Thread: Homophobia in churches Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028513
Posted by Ticachick (# 14263) on :
 
Hi this isnt trying to revive the old "is homosexuality wrong" topic, but more a reflection on my experiences in church. I have recently been saddened by a number of very prejudiced comments against the gay community in two churches that I have recently attended. Along the lines of assuming that all gay people are desperate to bed anyone of the same sex, that gay men are pathetic (using Howard from the apprentice as an example) etc etc.

As someone with a number of gay friends, I find these comments offensive, ignorant and unfair. I wondered had other shipmates come across this in church before, and if so how did you address it, and what is the best way to respond to this?
 
Posted by TiggyTiger (# 14819) on :
 
I think at most churches you'll find a mixture of attitudes towards gay people as you do in society.

One of the leaders at my church said that gay people were welcome there, while at the same time referring to their relationships as 'an abomination'. That's just so welcoming!

I'm on a mission to increase understanding of homsexuality in my church because there is some painful ignorance. And I know there are people at that church who are gay and keep quiet about it. I think there are also a lot of bi-curious young women. (But maybe that's just my fantasy).
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Since I'm a partnered lesbian in a fairly progressive mainline church I haven't experienced that type of conversation in the context of my own congregation -- I won't say that it doesn't go on, but I figure if it does it's going on well out of our earshot.

If some clueless individual were to tell a homophobic joke during coffee hour, I might take the tack I've taken hearing racist jokes -- a look of confusion, followed by, "I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that. Can you explain the punchline?"

If someone where to drop some dubious factoid about the gay community, I might say, "Well, I'm a lesbian, and I don't perceive that in my circle of gay and lesbian friends," or cite some corrective statistic for them.

Bullies attain power when no one stands up to them. A weak laugh or a change of subject doesn't teach them anything other than that they can continue to make bigoted statements in your particular venue without any consequences.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
In denoms which are changing to allow overt homosexuality as legitimate as heterosexual marriage, there will naturally be some friction depending on what proportion of traditional-thinking people there are. This will vary even within the denom because some areas are more conservative than others.

If you are expecting to change a congregation's attitude that imho is vain: although you can make a public stand just for the sake of not remaining silent.

Nobody can say what the future holds where overt homosexuality is concerned. Because society is going to remain overwhelmingly heterosexual, I can see trouble looming where homosexuals think that they can PDA to the same degree that heteros have always been able to. But homosexuals are used to seeing hetero PDA: whereas heteros are not prepared for that. I think that overtly accepting homosexuals in church is going to run into the same problem....
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
PDAs of any kind in church are not terribly common in Lutherland...I'm reminded of the joke about the old German (or Swede, or Norwegian, or Finn, depending on where you're telling the joke) who loved his wife so much that, once, he almost told her.

[ 28. June 2009, 02:13: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
Sorry -what are PDAs ?

Thanks
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
Public Displays of Affection.
 
Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :
 
I think that most Anglo-Catholic parishes, even the more conservative ones, take it as given that a substantial portion of the congregation will be gay. I suspect FinF places follow the Roman Catholic line about hating the sin but loving the sinner, condemning homosexuality whilst treating gay individuals with pastoral sensibility. AffCath, place, of course, go in for more out and out celebration of diversity. Most homophobic comments seem to come from the evangelical wing of the Anglican Communion. I'm not saying that all evangelicals are homophobes, but that most Anglican homophobes tend to gravitate toward the con-evo wing, where they find their leader in archhomophobe Akinola.

It is to the great discredit of George Carey that he refused to sign even such a moderate document as the Cambridge Accord, which stated nothing more than that gay people, like all other children of God, were to be treated with respect and charity. I do not believe that ++Carey disagreed with this statement, but he was entirely beholden to groups like Reform, one of the factors that made him a disappointing archbishop. Rowan Williams, an infinitely more capable and also rather more likable archbishop, did sign the accord and has written a great deal of worth the subject, but many liberals are understandably disappointed with how little progress he has been able to make.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just to say that I'm checking out with other Hosts and Admin whether this thread might be better placed in DH in any case. I appreciate the intentions of the OP but IMO homophobia in the church has been a leitmotif in threads already in DH. Meanwhile, feel free ..

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
S
If some clueless individual were to tell a homophobic joke during coffee hour, I might take the tack I've taken hearing racist jokes -- a look of confusion, followed by, "I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that. Can you explain the punchline?"

If someone where to drop some dubious factoid about the gay community, I might say, "Well, I'm a lesbian, and I don't perceive that in my circle of gay and lesbian friends," or cite some corrective statistic for them.
How would you react if someone said:
quote:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
S
If some clueless individual were to tell a homophobic joke during coffee hour, I might take the tack I've taken hearing racist jokes -- a look of confusion, followed by, "I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that. Can you explain the punchline?"

If someone where to drop some dubious factoid about the gay community, I might say, "Well, I'm a lesbian, and I don't perceive that in my circle of gay and lesbian friends," or cite some corrective statistic for them.
How would you react if someone said:
quote:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
?
I'd say that Paul was homophobic. No one's perfect.

We'd better just saddle up the horse meat now.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Would you consider a heterosexual who has no problem with people being gay or lesbian and practicing as such and supports their civil liberties up to the hilt but who himself has moral doubts about the practice (as well as fornication; adultery; two-timing as in practicing bisexuals; polyamory; 'open marriage' and hypocrisy (possibly the greatest sin [Devil] ) homophobic? [Two face]
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
As the Bible never mentions God blessings a same sex union can we safely asume that God is homophobic?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
I do not believe that ++Carey disagreed with this statement, but he was entirely beholden to groups like Reform, one of the factors that made him a disappointing archbishop.
You're of course entitled to your opinion as the merits and otherwise of anyone, but it's evident that your age and ignorance of the Church of England is at play here. Firstly, ABCs don't sign round robins especially in the politicking atmosphere after the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Secondly, Reform are a relatively small grouping of conservative evangelicals opposed to the ordination of women, constantly campaigning for their own 'flying bishop' during the 1990s and refused one by the same Archbishop you claim was beholden to them. Don't make me laugh.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
This topic seems ideally suited to hang out with similar discussions in the Dead Horses corral. Please, as always, do not take this as an indication that discussion is discouraged, but continue the conversation in its new location. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

[ 28. June 2009, 11:22: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
[QUOTE ]How would you react if someone said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

