Thread: Homosexual Attraction: The Power of a Pastor's Testimony 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=028659
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebb's Church, Oxford speaks about his ongoing experience of homosexual attraction.
This, I think, is a very brave step for Vaughan to make. Now, I know that the subject matter itself is considered a Dead Horse but I wonder if there is room for a conversation about how this story will play out online, offline, in the church, outside the church? For example, the article is already being tweeted and blogged about favourably by conservative evangelicals. I haven't seen anything negative from that camp as yet, but it might come.
Has anyone got any examples of reactions from other theological camps, tweeters, bloggers etc?
How do you think Vaughan's testimony will be/should be received in the wider church?
What sort of reaction do you predict from those in the church who think differently to him?
Is this article a sign that Evangelicals are beginning to distill a clearer, fairer and more biblically robust pastoral position on the issue? Or is it about something else? How do you see it?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[attempting to step around the fossil mesohippus]
I'm vaguely associated with http://im-sorry.org.uk/# - my feelings are that there is indeed a move within evangelicalism, but it's the move which Vaughan says saddens him:
quote:
Certainly. I pray for them every Monday from a list that is divided in two: those who continue to seek to be faithful to the Bible’s teaching that the only right context for sexual intercourse is in a marriage between a man and a woman and those who have moved away from that view. Sadly the second group is growing.
And I can't escape the fact that whilst it saddens him it gladdens me. Most of the evangelicals I know are moving in that direction. That may be a cause of sadness for traditionalists, and how the resulting tension (which is no different to the tension we have in the CofE over exactly the same issue) will play out I do not know.
I'm not sure I see anything in what Vaughan is saying that hasn't been what conservative evangelicals have been saying back from even when I was one of them - there was the odd one or two who claimed that people needed to lose their orientation to be acceptable to God, but they were in the minority and argued against quite strongly.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
There is certainly "something else" in this - that there is a lot more acceptance within the church of people with same-sex attraction.
This acceptance does not come from within the church. It comes from without. Roberts makes the point himself that in a previous book only six years previously, he excised references to his own same-sex attraction.
That he now feels able to say that he experiences same-sex attraction is due to changing attitudes (hah!) in wider society, and not within conservative evangelicalism, where it's still very difficult to be 'out', whether or not you're celibate.
There will now be frantic googling to see what Roberts has said in the past about homosexuality. It'll be interesting to see how his peers in Reform etc treat him.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I read VR's statement with interest. I agree with what Karl says above; there does seem to me to be another point to which I don't see VR attending. That is whether, in giving this interview with the hope of offering help and hope to fellow Christians who are attracted to persons of the same sex, he is not inadvertently putting some of those fellow Christians in the way of temptation. You know, the brethren who are specifically attracted to VR. It may be that, in St Ebbe's there are now men thinking, 'Perhaps he will look at me . Perhaps he feels what I feel for him.'
Incidentally, is VR married to a woman? That would also have a bearing on this particular testimony.
[ 27. September 2012, 09:27: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
My take is that I've long thought it odd how Evangelicals make statements about homosexual activity and then don't seem to want to go an extra step and offer systems for gay people to exist celibately. That to me would at least have some integrity.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Agreed. More generally, the whole Reformation tradition seems to have downplayed the value of celibacy, and it's high time we ditched that particular piece of 16th century baggage.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed. More generally, the whole Reformation tradition seems to have downplayed the value of celibacy, and it's high time we ditched that particular piece of 16th century baggage.
Which bit's the baggage? Downplaying celibacy, or celibacy?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
My take is that I've long thought it odd how Evangelicals make statements about homosexual activity and then don't seem to want to go an extra step and offer systems for gay people to exist celibately. That to me would at least have some integrity.
I think Roberts suggests that his "Advisory Group" offers him a system which helps him remain celibate. So it looks as if St Ebb's at least has a relational way of keeping its pastor celibate. How that might work for the rank and file I don't know, but Roberts says that some kind of 'support group' is being formed in his church for people who, like him, experience same sex attraction.
[ 27. September 2012, 09:46: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Godric (# 17135) on
:
OK, this is all very interesting and the discussion is a sensitive and very personal account of a difficult road but what is this saying about sex, sexuality and the teaching of the Church in public ministry? Can a clergyman be "In and against the Church" or is s/he ultimately disloyal to one belief or another?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed. More generally, the whole Reformation tradition seems to have downplayed the value of celibacy, and it's high time we ditched that particular piece of 16th century baggage.
Which bit's the baggage? Downplaying celibacy, or celibacy?
The former, you naughty person!
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Sorry, I don't quite get your question Godric.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think Roberts suggests that his "Advisory Group" offers him a system which helps him remain celibate. So it looks as if St Ebb's at least has a relational way of keeping its pastor celibate. How that might work for the rank and file I don't know, but Roberts says that their some kind of 'support group' being formed in his church for people who experience same sex attraction.
Evangelical straight people seem sometimes to imply that gay people have no need for strong relationships or for living with other people. The headlong rush into support for heterosexual marriage and 2.4 children seems to put everyone else as an also-ran (to badly mangle metaphors, I'm sorry about that).
I think that is partly caused by the breakdown in community, which has direct influences from the individualism of the faith propagated by Evangelicalism. I have relatives of my great-grandparents generation who lived with their siblings until old age. Further back into history, we have models of religious communities of strong relationships which were not (well... I'm assuming not, I suppose) about sexual relations. For example the Dutch/Belgian Beguines.
I'm not trying to suggest all gay people would appreciate this, but I am saying that those who hold onto a celibate model of lifestyle to be consistent with an Evangelical understanding of their faith are not-even-slightly assisted by the church to lead celibate lives.
[ 27. September 2012, 09:57: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
I think Roberts suggests that his "Advisory Group" offers him a system which helps him remain celibate. So it looks as if St Ebb's at least has a relational way of keeping its pastor celibate.
My wife could give them some advice.
Fly Safe. Pyx_e
p.s. I look at this stuff in the same way I watch guys doing plate spinning tricks. Sooner or later one of the plates is gonna fall. Which of course is half the fun. It's nice to see VR has some other people spinning his plates for him. But is is cheating, on his part and on theirs.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
p.p.s what sort of thing is going on when you put people in columns to pray for them ????? It is just crazy making. But for the sake of experience VR is now in a column all on his own, he is in the "giving massages in a turkish bath, in Turkey" column.
(gotta love the three minute edit)
[ 27. September 2012, 10:05: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Further to this, evangelical churches (certainly the CE ones I've attended) have always put subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle pressure on their single late teens and early twenties people to pair off and marry.
It'd be a change for the better if they backed off from this. I'm well past this now, but I'd much rather my kids didn't have something else to feel anxious about.
(x-posted with Pyx_e)
[ 27. September 2012, 10:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
What on earth are you talking about Pyx_e?
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What on earth are you talking about Pyx_e?
Be more specific please.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think Roberts suggests that his "Advisory Group" offers him a system which helps him remain celibate. So it looks as if St Ebb's at least has a relational way of keeping its pastor celibate. How that might work for the rank and file I don't know, but Roberts says that their some kind of 'support group' being formed in his church for people who experience same sex attraction.
I'm not trying to suggest all gay people would appreciate this, but I am saying that those who hold onto a celibate model of lifestyle to be consistent with an Evangelical understanding of their faith are not-even-slightly assisted by the church to lead celibate lives.
You've clearly thought more about this than I have. I can appreciate what you're saying about the need for evangelicals who hold to VR's particular pastoral position to think more clearly about how to build genuine community at the heart of the church that genuinely includes same-sex attracted people. Do you think it is possible?
[ 27. September 2012, 10:13: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
You've clearly thought more about this than I have. I can appreciate what you're saying about the need for evangelicals who hold to VR's particular pastoral position to think more clearly about how to build genuine community at the heart of the church that genuinely includes same-sex attracted people. Do you think it is possible?
Possible - maybe. Likely - no.
I don't even how big a constituency of (let's say theologically-inclined-to-be) celibate gay Evangelicals there are. Being non-gay and a post-evangelical means that I'm not really in a position to find out.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
This, I think, is a very brave step for Vaughan to make. Now, I know that the subject matter itself is considered a Dead Horse but I wonder if there is room for a conversation about how this story will play out online, offline, in the church, outside the church? For example, the article is already being tweeted and blogged about favourably by conservative evangelicals. I haven't seen anything negative from that camp as yet, but it might come.
I doubt that anything negative will come.
My experience is that most conservative evangelicals are very comfortable with a person who admits to same sex attraction, so long as they are fighting it. Much of the church has moved on from the view that having same-sex attraction is any kind of choice. They take exactly the same view expressed in the article - that it's simply one of the battles with temptation one must face. It's a courageous struggle. It's "brave".
They only start having a problem with you if you say you're gay and okay with it.
[ 27. September 2012, 10:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
As you all know, all things of this nature are DH topics. Down you go.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh, and the thing about the Advisory Group?
Yes. All very supportive. They'll sit around and pray for their afflicted brother.
And then probably they'll all go home and have sex with their wives.
