible. I'm not sure anyone ever argued that it was though.

Does stoning people to death count as "being an arsehole"? And if you think no one ever argued that, you're woefully ignorant of history.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I also don't agree that human understanding and judgement is sufficient to test the morality of God's prohibitions

Of course it isn't. It's just that, without begging the question, human understanding is the only sort that I possess.

I'm sure that there are moral questions for which the right answer is known to God, but where I lack the understanding to get there. However to persuade me that in this particular case the answer you have is from God, at some level you have to appeal to my understanding. It's not enough to say that in general the possibility exists of a right answer that I would consider insane. That's not enough to make me accept any specific appeal to moral insanity. My best judgement is just that - my best judgement. It isn't perfect, but it is the best that I can do, and therefore the least that I owe to God.

Believing something against my best judgement is by definition irresponsible - an instance of moral failure. My best judgement might be (and doubtless, sometimes is) wrong, but if I follow a command that my best moral judgement rejects, I can only be right by accident. I cannot be sure that God really commanded something that I cannot help but see as evil, because I am much more certain that God is good than I am that such-and-such an interpretation of a Biblical command is really his.

You seem to be arguing that I could ever have grounds for believing that the Bible (or a specific interpretation thereof) is absolutely authoritative which are independent of the Bible's actual content. I'm disagreeing with that. I think that a command which I find ethically questionable must for that reason alone be considered of doubtful providence. Not necessarily rejected out of hand (because I might be wrong), but it is certainly a moral obligation to question it.

[ 17. July 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Of course there's a reason, and we can be assured its a good one. But does God owe us an explanation? Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?

Legally maybe God doesn't owe us an explanation. However, is God the sort to stand upon what he legally owes us? Or is God rather loving and gracious? After all, it's a lot easier to follow the spirit of a law when you understand the reasoning behind it. If you don't understand the reasoning behind it all you can do is follow the letter, and we're told we oughtn't to just follow the letter.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.

I think this couldn't be more wrong in its conclusion. The test was made pretty clear and it was exactly a test of our human relationships, not with our family but with people in need of our support and compassion beyond our families. When you start telling other people what 'they' must sacrifice then you get onto very dodgy ground indeed. The touchstone of the sheep and the goats reads much more to me like "So, what have you been doing recently for my 'least of these'?" than 'So, what have you done recently with your Bible to make other people's lives harder and more miserable, so as to show off how totally great you think I am?'.

As for a God who'd be well pleased with someone who went up to him and said "Look what I did! I witnessed against evil things like this!" [pics of wonderful Indian wedding between two women]

Blimey. I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.

[ 18. July 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Good stuff, Louise. That view also seems to assume that God isn't in our relationships. But don't we find God partly in our love for each other?

I hate this setting up of God against our life, and not in our life.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

As for a God who'd be well pleased with someone who went up to him and said "Look what I did! I witnessed against evil things like this!" [pics of wonderful Indian wedding between two women]

Blimey. I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.

No loving being could find fault in all the beautiful joy in the ceremony pictured. If, in viewing such, one finds a negative thought, it tells more of the viewer's own failings than any in the viewed.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Louise:

quote:
I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

As for a God who'd be well pleased with someone who went up to him and said "Look what I did! I witnessed against evil things like this!" [pics of wonderful Indian wedding between two women]

Blimey. I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.
No loving being could find fault in all the beautiful joy in the ceremony pictured. If, in viewing such, one finds a negative thought, it tells more of the viewer's own failings than any in the viewed.

Yes very pretty pictures. I don't believe God looks just at the surface of things though. And outward beauty means less to God than our relationship with Him and our eternal salvation. If these two women are putting God first in their lives and sincerely following Jesus then I am sure He is delighted. Otherwise He weeps. I don't know their hearts so I cannot judge.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Of course there's a reason, and we can be assured its a good one. But does God owe us an explanation? Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?
Legally maybe God doesn't owe us an explanation. However, is God the sort to stand upon what he legally owes us? Or is God rather loving and gracious? After all, it's a lot easier to follow the spirit of a law when you understand the reasoning behind it. If you don't understand the reasoning behind it all you can do is follow the letter, and we're told we oughtn't to just follow the letter.

Painting this in terms of legality is the wrong perspective IMO. Perhaps it is a question of ability? God is omniscient, we are not. There are things He knows and understands that we cannot, however hard He may try to explain. Perhaps we can never understand, perhaps we may in time, but we are not mature enough yet. We are not God, but we must trust that God knows what He's doing. The alternative is to set us and our human understanding up as mini-gods and follow those as our Lord instead.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
When you start telling other people what 'they' must sacrifice then you get onto very dodgy ground indeed. The touchstone of the sheep and the goats reads much more to me like "So, what have you been doing recently for my 'least of these'?" than 'So, what have you done recently with your Bible to make other people's lives harder and more miserable, so as to show off how totally great you think I am?'.

I agree. As I've said repeatedly, I do not think that morality should be (or even can be) externally imposed. Without a personal belief then sacrifice is meaningless. God may ask us to self-sacrifice, but never to sacrifice others. I may believe that if I struggled with same-sex attraction, I would be wrong to act according to it, but I would not force others to restrain themselves the same way. I may try to convice others of the rightness of my position, but if they do not accept my argument I have no right to try to make them. People have to decide for themselves.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
I don't believe God looks just at the surface of things though. And outward beauty means less to God than our relationship with Him and our eternal salvation. If these two women are putting God first in their lives and sincerely following Jesus then I am sure He is delighted. Otherwise He weeps. I don't know their hearts so I cannot judge.

It's really extraordinary, and I suspect the Greeks had a word for a style of language which does this, but I couldn't help feeling that the meaning of the passage was the complete opposite of the last four words.

There was a radio programme on Wednesday, BBC Radio 4, on the development of the Talmud, and a teacher talked about the faces of God, an angry face for the Bible, a friendly face for the Talmud, and a laughing face for the aggadah (I guess the spelling), the stories and asides within Talmud. If God can have the friendly and the laughing faces, ought we to stick to the angry one when dealing with other people's lives? And for us, without Talmud, but with the Word made flesh, did not Jesus show those two further faces?

To be honest, if God is going to say, "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is" I would have extreme doubts about whether he actually deserves any love at all. (And I am not in the class of people under that injunction.) Mere humans who argue like that belong in the Purgatory thread about abuse.

I am catching up on the programme at the moment. I realise that there is a strong thread of a need to argue in my make up, like that of Jewish scholars, even to arguing with God. (And there is Biblical ground for that, is there not? Abraham arguing to save the people of the plains. Jesus teaching about the unjust judge.)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Hawk:

quote:
I don't believe God looks just at the surface of things though.

Nor do I.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
To be honest, if God is going to say, "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is" I would have extreme doubts about whether he actually deserves any love at all.

I don't believe such a command is intrinsically bad by itself. I think it is only considered bad when we do not understand the reasons for it.

As an illustration, what about if we swopped the subject of God's command from the renunciation of same-sex love to other loves where the reason for the prohibition is more obvious? What about if the love in question was that for another person's spouse, or for a type of character that would be harmful to you personally (i.e a recovering drug addict falling in love with a drug addict who was still using)? The benefits of choosing to renounce such attractions are clear in these cases. When the benefits of renouncing love make sense to us we are more willing to accept the argument you summarise as: "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is".

Such a command therefore isn't the problem, rather it is an expression of great love and care for the person's wellbeing. It is only when we don't see any immediete benefit to ourselves that we reject this command as unfair and abusive.

And again we are back to the real problem people have with the Biblical prohibition. It can be summarised as: "I don't understand". "But why can't I?" Because we don't immedietely understand God's prohibition we feel we are fully justified in rejecting it. Is that the correct response? I argue not necessarily.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

As an illustration, what about if we swopped the subject of God's command from the renunciation of same-sex love to other loves where the reason for the prohibition is more obvious? What about if the love in question was that for another person's spouse, or for a type of character that would be harmful to you personally (i.e a recovering drug addict falling in love with a drug addict who was still using)? The benefits of choosing to renounce such attractions are clear in these cases. When the benefits of renouncing love make sense to us we are more willing to accept the argument you summarise as: "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is".

Seriously? You are comparing relationships which are clearly harmful with same sex-relationships which are not.
You are saying God is explicitly being vague about this issue.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

And again we are back to the real problem people have with the Biblical prohibition. It can be summarised as: "I don't understand". "But why can't I?" Because we don't immedietely understand God's prohibition we feel we are fully justified in rejecting it. Is that the correct response? I argue not necessarily.

Is there any other prohibition widely considered to be still in force where there is not a plausible explanation why?

There are plenty of reasons why a prohibition on homosexuality might have made sense in Biblical times. None of those seem to be relevant any more (it's not associated with pagan religious practices; there isn't the same need for children to care for one in old age; there isn't the same set up of forced heterosexual marriage that would make homosexual activity automatically adulterous; there isn't the need to have lots of children to outbreed other nations and keep the army large). Every other prohibition that we still enforce (and, to be frank, plenty of the ones we don't, like that on usury) have a pretty clear benefit to us. It's not that it's impossible that God could see dangers that are hidden from us it's just surprising that it seems only to be in this case that people are prepared to go all in to insist that they must exist.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
As an illustration, what about if we swopped the subject of God's command from the renunciation of same-sex love to other loves where the reason for the prohibition is more obvious? What about if the love in question was that for another person's spouse, or for a type of character that would be harmful to you personally (i.e a recovering drug addict falling in love with a drug addict who was still using)?

Not to put to fine a point on it, but God didn't issue commands against either of those things. There is no commandment against marrying a drug addict, and the number of Old Testament patriarchs with multiple wives should put to rest the idea that God doesn't allow you to love, or even marry, someone else's husband.

Your argument seems to be "if you accept non-arbitrary rules that serve a good and legitimate purpose, you're also obligated to obey arbitrary rules that are actively harmful". That seems like a huge non-sequitur.

[ 18. July 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

How about not "not seeing an immediate benefit" but not seeing one ever, not after, for example, 30 years, doing what seems to be what is right?

I think one might have every right to argue the point. Frequently.

For oneself. For one's friends. For anyone.

But I don't think one has a right to argue that other people should accept such a state without question, when not under that compulsion oneself. Or, if under that compulsion, finding it easy.

It is not good for the man to be alone. Or woman (since at the time that was said, man included both).

I suppose it might just be worth the hellish state now if the price of not abstaining was hell later, but in that case, why can't everyone go through it?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are saying God is explicitly being vague about this issue.