I'd say that whoever was quoting this text was quoting it out of its cultural and rhetorical texts -- that, first of all, it references not stable, monogamous, mutually respectful relationships -- not Jim and Bill or Jane and Mary planting flowers along the picket fence next door and volunteering to host coffee hour at church -- but the sorts of exploitative sex and promiscuity practiced in the ancient world either as part of ecstatic religious experience or as the sort of droit de signeur (sp?...early in the morning here) sexual exploitation of persons in the servant class by their masters; and that in context Paul is using a litany of iniquities practiced by "those bad people over there" as a buildup to a larger theme -- that those who think they're morally superior, who rest on the laurels of their received Law, are no better than the pagans around them; so they need to "get real" about their own failures to love God and love other human beings.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
It is to the great discredit of George Carey that he refused to sign even such a moderate document as the Cambridge Accord, which stated nothing more than that gay people, like all other children of God, were to be treated with respect and charity. I do not believe that ++Carey disagreed with this statement, but he was entirely beholden to groups like Reform, one of the factors that made him a disappointing archbishop. Rowan Williams, an infinitely more capable and also rather more likable archbishop, did sign the accord and has written a great deal of worth the subject, but many liberals are understandably disappointed with how little progress he has been able to make.
I take it you were in school in Texas when George Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury so you aren't necessarily the best person to comment as those of us in the South of England at the time.

As Spawn has pointed out serving Archbishops don't normally sign unofficial round robin petitions.

There is no evidence that ++George gave into Reform's demands, and in respect of their key demand they did not get it under him or ++Rowan.

Whereas it was ++Rowan who dumped Jeffrey John as the proposed Bishop of Reading after Reform and others protested, which was an appointment that ++George would not have approved in the first place.

There is a limit to what Archbishops can do if their province does not want to go in that direction. The Province of Canterbury is becoming more charismatic and evangelical on the ground, not actually as generally anti-homosexual as 20 years ago or as Reform now is, but not keen on being made to move by an Archbishop from a different background.

I would expect that a successor with more of an open evangelical background would find it easier to negotiate a compromise ove the Dead Horse than Rowan.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Would you consider a heterosexual who has no problem with people being gay or lesbian and practicing as such and supports their civil liberties up to the hilt but who himself has moral doubts about the practice (as well as fornication; adultery; two-timing as in practicing bisexuals; polyamory; 'open marriage' and hypocrisy (possibly the greatest sin [Devil] ) homophobic? [Two face]
Would you consider a person who has no problem, in fact, understands the importance of snakes in the natural world and supports their preservation and protection and would never injure or kill one but who herself runs screaming at the mere glimpse of one and can't even stand looking at a photos, never mind movies, of snakes to be ophidiophobic?

Or would you tell me to get over it? OliviaG
 
Posted by Ticachick (# 14263) on :
 
I think my original intent was not to discuss the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, but assuming that even in conservative churches, when asked people will say "love the sinner, hate the sin" but when push comes to shove, there is a prejudice against homosexuals, in that jokes against this community are deemed okay (where jokes against other minority groups would not be).

I have encountered ignorant attitudes to homosexuals much more in church, than I have outside of church. I would say that as Christ called us to love one another, and to love sinners, surely the church should be modelling an anti-homophobic approach, even if they believe that the act of homosexuality is wrong. In other words living out the sentiment "love the sinner". Or does "hating the sin" cause too much cognitive dissonance, so people are unable to do this?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
How would you react if someone said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say that whoever was quoting this text was quoting it out of its cultural and rhetorical texts -- that, first of all, it references not stable, monogamous, mutually respectful relationships -- not Jim and Bill or Jane and Mary planting flowers along the picket fence next door and volunteering to host coffee hour at church -- but the sorts of exploitative sex and promiscuity practiced in the ancient world either as part of ecstatic religious experience or as the sort of droit de signeur (sp?...early in the morning here) sexual exploitation of persons in the servant class by their masters; and that in context Paul is using a litany of iniquities practiced by "those bad people over there" as a buildup to a larger theme -- that those who think they're morally superior, who rest on the laurels of their received Law, are no better than the pagans around them; so they need to "get real" about their own failures to love God and love other human beings.
And you'd be absolutely right, in the NSHO of this straight male. LC [Overused] [Overused] Why do the normal evangelical standards of biblical exposition fly out the window when this particular issue is under discussion.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:

I have encountered ignorant attitudes to homosexuals much more in church
By what standards to you judge ignorant attitudes, biblical knowledge or man's teaching.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
PDAs of any kind in church are not terribly common in Lutherland...I'm reminded of the joke about the old German (or Swede, or Norwegian, or Finn, depending on where you're telling the joke) who loved his wife so much that, once, he almost told her.
[Killing me] Dear God, I'm married to a nice Swedish/Norwegian heritage guy. (Not Luthernan, though, rather the agnostic UU variant.) While he does sometimes say he loves me (my having beaten into him that it's important to do so), PDAs were a brief experience during courtship, rarely to be seen again.

I grew up with all those Scandinavian and German Lutherans in the Midwest, so I understand and accept the behavior.

Seriously, though, until the silly PromiseKeepers sort of thing started, I can't think of any churches of whany way acceptable. I'm old enough and old-fashioned enough (in certain respects) to think that nobody should be flaunting their lovey-dovey, much less sexual relationship in church. That's not what we're there for.

It's the same reason we (hopefully) dress conservatively. I don't want to be exposed to too much of anyone's body or too much of any couple's relationship in church. [Roll Eyes] The particular details are irrelevant.

So the above-mentioned idea that somehow heteros have some sort of preference or advantage seems ridiculous.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Responding to the spring's latest uncoiling, could I say that treating actual people as just that, actual people, might take precedence over a need to be condescending, rude or actively aggressive towards someone whose inclinations are somewhat different from your own?

Homosexuality may be negatively viewed in those few places in the Bible where it is mentioned at all - what is it? 6 references? - but there are over 600 admonitions about heterosexual behaviour, and I don't see anyone being kicked out of church, or physically attacked, for going against any of those strictures, even the ones that require stoning.

I just recently had to find an appropriate response to a high-school student (male) who thought that Hitler was a "good thing" since he killed off some gays, the fate of the jews being, apparently, irrelevant. The boy had been home-schooled by Christians up to year 9, so he didn't get that attitude from non-Christians.

When Christians can actually practise some of the "Love the sinner" part of the statement, we might have a little more respect shown towards Christians.
 
Posted by TiggyTiger (# 14819) on :
 
It's pretty hard for someone to feel 'loved' in a church when the people in the church perceive and describe their relationship as 'an abomination'. Would heterosexual people feel loved in a place where their relationship was described in that way?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ticachick:
Hi this isnt trying to revive the old "is homosexuality wrong" topic, but more a reflection on my experiences in church. I have recently been saddened by a number of very prejudiced comments against the gay community in two churches that I have recently attended. Along the lines of assuming that all gay people are desperate to bed anyone of the same sex, that gay men are pathetic (using Howard from the apprentice as an example) etc etc.