The "support", again in my experience, doesn't actually tend to extend so far as bearing the burden with him. It consists of spiritually cheering from the sidelines and applauding one's bravery in suffering. But conservative evangelicals are thoroughly willing to provide THAT kind of support to their homosexual brothers.
(and sisters too, probably, but I'm personally familiar with the gay male struggler/straight male support dynamic - all very manly)
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
And actually, I think there are a large number of people who are looking for some kind of greater commitment to church which is not on the same kind of level as a traditional religious order but is more than just warming the pew.
The need for models which go beyond worship services and Thursday night bible study is overwhelming. I can't really see why communities or households (or something) of celibate gay Evangelicals could not be a part of that kind of movement. The only restriction as far as I can see is the general screamishness of Evangelicals to the idea that there could be gay people who are not constantly in a form existential angst about being gay.
edited to add - sorry, delayed post etc..
[ 27. September 2012, 10:35: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What on earth are you talking about Pyx_e?
Be more specific please.
I think he means your 1000 post.
[ETA - Orfeo, you have far too rose-tinted a view of heterosexual sexual relationships!]
[ 27. September 2012, 11:06: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed. More generally, the whole Reformation tradition seems to have downplayed the value of celibacy, and it's high time we ditched that particular piece of 16th century baggage.
True. It's a bit of the New Testament and the Fathers that they've switched off.
However, how relevant would the way other traditions have engaged with this be for managing this particular problem? Having a holy mountain consecrated to the Blessed Virgin, accessible only by boat and to which women are not admitted, might be merely the most thorough way of managing the more usual source of temptation. One might imagine that it's less useful for managing temptation in its less expected form.
Orders of sisters have always been assiduous to discourage, for entirely understandable reasons, both too close a friendship with an attendant priest and what are called 'particular friendships' between sisters.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My experience is that most conservative evangelicals are very comfortable with a person who admits to same sex attraction, so long as they are fighting it. Much of the church has moved on from the view that having same-sex attraction is any kind of choice. They take exactly the same view expressed in the article - that it's simply one of the battles with temptation one must face. It's a courageous struggle. It's "brave".
They only start having a problem with you if you say you're gay and okay with it.
Nail. Head.
Jeffrey John was beyond the pale despite his celibacy because he doesn't see his sexuality as a problem to be solved, or a battle to be won. Vaughan Roberts would face the same reaction if he said he was gay and proud, rather than "struggling" with it.
As Karl says, the real movement in evangelicalism is one which is leaving Roberts and his attitudes behind.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[ETA - Orfeo, you have far too rose-tinted a view of heterosexual sexual relationships!]
If you're having any sex at all, you're still better off than the homosexual who is told, or indeed believes, that he can't ever have licit sex. EVER.
[ 27. September 2012, 11:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
hmm, sounds like *Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner* with some extra words imo.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
When does the church — Evangelical, Pentecostal, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever — move away from this "love the sinner hate the sin" model to a "love the person, let God deal with the sin if any" model? When does it condemn people who go around making life difficult for people with same-sex attraction, or who call them "abominations"? Whether or not one thinks that sexual relations with a person of the same sex are licit, one has to treat all people with respect and grace and with a good dollop of MYOFB about their supposed sins. We're all a bunch of Grand Inquisitors putting people on a metaphorical rack if they are tempted to sins, especially sins that we ourselves are not tempted to. Gluttons and gossips saying vicious things about gays: when will we address this openly?
And yes I realize there's a bit of circularity here. But sometimes we have to wade into hypocritical waters to save the drowning. "Oh I shouldn't 'judge' those people throwing rocks at that man" doesn't save that man from being stoned to death. And gay people are being stoned to the death of suicide every day around us by the judgmental words and deeds of self-proclaimed Christians.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Dead right, mousethief.
But I have a lot of sympathy for the Revd Mr Roberts. It can't be easy dealing with the desire to fuck other men, when so many of those other men think he should go fuck himself.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
One interesting feature of the article in the OP is that the interviewer is the senior pastor of Eden Baptist Church in Cambridge. A former senior pastor of that place was Roy Clements, who stepped down in 1999 and left his wife when he revealed that he was gay. Although he continues to write, I think that he has been shunned by the evangelical constituency.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
A more interesting example perhaps would be Richard Coles; salient paragraph from the Wiki entry is here:
quote:
Coles is openly gay and lives with his partner in a celibate relationship, in respect for the current rules within the Church of England. Commenting on the current Church of England policy on same-sex relationships for clergy, Coles told The Daily Telegraph, ‘‘It’s not as I would have it, but then it’s not about me.’’
I would like to think that my fellow conservatives would not have a problem with this as there is no same-sex sexual activity going on here, but the Jeffrey John debacle would unfortunately suggest otherwise...
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're all a bunch of Grand Inquisitors putting people on a metaphorical rack if they are tempted to sins, especially sins that we ourselves are not tempted to. Gluttons and gossips saying vicious things about gays: when will we address this openly?
Indeed. God still loves bigots, but they're objectively disordered, and the gravity of their sin is such that they should not be allowed to hold a position of responsibility in the church until they have undergone a thorough process of repentance and reconciliation.
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on
:
The Long Ranger writes:
quote:
I can't really see why communities or households (or something) of celibate gay Evangelicals could not be a part of that kind of movement.
I think experience says that communities of celibate anything - unless they genuinely all have a vocation to celibacy tend to end up not being so very celibate. Hunky young gay Evangelical men all being celibate together? I don't think so.
The problem with the VR approach is that there is no possible discenrment of whether he or anyone else has such a vocation. Celibacy is manadatory - and that is not biblical.
I am glad to see him peek out of his closet though - I think there are loads more in there with him. But it is ever so dark in there doing Bible Study 24/7 - so none of them can see who each of them is. And the denial in the community is so great that even the ones with functioning gaydar have no chance to get it calibrated properly - so that any gaydar identification of another SSA chap is immediately dismissed because "of course he can't be - he leads such super Bible Studies".
Believe me - I know - I was one of them.
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on
:
Matt Black says
quote:
I would like to think that my fellow conservatives would not have a problem with this as there is no same-sex sexual activity going on here, but the Jeffrey John debacle would unfortunately suggest otherwise...
I'll tell you, Matt, why the con evos will have a problem with the likes of RC. As your quotation of him demonstrates, he is not exactly thrilled with the official position. Nor is he expressing ongoing and continual repentance about the time when he and his bloke were having gay sex (whatever that means - remember the con evo obsession is about one kind of gay sex, which lots of gay peole don't have at all).
For the real hardliners, unless there is that utter note of rejection and contrition in anything one might say about one's previous "lifestyle", then you are fair game for their criticism and judgement. That is why the JJ debacle is an ongoing one - he may be celibate now (though why he or RC are prepared to tell other people what goes on in their bedrooms goodness only knows) - but he wasn't, and he will not say that it was all bad.
I have no hopes that the official position will change - but until it does I hope no more prominent clergy will allow themselves to be pushed into making declarations about their sexual activity or otherwise - we ask no such thing of heterosexual clergy - and I have known loads of those with interesting things to hide from public gaze.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
I think experience says that communities of celibate anything - unless they genuinely all have a vocation to celibacy tend to end up not being so very celibate. Hunky young gay Evangelical men all being celibate together? I don't think so.
Maybe. Dunno, I guess it depends how important it is to you to have a theology that is actionable. That you or others have not been able to do it is largely irrelevant.
quote:
The problem with the VR approach is that there is no possible discenrment of whether he or anyone else has such a vocation. Celibacy is manadatory - and that is not biblical.
Irrevelevant. It matters not one jot whether you or I think it is biblical, necessary or important. The point is that these evangelical gay people think it is important and the church is not helping. What other people think is up to them. I don't think vocation comes into it, but then I largely do not believe in religious vocation anyway.
quote:
I am glad to see him peek out of his closet though - I think there are loads more in there with him. But it is ever so dark in there doing Bible Study 24/7 - so none of them can see who each of them is. And the denial in the community is so great that even the ones with functioning gaydar have no chance to get it calibrated properly - so that any gaydar identification of another SSA chap is immediately dismissed because "of course he can't be - he leads such super Bible Studies".
Again, irrelevant and just showing your prejudice. Maybe it is just too much and that being a celibate evangelical gay is not possible, I have no idea. But if the church truly believes it is possible the responsibility is upon them to make every effort to help. It isn't my belief, but the least anyone can expect of others is to live up to their own beliefs.
quote:
Believe me - I know - I was one of them.
Then, honestly, you are the wrong person to ask. You were one, you are not now, you don't really have a goose in this fight. According to you, the best that a person in this situation can do is lose the theology. Which is a fair opinion, but not one that people in this situation hold.
In all likelihood many will change their theology. But again, that is really not the point.
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on
:
Long Ranger -
Telling me my view of what he is about is irrelevant is kind of like how con evos treat all and any LGBT people who don't subscribe to their view of "SSA people". See the comments above about how VR would probably be treated if he was not "struggling against SSA" - see how they treated poor Roy Clements. Shut the dissenting voices up and then exclude them.
