Thread: Oh yeah, Dr Beeching 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=030769
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
So it is now official that Vicky Beeching has come out.
Given her prominence across denominations, this will be fairly big news to some. She has written before about how some conservatives had boycotted her work (damaging her income) after her support of equal marriage. To some, this may be the last straw about using her music in worship.
For your courage, Vicky, we salute you. We wish you all the happiness in the world, including making up for some lost time. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I picked this up from the support she's getting on Twitter. I hope she continues to get support.
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on
:
Massively proud of her.
And angry at a church that has meant she's suffered alone for so long.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
And here I was thinking that we were to do a rehash of the Beeching railway cuts of the mid-60s!
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Massively proud of her.
And angry at a church that has meant she's suffered alone for so long.
Hell yes, that interview was gut-wrenching.
Beeching's courage may kickstart a seachange in evangelicalism and Anglicanism. She's a major worship singer-songwriter on both sides of the Atlantic, has headlined festivals like England's Spring Harvest, and, most importantly, is close friends with the Welbys.
Justin Welby would need a heart of ice to see the effect of the church's homophobia on Beeching and not think, "God, what have we, have I, done to my friend?" This'll bring the consequences of "traditional teaching" home to him more than a thousand "facilitated conversations."
It might just prove the wakeup call he so desperately needs.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Massively proud of her.
And angry at a church that has meant she's suffered alone for so long.
Hell yes, that interview was gut-wrenching.
Beeching's courage may kickstart a seachange in evangelicalism and Anglicanism. She's a major worship singer-songwriter on both sides of the Atlantic, has headlined festivals like England's Spring Harvest, and, most importantly, is close friends with the Welbys.
Justin Welby would need a heart of ice to see the effect of the church's homophobia on Beeching and not think, "God, what have we, have I, done to my friend?" This'll bring the consequences of "traditional teaching" home to him more than a thousand "facilitated conversations."
It might just prove the wakeup call he so desperately needs.
I have mixed reactions to this. On the one hand, I agree that maybe this will prove to be a turning point for Welby and Anglican evangelicalism. But on the other hand, I find myself saying "why the fuck should a "famous" Christian's experience count more than the suffering of countless gay and lesbian "ordinary" Christians whose stories have been ignored and dismissed so brutally in recent years?"
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I have mixed reactions to this. On the one hand, I agree that maybe this will prove to be a turning point for Welby and Anglican evangelicalism. But on the other hand, I find myself saying "why the fuck should a "famous" Christian's experience count more than the suffering of countless gay and lesbian "ordinary" Christians whose stories have been ignored and dismissed so brutally in recent years?"
It doesn't, to any degree; it just happens that she's close to a man with the power and platform to effect change.
Of course Welby should've stood up for lesbian and gay people long ago, but we often overlook things until they become personal. Having a friend or relative come out is one of most powerful catalysts for change.
Welby's just had a hard, long overdue punch in the gut. This is no longer an abstracted issue; from today, he knows that teaching he defends left his daughter's friend on a chemo drip. All LGBT people would benefit if he takes the lesson to heart.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But on the other hand, I find myself saying "why the fuck should a "famous" Christian's experience count more than the suffering of countless gay and lesbian "ordinary" Christians whose stories have been ignored and dismissed so brutally in recent years?"
It shouldn't, but that's not the world we live in. It's been shown time and again that the most significant factor in converting people from homophobia is them actually knowing someone who is homosexual. When it's the abstract concept of "teh gayz" it's easy to demonise them, when it's the personalised "my friend Vicky who I love" it's less so.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think it will have any effect. Homophobia is institutionalized in various churches, and does not hinge on knowing some nice gays and lesbians, or knowing some who have suffered a lot.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm delighted that she has come out. Although I don't know her, it seems that she is a pretty serious theologian. So I hope that she doesn't find herself having to speak on "The Gay Issue" every time she stands on a platform for the next five years, but can continue to speak on anything that interests her.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
can continue to speak on anything that interests her.
Probably will need to, because judging by the venues, I guess her worship-leading career has just taken a serious hit ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(I confess I thought this thread must be about railways too)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't follow that music scene very much nowadays, so I don't know her. But I know she's not the first. Jennifer Knapp came out, Ray Boltz came out, a young guy who (until then) broadcast one of the most popular Christian Contemporary Music television shows came out.
And there was a considerable backlash against all of them.
In the course of looking things up to check names, I discovered that being in favour of same-sex marriage will cause you a backlash too. Folks have been yanking Jars of Clay off their playlists after the lead singer expressed his support for same-sex marriage a few months ago (or at least, his inability to understand the logic of the argument AGAINST same-sex marriage).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I confess I thought this thread must be about railways too)
So did I ... IMO that would have been MUCH more interesting!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
P.S. Is she "Dr." Beeching anyway? I had rather thought that her Ph.D. studies were still ongoing, but I may be out-of-date on that.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
P.S. Is she "Dr." Beeching anyway? I had rather thought that her Ph.D. studies were still ongoing, but I may be out-of-date on that.