I think God is quite clear about this issue myself. I appreciate others disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Is there any other prohibition widely considered to be still in force where there is not a plausible explanation why?

What do you mean by 'plausible'? According to which measure? If one is following a strict material rationalism for instance the injunction to follow no other gods but the Lord may not seem particularly plausible. If however you are following the precept that our creator and Lord knows what is best for us, then it is eminently plausible that his commands are good.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your argument seems to be "if you accept non-arbitrary rules that serve a good and legitimate purpose, you're also obligated to obey arbitrary rules that are actively harmful". That seems like a huge non-sequitur.

That's not my argument. My argument is that we are obliged to follow the Will of our God, whether His Will seems arbitrary to us or not.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think one might have every right to argue the point. Frequently.

Of course. Jacob actively wrestled with God. The Psalmists yelled at Him in their songs. The tradition of healthy, robust questioning of God is perfectly valid. He encourages it I believe.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is not good for the man to be alone. Or woman (since at the time that was said, man included both).

That is not the entirety of scripture's word on the subject of human relationships. Such broad-brush generalisation is massively qualified elsewhere. We cannot take this one verse as carte blanche justification for any relationship we fancy.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Worshipping other gods reduces our attention on God and reduces our capacity to discern his will for us. This follows naturally from the principle that there is one God and we seek to be in right relationship with him.

Christ himself said that all the law hangs on the two Great Commandments. Pretty much every commandment that we hold to be still in force about how we relate to one another can be reasonably interpreted as a violation of the second, whether it be coveting the possessions of others, bearing false witness, adultery, stealing etc. and those that can't have demonstrable practical physical and mental harms to us, such as drunkenness. They are meant to keep us safe from harm, out of God's love for us. If we harm ourselves then we reject God's love.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is not good for the man to be alone. Or woman (since at the time that was said, man included both).
That is not the entirety of scripture's word on the subject of human relationships. Such broad-brush generalisation is massively qualified elsewhere. We cannot take this one verse as carte blanche justification for any relationship we fancy.

One can take it as an injunction not to demand that others must live alone, solitary, lonely, without companionship..... which I take it is what God is talking about in Genesis. He, from what follows, is certainly not suggesting that the problem can be solved by keeping a cat or a dog, or a hamster.....

And I don't think this argument is about "fancy". It is about love, which is not a matter of a trivial gawping at someone with a fit body. From what I can make out, gays are just as much interested in the marriage of true minds as heterosexuals.

If God wants homesexuals to live celibate, he could have made them to be among nature's natural celibates. Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.

Love, Goodness... they don't go with creating a class of people whose sole purpose is to be second class people who are to be denied the sort of relationship which is supposed to resemble the relationship with god, while having the feelings that belong with that sort of relationship.

Incidentally, it isn't just the Bible which has an opinion about people being alone - there are umpteen scientific papers about the need for people to live in relationships with other people. We are social creatures, and grow very far from being fully human if we grow in solitude.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

At the end of the day those who preach and inveigh against SSM are simply ignorant of lived human experience. My same-sex spouse and I will have been together for 39 years this coming November; we got legally hitched in Canada a decade ago this month when SSM effectively became the law there. How could anyone think that genital sex is what keeps a couple together for an extended period of time, or that our relationship doesn't serve the objective functions and purposes of any other marriage, or share the basic characteristics common to marriages -- all save biological conception of children, something that I think we've established isn't an essential characteristic of marriage, since many heterosexual marriages are not characterised by biological conception of progeny (and this was even truer prior to the modern era of IVF and other medical interventions to restore or promote fertility)?

As to the Bible, some of us don't think it's a book of comprehensive instructions and answers to every specific human problem and condition that may come along. We reject the notion that it should be employed that way, or that it is anything but a very heterogenous and sometimes ambiguous collection of writings, some of which defy reality, justice, humane conduct, and a scientific understanding of the world at many levels. The Bible contains everything from the sublime to hogwash, from high principles to injuctions that are blatantly evil, unfit for purpose and quite past their sell-by date.

I'd suggest the Church would do better to engage with its scriptural canon in a way similar to that of Reform Judaism.

[ 19. July 2013, 12:49: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your argument seems to be "if you accept non-arbitrary rules that serve a good and legitimate purpose, you're also obligated to obey arbitrary rules that are actively harmful". That seems like a huge non-sequitur.
That's not my argument. My argument is that we are obliged to follow the Will of our God, whether His Will seems arbitrary to us or not.

If that's the case, then why the non-sequitur about 'what if God's commands made sense'? If making sense or being beneficial are irrelevant, why bring them up?

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
How could anyone think that genital sex is what keeps a couple together for an extended period of time, or that our relationship doesn't serve the objective functions and purposes of any other marriage, or share the basic characteristics common to marriages -- all save biological conception of children, something that I think we've established isn't an essential characteristic of marriage, since many heterosexual marriages are not characterised by biological conception of progeny (and this was even truer prior to the modern era of IVF and other medical interventions to restore or promote fertility)?

How? Hawk illustrates exactly how this works. God says your relationship is evil/wrong/immoral/whatever, therefore it must be so. Of course, God doesn't really make personal statements like that these days, so it's more along the lines of "Hawk says that God says . . . "

At any rate, as Hawk has helpfully pointed out, whether you can fulfill "the objective functions and purposes of any other marriage" is irrelevant. God's will is functionally arbitrary and doesn't have to be consistent. Although it does seem to always be consistent with the prejudices of whoever happens to be speaking on God's behalf. Funny that.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If God wants homesexuals to live celibate, he could have made them to be among nature's natural celibates. Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.

If God wanted his people to not sin, he should have made us naturally unsinful. Not allowed us to know the temptations of the world then said "NO! and I'm not going to tell you why."

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Incidentally, it isn't just the Bible which has an opinion about people being alone - there are umpteen scientific papers about the need for people to live in relationships with other people. We are social creatures, and grow very far from being fully human if we grow in solitude.

I read an interesting article today in Christianity Magazine about three men dealing with same-sex attraction who still hold to the belief that the Bible prohibits them from acting on these attractions. Perhaps a quote from one of them would be helpful here:

‘One of society’s mistakes is the belief that intimacy equals sex, and therefore the Bible is asking us to pass up intimate relationships and lead sad, lonely lives instead. It’s not true. The Bible sees friendship as an amazingly intimate relationship. I have a greater capacity for deep relationships with many people than my married friends do.’

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
God's will is functionally arbitrary and doesn't have to be consistent.

God's will is not functionally arbitrary, and it is always beneficial. However, I do recognise that it may seem arbitrary or unbeneficial to us sometimes because we don't know everything that God knows.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If God wants homesexuals to live celibate, he could have made them to be among nature's natural celibates. Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.
If God wanted his people to not sin, he should have made us naturally unsinful. Not allowed us to know the temptations of the world then said "NO! and I'm not going to tell you why."

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Incidentally, it isn't just the Bible which has an opinion about people being alone - there are umpteen scientific papers about the need for people to live in relationships with other people. We are social creatures, and grow very far from being fully human if we grow in solitude.
I read an interesting article today in Christianity Magazine about three men dealing with same-sex attraction who still hold to the belief that the Bible prohibits them from acting on these attractions. Perhaps a quote from one of them would be helpful here:

‘One of society’s mistakes is the belief that intimacy equals sex, and therefore the Bible is asking us to pass up intimate relationships and lead sad, lonely lives instead. It’s not true. The Bible sees friendship as an amazingly intimate relationship. I have a greater capacity for deep relationships with many people than my married friends do.’

Hawk, what this pathetic tale of sexually conflicted homosexuals and their self-justifying internalised homophobia fails to take into account is that a good marriage provides not just for genital sexual expression but also for specifically physical intimacy and prolonged physical contact comfort that is integrated with emotional/psychological intimacy. Sharing a bed with your spouse and prolonged physical cuddling in a state of relative undress - absent on most occasions any strong or consciously detectable sexual arousal - is a species of intimacy that is important to many, if not most, people (I would assert) and one that probably can't be achieved via mere friendships (even friendships with a lot of "intimacy"). Or do you think that's it's all ok as long as nothing "nasty" happens?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've read that article and it doesn't come across to me as though these men are suffering from 'internalised homophobia'. They've chosen a path that makes sense to them. And they don't attempt to rubbish what Steve Chalke and others are doing, even though they disagree with it.

The new website will presumably help gay Christians who want to be honest about their same-sex attraction yet also want to be celibate. I imagine there are other websites that support gay Christians who want to remain in sexual relationships. It's a matter of choice and individual understanding.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

You can find women who've voluntarily taken up radical Islam extolling how 'liberating' it is to wear the niqab and submit themselves to men and live a life severely restricted by sexual apartheid, applied to any man who's not family, child or husband. From time to time The Guardian or similar publications run columns from such people. In some senses - like people who choose BDSM lifetyles - whatever floats their boat and makes them happy, but in terms of the happiness of womankind in general- these people should never be allowed to get anywhere near setting laws or norms for other people or we'd all end up back in the dark ages. Of course people who'd like to see women back in the bedroom and kitchen being properly subservient to men, just love these sort of people and their Christian equivalents...

A historian I was working with recently was talking about Britishness as a nationalism and commented

"the problem with it is that it can be like fundamentalist religion and take otherwise sincere and honest proponents into very dark places'

And in a nutshell that's the problem with the whole 'God's will' must be 'ultimately beneficial' blind trust stuff - it ultimately can become an excuse for anything. Having spent years of my life cataloguing and studying early modern/late medieval religious sources, including many spiritual diaries, I can tell you there's plenty of times people sincerely assure themselves and others that something is 'God's will' and it all ends in tears, massacre, persecution, witch burning, misery, looney tunes prophecy etc. Nobody has ever turned this into an exact science that doesn't make horrifying cock-ups that need to be smashed by compassion.

Perhaps the saddest thing I ever saw was the voluminous thousands-of-pages over many years diary of a superhero of protestant conversion-centred piety. This was someone who would make Billy Graham look like a dangerous laid-back liberal who lies in bed on a Sunday morning. The level of religious devotion and constant prayer and attempts to discern God's will from Bible reading was amazing. Watching this man's downfall as he kidded himself on about what God was telling him was just heart-breaking, and it all ended at the end of a rope. In some of the last entries before he died, he got a modicum of self-awareness about how he persecuted others and sent them to their deaths thinking it was God's will. Awful awful awful tragic terrible stuff,and by the time he got any insight into it, too late for the blood on his hands, too late for him.