He is welcome to do exactly as he is doing and to find and sustain any number of communities of Evangelcial people who are "SSA" in celibacy. I have no beef with that at all.
What I do have a beef with is the claim that their view is the only Christian way to handle this personal moral challenge - that it is the only Biblical way - and that people like me who think that being gay is a minority sexuality but entirely normal and that working out our personal relationships in a fully sexual and yet faithful and committed way is wrong and displeasing to God.
Their perspective tells me that I am "irrelevant" - rather as you have.
I am simply saying that while I respect entirely their right to deal with this matter in the kinds of way which might include communities of celibate people resisting their "SSA" together - experience (of watching and knowing some people who tried precisely this in the 1970s) tells me that this is not likely to succeed.
A future that includes us all remaining in fellowship is not likely to be found in a stand-off that means that the opposite sides of this question can't listen to each other because each tells the other they are irrelevant. No one is irrelevant - and nor are their views.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yet you appear to be saying - correct me if I'm wrong - that RC's view and methodology of working out his orientation is irrelevant. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 28. September 2012, 11:47: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whether or not one thinks that sexual relations with a person of the same sex are licit, one has to treat all people with respect and grace and with a good dollop of MYOFB about their supposed sins. We're all a bunch of Grand Inquisitors putting people on a metaphorical rack if they are tempted to sins, especially sins that we ourselves are not tempted to. [...]
Sometimes we have to wade into hypocritical waters to save the drowning. "Oh I shouldn't 'judge' those people throwing rocks at that man" doesn't save that man from being stoned to death. And gay people are being stoned to the death of suicide every day around us by the judgmental words and deeds of self-proclaimed Christians.
Evangelicalism has traditionally expected church members to submit to exacting scrutiny of their lives; if you want to be left in peace, it doesn't make much sense to belong to an evangelical church.
The modern mainstream church is in a quandry, though, and I agree that there's a bit of hypocrisy about. Church leaders may feel a good amount of sympathy for gay people, but in an age of church decline, they're also quite wary of doing things that might to drive away the few remaining congregants they have left, without any guarantee of replacing them. So they try to take the middle path - and end up leaving both conservative evangelicals and committed liberals cold.
We can argue about judgementalism and cruelty, but I don't see how things will change in the current demoralising circumstances of church decline. In the UK, the most liberal churches remain very small. In the USA the liberal churches seem to be doing relatively well, though, despite this website's obsession with 'evangelicals'.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
@Aelred of Rievaulx - you need to lose the persecution complex. In fact, I agree with you.
Unless you are a gay evangelical Christian who believes celibacy is important, you are irrelevant to the discussion of how one lives as a celibate gay evangelical Christian. That is not a point of persecution but of fact.
That celibacy is desirable or not, even if it is possible or not, is not a relevant part of the discussion. And, more to the point, why should they even ask you as a non-celibate (or at least a person that thinks celibacy is not credible for people in that position)?
In the same way, one might see young British Muslims discussing how to be a modern British teenager and a Muslim. If they have decided that they do not want to give up being British or being a Muslim, then someone who has emigrated to Pakistan or is an ex-Muslim has very little impact on the debate - other than to claim that the two things are untenable.
I think celibate evangelical Christians are entitled to decide for themselves (and experiment with) being celibate. I think if they want to do that, then to be consistent with their professed theology then they should be seeking forms of living that support that profession. I can't see anything in that which is a) unreasonable b) forcing LTGB people to conform to a belief they don't want to or c) offensive.
Very possibly it is not tenable. But why should they listen to you or I if we're not also gay evangelicals who think that celibacy is important?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Perhaps he should stop being so tortured within himself and get onto GRINDR (which I am told is a very good site for gay, bi, or curious men) and get some fun, chat, hookups, bit on the side, or whatever would release the valve of his confusion. Thwe site is particularly good as a mobile phone app, so it would be easy to get some passing trade.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and the thing about the Advisory Group?
Yes. All very supportive. They'll sit around and pray for their afflicted brother.
And then probably they'll all go home and have sex with their wives.
The "support", again in my experience, doesn't actually tend to extend so far as bearing the burden with him. It consists of spiritually cheering from the sidelines and applauding one's bravery in suffering. But conservative evangelicals are thoroughly willing to provide THAT kind of support to their homosexual brothers.
(and sisters too, probably, but I'm personally familiar with the gay male struggler/straight male support dynamic - all very manly)
That's extremely binary. I think Vaughan is trying to break that stereotype - that the world can be divided easily into straight people and gay people. Rather he would view the advisory group as a group of sinners each struggling with their faith and their sin, and supporting each other. From Vaughan's article I'd be astonished if he saw it as a bunch of sraight men telling a gay man what to do.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Aelred of Rievaulx - you need to lose the persecution complex. In fact, I agree with you.
Unless you are a gay evangelical Christian who believes celibacy is important, you are irrelevant to the discussion of how one lives as a celibate gay evangelical Christian. That is not a point of persecution but of fact.
I'm not sure, but I don't think you get to say who can or cannot have a say on a ship thread, or who should or should not take them seriously. This is a fact.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
That's true. I didn't mean to imply that the opinion was unimportant (nor even that it wasn't worth saying on this thread) just irrelevant.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
That's true. I didn't mean to imply that the opinion was unimportant (nor even that it wasn't worth saying on this thread) just irrelevant.
It's not unimportant, it's just irrelevant. Um. Er. Ah. I mean. Uh. WTF?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
If someone asks for the best recipes for pancakes and someone says they don't like pancakes and all batter should be used for waffles - it can be legitimately said to be interesting, or true even, but irrelevant.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If someone asks for the best recipes for pancakes and someone says they don't like pancakes and all batter should be used for waffles - it can be legitimately said to be interesting, or true even, but irrelevant.
But that's not what's going on here. What's going on here is you're saying, YOUR opinion, because of who you are, is not relevant. You have no say. No one need listen to your opinion because you're not in such-and-such a group.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Well, I'm sorry I don't think it is relevant. For the reasons I've explained above.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and the thing about the Advisory Group?
Yes. All very supportive. They'll sit around and pray for their afflicted brother.
And then probably they'll all go home and have sex with their wives.
The "support", again in my experience, doesn't actually tend to extend so far as bearing the burden with him. It consists of spiritually cheering from the sidelines and applauding one's bravery in suffering.
That's it in a nutshell-- well said. I missed any reference in the interview to his own marital status. I can take it better from someone who walks the walk (and, it would seem, gives up any craving for the purple) as well as talking the talk. If he is happily married, then either his homosexual attractions are fairly incidental, or his wife is an unusually long-suffering woman, such as it can hardly be one's duty to unearth. And if he is unhappily married because he never told her before tying the knot, "oh, by the way, I actually like guys a lot better," I wouldn't give him the time of day.
It remains a mystery to me why Saint Paul, while counseling universal celibacy, would sigh and allow a safety valve for concupiscence, but only to some.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well, I'm sorry I don't think it is relevant. For the reasons I've explained above.
Who are you to tell other people they're not relevant?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well, I'm sorry I don't think it is relevant. For the reasons I've explained above.
Who are you to tell other people they're not relevant?
A person who believes that evangelical gay people are entitled to the self expression and freedom of belief that means they are allowed to believe they can and should be celibate.
How is the questioning by others of the need to be celibate in any way relevant to that discussion?
[ 28. September 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It brings up ideas to be discussed.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Back to the OP and topic. This seems to concern 2 issues from my read. First, homosexuality. Second, celibacy, or what I would tend to call 'control of sexual attraction and impulses'.
There is an element of self-loathing involved in denial of one's genuine and actual nature involved with both. I'm not suggesting a freedom to express all sexual attractions and impulses, but a freedom to be what we are by nature. The regulation of one's sexual adjustment is required so as to avoid irresponsible promiscuity, but not the total restriction of sexuality for reasons of believing one's feelings and general orientation are wrong. A committed celibate is different than one who believes their nature is wrong. No wonder we have statistics telling us gay people have higher incidences of health and adjustment problems!
I don't know enough about homosexuality, except from knowing some married and committed couples, but I get the feeling that "anti-gay" is a problem for both the heterosexual community and the the homosexual community. And it is not okay whomever promulgates it.
I'm not using the word homophobia because homophobia is not about fear, which is what phobia means. No one who is 'homophobic' really fears anything, they are experiencing hatred whether directed at self or other. This pastor actually has hatred toward himself. IMPO
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There's also an assumption implicit in this discussion, and it's part of the media message, that a person has to be desperate if they are not getting masses of sex. But libido is something that varies too. Some people really do not have much of a sex drive and celibacy really wouldn't be a challenge for them.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If someone asks for the best recipes for pancakes and someone says they don't like pancakes and all batter should be used for waffles - it can be legitimately said to be interesting, or true even, but irrelevant.
PLEASE don't get Mouse started on cooking ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and the thing about the Advisory Group?
Yes. All very supportive. They'll sit around and pray for their afflicted brother.
And then probably they'll all go home and have sex with their wives.