Not yet, I was being a bit mischievous with the title. She's still working on her thesis on transhumanism.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I confess I thought this thread must be about railways too)
So did I ... IMO that would have been MUCH more interesting!
Well you did say quote:
every time she stands on a platform for the next five years
... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 14. August 2014, 10:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
What - a signal failure at East Croydon again?
Seriously, I salute her for being honest. I'm sure we can all hear the sound of Evangelical doors being slammed shut in her face, but hopefully her integrity will open others.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Reading her story, there was so much that resonated with me and reminded me of my own experiences in evangelical churches. I am really excited for her and for what she's going to bring to the church.
I also hope that LGBT issues can be seen as whole-church issues and not 'liberal issues' because of this and hopefully other evangelicals coming out, as I'm sure will happen.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Massively proud of her.
And angry at a church that has meant she's suffered alone for so long.
Hell yes, that interview was gut-wrenching.
Beeching's courage may kickstart a seachange in evangelicalism and Anglicanism. She's a major worship singer-songwriter on both sides of the Atlantic, has headlined festivals like England's Spring Harvest, and, most importantly, is close friends with the Welbys.
Justin Welby would need a heart of ice to see the effect of the church's homophobia on Beeching and not think, "God, what have we, have I, done to my friend?" This'll bring the consequences of "traditional teaching" home to him more than a thousand "facilitated conversations."
It might just prove the wakeup call he so desperately needs.
He has started to wake up. He commissioned a report into Homophobic Bullying in Church Schools and its guidance now forms part of SIAMS inspections.
It is seen as too radical by some bishops and as 'promoting homosexuality'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it will have any effect. Homophobia is institutionalized in various churches, and does not hinge on knowing some nice gays and lesbians, or knowing some who have suffered a lot.
It won't have any direct effect. But it can have an indirect effect by making individuals more receptive. Individuals can leave churches in which homophobia is institutionalized. If enough leave homophobic churches to join or start non-homophobic churches, the homophobic churches they leave could conceivably collapse.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If enough leave homophobic churches to join or start non-homophobic churches, the homophobic churches they leave could conceivably collapse.
Is that something you would want to see? Personally, I would prefer to see a transformation rather than collapse.
What is particularly admirable is that Vicky is looking to stay in the church rather than leave, which seems to have perplexed some of the non-christians commenters. Too many who have given up on their faith have done so because of the way they were treated by other people, so it's good to see her be a bit stubborn, in spite of some of the poor treatment she's received in the past.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Call me a grouch (what a surprise!), but I really have a problem with Vicky Beeching becoming a poster girl for LGBT Christians.
For a start, there are plenty of other people who are far more qualified to speak out on this subject. I repeat, why should her voice be listened to and not theirs?
But mainly, it is because she, by her own admission, is still in the process of coming out. There are huge issues she still has to work through. For her own well-being, she would be better off spending how ever long it takes to do that away from the public eye (especially the vindictive eye of evangelicals who feel betrayed).
My advice to her would be "now you've outed yourself, don't accept any invitations to speak at conferences or whatever, unless it is on a topic completely separate from LGBT issues. Don't talk to anyone about your situation unless it is someone you trust 100% to respect confidentiality."
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Call me a grouch (what a surprise!), but I really have a problem with Vicky Beeching becoming a poster girl for LGBT Christians.
For a start, there are plenty of other people who are far more qualified to speak out on this subject. I repeat, why should her voice be listened to and not theirs?
But mainly, it is because she, by her own admission, is still in the process of coming out. There are huge issues she still has to work through. For her own well-being, she would be better off spending how ever long it takes to do that away from the public eye (especially the vindictive eye of evangelicals who feel betrayed).
My advice to her would be "now you've outed yourself, don't accept any invitations to speak at conferences or whatever, unless it is on a topic completely separate from LGBT issues. Don't talk to anyone about your situation unless it is someone you trust 100% to respect confidentiality."
Sorry, but why are there other people who are more qualified to speak on the subject? She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't think she's a poster girl for LGBT Christians - at least not yet - since there are already plenty. However, her position as an LGBT evangelical is the more distinctive thing and it is something she's very well qualified to speak about.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Don't talk to anyone about your situation unless it is someone you trust 100% to respect confidentiality.
FWIW, I noticed in that article that she apparently confided in the CEO of Stonewall a while back and that they respected her confidentiality. Kudos to them for that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If enough leave homophobic churches to join or start non-homophobic churches, the homophobic churches they leave could conceivably collapse.
Is that something you would want to see? Personally, I would prefer to see a transformation rather than collapse.