As someone with a number of gay friends, I find these comments offensive, ignorant and unfair. I wondered had other shipmates come across this in church before, and if so how did you address it, and what is the best way to respond to this?
You're reminding me very much of the notion that there is a 'gay lifestyle'. As if all gays live the same way.

My usual response to this is point out it makes about as much sense as witnessing the drunken louts spilling out of a nightclub late on a Saturday night and throwing up on the kerb, and declaring that this is the 'straight lifestyle'.

Most ridiculous generalisations about gays can be shown to be ridiculous by creating a 'straight' version.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
Would heterosexual people feel loved in a place where their relationship was described in that way?
That depends on what their relationship was and if it had God's blessing. A heterosexual relationship can come in many shades which can be not right before God in the same as Gay relationships have to be right and be blessed by Him
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
You see, tcs, it's like this - not all of us see The Bible, presumably you mean the abbreviated version sans what you probably call the The Apocrypha, as the ultimate authority on anything. Surely it is useful sometimes in order to inform us or help us think - it even has some beautiful passages that are a bloody good read but ultimate authority, no. That is something given to it only by some, dare I say a minority, of the fellowship of the worldwide church, by no means all.

No doubt you think we're damned and heading for perdition for holding this view but then I'm a Universalist so I believe that even you will ultimately achieve union with God.

God bless.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practise of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint.
I completely agree with this statement, nor do I think that holding that viewpoint in itself makes someone homophobic. (The following is directed at common issues in discussions with people holding this viewpoint, not necessarily directed at Mudfrog himself.)

However,

In short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.

[ 04. July 2009, 17:10: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
What practice might that be ?

If being scientif define your terms maybe...

In my book, the phenomenolgy would have to include the practice of joy, listening, inclusion and the delights of the tea-pot in gay life ....

any other suggestions ? ...........
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
n short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.
I think you have just proved my point about liberals being bigoted. Just because Akinola has chosen not to follow your path to damnation does not make him wrong.

By your standards(?) God is homophobic.
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:
What practice might that be ?

If being scientif define your terms maybe...

In my book, the phenomenolgy would have to include the practice of joy, listening, inclusion and the delights of the tea-pot in gay life ....

any other suggestions ? ...........

 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
n short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.
I think you have just proved my point about liberals being bigoted. Just because Akinola has chosen not to follow your path to damnation does not make him wrong.

By your standards(?) God is homophobic.
So Akinola supporting laws to imprison homosexuals or even imprison those who speak openly about supporting the rights of homosexuals is not homophobic? But my thinking that he is a prime horse's ass for such opinions makes me a bigot? I'll take my place with liberal bigots over such political persecutors. I would not choose to put Akinola into prison for his beliefs although I disagree vigorously with many of them. But it seems that he would gladly have me in prison for my beliefs if I made them known in Nigeria.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
n short I don't think every one who believes homosexual acts to be immoral, is homophobic, but observation suggests many are. ++Akinola is a rather extreme example of this.
I think you have just proved my point about liberals being bigoted. Just because Akinola has chosen not to follow your path to damnation does not make him wrong.

By your standards(?) God is homophobic.
Oh WELL DONE on entirely missing the point of Doublethink's lengthy and extremely well thought-out post. Well done indeed.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I mean, you didn't even get the point of the couple of isolated sentences you QUOTED. Never mind the rest of it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
orfeo, you might find reading the coiled spring in Hell helps.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, you might find reading the coiled spring in Hell helps.
I have, actually. Thinking about starting a whole new thread on the topic.
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Indeed, the correct place once things start to get personal is the Hell Board.

quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
cheers,
Louise

Dead Horses Host

[ 05. July 2009, 00:41: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.
Pseudo-theology used to (and still does, in some parts of the world) lie behind anti-semitism too, doesn't make it a valid viewpoint, to be accepted just because it comes from 'faith'.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.
Pseudo-theology used to (and still does, in some parts of the world) lie behind anti-semitism too, doesn't make it a valid viewpoint, to be accepted just because it comes from 'faith'.
That's one of the primary rhetorical benefits of religious thought; the fact that you don't have to justify or explain anything. The explanation comes down to "because God said so!" This not only alleviates the need for you to explain why you're right, it also means that anyone who disagrees isn't disagreeing with you, their arguing against God.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html
quote:
From the article:
The group [of parents] stated: "God hates the UK and the Tomlinson School fag tyranny, where conscientious parents face religious persecution for withdrawing their children on lying fag so-called history."
God weeps.
 
Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on :
 
Oh, the 'practice of homosexuality' is something new on me. Unless they have to get warm up to it, before doing it right.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that anyone should be nasty about anyone, but I think it should be realised that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality is a faith-viewpoint. Unless you want to call in the thought police you will never get people to go against their ethics.
Pseudo-theology used to (and still does, in some parts of the world) lie behind anti-semitism too, doesn't make it a valid viewpoint, to be accepted just because it comes from 'faith'.
That's one of the primary rhetorical benefits of religious thought; the fact that you don't have to justify or explain anything. The explanation comes down to "because God said so!" This not only alleviates the need for you to explain why you're right, it also means that anyone who disagrees isn't disagreeing with you, their arguing against God.
Though two thousand years of Christian argumentativeness suggests that folding your arms and saying "God said so" has never been an overly effective way of controlling people.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

[Overused] I may completely disagree with you on this issue DT but I endorse your list above. If both sides of the argument could start with your list we might even make some progress.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Doublethink, likewise [Overused]

I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.
Are you sure about that considering what 2 Peter 2 has to say
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
Both sides ?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

  • I do not think homosexual relationships should be legislated against on the basis of a faith viewpoint if one does not live in a theocracy.
  • I do not think this viewpoint is the only available interpretation of the biblical texts, and therefore I would like to see differing views treated as a serious attempts at interpretation not excuses
  • I do not think unsubstantiated libels against active homosexuals should be promulgated by people holding this faith view point: eg the non-existent link between homosexuality and paedophilia
  • I would like to see serious engagement with the scientific evidence, if you wish to say that homosexuality is an innate variation that is undesirable and it is immoral to act upon it - I may not agree with the view but I can accept someone believes that on the basis of biblical material - but if you decide to simply ignore existing scientific evidence to assert homosexuality is a choice I want (preferably) scientific or biblical material to back that up. Because currently, it seems to be a circular argument, the bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it must be a choice - but I didn't chose to be gay, therefore your interpretation of the bible is wrong - no you did chose you are lying and/or mistaken about your experiences it really is a choice. What people don't say is, it's wrong, being born that way is a call to celibacy, we'll all have challenges in our lives to bear - this happens to be yours
  • I have not seen a convincing argument, based on the bible, as to why homosexuality is treated differently to other behaviours believed to be sins such as gossip or gluttony and why people are persistently excluded on this basis, nor do I see a rational biblically based argument as to why it is equated in severity to murder, incest and rape.
  • When people talk from this faith viewpoint they often give the impression of distaste, which strengthens my impression that a lot of responses are organised by feelings of disgust - and that relates very strongly to the concept of phobia
[Overused] I may completely disagree with you on this issue DT but I endorse your list above. If both sides of the argument could start with your list we might even make some progress.
Both sides of what ?