The "support", again in my experience, doesn't actually tend to extend so far as bearing the burden with him. It consists of spiritually cheering from the sidelines and applauding one's bravery in suffering. But conservative evangelicals are thoroughly willing to provide THAT kind of support to their homosexual brothers.
(and sisters too, probably, but I'm personally familiar with the gay male struggler/straight male support dynamic - all very manly)
That's extremely binary. I think Vaughan is trying to break that stereotype - that the world can be divided easily into straight people and gay people. Rather he would view the advisory group as a group of sinners each struggling with their faith and their sin, and supporting each other. From Vaughan's article I'd be astonished if he saw it as a bunch of sraight men telling a gay man what to do.
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
It doesn't really matter whether you label yourself as "gay" or not. If your predominant form of sexual attraction is to members of your own sex, then:
1. According to certain theology, you may not licitly act on your attraction.
2. You are relatively unusual.
3. You are therefore most likely to be dealing with other people who do not share your form of sexual attraction.
4. Those people are in a position where licitly acting on their sexual attraction is much more of a possibility.
Perhaps I didn't read it carefully enough, but I can't say I saw much evidence that they all sat around sharing their sins, it read to me as if they all sat around 'supporting' the one person deal with his particular sin.
And even accepting the label of it a sin for present purposes... do you REALLY think it's just like other sins? Heck, even St Paul doesn't think that sexual immorality is the same as other sins.
It's simply not the same. If you're going to label someone's sexual attraction as sinful - not just their sexual attraction to a particular person, but either all or the vast majority of their sexual attractions to ANYONE - then that is an astonishing burden.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Again, irrelevant and just showing your prejudice. Maybe it is just too much and that being a celibate evangelical gay is not possible, I have no idea. But if the church truly believes it is possible the responsibility is upon them to make every effort to help. It isn't my belief, but the least anyone can expect of others is to live up to their own beliefs.
They're not merely asking for it to be 'possible' though, are they. They're asking for it to be mandatory.
No-one would ever suggest that all heterosexuals have the gift of celibacy. But this school of thought expects that all homosexuals have it.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
They're not merely asking for it to be 'possible' though, are they. They're asking for it to be mandatory.
No-one would ever suggest that all heterosexuals have the gift of celibacy. But this school of thought expects that all homosexuals have it.
Can we not be plainer about this. More honest. A school of thought that expects ?demands? celibacy of gay people and not necessarily or only voluntarily of heterosexual people is plain and simple displaying their hate toward a segment of society. You cannot discriminate. No matter how much you believe holy writings authorise it, tradition demands it, and you think God wants it. They used to call it homophobia, and I want to rename it homohatred. I have seen the positive change in Canada since full equality was deemed required by the Supreme Court and passed into law federally. I have seen the positive change since individual parishes in the Anglican Church of Canada voted themselves as tolerant and affirming. There is a risky choice that must be made. Not can be made. Not might be made. The same sort of choice that people make when they say 'okay, I will be Christian' or "I'll follow Jesus'. Once you commit to the loving path everything else follows.
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on
:
As others have said, there's nothing new in Roberts' philosophical views on homosexuality. But what he says about support structures in the church is important.
At the moment, the evangelical church tends to assume that everyone is heterosexual, and there are lots of customs designed to prevent temptation to (and/or false accusation of) extramarital heterosexual sex. For example, prayer partnerships and pastoral visits are same-sex;tents and dormitories on church weekends away are single-sex; there's disapproval of physical affection between friends of the opposite sex but acceptance of it between same-sex friends. All these things are actively unhelpful for gay people trying to stay celibate.
I can't imagine a youth leader letting a teenage boy and girl share a tent at Soul Survivor even if they've both come out as gay. Instead they'd be put in separate tents with another boy, and another girl. I agree with Roberts that there needs to be more acceptance and support (emotional/spiritual and practical) from church leaders, and more openness from gay evangelical Christians as a result.
I attend a large evangelical church (by UK standards) and don't know anyone there who's gay and trying to remain celibate. Statistically there probably are some, so they're probaly struggling on alone, in a church culture which is set up to hinder them.
(This is regardless of the wider homosexuality debate. This is more like: given there exist some gay Christians who have decided to stay celibate, is the church helping or hindering them?)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No-one would ever suggest that all heterosexuals have the gift of celibacy. But this school of thought expects that all homosexuals have it.
Didn't the Shakers suggest exactly that?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I strongly dislike this guy's theology and his church's hounding of Jeffrey John during the Reading affair.
However, Roberts is being brave by coming out thus far because many conevos not only oppose gays in relationships, they oppose gays full stop - so this might give them something top think about.
Celibacy is a high and noble calling and i strongly object to those who believe that people who aspire to celibacy are somehow telling lies.
However, those who are celibate because they don't believer they are allowed to love anyone often end up being promiscuous and caught up in an endless cycle of sin and repentance. (St. Paul's 'law of sin and death' in Romans. It is a trap that stops any intimacy developing and keeps people in sexual and spiritual immaturity.
If Roberts is celibate, good luck to him and three cheers for his bravery. If, however, he is counselling other gay men to do the same, as the article suggests, this could be quite damaging. The similar stance taken by Sandy Millar at HT Brompton led to a suicide.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
I'm not an evangelical, and I am gay, but I'm going to comment anyway. The most striking point about the support group, for me, is that it is made up of people who are other than the person being supported, and seems to me to be designed to maintain, indeed nurture, a sense of his otherness, and possibly of its toxicity. If he feels called to celibacy, that's fine, but then why does it need a support group that is not a group of people doing the same thing, or at least a group some of whose members are? This set up sounds so utterly toxic I could not keep silent. I live a celibate life, at the moment, but this is contingent upon and sustained only by my fear of the alternative, in its physical and emotional aspects, than by any positive feeling that God is calling me to a solitary life.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
FooloftheShip
In your case the support group wouldn't be useful, but to people who are public about their homosexuality yet committed to celibacy, like this priest, it might be helpful.
The idea posted above that this particular priest must hate himself seems strange to me. In some Christian traditions, the notion that God might put a particular burden on someone isn't deemed to be perverse, but quite possible. It's not a sign that you ought to hate yourself, but that you might have to live your life in a state of self-sacrifice. Isn't the theme of the thorn in Paul's side often read in this way? Of course, Christians disagree on that idea - but if this priest would rather not see things in this way, all he has to do is align himself with Christians who see the matter differently. There are plenty of alternative views in his own denomination (the CofE), so it's not as though changing his mind would result in his being cast out into the darkness!
However, I agree with some people's comments that a support group made up of gay 'supportees' and straight 'supporters' sounds problematic. Aren't the best support groups made up of people who've 'been there and come out the other side'? You want to be with people who understand where you're coming from. Some will have found a solution to the same problem, and some will still be travelling towards their goal.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
I rather regret the last part of my previous post now, because it blunts the impact of the rest. However, I thought I should say it because it does give context for the rest.
As far as the situation described by the OP is concerned, I would say, rather against myself, that anything that makes that minister's position more bearable than Michael Vasey's is to be applauded, even if it is a very very long way from ideal.
As for the concept of the burden placed by God, I'm not sure. I've always tended to the belief that in Christ everyone's burden is light exactly because it is their burden, shaped for them by God who is love and loves each one of us as we are. Therefore a burden which is completely ill-suited to a person's nature and cuts diametrically across it looks like wilful perversity on God's part, and is therefore not something I am willing to attribute in that direction.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No-one would ever suggest that all heterosexuals have the gift of celibacy. But this school of thought expects that all homosexuals have it.
Didn't the Shakers suggest exactly that?
No. They were quite happy for other people to not be celibate and boost their numbers.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
FooloftheShip, could you expand on your reference to Michael Vasey please? I know he was gay; what else are you getting at?
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
FooloftheShip, could you expand on your reference to Michael Vasey please? I know he was gay; what else are you getting at?
When I was at the University of Essex, he came and gave a seminar in the Chaplaincy about the very painful process of writing in his book "Strangers and Friends". I found him and his paper both impressive and moving, and I was left with a very strong impression of the scale of the task he was taking on, in trying to find an honourable way of holding on to the two central truths of his life, namely his evangelical faith and being loved by God sexuality and all. Within a short time of that talk, he had committed suicide.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Thanks for that insight; he certainly wasn't as open about being gay when I knew him. However, I didn't think he'd committed suicide. Certainly I wondered about that at the time he died and was assured it was natural causes.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thanks for that insight; he certainly wasn't as open about being gay when I knew him. However, I didn't think he'd committed suicide. Certainly I wondered about that at the time he died and was assured it was natural causes.
I may have been wrong about the suicide element: it wasn't exactly confirmed at the time, but when I raised it I was rather more encouraged than discouraged in my conclusion forming.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't know how reliable this source is but this claims he was HIV positive and, so, died of AIDS-related illness.
Michael preached at our church not long before his death and some of us had lunch with him - I found him great - though he and i argued about liturgy, as that was his forte.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
That's Virtue Online, Leo. It's a homophobic site. Note they very carefully don't say anything that goes beyond that he was HIV positive at the time of his death, but they say it in such a way as to imply he died of it as they want to tie his death to his sexuality. Other sites say he died of heart disease, but there's no obvious good authoritative source to settle the matter.