That would be preferrable, yes, but I was responding to quetzalcoatl's assertion, and allowing it to be true for the sake of argument. This doesn't mean I want it to be true. I'm just saying that even if it is true of direct effect on institutions (transformation), there is still the possibility of indirect effect (collapse).
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
There are plenty of people who have had far more experience of "being" lesbian or gay and facing directly the prejudice and flak from churches and believers.
And by her own admission she knows very little about being in a normal Same Sex relationship. If you like, she may have the theory, but she's not got the practical wisdom.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Call me a grouch (what a surprise!), but I really have a problem with Vicky Beeching becoming a poster girl for LGBT Christians.
Understand, I agree that celebrities receiving more attention for that which non-famous people suffer is wrong.
However, it is the way we work, it is in our nature. So rather than complain, IMO, we should use it.
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Personally, I would prefer to see a transformation rather than collapse.
Burn them to the ground.* The match was lit and they hid it with a paper shroud, the fire caught and they offered a glass of water. Let. Them. Burn.
*Metaphorically
[ 14. August 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There are plenty of people who have had far more experience of "being" lesbian or gay and facing directly the prejudice and flak from churches and believers.
And by her own admission she knows very little about being in a normal Same Sex relationship. If you like, she may have the theory, but she's not got the practical wisdom.
First off, are you LGBT? If not, then it's definitely not your place to decide who is 'gay enough'.
Secondly and most importantly of all, did you not read the article? Beeching has known she was gay from a young age and told a crowd of 4000 people at a Bible camp, only to be 'exorcised'. Having spent a long time in the closet does not make her experiences less valuable or her 'less gay' during the time she was in the closet. A gay person in the closet is still a gay person with valuable and important experiences to talk about.
Also, how gay one is does not depend on their level of sexual activity - it is incredibly offensive and wrong to suggest that gay people need to be in same-gender relationships in order to 'experience' being gay. They experience being gay by living while being gay - that's it. This is just a tired rehash of the idea that celibate gay people are somehow 'less gay', or the idea that gay teenagers 'can't know they're gay yet'. It's heterosexist and erasive bullshit.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He has started to wake up. He commissioned a report into Homophobic Bullying in Church Schools and its guidance now forms part of SIAMS inspections.
It is seen as too radical by some bishops and as 'promoting homosexuality'.
You're right, Welby's gone some of the way, but he's maintained a fatal distinction, by defining "homophobia" so narrowly that "traditional teaching" is exempt.
Now he's seen, up close and personal, what his tradition does to people. His previous movement gives me hope that his legalistic boxes will fold.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
There are plenty of people who have had far more experience of "being" lesbian or gay and facing directly the prejudice and flak from churches and believers.
And by her own admission she knows very little about being in a normal Same Sex relationship. If you like, she may have the theory, but she's not got the practical wisdom.
I don't see what's to be gained by some experience Top Trumps.
Beeching's been through hell and back thanks to the church's homophobia. So what if she hasn't experienced a relationship? Plenty gay people haven't experienced being closeted in the eye of the Christian right's storm. Haven't experienced an exorcism, being contractually obliged to headline Prop 8 rallies, or had the stress of passing trigger an auto-immune disease. Their experience isn't somehow less valid for the absence.
To get to the heart of your objection: no, it's not fair that Welby may be moved to change by Beeching's experience, after he's shut out so many others. Emotions aren't driven by reason alone. If it brings change that benefits all, fairness will have been brought about by those imperfect means.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He has started to wake up. He commissioned a report into Homophobic Bullying in Church Schools and its guidance now forms part of SIAMS inspections.
It is seen as too radical by some bishops and as 'promoting homosexuality'.
You're right, Welby's gone some of the way, but he's maintained a fatal distinction, by defining "homophobia" so narrowly that "traditional teaching" is exempt.
I quite agree.
People like him take a long time to shift.
Their emotions go ahead of their rule books.
I am about to read a biography of Welby - I hope it will make me more sympathetic to him.
At the moment, I am unimpressed.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed?
Well, she could be talented, knowledgeable, articulate, courageous, filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus, and ... oh, wait.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed?
Well, she could be talented, knowledgeable, articulate, courageous, filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus, and ... oh, wait.
Having just watched her take apart Scott "I categorically don't want Uganda to hang the gays" Lively, couldn't agree more. (Channel 4 News, available to watch on www.channel4.com )
I'm likewise unimpressed with Welby, leo, but gotta work with what we got.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
It made me so sad reading her story, because it is one I've heard before (albeit not the exact details). But when I've heard it before the story ends differently, in them leaving the church. She has been far more gracious towards the church than I could be in her circumstances.