The oppressors and the oppressed is that it ?

These are hardly 'sides'.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.
Are you sure about that considering what 2 Peter 2 has to say
Dont'cha just love it when people toss Bible verses out with the expectation that everyone is going to understand/interpret/apply it the same way they do?

Why people can't just tell us what they believe and maybe what Biblical support they may be using to justify it, is beyond me. People who have posted on the Ship for any length of time should know better.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
Dont'cha just love it when people toss Bible verses out with the expectation that everyone is going to understand/interpret/apply it the same way they do?
Dont'cha just love it when people get upset when one goes back to the Bible for an answer....
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
You haven't given an answer.

I have read 2 Peter 2 and have no idea why you referenced it or why you are using it.

Are you going to just play games or explain why you picked it and how you are using it?
 
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:
Both sides ?

...snippety...

Both sides of what ?

The oppressors and the oppressed is that it ?

These are hardly 'sides'.
I'm also with Doublethink - there are people that think homosexuality is wrong, but aren't homophobic. A goodly chunk of them are in my own family. They weren't happy to find out that I'm bisexual, I'm pretty sure they still think its wrong on one or more levels, but their behavior toward me has not changed, nor did they ever do/say anything that I would call homophobic before that.

Demonizing the other side of the discussion is, IMO, as bad as them demonizing us. As people right here have shown, not everyone is a Fred Phelps.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.
Are you sure about that considering what 2 Peter 2 has to say
Well 'hey are not afraid to slander the glorious ones' just about sums up what Akinola does - he slanders LGBTs and 2 Peter prophecies severe punishment for him = 'for them the deepest darkness has been reserved. For they speak bombastic nonsense'
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
'...there are people that think homosexuality is wrong, but aren't homophobic.' (Quote)

I have no idea how that works or looks.

To say or think that way IS anti-gay and to speak on it, is one imporatant way of acting on it.

The very sentence 'homosexuality is wrong' is itself wrong-headed and twisted in on itself. It has nothing to do with the reality at all levels of people's inner and outer lives.

What on earth does 'homosexuality' actuallly mean ? It's a meaningless slogan word, a signfier of something singled out for rejection, for exclusion

or worse....

Experiment

just give a go to

Heterosexuality is wrong.
Jewishness is wrong.
Blackness is wrong.
Femininity is wrong.
Old age is wrong.

The artificially coined word 'homosexuality' is a non-word -- a signifer, a tool in the hands of excluders (and worse*). This is the use this term is put to.

No-one readily self identifies as homosexual' it is a word imposed from without by oppressors.

This term is not neutral.

* The Third Reich found it came in handy for their purposes. *

[ 27. August 2009, 18:57: Message edited by: Laurie17 ]
 
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:

What on earth does 'homosexuality' actuallly mean ? It's a meaningless slogan word, a signfier of something singled out for rejection, for exclusion
I'm going to take the question at face value, and refer to my handy copy of "The American Heritage Dictionary", where it confirms my long-held belief that it means "1. Sexual desire for others of one's own sex. 2. Sexuality activity with another of the same sex."

No etymology under "homosexuality", let's work our way back to the beginning of the "homowhatsit" entires, where the definition for the prefix "homo-" is "same, like" (with the example word "homophone"), and the etymology is: from the Latin, from the Greek homos-same.

Now, I really fail to see how this is in any way derogatory, unless homogenized homonym, homozygous, and homocercular tail fins on fish are also derogatory. Nor can I rationally follow your assertion that "homosexual" is meaningless, and the idea that it was a creation of Nazi Newspeak strains my credulity even further.

Throwing out basic vocabulary makes it rather more than difficult to have a calm, reasoned discussion, but I'll give it a try:

Both here on SoF and in "real life" I am acquainted with a number of people who think that I am engaging in morally ambiguous to sinful behavior when I act on my feelings of same-sex attraction. However, these same people do not act to censure or otherwise restrict my actions, except as insofar as they may express them in only general terms regarding their understanding of the welfare of the souls of persons who act on such same-sex attractions.

This is a far cry, in my book, from hating/fearing a person who feels or acts on same-sex attractions, which is the genereally-understood meaning of the term "homophobia."

Yes, lack of full approval can be hurtful. But at the same time, there is a difference between those people who are uncomfortable and/or question the morality of a stance - be it same-sex attraction or any other subject of discrimination, and more active hatred/fear. We accomplish a lot more engaging with the uncomfortable/questioning people in a calm, friendly manner than getting our knickers in a twist.
 
Posted by Amiyah (# 11989) on :
 
quote:
Yes, lack of full approval can be hurtful. But at the same time, there is a difference between those people who are uncomfortable and/or question the morality of a stance - be it same-sex attraction or any other subject of discrimination, and more active hatred/fear. We accomplish a lot more engaging with the uncomfortable/questioning people in a calm, friendly manner than getting our knickers in a twist.
This book, Bulletproof Faith has the same idea. I do agree with you, but I find it really hard ideal to live up to. I can cope with curious/ill-informed people asking fairly dumb questions (eg 'so which one of you is the man' etc etc)and engage and answer them politely much better than disapproving but non-abusive Christians.

I think it's partly because I'm sure that meeting and chatting to friendly gay people shifts most people who are a bit homophobic out of ignorance/lack of experience of gay people towards a more accepting perspective. I don't know whether the same is true of Christians who have been taught and believe that the Bible tells them that non-repentant practising homosexuals are destined for Hell/ought to leave their covenanted partnerships and be chaste. I must say that I find it painful when I realise/find out that a Christian friend/acquaintance who I thought was more liberal about gay relationships actually disapproves, even if they are nice about it. Otter, did you ever feel like me and if so how did you get over it?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:
Both sides of what ?

The oppressors and the oppressed is that it ?

These are hardly 'sides'.
You do realise that refusing to engage with an argument is what the oppressors always do?