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
Andrew Brown at the Guardian has commented on VR's interview in this article.
Re the support group: it is entirely possible that the support group was formed to support him as rector of St Ebbe's OR that it is a mutual support group. It is also possible that Vaughan himself set it up. To impute bad motives to its existence seems unfair without at least some evidence.
Re marital status: the interview show that he is single, and has never (afaik) been married. He is 'walking the walk'.
I may not agree with his theology, but I admire his willingness to follow his conscience before God.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
Re the support group: it is entirely possible that the support group was formed to support him as rector of St Ebbe's OR that it is a mutual support group. It is also possible that Vaughan himself set it up. To impute bad motives to its existence seems unfair without at least some evidence.
I'm not imputing bad motives. I'm sure they think they're doing something good.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There is an element of self-loathing involved in denial of one's genuine and actual nature involved with both...This pastor actually has hatred toward himself. IMPO
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I missed any reference in the interview to his own marital status... If he is happily married, then either his homosexual attractions are fairly incidental, or his wife is an unusually long-suffering woman, such as it can hardly be one's duty to unearth. And if he is unhappily married because he never told her before tying the knot, "oh, by the way, I actually like guys a lot better," I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Neither, he's actually unmarried. Would you give the time of day to someone who has chosen to be celibate for their entire life because they wish to commit their life to the service of God, and believe this is the most honest and faithful way to do it?
You and no prophet may not agree with him that celibacy is necessary, but surely you can respect the man's decision?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and the thing about the Advisory Group?
Yes. All very supportive. They'll sit around and pray for their afflicted brother.
And then probably they'll all go home and have sex with their wives.
The "support", again in my experience, doesn't actually tend to extend so far as bearing the burden with him. It consists of spiritually cheering from the sidelines and applauding one's bravery in suffering. But conservative evangelicals are thoroughly willing to provide THAT kind of support to their homosexual brothers.
(and sisters too, probably, but I'm personally familiar with the gay male struggler/straight male support dynamic - all very manly)
That's extremely binary. I think Vaughan is trying to break that stereotype - that the world can be divided easily into straight people and gay people. Rather he would view the advisory group as a group of sinners each struggling with their faith and their sin, and supporting each other. From Vaughan's article I'd be astonished if he saw it as a bunch of sraight men telling a gay man what to do.
Perhaps I didn't read it carefully enough, but I can't say I saw much evidence that they all sat around sharing their sins, it read to me as if they all sat around 'supporting' the one person deal with his particular sin.
That's possible, it's not explicitly metioned in the article. However, hearing a sermon by Julian Hardyman and by Peter Comont (a member of the advisory group and a pastor in East Oxford) in the past, from what they both have said about other supporting groups of pastors they belong to, I would suspect this is another of those general mutual-support groups among friends and trusted colleagues and not a specific one set up purely to keep Vaughan on the straight and narrow.
And FooloftheShip's comment about the advisory group not containing other celibate gay men to support Vaughan, yes that isn't ideal, but I would suspect this is because there isn't anyone else struggling with a similar tempation in their circle of trusted colleagues who can be invited to join. It is better to discuss a problem one has with others who shares that problem, but if not possible, then this is surely better than no support or encouragement at all.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
As for the concept of the burden placed by God, I'm not sure. I've always tended to the belief that in Christ everyone's burden is light exactly because it is their burden, shaped for them by God who is love and loves each one of us as we are.
A nice bit of theology, and it would be good if it were true. I know a lot of faithful Christians who struggle with incredibly heavy burdens though (such as serious and debilitating health issues), who have prayed for healing and not been given it. God, in his ineffable wisdom, sometimes gives us thorns in our side, sometimes an entire thorn-bush. I agree with Svitlana.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And even accepting the label of it a sin for present purposes... do you REALLY think it's just like other sins? Heck, even St Paul doesn't think that sexual immorality is the same as other sins.
It's simply not the same. If you're going to label someone's sexual attraction as sinful - not just their sexual attraction to a particular person, but either all or the vast majority of their sexual attractions to ANYONE - then that is an astonishing burden.
It's not what I believe, but what Vaughan believes that is important. He argues that it is like other sins. He doesn't uplay it - and make it into the most important sin in his life, and the one the church should be most concerned about. He doesn't downplay it either though, he believes in the Bible commandments against it, and so doesn't dishonestly try to argue it away or justify it by arguing it's not really a sin, or not as bad as other sins. He has convictions, and he has the courage to stand by them. I can respect that.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That's Virtue Online, Leo. It's a homophobic site. Note they very carefully don't say anything that goes beyond that he was HIV positive at the time of his death, but they say it in such a way as to imply he died of it as they want to tie his death to his sexuality. Other sites say he died of heart disease, but there's no obvious good authoritative source to settle the matter.
I didn't know that and I am very grateful to you for pointing this out. (I do remember some conversation with my vicar after Michael's death - they were fellow liturgists and fellow evangelicals and good friends for a long time - but I couldn't remember the outcome - though i thought it was HIV-related - and my vicar was in no way the sort of person who would believe stuff peddled by such an organisation.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Would you give the time of day to someone who has chosen to be celibate for their entire life because they wish to commit their life to the service of God, and believe this is the most honest and faithful way to do it?
Of course. Such have been builders of western civilization out of all proportion to their numbers.
quote:
You and no prophet may not agree with him that celibacy is necessary, but surely you can respect the man's decision?
Now you're confusing me. First you say that he is celibate because he wants to commit his life to the service of God, and then you tell me that be believes celibacy to be necessary. We have a saying, don't we, "making a virtue of necessity." It implies at best a little mind-game played on one's own psyche, and at worst a rather dishonest attempt to impress others. So no, I don't entirely buy it. We don't get brownie points for doing something about which we really have no choice.
If the former is the case, then he is in excellent company, but the nature of the sexual attraction that he is sublimating is totally irrelevant. Why are we discussing it?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
We're discussing it because it is the necessary God-given right of Christians to meddle in, and be prurient about, all aspects of someone else's sexuality. (but leave mine alone, it is NOYB)
"Love your neighbour" does not apply to Christians on matters of sexuality, because they have a special dispensation for this.It must be in the Bible somewhere.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
Wait, no, not interesting-- what's the words I'm looking for? Ah, yes! An adorably quaint Victorian view of gender as purely one-or-t'other which is backed neither by history, biology, nor even the Bible (Mt. 19:12, and then the whole part where a man who did not have 'whole genitals' could not be part of the assemblies of God in Leviticus way before there were gender assignment surgeries available for intersex people).
Of course, I also have the belief that whomever you're engaging in intimate relations with is between you, and that person, and if you're into that kind of thing, God. As I'm not God, nor likely to be one of the people in the intimate relationship*, I don't bloody well care.
And I don't understand really why anyone else cares all that much, either. Or feels the need to tell me about your intimate relationships, or struggles with same--
--also, and I'm surprised no one's brought this up-- how hilariously Protestant is it that when you're having questions about your sexuality you form a COMMITTEE?!
*Seriously, you really want to break people's brains? Tell them you're presently celibate and bisexual. It's adorable! It's like, "Wha-- not having sex but finding lots of people sexy? HOW-- WHAT-- DOES NOT COMPUTE ABORT/RETRY/IGNORE?"
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Ahh Spiffy, you made the post I wanted to make ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Please let's not forget that it is perfectly possible for a male pastor to be happily married to a woman AND be attracted to men (making a general point here, I am aware that Roberts is celibate). Bisexuality, if Kinsey is to be believed, is more common than homosexuality yet one would never know this if they went by church debates on sexuality. Speaking for myself, I am bisexual but voluntarily celibate regarding relationships with women. Non-voluntarily single regarding relationships with men
The pressure for young men and women in evangelical churches to marry off as soon as they are done with higher education is huge and incredibly unhelpful to both debates on sexuality and church life in general. Even for those who are attracted to the opposite gender, the pressure to marry despite perhaps not actually feeling the 'burn' of passion is very limiting. There is no encouragement for singles in the church to get settled in themselves emotionally before considering marriage, and it's assumed that a serious relationship between a young man and woman will automatically lead to marriage.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade
Would you say that British evangelicals suffer quite a high rate of divorce as a result of this attitude?
I suspect that the pressure to marry can't be a universal evangelical trait, since many evangelical churches are are undersupplied with men, leaving many (straight) women with no option but to remain single or to marry non-Christians. The latter option tends to be frowned upon in those circles. This state of affairs offers a solution for evangelical lesbians: attend an evangelical church with a shortage of men, then noone can reasonably expect you to rush into marriage!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade
Would you say that British evangelicals suffer quite a high rate of divorce as a result of this attitude?
I suspect that the pressure to marry can't be a universal evangelical trait, since many evangelical churches are are undersupplied with men, leaving many (straight) women with no option but to remain single or to marry non-Christians. The latter option tends to be frowned upon in those circles. This state of affairs offers a solution for evangelical lesbians: attend an evangelical church with a shortage of men, then noone can reasonably expect you to rush into marriage!