It also makes me sad when I see a university chaplain I know commending Richard Inwood on being true to gospel teaching or some such rubbish. I dread to think what would happen if a gay student came to him for advice. I can only hope that he reads the Independent and it at least gives him some pause for thought.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Good to see you posting again ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I slink back in again every so often
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
It has also been interesting seeing how people in my church have responded to this. We don't have any official position as such (evangelical baptist, more towards the open end I would say), and I didn't really know what a lot of people think about 'the gay issue'. Today though there have been a significant number of people showing their support of Vicky. I do wonder how many evangelicals are OK with gay relationships but don't really talk about it much. Is there a tipping point coming where people feel more free to be honest about it?
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Having just watched her take apart Scott "I categorically don't want Uganda to hang the gays" Lively, couldn't agree more. (Channel 4 News, available to watch on www.channel4.com )
I'm slightly horrified that news networks still think it's okay to give Scott Lively airtime, as if he's someone who's sane or has an opinion that matters.
However Beeching did an incredible job of standing up to him and making him look stupid.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Is there a tipping point coming where people feel more free to be honest about it?
I think there is. I was at a cousin's funeral recently. My cousin had been a Mission Sister since her early 20s, so it was a full on Roman Catholic experience, involving a vast number of my aunts, uncles and cousins (over 600, and I'm not joking).
Before the Rosary, I was chatting to the priest in charge, who has known my (Anglican) mum very well for as long as I can remember. He asked how I found going to church these days, after going through the horrible homophobia of following a call. As I was on my own, he sat me with an aunt and uncle I haven't seen since I was a kid. After a few pleasantries, my aunt said that she was horrified at the way the church had treated me and it was about time things changed both in my denom and hers. I was a bit startled that she chose that topic of conversation, to be honest!
Over the 3-day course of the Rosary, Mass and day-long wake, several of my aunts and cousins imparted the same sort of message (my uncles are not what you'd describe as talkers, but they were all friendly). I have no doubt that if I have a young cousin who is gay or lesbian, they will be nurtured to be a part of their parish (at least while the current priest is in charge, anyway).
And one of the reasons I went to this funeral was that my cousin who died, and her mum, my favourite aunt, have always been incredibly welcoming of me and my partner.
This is a very middle-of-the-road Catholic parish, in a largish country town. My rellies are mostly farming/trades/housewife types who have lived all their lives in the area, without a lot of exposure to lesbians and gay men. If they can be accepting, then I have a great deal of hope.
[ 14. August 2014, 22:47: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Bless her heart, but I've never heard of her in my entire life. Is she more of a musician in Evangelical churches?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed?
Well, she could be talented, knowledgeable, articulate, courageous, filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus, and ... oh, wait.
And you're quite sure she isn't? What evidence do you have?
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I'm slightly horrified that news networks still think it's okay to give Scott Lively airtime, as if he's someone who's sane or has an opinion that matters.
However Beeching did an incredible job of standing up to him and making him look stupid.
For unashamedly ulterior motives, I'm glad he got airtime. Best recruiting sergeant affirming Christianity could ask for.
I'm sure C4 wanted the brawl he delivered, but his brand of theological gay-bashing is influential globally, so it was justified.
Looking forward to the inevitable Beeching v. Welby (Sr.) debate.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Bless her heart, but I've never heard of her in my entire life. Is she more of a musician in Evangelical churches?
Yup, evangelical songwriter through EMI, also a prominent new-media analyst. Headlined Christian festivals like Alive & Creation in the U.S., and Spring Harvest & Greenbelt in England.
I suspect this'll have far more of an impact than Jennifer Knapp's coming out. Along with an in with the Anglican leadership, Beeching's studying for a theology doctorate, has an established profile as a commentator, and can be a combative debater. Attitudes have also shifted in the last few years.
Time's right.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed?
Well, she could be talented, knowledgeable, articulate, courageous, filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus, and ... oh, wait.
And you're quite sure she isn't? What evidence do you have?
I thought the implication was that she is all of those things.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Vicky is looking to stay in the church rather than leave, which seems to have perplexed some of the non-christians commenters.
I don't know of her (though I'm now listening on Youtube), but I'd be a bit perplexed myself. Why not find a more tolerant mainstream church? They're desperate for intelligent, articulate young members! Why allow yourself to face aggro from people who don't approve of you?
On reading the link, though, I realise that the evangelical world, especially in its American incarnation, is where her career as a musician lies. She can't walk away from that environment without losing her livelihood. (Alternatively, she could finish her PhD and become an academic theologian, and her sexuality and personal life would then be of less interest.)
As an outsider to this world, my impression from reading stories like this is that if mainstream evangelicalism accepts diverse sexualities it could well be because celebrity culture is so important to evangelicalism. If evangelical celebrities increasingly speak out or act in favour of acceptance, as some seem to be doing, there's little that other evangelicals can do, unless they withdraw from that celebrity culture entirely. Acceptance is the price evangelicals will have to pay for maintaining the cultural relevance they prize so highly.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Vicky is looking to stay in the church rather than leave, which seems to have perplexed some of the non-christians commenters.