And these same people I studied - devout in a way you could hardly find now, had an even more toxic version of 'putting God before human beings' where they'd worry that if they loved a child or a spouse too much they were making them into an 'idol' and setting them up before God - so if the child or spouse died (as they frequently did in Early modern times) they would blame themselves.

And these same amazing godly people accepted without a whimper stripping people naked, shaving their bodies, sexually humiliating them, sleep depriving them, torturing them with long thick pins shoved repeatedly into their bodies, and then having them strangled and burned - alive sometimes when someone refused to confess. And all this for imaginary crimes.

Not one, not a single evangelical godly minister who spent all day trying to live by and submit to God's will raised a whimper about this. It was a side-switching lawyer who betrayed the godly people for promotion who first spoke out about this cruelty and applied common sense and humanity to the Scottish witch-hunt - Mackenzie of Rosehaugh.

Claiming a personal interpretation of 'God's will' must be 'ultimately beneficial' is a cop-out. Tell it to the witches.

Gay people have been speaking out for decades about the effect of religious taboos and discriminatory laws which originate in those taboos. There are huge threads on this board alone, going back in some cases over ten years where you can read the testimonies of gay and lesbian people here about what they've gone through. When people prefer to screen out 99% of testimony and listen only to the tiny minority who've put conservative religious conformity before challenging heterosexual-imposed policing and limiting of their relationships, then they become willing accessories to perpetuating the injustice and suffering that goes with that policing and limiting.

When people choose to screen out the overwhelming testimony of LGBT people to the wrong that conservative religion has done them, preferring instead outliers who support their views and their own theories of what limits gay people ought to accept it's not a mysterious and inscrutable God who's to blame, it's human hearts, refusing to accept that a Biblical interpretation which has harmed so many people is a human invention that needs to go, like all the others which in the end turned out in practice to be senseless and unjust.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

OK, so one of the blokes is actually bisexual and can get it up for a woman, whilst believing sex with other guys is a no-no. The other two are unequivocally gay and choose to run their lives according to a few select bits of ancient, culturally irrelevant scripture at the expense of being true to their essential telos. I have little doubt that they are poorly individuated from their families of origin and pathologically dependent in terms of having to rely on someone else's particular interpretation and slant on a collection of books that are declared unequivocally authoritative about everything -- you might as well believe that the world was created in seven days, God flooded the entire earth, there were two literal people who started the whole human race after having been directly manufactured by God, etc., etc. Oh please, do buy a clue!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

A few nit-picks:

*burning was the punishment for heresy and not witchcraft, in England at least

*the niqab is not only worn by women who are part of fundamentalist Islam but many ordinary Muslim women

*those involved in BDSM lifestyles (as opposed to it being bedroom-only) are strongly connected to the LGBTQ community and wouldn't impose it (BDSM as a lifestyle) on anyone - consent is of paramount importance

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Apropos of Louise, I read today that George Zimmerman has rationalised his killing of Trayvon Martin as being God's will.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A few nit-picks:

*burning was the punishment for heresy and not witchcraft, in England at least

*the niqab is not only worn by women who are part of fundamentalist Islam but many ordinary Muslim women

*those involved in BDSM lifestyles (as opposed to it being bedroom-only) are strongly connected to the LGBTQ community and wouldn't impose it (BDSM as a lifestyle) on anyone - consent is of paramount importance

(1) I'm a Scottish specialist writing about Scottish history. It's burning here - usually preceded by being strangled - but in some high profile cases burning alive eg. Euphame Macalzean

(2) 'Ordinary' in the sense of usually still subscribing to what amounts to sexual apartheid, wanting to separate women from men outside the family. By a similar token you get ordinary Free Presbyterian women - the doctrines and beliefs are still anti-woman however nice individual proponents might be. Though I was thinking in particular of 'zeal of the convert' cases.

(3) Yes, that's why I drew the distinction between stuff to which I say 'whatever' and stuff where people would genuinely like to impose their sexual attitudes on others.

[ 19. July 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
[...]Oh please, do buy a clue!

I think that was all a bit much, really.

IMO creating and allowing for religious diversity in matters sexual, among others, is a far more urgent task than condemning people whose beliefs cause them to live differently, since there's never going to be a Christian consensus when it comes to sexual behaviour. Yes, Christians disagree on all sorts of things - including the Creation - and this is just one of them.

As for the niqab, every day I see women wearing it and going about their business. It would be tiring to be offended by it all the time, although I'd appreciate hearing more Muslim women talking about what it means to them.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
God's will is functionally arbitrary and doesn't have to be consistent.
God's will is not functionally arbitrary, and it is always beneficial. However, I do recognise that it may seem arbitrary or unbeneficial to us sometimes because we don't know everything that God knows.

And how is that any different than being functionally arbitrary? Take, for example, God's will that women not vote or hold political power. Or, at least, I'm told that was God's will up until the early twentieth century. Many of the more religious anti-suffragists wrote extensively and with great certainty about how God supported and endorsed their position. At some point either God changed His mind or, as the more piously inclined would argue, our understanding of God's will improved. The obvious counter-argument is that even if it seems seem arbitrary or unbeneficial to deny women the vote, it makes sense from the perspective of God's infinite wisdom.

In short, how is appealing to "God's superior wisdom" (or whatever phrase you'd prefer) as a justification for apparent injustice distinguishable from petty authoritarianism?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
[...]Oh please, do buy a clue!
I think that was all a bit much, really.

IMO creating and allowing for religious diversity in matters sexual, among others, is a far more urgent task than condemning people whose beliefs cause them to live differently, since there's never going to be a Christian consensus when it comes to sexual behaviour. Yes, Christians disagree on all sorts of things - including the Creation - and this is just one of them.

As for the niqab, every day I see women wearing it and going about their business. It would be tiring to be offended by it all the time, although I'd appreciate hearing more Muslim women talking about what it means to them.

Agreed. If we insist on taking into account lived experiences when it comes to LGBTQ issues (as we should), we should do the same for Islam.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

And the lived experiences of the women who fought against such dress codes, sometimes paying with their lives or disfigurement with acid or beatings from religious police. And the lived experiences of those for whom segregation and 'separate but equal' were anything but empowering. And the lived experiences of the women in other countries being driven out of their jobs as conservative religious men demand dress codes & sex segregation to enforce modesty.

You can often find people who will proclaim traditional methods of controlling & policing them to be 'empowering'. It doesn't mean it should always be accepted at face value.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It always amazes me that there are people who claim to have perfect understanding of "God's Will" and how it should be applied to ruin other peoples lives.

I don't understand how they don't think that it was Satan speaking to them in their pride and not their divinely inspired interpretation of scriptures.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Oh please, do buy a clue!

So your first argument was that anyone who disagrees with you about same-sex attraction is "simply ignorant of lived human experience". Then when I show you three examples of people who have great first hand knowledge of the lived human experience of this, you choose to quickly reject their sincere testimony as 'pathetic', 'internalised homophobia', 'pathologically dependent' and the rest. Based on no evidence but your own decision that they must be. Have you ever considered that other people could make different choices to you and not be ignorant, evil or pathologically disturbed? Or does disagreeing with you automatically put them beyond the pale?

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: The other two are unequivocally gay and choose to run their lives according to a few select bits of ancient, culturally irrelevant scripture at the expense of being true to their essential telos.

I think it is interesting that a) you deride scripture as well as the faith of these two Christians, and b) that you seem to consider 'being true to oneself' as the highest goal in life. I would disagree with both of these fundamentals for your argument. I do not consider scripture so irrelevant, and I do not consider following myself so important.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Hawk,
There have been Sikh members of the EDL like Guramit Singh. No doubt they have fascinating stories to tell. They're still highly unrepresentative people who serve as a fig leaf for profoundly damaging racist attitudes. You mention three cases. From these boards and threads alone, never mind going further afield, you can see how unrepresentative that is of LGBT people. This is cherry picking. It's listening to what you want to hear with no regard as to how unrepresentative it is. It's as just as people judging evangelicals by Christian Voice and prosperity gospellers. If that's not how you'd like to be misrepresented, then kindly don't do it to others.

[ 19. July 2013, 23:32: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

Louise, I don't think minorities should be ignored or considered unimportant just because they aren't representative of the majority. I'm sorry that minority opinions trouble you so much.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Hawk, could you listen to those of us who are actually LGBTQ? We have lived this life, you have not. You are never going to be told to be celibate or that you should be 'cured'. Why not listen to us and our experiences? You seem to only want to listen to those who agree with you. I have listened to you and those who think like you - I think you are wrong but I have still listened.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
And the lived experiences of the women who fought against such dress codes, sometimes paying with their lives or disfigurement with acid or beatings from religious police. And the lived experiences of those for whom segregation and 'separate but equal' were anything but empowering. And the lived experiences of the women in other countries being driven out of their jobs as conservative religious men demand dress codes & sex segregation to enforce modesty.

You can often find people who will proclaim traditional methods of controlling & policing them to be 'empowering'. It doesn't mean it should always be accepted at face value.

Louise, do you think Islam is inherently anti-woman?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Like Christianity and Judaism it has some conservative forms which are. Pretending it doesn't is like telling gay people to shut up because all Christianity is gay friendly and how dare they point out the bits which aren't. Happy to take you through what different forms of Conservative shiism, deobandis and Salafis think in Purgatory in distinction to what more moderate forms look like if you want, but frankly it's a derail here and you could look that stuff up yourself and understand that Islam is not monolithic and that some forms are extremely homophobic and sexist just like some forms of Christianity.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Louise, I don't think minorities should be ignored or considered unimportant just because they aren't representative of the majority. I'm sorry that minority opinions trouble you so much.

It's not an honest tactic, Hawk, for someone to focus on a tiny unrepresentative minority of an minority and to use that as a fig-leaf and excuse for ignoring and minimising wrong-doing on a large scale. It's the Guramit Singh trick.

I ask again, would you be happy if those tactics were used against evangelicals who are discriminated against?

Eg. Are Christians persecuted by the government in China? Not at all! Just ask the state recognised churches! They can give you some wonderful testimonies as to how they have it so good. Just ignore those naughty people in the House Churches who keep testifying to the opposite! No need for anyone to listen to overwhelming testimony of evangelical Christians who are being discriminated against as long as a few who embrace the party line can be found... Don't want to listen to these people who embrace the party line? Obviously you think that minority is unimportant. I'm sorry that minority opinions trouble you so much. The Chinese government should stick to the line supported by these sincere testimonies. Right?