I couldn't honestly say from experience - I'm at the age where my evangelical peers are getting married - but I would say that the divorce rate for British evangelicals mirrors that of US evangelicals, which I believe is far higher than for liberals and people higher up the candle.
Also in my experience, evangelical churches tend to be better supplied with young men than other churches, especially student churches (and marrying straight out of university is de rigueur).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
As a bisexual, you have same-sex attraction. Why do you think I chose my wording so carefully?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
As a bisexual, you have same-sex attraction. Why do you think I chose my wording so carefully?
I hope Spiffy doesn't mind me answering for them, but for me at least, the idea that sexual orientation is binary is the problem here. Bisexuality means that it cannot be so. I have same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction at the same time!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
As a bisexual, you have same-sex attraction. Why do you think I chose my wording so carefully?
I hope Spiffy doesn't mind me answering for them, but for me at least, the idea that sexual orientation is binary is the problem here. Bisexuality means that it cannot be so. I have same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction at the same time!
But I didn't say that sexual attraction was binary in that sense, did I? I said that either you have same-sex attraction or you didn't. I did NOT say that having same-sex attraction meant you didn't have opposite-sex attraction.
As I said, my choice of wording was conscious and deliberate. Because the point was that a person who doesn't have same-sex attraction is going to find it difficult to relate to and understand the experience of having a sense of same-sex attraction condemned. There's a reason why there's a 'B' in GLBT or GLBTI. There's also a reason why there's no 'H' in there for heterosexual. There are many differences between the G, L, B, T and I, but the common element and shared experience is being different from the norm.
[ 04. October 2012, 05:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
I think you may be talking past each other a little, because I see both your points and I don't think they're necessarily contradictory.
It's true that same-sex attraction can be considered independently of opposite-sex attraction, and that any given person could have one or the other, both or neither. But at the same time, the different possible degrees of that attraction don't necessarily lend themselves to neat statements that you've either got it or you haven't.
Assume that I'm basically straight (because I am) - you'd say I don't have same-sex attraction. But what if I occasionally find some feminine-looking men quite attractive in a non-sexual way? What if I once had a crush on a man? What if I regularly do? How far down this line does the switch get flipped so I suddenly become same-sex attracted?
I don't think there's an easy line you can draw between "same-sex attracted" and "not same-sex attracted". The most likely answer is at the point where you have ever thought of a member of the same sex in any sort of sexual way, but that's a very broad definition, so broad as to be almost meaningless, and there's still the thorny problem of defining "sexual". I'm happy to be corrected, but I think it's a bit more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm at the age where my evangelical peers are getting married - but I would say that the divorce rate for British evangelicals mirrors that of US evangelicals, which I believe is far higher than for liberals and people higher up the candle.
Also in my experience, evangelical churches tend to be better supplied with young men than other churches, especially student churches (and marrying straight out of university is de rigueur).
That's interesting. The evangelicalism I'm most familiar with is of the inner city variety, which is probably rather different from what you're describing.
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only churches where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
I don't think there's an easy answer to these questions, except that we like to make life complicated for ourselves. A church where noone's interested in anyone's else's sex life is evidently just too easy for most people! Maybe it's just not challenging enough!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
internalised homophobia - they want to told that God hates them
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
The interesting question for me is why some of the theologically MOTR churches don't draw more wholeheartedly on these lively styles of worship while deliberately retaining their tolerant atmosphere. It's not a specifically gay issue, but more about church culture in general, and why it develops in one direction but not in another.
In the UK at least, this seems to be a huge challenge. The 'trendy vicar' with his guitar is a stereotype not from Anglican evangelicalism but from ordinary congregations, but he's depicted as a man who's out of touch, unsuccessful in trying to bring pop culture and mainstream church worship together.
Maybe it was possible in the 70s, when there was more optimism and idealism in the mainstream churches, and it was okay to do weird things in church. Nowadays, it seems that only evangelical charismatics are expected to be enthusiastic and daring in worship, while the traditionalists are only allowed to be enthusiastic and daring in their theology. This is an unsatisfactory division of labour for today's church.
What you say about working for change from within is interesting. Is it easier to make a lively charismatic church gay-friendly than to make a gay-friendly church lively and charismatic!?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only churches where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
This parallels another common facet of gay life (though it's becoming less common all the time): coming out to your homophobic relatives. At what point do you just throw in the towel and accept that dad/grandma/Uncle Vern will never accept you or even just leave you in peace, forcing you to cut off all ties? I can imagine someone from a particularly homophobic family would likely also be raised as a member of a particularly homophobic church and severing ties with the latter would probably involve severing ties to the former. For instance, if one were to re-write your post in this context, the difficulties become more apparent.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of [a homophobic family] in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people [form a] more tolerant ["family of choice"], where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only [families] where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
In that context it's a lot less "fascinating" and a lot more heartbreaking.
This is, of course, only a valid observation to the extent that a church is analogous to a family, though most people "choose" their first church in much the same way they "choose" their family, by being born into it. If one sees a church more like a restaurant or an auto mechanic (i.e. an easily replaceable vendor providing a service) then the analogy is less valid.
[ 09. October 2012, 18:36: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
The interesting question for me is why some of the theologically MOTR churches don't draw more wholeheartedly on these lively styles of worship while deliberately retaining their tolerant atmosphere. It's not a specifically gay issue, but more about church culture in general, and why it develops in one direction but not in another.
A lot of charismatic evangelical theology is encapsulated in the worship material. Some of it would actually be quite difficult for a non charizevo to sing. Moreover, there are a proportion of of people in more MOTR churches who are refugees from charizevoism who don't want to go back to that material.
quote:
In the UK at least, this seems to be a huge challenge. The 'trendy vicar' with his guitar is a stereotype not from Anglican evangelicalism but from ordinary congregations, but he's depicted as a man who's out of touch, unsuccessful in trying to bring pop culture and mainstream church worship together.
He doesn't exist in reality. Some media types seem to think that guitars go with liberal theology - you'd think modernisers in one way would be modernisers in another. It's generally within the church that we know that ain't so.
quote:
Maybe it was possible in the 70s, when there was more optimism and idealism in the mainstream churches, and it was okay to do weird things in church.
Maybe, going by some of the material that dates from there, generally used in MOTR churches where it seems to me to sit a bit uneasily with 19th century hymns and organs.
quote:
Nowadays, it seems that only evangelical charismatics are expected to be enthusiastic and daring in worship, while the traditionalists are only allowed to be enthusiastic and daring in their theology. This is an unsatisfactory division of labour for today's church.
You never come across what I call the Traditionalism Quotient? It's generally a constant. It's found by multiplying the degree of traditionalism within the worship style by the degree of traditionalism within the theology. If both were low, the TQ would be low; if both were high, the TQ would be high. This doesn't happen, because the TQ tends towards being a middling constant.
quote:
What you say about working for change from within is interesting. Is it easier to make a lively charismatic church gay-friendly than to make a gay-friendly church lively and charismatic!?
Ah, that's impossible for man...
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only churches where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
I don't think there's an easy answer to these questions, except that we like to make life complicated for ourselves. A church where noone's interested in anyone's else's sex life is evidently just too easy for most people! Maybe it's just not challenging enough!
That's rather assuming that the purpose of an evangelical church is to be homophobic and controlling. That may be the nature of many of them, but it doesn't need to be that way. Maybe many gay Christians actually have a faith where the Cross, the Bible and Evangelism are central? Maybe they also (as has been said) prefer lively worship and to be among their peers, age-wise. That many churches with such an emphasis have badly let them down is the problem, it is not a given. I do agree that it is a puzzle that this should so often seem to be the case.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
When our gay and lesbian congregation first started back in the early 90s, the organising committee was formed of 3 Catholics, 2 Anglicans, a Methodist, 3 Presbyterians, 1 Salvationist and 2 Baptists. It was decided very early on that there couldn't possibly be one style of worship!
Over the following 10 years the Catholic/Anglican end became more evangelical and the Baptist/Methodist end became more contemplative and liturgical. Everyone benefitted - well, I think so. There was a very determined collective will to cooperate and be a congregation together.
There were some wild moments, but no one ever said it had to be easy.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Croesos
I accept that if you really want to belong in a particular environment but can't, it must be heartbreaking. But this way of being seems less and less likely in modern, westernised, individualistic societies. Families split up and reconfigure all the time. Children grow up and move away, they change jobs, relationships and friendships. Young people frequently create their own identities, rather than relying on ready-made ones that arrive at birth. Children from religious families routinely shed their inherited religious identity for another, or for none at all. So the idea that we should identify with one family/community/faith tradition all our lives seems somewhat out of date; but I accept that your environment may be very different from mine.