I don't know of her (though I'm now listening on Youtube), but I'd be a bit perplexed myself. Why not find a more tolerant mainstream church? They're desperate for intelligent, articulate young members! Why allow yourself to face aggro from people who don't approve of you?
On reading the link, though, I realise that the evangelical world, especially in its American incarnation, is where her career as a musician lies. She can't walk away from that environment without losing her livelihood. (Alternatively, she could finish her PhD and become an academic theologian, and her sexuality and personal life would then be of less interest.)
As an outsider to this world, my impression from reading stories like this is that if mainstream evangelicalism accepts diverse sexualities it could well be because celebrity culture is so important to evangelicalism. If evangelical celebrities increasingly speak out or act in favour of acceptance, as some seem to be doing, there's little that other evangelicals can do, unless they withdraw from that celebrity culture entirely. Acceptance is the price evangelicals will have to pay for maintaining the cultural relevance they prize so highly.
I feel like this has all been said before re 'why don't they just leave'. As gay Catholics know as well as gay evangelicals, finding a match between one's theology and one's sexuality is not easy if your theology ties in with generally more conservative churches. And you can't just change your theology on a whim. Clearly, Beeching didn't feel comfortable enough in mainstream churches to join them.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[...] Why not find a more tolerant mainstream church? [...]
Interestingly, she has:-
quote:
[Beeching] still considers herself an evangelical, although she no longer attends charismatic evangelical services and now prefers the more traditional services of London's main cathedrals, Westminster Abbey, St Paul's and Southwark. She likes being in churches where no-one knows who she is and where she is not likely to be asked to join the worship team any time soon. "No-one singing any of my music, which is nice." She also needed the kind of space where she could prepare mentally and spiritually for coming out, the more contemplative meditative space found in cathedral worship, in particular services such as evensong.
The problem in England is that the state church is, thanks to its powerful evangelical wing, itself institutionally homophobic, commanding gay people to repent and suppress their sexuality for life.
Its biggest competitors are the Catholic Church and independent pentecostal churches.
There's no equivalent to affirming mainline American denominations like the Episcopalians and Lutherans.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade Constable
Of course, I do get it: evangelical churches and non-evangelical churches have a different vibe, and some people miss the lively atmosphere and more fervent spirituality when they worship in a more tolerant environment.
Byron
Referring to the UK, what about the Methodists? What about the URC? They might not be big, flashy and fashionable, but they are generally more tolerant places, so it's odd to ignore them entirely. Maybe with a bit of effort from post-evangelical newcomers they could become livelier and more interesting places to be. It might be easier than trying to make evangelical churches change their theology about sexuality. But maybe not....
I suppose these are questions I ask myself rather than others, but if people like Vicky Beeching yearn for spiritually vibrant but tolerant churches, why aren't there more such churches? Why aren't all these intelligent people becoming church leaders (even planting churches if necessary) and creating the churches that they want? Well, maybe the time is right and this is now happening. I'm in favour of having a diversity of church types, and we're obviously in desperate need of lively, passionate churches that are also accepting of different sexualities and lifestyles.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Regarding Catholicism, my understanding was that there are quite a few fairly recent breakaway movements that aim to rectify some of the 'problems' in the RCC, either in a more liberal or a more conservative direction. These churches aren't present in every town and vicinity, but the same could be said of the Seventh Day Adventists, or any other non-mainstream denomination one could mention.
I do think it's unrealistic to expect every denomination to become accepting of a wide variety of sexualities and types of sexual expression, but many have become more tolerant over the 20th c., so the process is likely to continue, in some denominations at least. Presumably some evangelical groups are moving faster than others. It would be interesting to see if there's been any analysis of this development in evangelicalism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
But evangelicalism isn't just about worship style, it's theology too. I don't see why LGBT Christians are supposed to join churches which have beliefs they disagree with. Why not help LGBT Christians to change churches from the inside?
As for why there aren't more affirming evangelical churches, I honestly think that evangelical LGBT Christians would be too afraid of the backlash. I think part of the result of not having vertical hierarchy (or much less vertical hierarchy) is having horizontal hierarchy. Ironically, I think independent churches care far more about what other independent churches think of them than churches in more hierarchical denominations.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Headlined Christian festivals like Alive & Creation in the U.S., and Spring Harvest & Greenbelt in England.
Oddly, I've heard of the British ones (through the Ship and also references by Adrian Plass and I think Sheila Walsh), but not the US ones at all.