Listen to Otter. There is plenty of sense there.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amiyah:
I must say that I find it painful when I realise/find out that a Christian friend/acquaintance who I thought was more liberal about gay relationships actually disapproves, even if they are nice about it. Otter, did you ever feel like me and if so how did you get over it?
Amiyah, I've never got over it, and I racked up 27 years as an out lesbian in the church. What I find even harder is the people who express support, but back away when the going gets tough, telling me that they want to protect me from harm. Well, the harm is done already, so how about not backing down? I can count on my fingers the straight friends who have stood up for me in church settings when the anti-gay pressure was on.

I've learned all the tricks of how to remain calm and courteous when people are telling me they disapprove of me, but the underlying feelings of anger and grief are still alive and kicking. That's why I left, in the end, because I don't believe that God really wants me to spend all my time arguing - I think God wants me to get on with ministry.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I have secular friends who don't particularly approve of my being a Christian, but still care about me very much. And I still love them, even if I wouldn't always make the same lifestyle choices. I'm not trying to minimise some of the crap gay Christians have to put up with, but unless we're going to spend the rest of our lives in a little bubble of like-minded people we'll have to rub along with those who don't always approve of everything we do or are, provided they'll rub along with us. Its the price of living peacefully in a diverse society.

[ 28. August 2009, 12:19: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
 
Posted by Amiyah (# 11989) on :
 
Yerevan, of course you're right. And (like all Christians living in the UK today, I'm sure) I've got plenty of secular friends as well who don't particularly approve of my being Christian, just as I've got plenty of friends with whom I have major political disagreements (where I'm much more left wing than them). And of course we still care about each other, and these differences aren't a source of pain for me.

Somehow, that feels quite different from friends/acquaintances disapproving of my sexuality and relationship with my partner. Maybe it's because it sort-of irritates/pokes at the internalised homophobia that lurks inside most or all gay people. And maybe (speculating now) it tweaks at the fear that whilst things are ok now for many gay people in the UK, and for me in my church, the pendulum might swing.

In any event, where I live you would have to look for a long time to find a little bubble of Christians to knock about with, none of whom disapproved of homosexuality!
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Amiyah, that makes sense and I understand. I have relatives by marriage who a) almost certainly think I'm predestined to spend eternity on Satan's toast rack b) are far too polite to say so c) don't seem too upset by it. Socialising with them is hours of fun.
 
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amiyah:
I must say that I find it painful when I realise/find out that a Christian friend/acquaintance who I thought was more liberal about gay relationships actually disapproves, even if they are nice about it. Otter, did you ever feel like me and if so how did you get over it?
No, as most of my friends are only nominally Christian at best, and through luck (or like-mindedness) many of them I already knew to be LGBT-friendly or neutral before I realized I was bisexual. I was concerned that one of my friends would draw away because of some tangentially-related issues, but even that didn't happen. Also, I'm not out everywhere, and so to most casual acquaintances, etc. I look like I'm in a normal heterosexual marriage (HAH! On several levels...). I'm not exactly out at work, but I think everybody knows I'm gay-friendly and won't put up with defamatory talk, etc.

That said, I also find it very hard to talk to the not-friendly. My stepfather, for one (all the bad blue-collar stereotypes, in person, sigh). And when my mother asked me not to tell my 94-year-old grandmother I'm bisexual because it would make her unhappy (plus cognitive function issues), I didn't argue. I thought some family members would be more upset, but I have some suspicions about one of my relatives, so maybe I was just another fruit on the family tree. [Big Grin]

Now, what I did find somewhat painful was when I came out on my blog, one guy I knew was gay said . . . nothing. I didn't expect any big gushing reaction, but I was hoping for a virtual smile-wave-say-hi acknowledgment, I guess.
 
Posted by Amiyah (# 11989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I've learned all the tricks of how to remain calm and courteous when people are telling me they disapprove of me, but the underlying feelings of anger and grief are still alive and kicking.
And never mind tweaking at possible internalised homophobia, or fears about bad things that might happened in the future - I guess when you have story like Arabella's where really bad things have happened to you in the past as a result of discrimination in the church, other people's disapproval, however nicely and gently it is communicated, is bound to hurt because it's going to remind you of your loss.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Oddly, the people who were most disappointed when I finally left the church were some of my non-church friends: one of them said to me that while I was still a churchgoer he was forced to believe that there must be something worth knowing about church. Once I left, he wasn't sure what to think.

And the people I struggled with most in those last months? Other lesbians in the church.

Go figure.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
And have you told your friends of your continued involvement in the Ship? We may not be able to take the part of the Whole Almighty Church (Tee Em), but 15,000 people can't be completely wrong....
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
but 15,000 people can't be completely wrong....
Or right with God
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
And have you told your friends of your continued involvement in the Ship? We may not be able to take the part of the Whole Almighty Church (Tee Em), but 15,000 people can't be completely wrong....
I have found that the Ship is a bit difficult to explain to the completely non-churched, probably because it requires some interest in (mostly Christian) religion without having many other parameters. The last two posts are rather indicative of the diverse nature of the membership. [Roll Eyes]

[ 29. August 2009, 09:34: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
I'm not sure I thoroughly understand the rather elliptical nature of previous posts, but my own experience approaches the extreme at both ends of the gay-acceptance spectrum. Since 1998, I have been banned from preaching in my local Methodist (a denomination which nationally accepts homosexuals) circuit because I was living with my now late partner.
Now, in the same area, I function as a reader in two Anglican (a church ambivalent about gays) parishes where I am openly gay and regularly refer to my late partner in conversation and in my sermons. Also, I have taught in diocesan reader training in the same way.
I have no problem being openly gay. The ones with the problem are those who reject me - and I have no intention of making life any easier for them. [Devil]
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
With news of the Second Coming now with us, it will be interesting to see who is right.
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
TCS, I don't care about being right, I care about doing God's work in the world. As far as I'm concerned, sexuality is completely irrelevant to my ability to minister.

Sorry to be elliptical peterr1 (and welcome to the Ship), but I didn't want to be rude. So for explanation, Chorister is lovely, Coiled Spring not so much. It is very hard to explain to the uninformed just how two such wildly different people can belong to this thing called Christianity.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Peter, have you had people leave that church in disgust? having seen something similar, in my time.

Welcome to the Ship. As you learn your way around you'll discover Hell. It is worth seeing who is called to Hell and why and what they say in their defence.
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
No-one's left in disgust so far as I know. The only time anyone has commented critically on anything I have said was when I mentioned Gordon Brown. She never thought she'd ever hear his name mentioned in church, she said.