Karl
Thanks in particular for the Traditionalism Quotient. I'll certainly look into that! In terms of worship songs, more liberal churches don't have to simply borrow music that's sung elsewhere; they can write their own, as they used to do. As for 70s church music, I quite liked it! I didn't find it clashed with Charles Wesley. (That could just be because it reminds me of my childhood, though!) Interestingly, although the assumption is that Methodists sing their theology, there's an appreciation now, I think, that we don't always believe exactly what we sing. I suspect that choral singing serves a number of purposes, and we may be willing to sing something that makes us feel nostalgic, or part of a greater whole, even if we don't quite agree with its theology, or don't understand what it means. Perhaps this diversity of thought is silently tolerated for traditional hymns, but becomes more problematic when it comes to worship songs. But why...?
mrs whibley
The assumption on these boards tends to be that evangelical churches are generally homophobic, so it's good that you have a broader picture to paint!
Traditionally, evangelical Protestants have been quite schismatic; they revel in appearing to be contrary. This is problematic for gay evangelicals, I think, because their struggle isn't to be distinctive, but to be accepted. For straight evangelicals, founding new denominations is about self-determination and independence. Perhaps many gay evangelicals feel unable to do the same because it would be read as a capitulation to homophobia rather than a victory for self-determination and ideological freedom in the evangelical tradition.
Unlike many people here, I don't automatically see schism as a bad thing. Different denominations serve different needs. There should be more churches/ denominations that are at ease with gay pastors, etc., in or out of romantic relationships. There certainly seems to be a need for that, considering all the debate this subject arouses. I can't understand why there aren't more churches that bring these issues together, if it's what people want. Church planting must be a dying art in evangelicalism.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
When our gay and lesbian congregation first started back in the early 90s, the organising committee was formed of 3 Catholics, 2 Anglicans, a Methodist, 3 Presbyterians, 1 Salvationist and 2 Baptists. It was decided very early on that there couldn't possibly be one style of worship!
Over the following 10 years the Catholic/Anglican end became more evangelical and the Baptist/Methodist end became more contemplative and liturgical. Everyone benefitted - well, I think so. There was a very determined collective will to cooperate and be a congregation together.
There were some wild moments, but no one ever said it had to be easy.
Having said that ecumenicalism can be difficult, I know that plenty of new churches and 'non-denominational' churches are made up of people from different denominations coming together.
The advantage of starting something completely new is that the participants each have a strong voice in what happens. This can get lost once a church develops its 'traditions' and becomes less flexible.
You're lucky to have had the opportunity to start up a completely new church fellowship. Have you ever written about it in a book or blog, etc.? Your experience might be helpful to others.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place.
I guess I wasn't aware that my sexuality would be expected to automatically dictate the content of my belief system.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You'll not find much on the TQ because I invented it, but the idea that churches seem to either need the security of traditional theology or traditional worship has been commented on before.
You raise a very interesting point about how we seem more able to cope with theology we do not own in traditional hymns than in modern choruses. I think it's probably because songs from the charismatic tradition carry with them a sense of emotional connection to the words; singing them without meaning them completely seems to strike more at the heart of the whole point of singing them than it does with older hymns which seem to have a greater degree of seperation.
If you see what I mean - you can readily imagine someone singing Majesty with their hands in the air and their eyes closed; much harder somehow to imagine someone singing Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in quite the same way.
Entirely cultural.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If you see what I mean - you can readily imagine someone singing Majesty with their hands in the air and their eyes closed; much harder somehow to imagine someone singing Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in quite the same way.
Singing with your hands in the air and your eyes closed isn't any more a natural sign of emotional connection that singing lustily from a hymn book. You might even say that it's a sign that one feels the need to contrive an outward sign of whatever you ought to be feeling.
I say that as one who finds Praise to the Lord, the Almighty meaningful and emotional despite or even because of the problems with the existence of evil that it raises.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If you see what I mean - you can readily imagine someone singing Majesty with their hands in the air and their eyes closed; much harder somehow to imagine someone singing Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in quite the same way.
Singing with your hands in the air and your eyes closed isn't any more a natural sign of emotional connection that singing lustily from a hymn book. You might even say that it's a sign that one feels the need to contrive an outward sign of whatever you ought to be feeling.
I know. But I hope you know what I mean about the higher expectation of emotional connection.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place.
I guess I wasn't aware that my sexuality would be expected to automatically dictate the content of my belief system.
Not the entire content, no! But since we all have a theology about sex, it must have a part to play in our theological outlook as a whole. If churches are meant to be indifferent about sex, why would they conduct marriages? (Some would say they shouldn't. They could be right.)
There's no denying that the same-sex marriage issue has been presented to the public as a liberal, not an evangelical religious position. Perhaps that's a poor strategy; you could say the activists are missing a trick by not looking for brave gay evangelicals to share the public platform with them. It would be more instructive than the public discussions we've had so far. (I'm speaking about my own country, but it would be interesting to know if the debate has been different elsewhere.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place.
I guess I wasn't aware that my sexuality would be expected to automatically dictate the content of my belief system.
Not the entire content, no! But since we all have a theology about sex, it must have a part to play in our theological outlook as a whole.
Yes, but you asked why a person would be a member of an evangelical church. You're effectively taking the theology of sex and making it into the primary driver of which church to attend. Never mind if I agree with evangelical positions and theology on the vast majority of topics, if I want some peace and quiet about sexuality, I really should go elsewhere, ignoring all the other mismatches so long as I find a church that will accept my homosexuality.
This is precisely the thinking I have had to deal with in recent years, inside my own head and now it seems in the minds of others. After my old church took a lurch into more conservative evangelical territory with a change of minister, I eventually felt that I had to leave as a mental survival mechanism. Never mind all the other theology of low Anglicanism that I was in alignment with.
When I could stomach looking for another church, I found one that was a reasonably okay fit. And then the minister there left, and while the new one was not a homophobe or anything of that nature, his style is completely out of synch with my style. His sermons either leave me cold or bored or make me squirm with embarrassment.
I need, like everyone else needs, a church that sustains and nurtures my faith and which I can relate to. And it annoys the freaking hell out of me that I end up feeling like I have to have a Number One Question at the top of the list: are you okay with me being gay. And that there'll be this expectation of crossing otherwise wonderful and amazing churches off the list if the answer is No, and having to make do with whatever dregs happen to be left in the Yes column.
There ought to be FAR more important criteria than that one. Yet not only is it a struggle for me to relegate it down the list, it sometimes seems as if some churches and Christian groups are obsessed with it as well. We've got Anglicanism splitting down the middle over it. Here in Australia we've got the Australian Christian Lobby, which claims to be the leading political group representing Christians (but which lately is beginning to look like a fringe group and not nearly as representative as the politicians first thought), spending ridiculous amounts of its time discussing the 'homosexual agenda' as if it's the most important thing in the Christian worldview.
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Orfeo: quote:
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Amen and Amen. Preach it, brother!
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Orfeo: quote:
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Amen and Amen. Preach it, brother!
Yes, up to a point. Better if you say that you do not want sexuality to be one of them - homo, hetero, or anything else for that matter.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There ought to be FAR more important criteria than that one. Yet not only is it a struggle for me to relegate it down the list, it sometimes seems as if some churches and Christian groups are obsessed with it as well. We've got Anglicanism splitting down the middle over it. Here in Australia we've got the Australian Christian Lobby, which claims to be the leading political group representing Christians (but which lately is beginning to look like a fringe group and not nearly as representative as the politicians first thought), spending ridiculous amounts of its time discussing the 'homosexual agenda' as if it's the most important thing in the Christian worldview.
Homosexuality is one of what Jonathan Dudley has dubbed "the Big Four" of Evangelicalism.
quote:
I learned a few things growing up as an evangelical Christian: that abortion is murder; homosexuality, sin; evolution, nonsense; and environmentalism, a farce. I learned to accept these ideas -- the "big four" -- as part of the package deal of Christianity. In some circles, I learned that my eternal salvation hinged on it. Those who denied them were outsiders, liberals, and legitimate targets for evangelism. If they didn't change their minds after being "witnessed to," they became legitimate targets for hell.
<snip>
When the Bible and biology are mixed in this way, the products are boundaries. The preceding stances on each issue, in the eyes of many, define the perimeter of the evangelical community. Like walls surrounding a city, the issues serve to distinguish evangelical insiders from nonevangelical outsiders. If you don't think life begins at conception, or you believe gay marriage is OK, chances are many evangelicals won't see you as a fellow Christian.
In other words, Dudley's case is that a big chunk of the evangelical brand of Christianity has defined itself in such a way that being anything other than anti-gay places you outside the faith.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, he is writing from an American perspective. I didn't use to think things were quite that cut and dried here.
Indeed, one of the more interesting observations I saw recently re the Australian Christian Lobby's inordinate influence was that Australian politicians get some training in America, get impressions about the importance of the 'Christian' vote, and come back thinking that the 'Christian' vote is terribly important here. It takes them a while to figure out that people with these kinds of views are a much smaller force in Australia.
But yes, they still exist.
My old church, before the aforementioned 'lurch', was wonderful precisely because it included people with differing views on these topics and most of them really didn't care that much that the person in the next pew might disagree with them on evolution or abortion or euthanasia.
It turns out that SOME of them did care. They regarded the homosexual couple (who - I'm not kidding - I never even realised were a couple until after they'd left) as a 'problem', especially as one was heavily involved in the church in ministry roles.