Mind you, I hadn't heard of the Mars Hill guy either till very very very recently.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I think this tweet sums it all up So pleased for Vicky.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Having just watched her take apart Scott "I categorically don't want Uganda to hang the gays" Lively, couldn't agree more. (Channel 4 News, available to watch on www.channel4.com )
Although it's a pity the interviewer looked to be insufficiently briefed on Uganda. It must have been pretty obvious that Lively would try to deny his role, but the interviewer had no comeback.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed?
Well, she could be talented, knowledgeable, articulate, courageous, filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus, and ... oh, wait.
And you're quite sure she isn't? What evidence do you have?
I thought the implication was that she is all of those things.
I've reread the posts and realised I posted without due care. Sorry.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But evangelicalism isn't just about worship style, it's theology too. I don't see why LGBT Christians are supposed to join churches which have beliefs they disagree with. Why not help LGBT Christians to change churches from the inside?
Yet they obviously disagree theologically with their own churches on this particular issue. Changing churches 'from the inside' means changing churches' theology about sexuality, and hence changing their attitudes towards sexual morality in general. Everything we do and everything we are has a theological significance.
quote:
I think independent churches care far more about what other independent churches think of them than churches in more hierarchical denominations.
From what people say here, this is the impression I get, yes. It's strange, because I thought independence meant not caring about what others think, so long as you can plough your own furrow in freedom and good conscience. Maybe this was true in the past (e.g. at the birth of Pentecostalism), but clearly not now.
The problem evangelicalism (and many other types of Christianity) has, ISTM, is that its leaders traditionally expect to maintain strictness over their doctrines and values, while ministering to Christians who are, like most Westerners, increasingly autonomous in how they perceive their spirituality and the direction of their lives. It must be increasingly hard to reconcile firmness over official doctrines with allowing your church members total freedom in how they organise their personal lives.
This is how one study about gay Christians puts it: quote:
the self, rather than religious authority structures, steers the respondents’ journeys of spirituality and sexuality. This is evidence of the impact of the “detraditionalization” process on the late modern religious landscape, where the basis of religious faith and practice is primarily predicted on the self, rather than traditions and structures.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5906.00111/abstract
Evangelicalism seems likely to grow more similar to other kinds of Protestant churches, in that it'll allow its members to make up their own minds about many theological issues, including the issue of sexuality.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Svitlana - yes, they may disagree with their churches over sexuality, but that's a small and fairly fluid aspect of theology. It's not like transubstantiation or sola scriptura or that all Christians should speak in tongues or other beliefs that are more defining of a more narrow group or denomination. A Christian who would prefer their church to think differently about sexuality but believes in transubstantiation and Eucharistic Adoration is not going to be comfortable worshipping in a Methodist church, for example. I know from my own experience and from others', being part of churches with very distinctive and strong theological identities, that tend to overwhelm other aspects of belief, make it much harder to know where to draw the line.
To make things more personal - I am unhappy with my church's official teaching on sexuality. The only reasonable alternative would be the RCC or maybe the Orthodox, neither of which are any better and I would regard them as worse from the sexuality point of view. I just couldn't go and join the Quakers or Methodists - it would be such a poor match for me and for the congregations of those churches.
[ 15. August 2014, 12:24: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose these are questions I ask myself rather than others, but if people like Vicky Beeching yearn for spiritually vibrant but tolerant churches, why aren't there more such churches?
I would class my church as something like that. We're overrun with kids, worship is modern songs etc, and we're evangelical.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose these are questions I ask myself rather than others, but if people like Vicky Beeching yearn for spiritually vibrant but tolerant churches, why aren't there more such churches?
I would class my church as something like that. We're overrun with kids, worship is modern songs etc, and we're evangelical.
You can be all those things and not inclusive - some of the least inclusive churches are all those things.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Sorry, I was meaning being an inclusive church and those things!
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
It depends on how you define 'inclusive church'. A few years ago, I was part of an Elim pentecostal church. It was very inclusive, but there were a handful of individuals who weren't. When we had a trans person come along, they were well received. Yet the few who were put out by it made that person feel unwelcome and they left.
The leadership was welcoming, but they didn't want to be authoritarian, so didn't intervene or tell the small group (mostly one family, actually) to change their ways. Not directly, at least. There were a few weeks of sermons that seemed a bit pointed by way of inclusion, but that was all.
So for the majority, the church was very inclusive. But if you want it to be 'totally inclusive' that would mean excluding those who held different views, and hence it would no longer be inclusive. So I wonder if it really is possible.
One might look at Changing Attitudes churches as an example. They may look very welcoming to LGBTI members, but one could easily get the message from them that The Gospel (TM) is that "Jesus loves gay people" rather than have that as a corollary of anything a bit more orthodox like "Jesus is Lord" or a creedal expression of faith. So by way of their rhetoric they can be non-inclusive by putting off more socially conservative christians.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I know from my own experience and from others', being part of churches with very distinctive and strong theological identities, that tend to overwhelm other aspects of belief, make it much harder to know where to draw the line.