You're arguing for a position which has been found to be harmful to others to a huge extent. The best argument you have for it, so far, is that anything you reckon from your reading of scripture to be God's will must ultimately be beneficial, even if available evidence is that it has harmed people on a long term and severe scale. The idea that we can ignore and discount so many people's suffering on the basis of a personal reading of the Bible has a long and horrific history behind it, some of which I've sketched for you.

How does your 'ultimately beneficial' argument stack up in the light of so many good sincere and godly witch-hunters, persecutors of innocent Catholics and gender-policers of women who denied suffrage, higher education and equal rights in employment and law to women on the basis of scriptural interpretation of gender roles? Were all these devout people wrong in what they did on the basis of faith and Biblical interpretation, but you will turn out to be right? Or do you think they were right in turning an ear made deaf by scripture to the testimony of those they harmed?

When a scriptural interpretation causes harm on a large scale to people who are not harming you, it's time to drop that interpretation for fear that a human interpretation is being used to do harm to others under the guise of good, as has happened so many times before.

I'd like to believe that God will find it in his heart to be charitable to the witch-hunters because they really didn't know what they did, but I'd be terrified to be in their shoes when they no longer see through a glass darkly, but realise what they did. I cant match them for observance and devotion and discipline, but I do think it's possible to learn from them that biblical interpretation should never override basic human compassion. When you find yourself having to make excuses for shutting your ears to repeated overwhelming testimony that something is harming others on a large scale, then that's the type of thing that's going on.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Like Christianity and Judaism it has some conservative forms which are. Pretending it doesn't is like telling gay people to shut up because all Christianity is gay friendly and how dare they point out the bits which aren't. Happy to take you through what different forms of Conservative shiism, deobandis and Salafis think in Purgatory in distinction to what more moderate forms look like if you want, but frankly it's a derail here and you could look that stuff up yourself and understand that Islam is not monolithic and that some forms are extremely homophobic and sexist just like some forms of Christianity.

I'm well aware that Islam is not a monolith, but IME the media portrayal and general assumptions about Islam is that it's extremely sexist and homophobic in its entirety, and more liberal branches get ignored. I am not at all ignorant on what various branches of Islam believe but neither am I ignorant to the fact that a huge amount of racism is involved in labelling Islam as inherently misogynistic and homophobic. Intersectionality is needed.

And it is related to the OP, because I dislike the comparison drawn between the nice white LGBT people and the mean brown Muslim people. It doesn't work like that - Islam isn't any more homophobic than Christianity and many LGBT people and allies exist within Islam. You can't properly discuss homophobia without discussing race or class or gender.

And I am LGBT and I don't think anyone pretends that all of Christianity (or Islam) is gay-friendly so I have no idea where you got that from. Most people assume that all of Christianity is homophobic IME.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Hawk, could you listen to those of us who are actually LGBTQ? We have lived this life, you have not. You are never going to be told to be celibate or that you should be 'cured'. Why not listen to us and our experiences? You seem to only want to listen to those who agree with you. I have listened to you and those who think like you - I think you are wrong but I have still listened.

Why do you think I haven't listened? I have listened to you and those who think like you - I think you are wrong but I have still listened.

Louise, I am fully aware that the three people in the article I linked to are unrepresentative of gay Christians as a whole. Just as I am aware that gay Christians are unrepresentative of Christians in general and Christians are unrepresentative of the human race in general. I don't know why you think I've ever argued otherwise.

From reading the accounts of such people I can well see how small the gate and narrow the way is, and can understand why so few choose to take it. But for some people who are struggling with the issue of reconciling their faith and their sexuality, maybe the testimonies of a few who have gone ahead and found that same-sex celibacy is both possible, and can lead to a good and happy life, will encourage and comfort them.

And you argue that because something like same-sex celibacy, or the niqab, or many other religious practices, have been used to hurt and oppress people terribly, then the practice itself should be discarded as an intrinsically evil thing. This to me is the same as Dawkins' argument that because Christianity has been used to oppress and cause suffering, it should be discarded as an inherently evil thing in itself. It is a wrong approach that I think entirely misses the target.

For instance burning people for being witches was wrong and horrible. Christianity and witchcraft are still just as incompatible today though. The problem was the oppression. The solution was to stop the oppression. Not to remove the Christian prohibition against witchcraft.

[ 20. July 2013, 21:53: Message edited by: Hawk ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Except these people weren't witches. They were, with very few exceptions, innocent Christians manipulated into confessing by a process of ill-treatment overseen and encouraged by godly ministers who were convinced that they were doing God's will.

And my point is that people cannot know for sure whether they are doing God's will or not, even with access to the 'best Reformed divines' as they used to say, but they can certainly tell when people are suffering on a large scale - except when they close their ears because they are so certain their reading of the Bible is right and therefore they don't feel a need to go beyond it.

The same applies to the world of Dawkins when people are so sure of scientific theories they feel they don't need to bother worrying about the suffering of the people they apply their theories to - about syphilis or eugenics for example (think Tuskegee experiment)

quote:
And you argue that because something like same-sex celibacy, or the niqab, or many other religious practices, have been used to hurt and oppress people terribly, then the practice itself should be discarded as an intrinsically evil thing. This to me is the same as Dawkins' argument that because Christianity has been used to oppress and cause suffering, it should be discarded as an inherently evil thing in itself.

Not quite, my argument is that when a practice generates large amounts of evidence of long term suffering or harm, there needs to be a way for it to be discarded. For instance in science, Andrew Wakefield carried out an abusive fraud concerning autism research with terrible results - but there was a way to dismiss him from his posts and withdraw his false research article. Therefore it can't be said that because abusive scientists and bad practices exist that all science is abusive and must be discarded. Likewise, in Christianity, the existence of bad apples and bad practices don't invalidate the whole enterprise - but the inability to correct or remove bad practices is something else entirely.

Ecclesia semper reformanda est (Latin for "the church is always to be reformed") - if there are not correction mechanisms for abusive practices, then churches become corrupt and harmful. People used to think it was enough to try to get as close as possible to the doctrine and practice of the early church. The evidence of studying the periods of history when people were most passionate about that show that it wasn't enough to prevent terrible abuses.

My argument is that in the face of repeated evidence and testimony of harm, we should put our biblical interpretations away and admit we cannot be certain enough of God's will to be sure we're justified to cause such harm. There is too much historical evidence that we can't be trusted with that call. Both science and religion need to be tempered by the best we can manage in the way of compassion and listening and valuing others as our equals. I'd rather muddle through with doing my best to give others what I take forgranted for myself than be very sure the Bible tells me to deprive them of it. If that makes sense.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
... But for some people who are struggling with the issue of reconciling their faith and their sexuality, maybe the testimonies of a few who have gone ahead and found that same-sex celibacy is both possible, and can lead to a good and happy life, will encourage and comfort them. ...

And again, the real life experience that you claim to have listened to shows that while this shit may comfort and encourage a few, it decidedly does NOT yield a "good and happy life" for the vast majority. As we say on the Ship, suffering for one's faith makes a martyr; forcing others to suffer for one's faith makes one ... well, there's just no nice word for it.

Let's say we decide to start using pi = 22/7 for all calculations from rocket orbits* to table settings, because that's what it is in the Bible. Would Christians insist everyone continue to use the Biblical definition of pi when shit started falling down all around? Or would Christians say, "Hey, everybody, it's all part of God's plan, you just can't see it. And anyone who tries to calculate pi clearly doesn't trust God's Word. Yes, we've watched the bridges collapse and people die. That doesn't matter. What's important is that we trust God's Word."

ETA Trajectories, not orbits. Or planets, not rockets. Yeesh, what kind of sci-fi geek am I?

[ 20. July 2013, 23:34: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
... But for some people who are struggling with the issue of reconciling their faith and their sexuality, maybe the testimonies of a few who have gone ahead and found that same-sex celibacy is both possible, and can lead to a good and happy life, will encourage and comfort them. ...

And again, the real life experience that you claim to have listened to shows that while this shit may comfort and encourage a few, it decidedly does NOT yield a "good and happy life" for the vast majority. As we say on the Ship, suffering for one's faith makes a martyr; forcing others to suffer for one's faith makes one ... well, there's just no nice word for it.

The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.

These guys are attending a support group in London. In London you can get anything you want, in churches as in everything else, no matter how strange it may seem. A fascinating city.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.

However, if they are being held up as an example us lesbians and gay men, as Hawk seems to be doing, that is different.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.

These guys are attending a support group in London. In London you can get anything you want, in churches as in everything else, no matter how strange it may seem. A fascinating city. [/QB]

Although London can get expensive if you want to be beaten regularly. [Big Grin]

The problem with these support groups is young people get funneled into them by their families and spiritual advisors who know God's will without telling them there are alternatives that aren't a life of misery,
It's not too dissimilar to those medieval convents where inconvenient younger daughters were sent without their consent to be dedicated to God's will by their families.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Me: Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hawk:If God wanted his people to not sin, he should have made us naturally unsinful. Not allowed us to know the temptations of the world then said "NO! and I'm not going to tell you why."

What I was writing about, as should have been obvious, was not a temptation. Unless the offer of a proper loving personal relationship with someone is a temptation. In which case it is for heterosexuals as well. I was writing about a scenario in which someone becomes aware of being drawn, in love, remember, not lust, and sees the possibility of a fulfilled life together like that available to heterosexuals, only to be told that it is not available, but without being told the reason.

Do read what people mean - and as Louise says, there are plenty of people about who can say better than I what these lives are really about.

And do you believe that God really wants us to sin? So he has made sin so attractive, so looking like a good, that resisting it is terribly difficult, just so he can test us? That's like Philip Gosse suggesting that he planted fossils in the rocks to test our faith. Who is this person? (That's God, not Philip Gosse.) And why in heaven's name should we care what he thinks at all?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.

It should then simply be a Celibacy Support Group, no prefix needed.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The friendship issue is a problem when the world is organised into families who do family things in the times when people aren't working.
It may be easier for men to get together outside the home - I wouldn't know.
But it occurs to me that the only people around to be friends with would be the ones without families. And apart from the ones you wouldn't want to be friends with for the same reasons as they don't have families, who isn't going to be married?
Ah, if you are homosexual, it's the ones you can't mix with because they are the same as you and would be a temptation?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I would hope that this kind of support group wouldn't be used as a dumping ground for 'young people' who are clearly uncomfortable about being there. If I were a willing adult member of the group I wouldn't find it helpful for my own development to be alongside younger members who were only turning up to please their parents!! What a bore!