In the Methodist circuit I mentioned, where I was banned after preaching a sermon about all sorts of families and mentioning my partner, my sermon led to a support group being started for gays and their families in the church.

Thanks for the welcome.
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
I'm ever minded of a lady, now living abroad, who was subjected to many years of sexual abuse at the hands of a particular paedophile gang. Understandably, her confidence in handling relationships with men was crushed.

She found love and gentleness in the form of a very lovely lady who has been such a tower of strength and healing for her.

They approached a local church, and were told that they were most certainly not welcome there as their behaviour was sinful.

She works with disabled people, and would as part of her job take them to the local churches and cathedrals, and sit there watching the services and listening to the fine words. Yet she knew in her heart that despite all she's endured, the endless horrors that had so badly scarred her past, her loving and caring and permanent relationship with a woman condemned her in their eyes.

I weep for her. And for all like her.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
posted by Pete173 {matey of willesden}
QUOTE] This probably isn't a hellish enough comment for this thread, but part of me wonders why we on SOF find it so hard to tolerate on the Boards the sort of stuff that happens most of the time IRL in churches. My life is spent dealing with the sorts of concerns and complaints that underpin what TCS has to say on the Ship. It goes with the territory. But perhaps it's part of the wet, effete and properly liberal CofE that we can encompass drive-by one liners who might just be holding up a mirror to the way the Church is...

Trust me, I was TCS' former IRL matey and not a druid.

quote:
Welcome to the Ship. As you learn your way around you'll discover Hell. It is worth seeing who is called to Hell and why and what they say in their defence.
It is also worth noting that some who do hell calls disappear up where the sun does not shine..most of what takes place in hell is dog piling which can best described as school playground bullying.

Not all we do is not right in God's eyes even though those we listen to encourage by saying God still loves you
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
This couple sound like towers of strength.

quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
I'm ever minded of a lady, now living abroad, who was subjected to many years of sexual abuse at the hands of a particular paedophile gang. Understandably, her confidence in handling relationships with men was crushed.

She found love and gentleness in the form of a very lovely lady who has been such a tower of strength and healing for her.

They approached a local church, and were told that they were most certainly not welcome there as their behaviour was sinful.

She works with disabled people, and would as part of her job take them to the local churches and cathedrals, and sit there watching the services and listening to the fine words. Yet she knew in her heart that despite all she's endured, the endless horrors that had so badly scarred her past, her loving and caring and permanent relationship with a woman condemned her in their eyes.

I weep for her. And for all like her.
Even hearing of them briefly here is an encouragment, for me.
 
Posted by Laurie17 (# 14889) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by peterr1:
I'm not sure I thoroughly understand the rather elliptical nature of previous posts, but my own experience approaches the extreme at both ends of the gay-acceptance spectrum. Since 1998, I have been banned from preaching in my local Methodist (a denomination which nationally accepts homosexuals) circuit because I was living with my now late partner.
Now, in the same area, I function as a reader in two Anglican (a church ambivalent about gays) parishes where I am openly gay and regularly refer to my late partner in conversation and in my sermons. Also, I have taught in diocesan reader training in the same way.
I have no problem being openly gay. The ones with the problem are those who reject me - and I have no intention of making life any easier for them. [Devil]
I am glad to hear of your varied, developing ministry among various congregations and maybe denoms. It is so good to hear of. Especially after all you have been thru, one way and another. Very creative.

I also need to offer my condolences for your partner, whenever it was that he died. A hard tough circumstance. (And one I dread personally).

Best wishes for your ministry
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
Thanks, Laurie17
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Curiosity Killed and others,
the Hell Board is there as a place for shipmates to remove their personal conflicts to, so they don't foul up the other boards - it's not for reintroducing them by link to threads outside Hell! Pleased don't discuss Hell thread material here. Any personal conflict/animus with The Coiled Spring belongs on the Hell thread and not here.

thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
And now we have the contribution to the debate of the Rev. N. Gumbel. In an interview published in the Guardian the other day, he is reported to have said that he would be "amazed" to learn that there were any churches (in the context, that was not just CofE but across the board) where gay and lesbian christians would not be made welcome.

Terminally naive or...?

John Holding
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This interview?

Sorry Louise for importing Hellish concerns into Dead Horses.

I hear people spouting the same anti-homosexuality stuff continuously, both here and in church, even though I attend an inclusive church. I've met enough people damaged by the rejection of the church and would agree with this snippet from a commentary by Renato Lings on Ezekiel 13:1-16, reflecting on the tensions between innovation and orthodoxy, which said:
quote:
The Bible reminds us, 'You will know them by their fruits' (John 13:35, 15:) I am yet to meet a lesbian, gay or bisexual Christian who has felt empowered by those who try to recreate them in their own heterosexual image. Instead I have known gay people who have committed suicide and others who attempted it. Their pain and grief, caused by ignorance, prejudice, exclusion and bullying, are with us daily.
His question was:
quote:
Are you ready to listen to the concerns of lesbian, gay and bisexual Christians?
Sadly, it seems that some people are not, although many people are.

[ 30. August 2009, 18:49: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And now we have the contribution to the debate of the Rev. N. Gumbel. In an interview published in the Guardian the other day, he is reported to have said that he would be "amazed" to learn that there were any churches (in the context, that was not just CofE but across the board) where gay and lesbian christians would not be made welcome.

Terminally naive or...?

John Holding
I read about that via
Mad Priest

It seems to be a familiar refrain from what I heard in my conservative evangelical days. "Sure. Gay people are welcome but only if you're willing to end your covenantal relationship or give up any idea of pursuing one, and while we're at it, we're going to heal you of that terrible orientation, all because we love you and want you to be happy. If it doesn't work, you're not faithful enough and you're a lousy Christian."

And then they are completely mystified why gay people generally don't take them up on the offer or perceive it as loving.

As I was raised, listening and seeking to understand someone was an essential component of loving them. When I read the Gospels I see a Jesus who listened and changed His mind when he met people, like Samaritans, who challenged his assumptions.

What I hear here is a version of love that completely different than that. And what is sad, is those who "love" in this way are completely unaware of how they are perceived. It is very very self-centred.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
When people are treated as 'invisible' because they're closeted in the face of religious hostility, it's possible to make up all kinds of nonsense about them: that being gay is a choice, that it can be cured, that it's all about selfish hedonism and ducking the duties and responsibilities of traditional marriage, that there's no problem with the way gay people are 'welcomed' in traditional churches. I suppose that's part of how Nicky Gumbel can say such silly stuff, but increasingly people are meeting visible, uncloseted GLBT folk as their neighbours and friends and in their family, and most of them can no longer support the cognitive dissonance of traditional Christian anti-gay attitudes, versus what they see and experience of gay people as normal folk who harm nobody.