And this is the problem, isn't it? On the one hand we want them to be particular the things we're particular about, but we also want them to be obliging about - or at least indifferent towards - the intimate things that we see as none of their business.
But church life seems not to work that way. Churches don't see sexuality as a small thing - probably because society has always been fascinated by sex. Why would the Church as a whole have little to say about something that has driven our pscyhology and created family structure, tribes and nations since time began?
However, if the stable, straight nuclear family recedes considerably in importance, as seems likely to be the case in the West, churches might have less of a vested interest in promoting it as the most acceptable form of family life. As churches of all kinds get smaller and have to struggle harder to be heard, they might present fewer hurdles in this respect.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I know from my own experience and from others', being part of churches with very distinctive and strong theological identities, that tend to overwhelm other aspects of belief, make it much harder to know where to draw the line.
And this is the problem, isn't it? On the one hand we want them to be particular the things we're particular about, but we also want them to be obliging about - or at least indifferent towards - the intimate things that we see as none of their business.
But church life seems not to work that way. Churches don't see sexuality as a small thing - probably because society has always been fascinated by sex. Why would the Church as a whole have little to say about something that has driven our pscyhology and created family structure, tribes and nations since time began?
However, if the stable, straight nuclear family recedes considerably in importance, as seems likely to be the case in the West, churches might have less of a vested interest in promoting it as the most acceptable form of family life. As churches of all kinds get smaller and have to struggle harder to be heard, they might present fewer hurdles in this respect.
I don't expect or want churches to see sex as none of their business. Please don't use 'we' when I haven't said this. Neither do I see sexuality as a small thing - I said it's a small part of theology. It's a small part of the whole of theology, not small in itself and I don't expect the church to see it as such. I do expect churches to acknowledge that LGBT people will exist in their congregations and need supporting as people and individuals.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've reread the posts and realised I posted without due care. Sorry.
No problem.
People like Vicky Beeching* restore my faith in the Church.
I've never been tempted to lose my faith in God or Christianity because of the gay issue, but I've been strongly tempted to despise the Church for the poisonous, hateful, homophobic and stupid lies that we all hear far too often from prominent Christians.
When I see someone who is infinitely more likely to be hurt by that than I am still holding on to a love of Christ, it is truly inspirational.
(*Gay Christians who are incredibly full of grace and integrity. They are quite a few on the Ship. Thank you to all of you).
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
TheAlethiophile, I kind of agree. No church can be all things to all men. My mother in law was very put out when they were doing a kids talk at church, and saying how the creation stories were about God's intentions, not a step by step guide, and evolution could well be how we came about. You could say we are not very inclusive to a creationist...
But to my mind being inclusive means not being judgmental. Whilst my mother in law may not feel comfortable with the teaching at my church, she would hopefully be respected for having a different opinion. Whereas the churches I went to growing up I would be made to feel like a heretic for doubting creationist views. To me inclusion is not about what the views on a particular subject are, but how those with a different viewpoint are treated.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade Constable
I think it was your reference to churches not knowing where to 'draw the line' that made me think of busy-bodies imposing their theology of sexuality and sexual morality where it isn't wanted. But I accept that there are many different ways that churches can deal with this general issue, and different ways in which they give support.
[ 15. August 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So for the majority, the church was very inclusive. But if you want it to be 'totally inclusive' that would mean excluding those who held different views, and hence it would no longer be inclusive. So I wonder if it really is possible.
You don't have to exclude those people. Just make it clear that there are certain behaviors they are not to do. If they choose to exclude themselves (quit) over that, that's a different thing.
Otherwise you are saying that expecting people not to act like assholes is not being inclusive. Being inclusive of assholity is not a necessary part of being inclusive.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That is terribly worded, even for what it's trying to achieve.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
And I have responded on the site. Have saved the comment in case it gets moderated.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You don't have to exclude those people. Just make it clear that there are certain behaviours they are not to do. If they choose to exclude themselves (quit) over that, that's a different thing.
If that were employment, that could be seen as constructive dismissal. It's simply exclusion via a slightly less direct route. It's saying "put up or get out" instead of just "get out". quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Otherwise you are saying that expecting people not to act like assholes is not being inclusive. Being inclusive of assholity is not a necessary part of being inclusive.
I would say it is. I think it's far better for a twit to remain in church. After all, who gets to say who the twit is? I am happy to worship alongside creationists and will, from time to time, attempt to persuade them otherwise (likewise, they in return do the same to me) but I would hate it if the church said you must choose one way or the other. I think their twits and they think the same of me. Who's to arbitrate?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
A report on BBC South East Today local news tonight.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I am happy to worship alongside creationists and will, from time to time, attempt to persuade them otherwise (likewise, they in return do the same to me) but I would hate it if the church said you must choose one way or the other. I think their twits and they think the same of me. Who's to arbitrate?