True, a group like this will be an 'example' to gay Christians in the sense that it'll reflect the theology of some churches rather than others. But in the pluralistic environment of the modern British city, especially London, I shouldn't think there are any gay Christians who are entirely ignorant of other 'examples' that are available to them.

Modern Britain is a hybrid place. People have overlapping and changing identities and don't feel they have to be carbon copies of their parents. Gay teenagers presumably have access to the internet as other teenagers do, and Christian homeschooling doesn't seem to be a phenomenon. Other countries may be different.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.
It should then simply be a Celibacy Support Group, no prefix needed.

Excellent point. If people are committing to celibacy, it doesn't really matter if it is straight celibacy or gay celibacy!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Celibacy is a gift and a vocation from God. It is the calling of a minority of people, gay and straight, and has always had an honoured place in the Church. The Roman Catholic church, IMHO, confuses the issue somewhat by conflating the vocations of priesthood and celibacy, but at least if you don't feel called to celibacy you don't have to be a priest.

It's strange that evangelicals should have rediscovered celibacy after years of treating the unmarried as second class citizens (and often, regarding monasticism as unnatural and/or unbiblical). But of course it's not celibacy as a freely-chosen response to a calling, but celibacy as the punishment for being gay.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.
It should then simply be a Celibacy Support Group, no prefix needed.
Excellent point. If people are committing to celibacy, it doesn't really matter if it is straight celibacy or gay celibacy!

I agree that churches that value chastity should definitely do more to support all single members in living celibate lives, and to help all their members to respect celibacy. I don't think many churches (whether liberal, MOTR or evangelical) are very good at discussing these issues with straight people, so they're hardly going to be any better with gay people!

I suppose that a mixed support group that met over a limited period of time could have some optional sessions that dealt specifically with issues concerning homosexuality and others that dealt with heterosexuality.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose that a mixed support group that met over a limited period of time could have some optional sessions that dealt specifically with issues concerning homosexuality and others that dealt with heterosexuality.

I am struggling to think of any issues that celibate homosexuals have that celibate heterosexuals don't have and vice versa. The only issue I can think of is that apparently heterosexual desires are supposed to be merely natural and so not supposed to be essentially sinful under all circumstances. That rather vitiates the argument that conservative homosexuals have it no worse than celibate heterosexuals.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

The big difference is, that from a particular conservative theological position, celibacy for a heterosexual can be a case of 'until I meet the right person, and get married' whereas celibacy for a homosexual does not have this 'get out' clause. Not comparable at all.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The men in the article aren't attempting to make others suffer for their faith. They're simply offering a position and a resource for gay Christians who want to be celibate. Gay Christians who dismiss the idea of celibacy for themselves will look elsewhere for support, if they need it.
It should then simply be a Celibacy Support Group, no prefix needed.
Excellent point. If people are committing to celibacy, it doesn't really matter if it is straight celibacy or gay celibacy!

I imagine 'gay celibacy' is rather like Bad AIDS.

[ 21. July 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

My point isn't exactly that 'conservative homosexuals have it no worse than celibate heterosexuals', but that those who believe in celibacy for themselves are in the same practical situation as a straight single conservative Christian. Practical guidance about how to live with celibacy must be similar for gay and straight single Christians. But there's obviously the theological difference that means a straight conservative/traditional Christian might hope marry and have sex, whereas a gay one won't. (Many straight, single, traditional Christian women also have to face lifelong celibacy, however. These women get little support from their churches.)

I don't know what the strategy ought to be for gay conservative Christians who want to be affirmed in their relationships. They can work to make their conservative churches less conservative, or they can attend much more liberal churches and try to make them more more conservative. If their immediate personal happiness is the priority then the second option is preferable. On the other hand, the message from sociology is that over time conservative churches are more likely to become liberal than vice versa.

[ 21. July 2013, 21:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I would hope that this kind of support group wouldn't be used as a dumping ground for 'young people' who are clearly uncomfortable about being there. If I were a willing adult member of the group I wouldn't find it helpful for my own development to be alongside younger members who were only turning up to please their parents!! What a bore!

The young people are often under a great deal of pressure to pretend to be repentant and interested. I have a friend who runs a gay youth center, that deals with homeless gay youth. These gay youth often differ from many of the usual homeless youth that they are high functioning college bound youth who were thrown out of their Christian families when they were found to be Gay. This is in Seattle, which is on the whole a fairly liberal big city.
There's also the tremendous amount of guilt induced by Christian finger wagers who know God's intentions for the gays. This creates a large group who are older but vulnerable to groups who will ruin their lives.

Gay people know is just how often the leaders of these groups are themselves struggling homosexuals, and many of them have failed over the years, but do not leave their organization. It's not an uncommon story to hear of a someone escaping such a group who was seduced or hit on by one of the group organizers.
You can also find these ex-gay workers out in Gay Bars. This is something seen by Gay people, but not by straight unless it makes the newspapers.

These sotry are from the largely discredited ex-gay ministries. However the same pressures apply to those who have been shamed or coerced into the celibacy groups which are a reformulation of the ex-gay groups.

ex gay statistics describes some of this.

quote:

The post links to a study by Dr Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder called "Changing Sexual Orientation: a consumer's report" that was published in a peer reviewed journal in 2001.

Here are some findings from the study:

Study subjects: 202
Number that were no longer struggling and were fully heterosexual: 8
Of those 8, number that were not employees or volunteers of ex-gay groups: 1
Number that felt they had failed: 176
Number who felt conversion had done long term harm: 155
Number who attempted suicide during therapy: 23
Number who attempted suicide after therapy: 11
Number who reported spiritual harm: 100
Brady concludes,
So, according to this study, 1 person (arguably 8) of 202 were turned straight through therapy--a result I'd imagine was the goal of the people that entered the ex-gay therapies. At the same time, 100 had their faith dramatically harmed by therapy (if you're Christian, we're talking about their salvation here). And nearly 4 times the number that turned straight tried to kill themselves during therapy.

Since you seem to know of some wonderful celibacy groups that are doing good things for gays, why don't you check what their rules are for youth and young adult participation? My assumption is that they are all the same line of crap the ex-gay ministries, who are still in business.

quote:
True, a group like this will be an 'example' to gay Christians in the sense that it'll reflect the theology of some churches rather than others. But in the pluralistic environment of the modern British city, especially London, I shouldn't think there are any gay Christians who are entirely ignorant of other 'examples' that are available to them.

Many start with the church they belong to by accident of birth. Depending on the church, there's no shortage of people telling them that the other examples are lies from evil bad Christians. Your argument is; well if you go down that street you are likely to be mugged, but there are plenty of other streets you could go down.

quote:
Modern Britain is a hybrid place. People have overlapping and changing identities and don't feel they have to be carbon copies of their parents. Gay teenagers presumably have access to the internet as other teenagers do, and Christian homeschooling doesn't seem to be a phenomenon. Other countries may be different.

The internet is often a lifesaver. See the
It gets better site or You Tube. These are mainly American but include Scotland and England. Most of the videos are from adults telling the kids to hang in there till they are old enough to escape But if you look at videos made from by gay youth describing their circumstances, it's clear that they often get unrelenting pressure from their families, schools and churches. A youth doesn't have to be home schooled to get the message that you are bad if you are thought to be gay at school.
You are trivializing those pressures, which any number of people on here can tell you about from their personal experience.

[Edited to fix faulty URL]

[ 22. July 2013, 22:10: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Following on from Palimpsest's post to pick up on homophobic bullying issue in schools in the UK. I follow a guy called Shaun Dellenty on Twitter, who is a gay deputy headteacher, and is campaigning against homophobic bullying in schools (this is all state schools, not just church schools) with Inclusion for All. It's partly his campaign that's triggered the Parliamentary questions. He set up a petition to get it debated and has launched a huge publicity campaign.

His Youtube video from It Gets Better and his recent article in the Guardian newspaper tells you a bit more about him.

The UK was just about beginning to challenge homophobia in schools when the then Tory Government enacted Section 28 in 1988. It was repealed in 2000. From wikipedia:

quote:
The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"

That left teachers in the UK for the most part unable to challenge homophobia in schools* and there has been a hangover around this from some teachers leaving them unable/uncomfortable/without the knowledge to challenge homophobia, plus the lingering issues in church schools with the religious implications.

Along with the teenage refrain that everything that they didn't want to do/didn't like/person they didn't like was "gay" for most of the last 20 years hasn't helped. (Where I am currently, it's "long"). This doesn't create an atmosphere where young people feel comfortable coming out, or find it easy to come out. And young people bring their own homophobia into schools too. This isn't religious young people either, so the pressures on young people from church families where homosexuality is seen to be a sin must be compounded.

* Shaun Dellenty discusses this on his site, but it's something I've seen in schools too. I could get homophobic bullying dealt with, by taking it to the right senior teacher, but I had to pick the teacher I thought would tackle it not ignore it.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I would hope that this kind of support group wouldn't be used as a dumping ground for 'young people' who are clearly uncomfortable about being there. If I were a willing adult member of the group I wouldn't find it helpful for my own development to be alongside younger members who were only turning up to please their parents!! What a bore!

True, a group like this will be an 'example' to gay Christians in the sense that it'll reflect the theology of some churches rather than others. But in the pluralistic environment of the modern British city, especially London, I shouldn't think there are any gay Christians who are entirely ignorant of other 'examples' that are available to them.

Modern Britain is a hybrid place. People have overlapping and changing identities and don't feel they have to be carbon copies of their parents. Gay teenagers presumably have access to the internet as other teenagers do, and Christian homeschooling doesn't seem to be a phenomenon. Other countries may be different.

Homophobic bullying in schools - even entirely secular schools - is an enormous problem.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

My post wasn't about homophobic bullying in schools at all, but I am aware that that's a problem.

Moreover, my comments were about large, pluralistic cities in the UK, particularly London, not about small, homogeneous communities in England or Scotland. Neither would I speak about the USA - that's a completely different culture.

My reference point was this particular gay support group, which seems to be aimed at willing adults. In no way do I wish to champion groups designed to pressurise gay teenagers into 'becoming' straight. These groups should be about people choosing their own path, not about parental pressure.