I discovered at the weekend that one of my Great Uncles was apparently gay, suffered from depression, and eventually killed himself, it was the first I ever heard of it. Whether what he experienced growing up pre Wolfenden report contributed to his mental health problems, I'll probably never know, but it's hard not to think that way and wonder about it. He'd been 'invisible' in the family and could only be talked of now that attitudes had changed.

Loneliness, isolation and even tragedy, are some of the fruits of the traditional 'welcome' the church has given to gay people through insisting that they stay ashamed and invisible while the church makes up stories about them. It's sad that Nicky Gumbel doesn't seem to understand that and that he's willing to use such politician-like weasel words to avoid discussing it properly.

L.

[ 30. August 2009, 22:38: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's sad that Nicky Gumbel

Quite
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Gumbell really doesn't get it, does he?

He is just like his former vicar, Sandy Millar, who couldn't understand why a gay member of HTB committed suicide because his sexuality conflicted with his faith. Millar didn't understand how much anguish and damage 'Christisn' homophoia causes.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Oh good Lord, leo, really?

Sandy Millar has (fairly) recently become in charge of 3 churches around my way. Fortunately my own place is too far up the candle (and evidently too inclusive) for him to set foot in.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes, really - it is in the public domain, having been on a television programme some years ago. I have rarely seen someone squirm so much in front of the camera.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
If I might share a story about the value of closeted gay folks coming out to their church friends:

When I began attending my current congregation, I was single, living with my elderly mother, and very closeted. I think my church family saw me as the somewhat tragic Dutiful Only Child whose personal life had been subsumed by the responsibilities of caring for an elder...which I suppose I was, because I honestly don't think my mom would have been able to process the news of my sexual orientation. And I wasn't willing to lead a surreptitious second life on weekends and vacations; I was just tired of "secrets"; if I had to be alone, I thought, then that was just fate and I needed to accept that.

After my mother died, I began networking online among area lesbians -- honestly, not for sexual assignations (as much as homophobes fantasize that gay people do nothing but think about sex) but just to finally meet people like me. That is how I met my partner -- someone had organized a Mother's Day dinner at a local pub for women who couldn't be with their children on that day, and even though I don't have children I was invited to join in.

Long story short, I wasn't terribly impressed with the assembled women, who I actually found somewhat embarrassing to be around...except for the one who became my partner. [Axe murder] We agreed we'd like to hang out on weekends and travel around the state, since we both enjoyed that. And then one thing led to another...

We are both persons of faith; my partner had been looking for a friendly place to go to church. She was afraid that her regular attendance with me would start raising eyebrows -- we even went through this thing where we'd come to church in separate vehicles -- but we finally decided that this wasn't being honest or authentic, and we should just relax and be ourselves and let the congo do the math.

That's what happened. And I can honestly say I've not had any negative repercussions at my congregation, even though I'm a lay leader; not one. My pastor had told me, "Do not worry about this," and he was right. If anything, the congregation has embraced my partner with open arms...they LOVE her, especially since she she brings with her her RC social-Gospel sensibilities; a disabled veteran herself, she's helped numerous veterans in our congo with their VA issues, and she's also usually in the front line of volunteering time or goods in kind.

Full inclusion in the Church, IMHO, is not going to come with pronouncements on high; it's going to come when the straight folks look around them at their gay sisters and brothers in Christ being the Church, just like them, and concluding, "So...what's all the fuss about, exactly?" My partner and I are very aware of ourselves as role models (as unfair as that can be) and educators within our faith community.

Truly, in matters of faith, we get much more flak from my partner's atheist family members and members of the lesbian community (who think we're fruitcakes for affiliating with "the enemy").
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's sad that Nicky Gumbel doesn't seem to understand that and that he's willing to use such politician-like weasel words to avoid discussing it properly.
I've read what Gumbel has to say about gay people in the supplementary Alpha material. He's in favour of the conventional, anti-gay reading of Romans 1 etc, and so I really don't know what he's going on about. Tony Blair grin and bland pleasantries on the surface, masking conditional love and rejection underneath. Reminds me of Hamlet's line about how one may "smile, and smile, and be a villain."

- Chris.
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's sad that Nicky Gumbel doesn't seem to understand that and that he's willing to use such politician-like weasel words to avoid discussing it properly.
I've read what Gumbel has to say about gay people in the supplementary Alpha material. He's in favour of the conventional, anti-gay reading of Romans 1 etc, and so I really don't know what he's going on about. Tony Blair grin and bland pleasantries on the surface, masking conditional love and rejection underneath. Reminds me of Hamlet's line about how one may "smile, and smile, and be a villain."

- Chris.
Gumbel probably took lessons from my boss and the organisation I work for.
Because my boss employed me knowing I was gay and claims naivete, the fact that she objects to me leaving a gay magazine, Attitude, in the staff sitting room and discussing it with a female member of staff is deemed by the company not to be discriminatory. Apparently she also thinks her partner's car magazines are "sad." The message: be gay if you like, tell us if you like, but never ever give us an inkling of what it actually means to be gay.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And Attitude isn't exactly hard core, is it?
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
The issue of Attitude in question had Harry Potter on the front cover. Inside the actor says homophobia is animal and disgusting.
Harry Potter for archbishop, I say. . . Except that archbishops have a habit (pun not intended) of abandoning their gay-friendliness when they put on the extra-big mitre.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes. It happens alongside the part of the ordination where the spine is removed.
 
Posted by peterr1 (# 14101) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes. It happens alongside the part of the ordination where the spine is removed.
I think I'd rather be gay with a spine than an archbishop without one. At least I can stand up straight ( [Snigger] ) and proud.

Am I allowed to say that sort of thing on here?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Good for you.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
I may be from pretty much the other side of the fence from you on this issue, but I can heartily endorse all you say, including the bit about ++Akinola: in so far as he calls for criminal sanctions - and worse - against those is S-S relationships, he's a nasty homophobic bastard, and I'm sorry to have him on my 'side'.
Are you sure about that considering what 2 Peter 2 has to say
I'm not sure what that chapter has to do with criticising someone who has called for the criminalisation - and worse - of homosexuals
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie17:
'...there are people that think homosexuality is wrong, but aren't homophobic.' (Quote)

I have no idea how that works or looks.

To say or think that way IS anti-gay and to speak on it, is one imporatant way of acting on it.