The people who cared about these things managed to gain control of the appointment of the new minister. They got the kind of man they thought they wanted. The church got ripped into pieces. Their man went on stress leave. A former bishop has been brought in to pick up the pieces of what used to be one of the largest, most vibrant churches in the diocese.
[ 11. October 2012, 01:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, but you asked why a person would be a member of an evangelical church. You're effectively taking the theology of sex and making it into the primary driver of which church to attend. Never mind if I agree with evangelical positions and theology on the vast majority of topics, if I want some peace and quiet about sexuality, I really should go elsewhere, ignoring all the other mismatches so long as I find a church that will accept my homosexuality.
We all have to make compromises with church. We might like one aspect of a church and dislike another, and we make a judgement as to whether, on balance, the good weighs more than the bad. But if a place is more unbearable than helpful, though, is it worth staying? (Perhaps too many of us prop up cruel churches, when really we should leave them to die.)
I'm finding it difficult to make a compromise at the moment in terms of what I need from a church. I think it must be a widespread problem, which is partly why I think we need a greater diversity of churches, not less.
quote:
After my old church took a lurch into more conservative evangelical territory with a change of minister, I eventually felt that I had to leave as a mental survival mechanism. Never mind all the other theology of low Anglicanism that I was in alignment with.
When I could stomach looking for another church, I found one that was a reasonably okay fit. And then the minister there left, and while the new one was not a homophobe or anything of that nature, his style is completely out of synch with my style. His sermons either leave me cold or bored or make me squirm with embarrassment.
If our comfort at a church resides principally in what the minister is like, then we're never going to be entirely secure, because ministers come and go. In the Methodist Church, the normal period for stationing is 5 years. This is why I have problems with the minister-as-leader model of church; why should the theological temperature of a church change every 5 years, depending on the arrival or departure of one person? I think the permanent, settled congregation should be creating the atmosphere, not the minister. But that's a subject for another thread.
quote:
I need, like everyone else needs, a church that sustains and nurtures my faith and which I can relate to. And it annoys the freaking hell out of me that I end up feeling like I have to have a Number One Question at the top of the list: are you okay with me being gay. And that there'll be this expectation of crossing otherwise wonderful and amazing churches off the list if the answer is No, and having to make do with whatever dregs happen to be left in the Yes column.
This begs the question of why the Yes churches should represent the dregs rather than the No churches. I posed this question before: what is it about some of the mainstream churches than makes them unexciting places to be, despite their affirming, welcoming credentials? It's a serious question, but I've yet to see a serious treatment of the subject. I don't want to intellectualise it, but I think it would make an interesting and, above all, a vitally important research topic for someone to engage in.
quote:
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Evangelicals shouldn't be starting new denominations??? That's not a very evangelical thing to say, is it?!! My feeling is that disagreements about sexual behaviour should be treated as theological disagreements like any other, and shouldn't be given more, or less, attention than any other. Unfortunately, people are fascinated by sex and less and less interested in other theological issues, which creates the impression that the churches do nothing but talk about homosexuality all day long. Perhaps that's the problem - if we were all more passionate about our other, more significant, beliefs then homosexuality might seem quite unimportant in comparison.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
It's one thing for my church to hassle me. Who knows, that might be its job in the short run. But it's another if the church I support hassles my friends, not only in catechism and pulpit but venturing into political and legal arrangements to do so: people in whom I find no fault either with who they are or with their decision to live accordingly. If I support an organization that is making life difficult for a friend, then I am making life diffficult for a friend. Some friend me. To my mind, this is the issue.
If one believed, however reluctantly, that such betrayal were indirectly necessary to one's salvation (as, Zach or I might if we ceased to believe that TEC were fully part of the church Catholic) then I suppose one might have an adequate reason to submit and participate. Fortunately, we do not. And in any case, I'm not sure that a mere personal stylistic preference could justify it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
The interesting question for me is why some of the theologically MOTR churches don't draw more wholeheartedly on these lively styles of worship while deliberately retaining their tolerant atmosphere. It's not a specifically gay issue, but more about church culture in general, and why it develops in one direction but not in another.
In the UK at least, this seems to be a huge challenge. The 'trendy vicar' with his guitar is a stereotype not from Anglican evangelicalism but from ordinary congregations, but he's depicted as a man who's out of touch, unsuccessful in trying to bring pop culture and mainstream church worship together.
Maybe it was possible in the 70s, when there was more optimism and idealism in the mainstream churches, and it was okay to do weird things in church. Nowadays, it seems that only evangelical charismatics are expected to be enthusiastic and daring in worship, while the traditionalists are only allowed to be enthusiastic and daring in their theology. This is an unsatisfactory division of labour for today's church.
What you say about working for change from within is interesting. Is it easier to make a lively charismatic church gay-friendly than to make a gay-friendly church lively and charismatic!?
Really? Has Fresh Expressions not been in much effect in your area? I've been in nosebleed-high churches with very interesting worship. Of course it depends what you mean by 'enthusiastic and daring', but imo there is a variety of ways of achieving this.
Also in my experience, many LGB people I know have been drawn to AffCath congregations because of their gay-friendliness (it's been explicitly said on the church websites) and have learnt to love the services. It really depends on one's non-negotiables. Mine were gay-and-OoW-friendly, Eucharist every week and a friendly atmosphere. With the weekly Eucharist in particular, that led me to an Anglo-Catholic church and I am happy there despite being a little lower on the candle myself (but only a little lower).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Has Fresh Expressions not been in much effect in your area? I've been in nosebleed-high churches with very interesting worship. Of course it depends what you mean by 'enthusiastic and daring', but imo there is a variety of ways of achieving this.
Also in my experience, many LGB people I know have been drawn to AffCath congregations because of their gay-friendliness (it's been explicitly said on the church websites) and have learnt to love the services. It really depends on one's non-negotiables. Mine were gay-and-OoW-friendly, Eucharist every week and a friendly atmosphere. With the weekly Eucharist in particular, that led me to an Anglo-Catholic church and I am happy there despite being a little lower on the candle myself (but only a little lower).
Sorry - I thought you were attending an evangelical church! Yes, I've heard that Anglo-Catholic churches are attractive to some gay people. I suppose I was thinking more of MOTR churches. (Does 'MOTR' include Anglo-Catholicism in CofE contexts?)
I've heard quite a bit about Fresh Expressions, although my area isn't really into that kind of thing so much - I'd have to go further out into the suburbs.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Has Fresh Expressions not been in much effect in your area? I've been in nosebleed-high churches with very interesting worship. Of course it depends what you mean by 'enthusiastic and daring', but imo there is a variety of ways of achieving this.
Also in my experience, many LGB people I know have been drawn to AffCath congregations because of their gay-friendliness (it's been explicitly said on the church websites) and have learnt to love the services. It really depends on one's non-negotiables. Mine were gay-and-OoW-friendly, Eucharist every week and a friendly atmosphere. With the weekly Eucharist in particular, that led me to an Anglo-Catholic church and I am happy there despite being a little lower on the candle myself (but only a little lower).
Sorry - I thought you were attending an evangelical church! Yes, I've heard that Anglo-Catholic churches are attractive to some gay people. I suppose I was thinking more of MOTR churches. (Does 'MOTR' include Anglo-Catholicism in CofE contexts?)
I've heard quite a bit about Fresh Expressions, although my area isn't really into that kind of thing so much - I'd have to go further out into the suburbs.
Within the CoE, liberal Catholic churches are much easier to find than liberal evangelical churches. This undoubtedly has an impact. I'm post-evangelical but went straight into Anglo-Catholic churches although I think my last church could be called MOTR - it's the group I have the least experience with so I can't help with that much, sorry. Anglo-Catholic is definitely not MOTR within the CoE! MOTR churches wouldn't use incense, have side chapels not lady chapels and use a variety of music within services. Clergy usually wear cassock with surplice and tippet for non-Eucharistic services. You would probably find most Fresh Expressions stuff in MOTR churches, actually.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Most Fresh Expressions are in evangelical churches - or in a few MOTR attempting to poach disillusioned evangelicals.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most Fresh Expressions are in evangelical churches - or in a few MOTR attempting to poach disillusioned evangelicals.
You're probably talking about FE in the CofE environment. The Methodist Church (which is the tradition I know) has also taken up FE, but I wouldn't say that the Methodist goal is to poach evangelicals from other churches. In my estimation, Methodist evangelicalism isn't usually heavy enough to rival the alternatives, and in any case, the goal of FE is to reach people outside or on the periphery of the church. I get the impression that FE content would be too basic for most serious evangelicals.
I've read about emergent/emerging churches, which are supposedly aimed at disillusioned post-evangelicals. The emergent church might be a space where gay and straight Christians could meet on common ground without the weight of tradition to divide them. These groups call themselves 'non-denominational', so there would be no fear (in theory) of creating a 'new denomination'. However, they don't seem to have taken off in the UK.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I agree re-Methodists.
Indeed, the partnership between C of E and the Methodist Church has been very fruitful.
I am heartened that there have been a few successful anglo-cathlic fresh expressions - I was part of one for many years.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0