Ultimately, I don't think it's realistic to hope that all churches everywhere are going to become thoroughly liberal on matters of sexual morality. From a sociological point of view that's highly unlikely. What we can hope and work for is that compassion and understanding become more widely emphasised. But no church is a suitable theological, social or spiritual environment for everyone. That's why we have so many different churches. I speak as someone who's between churches and has been for a long time.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My reference point was this particular gay support group, which seems to be aimed at willing adults. In no way do I wish to champion groups designed to pressurise gay teenagers into 'becoming' straight. These groups should be about people choosing their own path, not about parental pressure.

I'm not sure that "God despises the way you feel, but hey, no pressure" is a viable position. The whole "God wants you to be celibate" thing is designed to pressure gays into changing their behavior. And it too often ends up like this:

quote:
I'm sorry to those I offended over the years. I'm blind to see that I, as a human being, suck. I'm an individual who is doing an injustice to the world and it's time for me to leave. The kids in school are right, I am a loser, a freak, and a fag and in no way is that acceptable for people to deal with. I'm sorry for not being a person that would make people proud.

- from the suicide note of 17 year old Carlos Vigil

I'm getting very tired of the pretense anti-gay religions and believers put on about how their claims that gays are abhorrent to God isn't meant to "pressurise" them in any way. So yes, when you tell kids that if only they were good and moral and strong, like those ex-gay-for-pay gents in Hawk's article then God would love them too, that's incredibly destructive.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The conversation has obviously moved on to talking about the problems teenagers face in conservative denominations, and in religious or school communities where only one understanding of sexual expression is allowed. I was in no way referring to such communities; that's why I focused on hybridity and on large, pluralistic cities.

I apologise if people from a very different Christian culture see my words as somehow condoning an environment that tolerates teenage suicide. That's not my position in any way whatsoever. My basic belief is in the importance of an overlapping, intertwined Christian diversity. Where true diversity is routine, no one can claim that only one view of sexuality or of spirituality is normative. This strikes me as a good thing for all kinds of groups in society. Again, this is not to dismiss the suffering of people who don't live in such a society.

[ 22. July 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The conversation has obviously moved on to talking about the problems teenagers face in conservative denominations, and in religious or school communities where only one understanding of sexual expression is allowed.

Why do you think this is only a problem when it affects teenagers?

[ 22. July 2013, 17:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The thread seems to have moved on now, and is focusing on the harm done to young gay people being bullied at school, or being forced to attend special groups to stop them from being gay. This seems to be a problem for teenagers, or perhaps people in their early twenties who are living at home.

In mainstream British culture, adolescence is a time to establish a separate identity from one's parents. Going away to university is a part of this process. (Some also say that teenage pregnancy is a way for non-academic teens to assert their independence from their parents.) People often become Christians in their teens or early twenties; other young people often shed their inherited Christian identity at around this time.

In other cultures I understand that the desire to establish a separate identity at this age is far less pronounced.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In other cultures I understand that the desire to establish a separate identity at this age is far less pronounced.

Perhaps those culture place less an emphasis on the separation from the parents on becoming an adult. The family unit is not as subdivided and isolated.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I apologise if people from a very different Christian culture see my words as somehow condoning an environment that tolerates teenage suicide. That's not my position in any way whatsoever.

"tolerates" isn't the word I would use. "causes" is what I was describing as the results of these groups work.
It's not just teenagers.
Teenagers are one example of this with more visibility. Adults being taught that their impulse to love is a despicable sin and who commit suicide are another. That survey I cited is biased, people who actually committed suicide due to those diverse Christian views aren't included in the poll results. It doesn't include people who limp away having wasted years of their lives in these treatment.

quote:
My basic belief is in the importance of an overlapping, intertwined Christian diversity. Where true diversity is routine, no one can claim that only one view of sexuality or of spirituality is normative. This strikes me as a good thing for all kinds of groups in society. Again, this is not to dismiss the suffering of people who don't live in such a society.

Do you think these "Gays must be celibate" groups are as tolerant of diversity? They seem to be very clear that only one view of sexuality is normative.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
That survey I cited is biased, people who actually committed suicide due to those diverse Christian views aren't included in the poll results. It doesn't include people who limp away having wasted years of their lives in these treatment.
[...]
Do you think these "Gays must be celibate" groups are as tolerant of diversity? They seem to be very clear that only one view of sexuality is normative.

This particular group is designed for people who want to be supported in the celibate life; that's the norm for them. Other groups exist to support gay Christians in relationships; that's the norm for them. You choose to attend one or the other, according to your own theology or preference.

Then there are the groups that exist to turn gay people into straight people. I got no sense from the article that this group had taken upon itself this particular 'task'. One guy has married a woman, but even he openly acknowledges that he still has gay feelings. If group members had said that they were urging all gay people to join a group like theirs, or that they were accepting young people who were only there to please their parents, then that would be another matter entirely, and I wouldn't agree with that. Yes, these men have a definite theological position, but they're well aware that there are other Christian options available to them. They're probably in ecumenical contact with people who hold a different position from themselves on this issue, while agreeing on plenty of other issues.

I understand that some people have grown up in tight-knit and oppressive communities with only one view of what it means to be a Christian, and that they're permanently damaged when they find that they can't fit neatly into that box as they long to do. That must be very tough indeed, and I don't deny that. However, that's not what I was initially commenting on. I don't have any reason to align myself with such an environment, since that's not where I'd be happy, where I'd want to live, nor where I'd raise my children, if I had any. Obviously, to belong to any single church/denomination is to be less committed to the theological and spiritual specificities of another; in that sense we're all living with a certain 'normativity'. But being ecumenically open is still possible if we want it to be.

[ 23. July 2013, 00:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Having another look, it seems as though these chaps are Anglicans. The CofE is the ultimate hybrid church, surely! Nothing that any individual Anglican says can be taken as 'normative', from what I can see!

I'm aware that things are very different for a Southern Baptist, or an Elim Pentecostal, etc....

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having another look, it seems as though these chaps are Anglicans. The CofE is the ultimate hybrid church, surely! Nothing that any individual Anglican says can be taken as 'normative', from what I can see!

I'm aware that things are very different for a Southern Baptist, or an Elim Pentecostal, etc....

Or for gay people in the church described by the original poster.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This is very true, although as a new church plant it's without a history, and can't be accused of ruining generations of lives.

New church movements are inevitably dogmatic. But some of them go the way of the Southern Baptists, and some of them go the way of the United Church of Christ. You don't know what the future will hold.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is very true, although as a new church plant it's without a history, and can't be accused of ruining generations of lives.

It always amazes me how a church can claim to be part of the church universal and eternal through all time, but not be at all responsible for the behavior of the previous management. How convenient.

[ 25. July 2013, 10:21: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
The big difference is, that from a particular conservative theological position, celibacy for a heterosexual can be a case of 'until I meet the right person, and get married' whereas celibacy for a homosexual does not have this 'get out' clause. Not comparable at all.

Unless you're already married and/or the person you love is. In which case it's also a life sentence.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is very true, although as a new church plant it's without a history, and can't be accused of ruining generations of lives.
It always amazes me how a church can claim to be part of the church universal and eternal through all time, but not be at all responsible for the behavior of the previous management. How convenient.

Are you saying that any random Christian is responsible for every awful thing that any Christian has ever done? It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how biblical it is. Do you have a particular chapter and/or verse in mind? It certainly sounds like a very 'convenient' thing to believe if you're not a Christian!

If you compare Christianity with the Transatlantic slave trade, or with colonialism more broadly, you could say that Christians today benefit from the religious privilege created by earlier generations of Christians, who destroyed or undermined other people's religions and cultural practices, just as white people today benefit from the racial privilege created by earlier generations of white slave-mongers and colonialists. But that's not quite the same as saying that Christians or white people today are 'responsible' for what their ancestors did......

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is very true, although as a new church plant it's without a history, and can't be accused of ruining generations of lives.
It always amazes me how a church can claim to be part of the church universal and eternal through all time, but not be at all responsible for the behavior of the previous management. How convenient.
Are you saying that any random Christian is responsible for every awful thing that any Christian has ever done? It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how biblical it is. Do you have a particular chapter and/or verse in mind? It certainly sounds like a very 'convenient' thing to believe if you're not a Christian!

If you compare Christianity with the Transatlantic slave trade, or with colonialism more broadly, you could say that Christians today benefit from the religious privilege created by earlier generations of Christians, who destroyed or undermined other people's religions and cultural practices, just as white people today benefit from the racial privilege created by earlier generations of white slave-mongers and colonialists. But that's not quite the same as saying that Christians or white people today are 'responsible' for what their ancestors did......

Not wanting to speak on behalf of Palimpsest here, but I personally took from his/her comment that new church plants can be quick to declare the new and wonderful things God is doing with them (or more usually, the new and wonderful things they are doing for God) without any sense of being part of the wider Church or having inherited the history of the Church. Often, they consider themselves *the* Christians of the particular area.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It always amazes me how a church can claim to be part of the church universal and eternal through all time, but not be at all responsible for the behavior of the previous management. How convenient.
Are you saying that any random Christian is responsible for every awful thing that any Christian has ever done?

I think Palimpsest is getting at the question of institutional continuity. Organizations are collective entities that are effectively immortal and can endure long beyond the lifespans of individual members. More importantly, we often attribute actions to institutions rather than individuals. For example, SALT was an agreement between "the United States" and "the Soviet Union", not between Gerald Ford and Leonid Brezhnev. It wasn't considered necessary to start negotiations over when both men left office because it was seen as an arrangement between two institutional organizations, not two individuals.

The same goes for organized religions, particularly any that bases its legitimacy in apostolic succession (or similar). The underlying premise is that the Roman Catholic Church (or pick another example, if you prefer) of today is the same organization as during the 1500s or 500s or whenever, back to its founding, regardless of the exact identity of its constituent members. As such, it's fair to ask the extent to which the present organization is responsible for its own past actions.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

If we're talking about oppression for generations, one individual can't oppress many generations on their own. They have to do it as part of an institution.

It's one thing not to blame current day Christians for the slave holding Christians of the past, unless they are still slaveholders.
It's another to say moving to a new building and generating a new organization doesn't make you responsible for the things you did in the old place and organization.

In this specific case, the most of the leaders of the Church planting probably were part of a parent church. The parent church could have been the institution that oppressed generations.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm often in the North-East of Brazil, and I have a many black friends there. They often invite me to their cerimonies and events in which they remember the days of slavery and their resistance against it.