Sorry, but this sounds like the very sort of intolerance (bordering on 'thought-crime') that conservative Christians get accused of.
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
Thinking out loud here.... I think a person or church could say that homosexuality is wrong without being homophobic if he/it also takes the same a position on other expressions of sexuality that are more accepted by society than homosexuality but are "wrong" in the eyes of a traditional reading of the Bible.

Surely it is homophobic to suggest that there is greater "wrongness" attached to homosexual relations than to, say, someone forming a sexual relationship following a divorce (which Jesus explicitly described as adultery) or someone who lives within a celibate marriage having adulterous relations?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Agreed, as long as the Matt 19 exception is noted too.
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
Agreed.

One of the things that hacked me off about the Reform churches' open letter re the ceremony at St Bartholomew the Great is that I bet the Reform churches don't write an open letter to the bishop every time an Anglican church in London offers marriage or a blessing to a couple one of whom is divorced.

I can't see any other way to interpret that than that they consider homosexuality to be "wronger" than what Jesus considered to be adultery. Which does seem to me to be an unreasonable prejudice.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:
I can't see any other way to interpret that than that they consider homosexuality to be "wronger" than what Jesus considered to be adultery. Which does seem to me to be an unreasonable prejudice.
I think you've got a fair point about inconsistency but I also think you are failing to take into account real politik.

Is not the real reason for the lack of letters that this wing of the church feels that it lost the battle on divorce but this is the battle it is fighting now?

Surely there is a limit to the number of letters that even Reform can write?
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Another explanation is that most churchgoers have numerous divorced friends (or they themselves are divorced) and so can relate to the situation. Gay people are in a minority, often isolated from a church, and so it's harder to have empathy with their concerns.

I hear it used to be difficult to get courts to sentence driving offenses strongly. The problem was that judges and juries could easily imagine themselves being in the same position, and so tended to be very forgiving: there but for the grace of God go I.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:

... someone forming a sexual relationship following a divorce (which Jesus explicitly described as adultery)
Not in the New Testment he doesn't. He ways that a man who divorces a woman for a reason other than sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. That's not quite the same thing.

It is clear that the sin is on the head of the divorcer, not the remarrier. And that divorce is allowed for "porneia" (whatever that is)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Another explanation is that most churchgoers have numerous divorced friends (or they themselves are divorced) and so can relate to the situation. Gay people are in a minority, often isolated from a church, and so it's harder to have empathy with their concerns.
I'm sure that enters people's heads but I honestly doubt it is a significant factor.

quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
And that divorce is allowed for "porneia" (whatever that is)
Ken's right. There are biblical grounds for divorce and so how on earth is a Reform type person going to know whether a forth-coming marriage at St. Egbert's in the Swamp is between two people who (in their eyes) have been legitimately or illegitimately divorced previously? Is this kind of detail mentioned in the banns? Or should they literally write to every single wedding taking place in any Anglican church anywhere just to double-check?

I don't think I'm really sticking my neck out when I say that civil partnerships are a lot easier to spot.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:

... someone forming a sexual relationship following a divorce (which Jesus explicitly described as adultery)
Not in the New Testment he doesn't. He ways that a man who divorces a woman for a reason other than sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. That's not quite the same thing.

It is clear that the sin is on the head of the divorcer, not the remarrier. And that divorce is allowed for "porneia" (whatever that is)
Yes - probably because divorced women had no means of financial support. It's more about the morality of money and gender than of sex.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Not in the New Testment he doesn't. He ways that a man who divorces a woman for a reason other than sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. That's not quite the same thing.

It is clear that the sin is on the head of the divorcer, not the remarrier. And that divorce is allowed for "porneia" (whatever that is)
Yes - probably because divorced women had no means of financial support. It's more about the morality of money and gender than of sex.
But what if the divorcer is the remarrier?
My mother divorced her first husband after he had a child with another woman but my parents were not allowed to marry in church (and it still annoys me).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
If one wishes to look at the spirit rather than the letter then I suppose the 'divorcer' is the one who de facto ends the marriage. Where that gets difficult IRL of course is that more often than not there's fault on both sides...

[ETA - I've been round the houses on this one personally: technically I was the petitioner in the divorce suit which ended my first marriage so legally I was the 'divorcer'. But the petition was on the grounds of my wife's admitted and ongoing adultery, so morally she was the 'divorcer'. But I had been far from the perfect husband to her, so that places at least some moral responsibility on me for the break-up. My present (2nd) wife's parents who are conservative Brethren refused to give their permission for me to marry her until I could demonstrate that I had Scriptural grounds for so doing, and I pleaded Matt 19 (plus some commentary on it by an ECF whose name escapes me which effectively said that as her adultery was ongoing then it was my duty to divorce her otherwise I would be approving of her sin) in my 'defence', which they eventually accepted. So, contrary to what some may think here, there are conservative Christians who treat divorce and remarriage issues seriously.]

[ 28. September 2009, 11:06: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man With No Name:

... someone forming a sexual relationship following a divorce (which Jesus explicitly described as adultery)
Not in the New Testment he doesn't. He ways that a man who divorces a woman for a reason other than sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. That's not quite the same thing.

It is clear that the sin is on the head of the divorcer, not the remarrier. And that divorce is allowed for "porneia" (whatever that is)
Yes, you're right, and I'm very lazy and should have used more words to avoid implying that I'm an RC hardliner on this subject, when nothing could be further from the truth.

As an aside, we have a new parish priest this morning, and his first sermon was the hard line on divorce and remarriage. Can't decide if I think that was brave or foolhardy (or both).

However, to return to the subject, I have the perception that there is more outspoken condemnation of homosexual immorality than heterosexual immorality. I probably can't support that with any evidence, but if it is the case, it leads one to the view that there is institutionalied homophobia in the church.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Another explanation is that most churchgoers have numerous divorced friends (or they themselves are divorced) and so can relate to the situation. Gay people are in a minority, often isolated from a church, and so it's harder to have empathy with their concerns.
[/i].
Or they're in the closet (still). It's a sad situation for those folks because the only possible way of changing attitudes is to come out, come out wherever you are.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ticachick:
I think my original intent was not to discuss the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, but assuming that even in conservative churches, when asked people will say "love the sinner, hate the sin" but when push comes to shove, there is a prejudice against homosexuals, in that jokes against this community are deemed okay (where jokes against other minority groups would not be).
Ironic, given the prevalence of faith identity in the LGBT community (at least, in the US).

Money quote:
quote:
George Barna, whose company conducted the research, pointed out that some popular stereotypes about the spiritual life of gays and lesbians are simply wrong.

“People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts,” declared the best-selling author of numerous books about faith and culture. “A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today.

 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0