I feel honoured to be invited at these events, but at the same time I'm very much aware that I'm Dutch, and that it's my ancestors who brought their ancestors there in slavery. This doesn't mean that this is a guilt that I personally carry, but it does urge me to have an even greater sense of humility at these events.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's one thing not to blame current day Christians for the slave holding Christians of the past, unless they are still slaveholders.
It's another to say moving to a new building and generating a new organization doesn't make you responsible for the things you did in the old place and organization.

In this specific case, the most of the leaders of the Church planting probably were part of a parent church. The parent church could have been the institution that oppressed generations.

It's an interesting argument, not least because it puts Christians from postcolonial and other oppressed cultures in a quandary. Not only did their ancestors suffer at the hands of Christians, but by belonging to a historical church (or indeed any church, you seem inclined to say) they're complicit in, and indeed responsible for, their own ancestral oppression! I'll have to run that idea by the one or two of the black theologians I know to see what they think of it.

However, the notion of institutional oppression (especially racism, and now homophobia) within churches and elsewhere is well-known these days. There are individuals within those churches who struggle against oppression, but your argument implies that they remain 'responsible' for that oppression by virtue of remaining part of an institutionalised, global religion, even if they leave one denomination for another. From your perspective, the only liberating option for them is to give up on Christianity altogether. Which some do, of course.

As for your last paragraph, it curiously assumes that church plants are mostly generated by historical churches. I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that new churches tend to be planted by church movements that are often only a few decades old. Certainly, in the UK the historical denominations are closing more churches than they're opening. It's possible that DouglastheOtter is in an Anglican church plant, but I think it would have become apparent earlier in the discussion if this were so.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's one thing not to blame current day Christians for the slave holding Christians of the past, unless they are still slaveholders.
It's another to say moving to a new building and generating a new organization doesn't make you responsible for the things you did in the old place and organization.

In this specific case, the most of the leaders of the Church planting probably were part of a parent church. The parent church could have been the institution that oppressed generations.
It's an interesting argument, not least because it puts Christians from postcolonial and other oppressed cultures in a quandary. Not only did their ancestors suffer at the hands of Christians, but by belonging to a historical church (or indeed any church, you seem inclined to say) they're complicit in, and indeed responsible for, their own ancestral oppression! I'll have to run that idea by the one or two of the black theologians I know to see what they think of it.

However, the notion of institutional oppression (especially racism, and now homophobia) within churches and elsewhere is well-known these days. There are individuals within those churches who struggle against oppression, but your argument implies that they remain 'responsible' for that oppression by virtue of remaining part of an institutionalised, global religion, even if they leave one denomination for another. From your perspective, the only liberating option for them is to give up on Christianity altogether. Which some do, of course.

If the the oppressed continue participating in a church which actively continues the oppression then yes, they inherit the patrimony. Ask your Black Theologian friends about those who participate in a church which maintains the colonial or racist oppression against themselves.

I'd rather you not surmise my interpretations since you seem to read my posts very poorly and constantly misunderstand them.

From my perspective, there are two decent options;
move on to another church which denounces the oppression, or struggle actively to change the church so it both no longer oppresses and declares the prior oppression of the institution as an error.
The third option; stay in the church and make pathetic excuses like "it's all part of theological diversity" or "In a modern big city the oppressed within the church can move on to another church" or "a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades" or "It's not so bad anymore but we don't want to confront it and besides it's traditional" then yes, you win the patrimony of your tradition.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As for your last paragraph, it curiously assumes that church plants are mostly generated by historical churches. I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that new churches tend to be planted by church movements that are often only a few decades old. Certainly, in the UK the historical denominations are closing more churches than they're opening. It's possible that DouglastheOtter is in an Anglican church plant, but I think it would have become apparent earlier in the discussion if this were so.

Ah yes;
"a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades"

Yes. So?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I wonder if it makes sense to look at this in terms of repentance? Churches which have fully repented of any slave holding history and which now zealously work against it - give their testimony against it - can be responsible in the sense of responsibly handling their past, being honest in abhorring past mistakes and not covering them up and making sure not to make them again, but are no longer responsible as in immediately culpable.

This is one of the problems I have with approaches to institutional sexism and homophobia which seek to appease people who still believe in it. It's not true repentance for all the damage done over the centuries to gay people and women when you are telling members in good standing in your church that it's fine to keep doing it. Recently another historian was telling me about slave compensation schemes- the equivalent of thousands of pounds in today's money was given to the owners but not a penny to the slaves! Nobody batted an eyelid.

Better than continuing slavery yes, but still a long way short of proper repentance. I suppose it raises the question of what would real institutional repentance for anti-gay teaching over centuries look like? I think pretty obviously not like that church plant... If you're still teaching a variant of it, you're still culpable for keeping the legacy of harm going.

[cross-post with Palimpsest]

[ 26. July 2013, 03:03: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...
This is one of the problems I have with approaches to institutional sexism and homophobia which seek to appease people who still believe in it. It's not true repentance for all the damage done over the centuries to gay people and women when you are telling members in good standing in your church that it's fine to keep doing it. Recently another historian was telling me about slave compensation schemes- the equivalent of thousands of pounds in today's money was given to the owners but not a penny to the slaves! Nobody batted an eyelid.

Better than continuing slavery yes, but still a long way short of proper repentance.

In a slight tangent, Adam Hochschild's history of the British Anti-Slavery movement Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves one of his examples was one of the largest West Indies Sugar Plantation. It was owned by the Society for the Propagation of the Word which used the profits to fund missionary tracts. They, like the other slave owners, were indemnified for the emancipation of their slaves.

I don't know if the society or it's descendants ever acknowledge the error of owning slaves.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If the the oppressed continue participating in a church which actively continues the oppression then yes, they inherit the patrimony. Ask your Black Theologian friends about those who participate in a church which maintains the colonial or racist oppression against themselves.
[...]
From my perspective, there are two decent options;
move on to another church which denounces the oppression, or struggle actively to change the church so it both no longer oppresses and declares the prior oppression of the institution as an error.

From what they've written, the black theologians I know feel that the churches they belong to are still 'struggling' with institutional oppression to varying degrees. This is 'active' oppression in some senses. But they stay and try to deal with it because they clearly feel that these churches have more of value in them than not. The one guy who attends a black church has said that the white (more) liberal alternatives tend to be culturally and spiritually inappropriate.

quote:

I'd rather you not surmise my interpretations since you seem to read my posts very poorly and constantly misunderstand them.

That's because I don't know you. We haven't really engaged before. I don't even know if you're a Christian. But I'm getting more of a picture now, especially with this paragraph:

quote:

The third option; stay in the church and make pathetic excuses like "it's all part of theological diversity" or "In a modern big city the oppressed within the church can move on to another church" or "a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades" or "It's not so bad anymore but we don't want to confront it and besides it's traditional" then yes, you win the patrimony of your tradition.

I'm sorry if you think I've completely misunderstood you again, but what this suggests to me is that you despise the vast majority of Christian churches and see them as more or less irredeemable. The only answer for people who really feel like this is to leave the churches and let them wither and die. Plenty of them do die; the predictions are gloomy for many British churches. Maybe this is payback for centuries of oppression.

For me, the issue of homosexuality in the church has two sides, one of which is pastoral and the other, theological. All churches seriously need to improve their pastoral care, compassion and understanding towards gay people. But this won't necessarily mean that they'll all reach the exact same affirmative theological conclusion about SSM, any more than they have about other aspects of sexual behaviour.

I understand that it's this distinction that you truly hate. If it makes things any better, I don't believe that the state has any obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to any church on these matters. If the society wants SSM then it should happen. And if the society thinks the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then that should happen. The legal equality of SSM isn't about any particular church.

quote:

"a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades"

Yes. So?

Usually when people talk about a 'parent church' they're referring to the founding church of a particular denomination or its institutional headquarters, not the very first church that met in St. Paul's living room, or wherever. But now I get your point.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If the the oppressed continue participating in a church which actively continues the oppression then yes, they inherit the patrimony. Ask your Black Theologian friends about those who participate in a church which maintains the colonial or racist oppression against themselves.
[...]
From my perspective, there are two decent options;
move on to another church which denounces the oppression, or struggle actively to change the church so it both no longer oppresses and declares the prior oppression of the institution as an error.
From what they've written, the black theologians I know feel that the churches they belong to are still 'struggling' with institutional oppression to varying degrees. This is 'active' oppression in some senses. But they stay and try to deal with it because they clearly feel that these churches have more of value in them than not. The one guy who attends a black church has said that the white (more) liberal alternatives tend to be culturally and spiritually inappropriate.

quote:

I'd rather you not surmise my interpretations since you seem to read my posts very poorly and constantly misunderstand them.

quote:

That's because I don't know you. We haven't really engaged before. I don't even know if you're a Christian. But I'm getting more of a picture now, especially with this paragraph:

I am not a Christian. I have an interest because several friends of mine who were Christian were badly damaged by Christian Pastoral care.

quote:

The third option; stay in the church and make pathetic excuses like "it's all part of theological diversity" or "In a modern big city the oppressed within the church can move on to another church" or "a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades" or "It's not so bad anymore but we don't want to confront it and besides it's traditional" then yes, you win the patrimony of your tradition.

quote:
I'm sorry if you think I've completely misunderstood you again, but what this suggests to me is that you despise the vast majority of Christian churches and see them as more or less irredeemable. The only answer for people who really feel like this is to leave the churches and let them wither and die. Plenty of them do die; the predictions are gloomy for many British churches. Maybe this is payback for centuries of oppression.

I don't have the expertise to take a detailed census or know which are toxic beyond redemption and which are can be fixed. For example the Southern Baptists are attempting to deal with the racism that was woven into that denomination at its creation.
The theology of several major churches has changed in the most part so they don't feel the need to kill Jews as part of the celebration of Easter. My own personal bet is that the Mormons are going to do a rapid transition from "Gays can't get married" to "Gays like all other Mormons should get married and raise more Mormons".

But for the ones which are not striving to eliminate their toxicity, yes men of good will should encourage them to wither and die.

quote:

For me, the issue of homosexuality in the church has two sides, one of which is pastoral and the other, theological. All churches seriously need to improve their pastoral care, compassion and understanding towards gay people. But this won't necessarily mean that they'll all reach the exact same affirmative theological conclusion about SSM, any more than they have about other aspects of sexual behaviour.

I understand that it's this distinction that you truly hate. If it makes things any better, I don't believe that the state has any obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to any church on these matters. If the society wants SSM then it should happen. And if the society thinks the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then that should happen. The legal equality of SSM isn't about any particular church.

I agree that churches should be allowed to do or not do same sex marriage, or for that matter, like the Shakers, no marriage at all. As an American I'm still fiddling with the concept of an established church that refuses to marry some citizens but my American outlook leads me to ask why you want an established church rather than compelling it to do anything.
I also feel that any church can pick and choose it's members. That comes with Freedom of Assembly. What raises my ire is the claim that gays should be members of the church but in a restricted role that I've seen damage or destroy gay people just as it would for a church that insists that scriptural wisdom tells them that blacks can be members but not clergy and must be servants.

80 years ago, there was a fad in medicine to treat many things with lobotomies, ranging from headaches to mental illness to being a disobedient child. The medical profession stopped doing that procedure in general and if I saw a doctor talking about how they just didn't use the right kind of ice pick and it should resume, I would have the same ire as I do to your improved pastoral care based on the such toxic theologies.

quote:

"a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades"

Yes. So?

quote:
Usually when people talk about a 'parent church' they're referring to the founding church of a particular denomination or its institutional headquarters, not the very first church that met in St. Paul's living room, or wherever. But now I get your point.

In this case I was in fact talking about the parent denomination church and not the church eternal. The comment about the church eternal was about the hypocrisy of claiming the credit for all good things since the beginning of the historical church but denying responsibility for the bad stuff done last year. But if you are talking about the mother denomination or the church eternal, and claim only decades of oppression I still ask:

So?

[ 26. July 2013, 20:12: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

As an American I'm still fiddling with the concept of an established church that refuses to marry some citizens but my American outlook leads me to ask why you want an established church rather than compelling it to do anything.

I agree it would be better not to have a state church. Ironically, though, there are some British atheists who feel that keeping the fairly restrained, poorly supported CofE is a far better idea than allowing an American free-for-all, which seems to throw up a whole bunch of well-supported and much more conservative denominations.

quote:

What raises my ire is the claim that gays should be members of the church but in a restricted role that I've seen damage or destroy gay people just as it would for a church that insists that scriptural wisdom tells them that blacks can be members but not clergy and must be servants.

I'm still not convinced about the precise theological equivalence of homosexuality and race. I'm told that churches are the most racially segregated places in America - yet the Curse of Ham is supposedly no longer theologically acceptable. Conversely, gay men are said to be statistically over-represented in churches that are still theologically homophobic, as you would see it. A curious state of affairs.

As far as 'restrictions' for gay people are concerned, the CofE is a broad church, and has gay clergy, some openly in relationships. The CofE may be publicly against SSM, but since its own congregations, clergy and theological colleges are are so theologically varied, its leaders can hardly prevent people from living as they choose. There's an issue with gay bishops - but then, there's also an issue with women bishops. (And re patriarchy: it's also true that women are far more likely to attend church than men. Gluttons for punishment, perhaps.)

Regarding the churches in general, you need to remember that Britain is so much more secular than the USA. Many young British people now, whether gay or straight, will have left the church long before the church has 'destroyed' them (that's if they ever attended in the first place). The Anglicans, Methodists and black Pentecostals have lost huge numbers of their young people over the past 50+ years. My own Methodist church closed in 2011. The historical evangelical churches have mostly also declined. The more dynamic evangelical churches often have a high turnover, which suggests that they don't inevitably cling to people who are unhappy to be there. So it may be that the problem of (inherited or actual!) oppression and toxic attitudes in institutional Christianity will be solved by the end of institutional Christianity here. The remaining churches will be so frail and marginal that few will care. Will gay people care more than anyone else? Maybe it will present them with an opportunity to direct the theology of the remaining churches. Or they might simply have other things to think about.

For my own reference rather than yours, this is one evangelical church's summary of the figures:
http://www.amnosministries.org/events-and-news.html

There's also a study claiming that within a couple of decades there will be more practising Muslims than Christians here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100073809/practising-muslims-will-very-soon-overtake-weekly-churchgoers-in-b ritain/

[ 26. July 2013, 22:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I wonder if it makes sense to look at this in terms of repentance? Churches which have fully repented of any slave holding history and which now zealously work against it - give their testimony against it - can be responsible in the sense of responsibly handling their past, being honest in abhorring past mistakes and not covering them up and making sure not to make them again, but are no longer responsible as in immediately culpable...

Better than continuing slavery yes, but still a long way short of proper repentance. I suppose it raises the question of what would real institutional repentance for anti-gay teaching over centuries look like?...

The United Church of Canada has a long history of discussing issues in an open manner, derived from their experience of uniting three disparate denoms into one organization and having to deal with issues as a result.

They were leaders in the Ordination od women; they were leaders in dealing with the problems faced by Aboriginal Canadians, particlularly in relation to the Residential Schools issues.

As a result, they are routinely put down by certain other Christian organisations BECAUSE they accept women as equals and BECAUSE they are sympathetic to natives. How could a Christian organization be so namby-pamby?

Many Blacks were brought to Canada by their Loyalist owners, but slavery became a dead issue quite early in Canada. It was never entrenched in the psyche in the manner of the colonials of the US. However, colour bars of various sorts were normal until at least the 1960's and there is still negative colour consciousness, even on the part of many Christians.

The mainstream churches have all embraced policies against that sort of thing, and have issued formal apologies for past wrong-doings, some of those being a bit grudging and late-coming, but, still, there they are.

I am not sure about the religionists of the governing party. They may just be equal-opportunity "I-don't-like-anybody-very-much"ers

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
I'm still not convinced about the precise theological equivalence of homosexuality and race. I'm told that churches are the most racially segregated places in America - yet the Curse of Ham is supposedly no longer theologically acceptable. Conversely, gay men are said to be statistically over-represented in churches that are still theologically homophobic, as you would see it. A curious state of affairs.

The segregation is still there, and while the curse of Ham has faded the "Separate but Equal" argument has only faded completely in the last couple of decades. Bob Jones University is on the trailing edge, as are the Mormons with their revelation that Negroes can be "priests" in 1978. In general, as described in a recent hell thread, racial separatism is still quite present, but covert and not theologically justified.

As far as 'restrictions' for gay people are concerned, the CofE is a broad church, and has gay clergy, some openly in relationships. The CofE may be publicly against SSM, but since its own congregations, clergy and theological colleges are are so theologically varied, its leaders can hardly prevent people from living as they choose. There's an issue with gay bishops - but then, there's also an issue with women bishops. (And re patriarchy: it's also true that women are far more likely to attend church than men. Gluttons for punishment, perhaps.)

Regarding the churches in general, you need to remember that Britain is so much more secular than the USA. Many young British people now, whether gay or straight, will have left the church long before the church has 'destroyed' them (that's if they ever attended in the first place). The Anglicans, Methodists and black Pentecostals have lost huge numbers of their young people over the past 50+ years. My own Methodist church closed in 2011. The historical evangelical churches have mostly also declined. The more dynamic evangelical churches often have a high turnover, which suggests that they don't inevitably cling to people who are unhappy to be there. So it may be that the problem of (inherited or actual!) oppression and toxic attitudes in institutional Christianity will be solved by the end of institutional Christianity here. The remaining churches will be so frail and marginal that few will care. Will gay people care more than anyone else? Maybe it will present them with an opportunity to direct the theology of the remaining churches. Or they might simply have other things to think about.

Perhaps. However your general argument seems to be that it's only a few gay people who will be damaged by some of the current churches and maybe it fade as the churches eventually die does not reassure me. The churches that do come to there senses need to challenge those who still continue the oppression, just as is done about the race issue.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
<snip>As far as 'restrictions' for gay people are concerned, the CofE is a broad church, and has gay clergy, some openly in relationships. The CofE may be publicly against SSM, but since its own congregations, clergy and theological colleges are are so theologically varied, its leaders can hardly prevent people from living as they choose. There's an issue with gay bishops - but then, there's also an issue with women bishops. <snip>

Outside London, there are enough people within the CofE who will complain to the Bishop if they think clergy are in same sex relationships. Which the Bishop has to investigate and deal with. The Bishop will then have their own views which will affect the outcome. Some Bishops have been patrons of Changing Attitudes (Rt Rev David Stancliffe and Rt Rev John Gladwin were while still in office), some have been outspoken in their views that sexual relationships should only be within marriage (Rt Rev Wallace Benn, for example)

There are enough clergy in the CofE who will denounce homosexuality from the pulpit - Alan Comfort comes to mind.

But the big problem according to this article by Colin Coward on Changing Attitude, written following General Synod this year, where he concludes that:

quote:
There is a solid block in the House of Laity who are going to hold a conservative line towards women and LGB&T people. They think they are defending Biblical teaching and the truth and purity of the church. They are doing no such thing, of course. They are creating a nasty, divided, prejudiced church which looks totally un-Christian to those on the outside (and to many of us within the church).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your general argument seems to be that it's only a few gay people who will be damaged by some of the current churches and maybe it fade as the churches eventually die does not reassure me. The churches that do come to there senses need to challenge those who still continue the oppression, just as is done about the race issue.

When CofE people in this country try to challenge more traditional views about homosexuality this normally means Anglicans squabbling with each other in the media spotlight. Not very edifying, but the good thing about it is that gay Christians are made aware that you don't have to take the traditional view to be a serious Christian. They don't have to suffer out of ignorance of the alternatives, as American Christians might.

Remember also that in England SSM first became a prominent public issue because it was requested by the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jewish groups - i.e. by religious people! Since then, though, most religious pro-SSM commentators have been Anglicans. Secularisation in our country has meant that the public and the media know very little about any of smaller churches, whether ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative. The ordinary guy is far more likely to give a minute's attention to a liberal Anglican vicar than to some liberal person whose church he's possibly never even heard of.

As for challenging other Christians, there's always ecumenicalism, which is of growing importance here, but less so in the USA, I understand. But IMO no Pentecostal or Catholic is going to pay much attention to a crusading Quaker or a Unitarian. Liberal Anglicans are deemed worthy opponents because of the status and prominence of their church, but even so, no religious movement or denomination is obliged follow the advice or recommendations of any other group. The other thing is, the big CofE risks appearing patronising when it throws its weight around. Smaller (possibly declining) liberal denominations that do this risk appearing ridiculous. There are also class and racial divides that separate liberalism and conservatism, and no amount of careful argument or pious invective will magic those away.

[ 28. July 2013, 21:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0