The line to draw is when their behaviour involves abusing others. Creationists are for the most part harmless cranks, but homophobia and transphobia affect real people in quite severe ways, and should be loudly and firmly rejected. That's not to say we should reject the people expressing them, of course. Love the sinner and hate the sin is a phrase I recall hearing somewhere. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[...] Byron
Referring to the UK, what about the Methodists? What about the URC? They might not be big, flashy and fashionable, but they are generally more tolerant places, so it's odd to ignore them entirely. Maybe with a bit of effort from post-evangelical newcomers they could become livelier and more interesting places to be. It might be easier than trying to make evangelical churches change their theology about sexuality. But maybe not....
Neither the URC, nor the Methodists have voted to allow equal marriage. In England, no mainstream Christian church has taken an affirming stance: the closest are the Quakers and Unitarians.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Byron
That's true. But they're closer to that position than the CofE. And their leaders don't go around in public badmouthing the government for doing what the secular population agrees with.
I'm coming to the view that we get the churches we deserve. If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think the problem is Establishment. The CofE (which absorbs every Christian innovation eventually) thinks it has to tolerate all theologies and attitudes, while holding to an official more traditional line when pushed. The American Episcopalians don't have any such all-embracing ambitions; in a religious culture dominated by evangelicalism, they and a few others have carved out a liberal niche that gives them a distinct identity. If the CofE were entirely independent it might not feel (or at least look) so trapped. I'm wondering if there's some sort of 'Scandinavian solution' that could be applied here; that deserves more thought.
However, Ms Beeching doesn't want to join the Episcopalians, or the Swedish Lutherans, or whatever. What's her faith background, BTW? Baptist? Pentecostal? Which American evangelicals in particular support her? Perhaps she's cannily chosen this moment to come out because she knows that her American evangelical fanbase is changing, and likely to change further. I've certainly heard that American evangelicalism is very broad. The most conservative elements of it are probably not as significant as they used to be.
[ 16. August 2014, 00:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Creationists are for the most part harmless cranks
Not in the US, I'm afraid; please see the current creationism thread for more on that, specifically as it applies to school curricula and some active efforts to derail doing anything to stop climate change.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Byron
That's true. But they're closer to that position than the CofE. And their leaders don't go around in public badmouthing the government for doing what the secular population agrees with.
I'm coming to the view that we get the churches we deserve. If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think the problem is Establishment. The CofE (which absorbs every Christian innovation eventually) thinks it has to tolerate all theologies and attitudes, while holding to an official more traditional line when pushed. The American Episcopalians don't have any such all-embracing ambitions; in a religious culture dominated by evangelicalism, they and a few others have carved out a liberal niche that gives them a distinct identity. If the CofE were entirely independent it might not feel (or at least look) so trapped. I'm wondering if there's some sort of 'Scandinavian solution' that could be applied here; that deserves more thought.
However, Ms Beeching doesn't want to join the Episcopalians, or the Swedish Lutherans, or whatever. What's her faith background, BTW? Baptist? Pentecostal? Which American evangelicals in particular support her? Perhaps she's cannily chosen this moment to come out because she knows that her American evangelical fanbase is changing, and likely to change further. I've certainly heard that American evangelicalism is very broad. The most conservative elements of it are probably not as significant as they used to be.
Well obviously she's not going to join TEC or the Swedish Lutherans, because she is British and living in the UK where those are not options
Her faith background is charismatic evangelical.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
The link isn't working for me, though the title alone doesn't give me a great deal of hope for anything sensible....
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
The link isn't working for me, though the title alone doesn't give me a great deal of hope for anything sensible....
The gist of it seems to be "real Christians pretend that they're just suffering from same-sex-attraction and it's fine so long as they don't actually do anything about it, why doesn't the media talk about us".
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
The link isn't working for me, though the title alone doesn't give me a great deal of hope for anything sensible....
Google cached version here.
Summary: "She'll be tolerated if she feels really really bad about being gay and apologizes for it and preaches against it and stays celibate all her life and tells other gay people not to be gay. And how we read the bible is 100% totally right, and no one else's interpretation is relevant or valid. Also, we define morality and no one else's opinion on that matters either. She is immoral, we are moral, she is evil, we are good."
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Thanks for the cached version, the whole EA website seems to have gone down. My guess is that they be doing some frantic thinking, following this revelation and also Steve Chalke's change of heart.
[ 16. August 2014, 07:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I sincerely hope the server has simply and coincidentally fallen over.
If they've had second thoughts about the article, then it could be pulled - and hopefully a note posted to that effect.
Another alternative is that some pro-gay group has DoSed the website.
Neither would be very encouraging responses.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
The whole site has gone down. As a regular visitor to the site, it's not that uncommon. The general design is quite good, but it does seem prone to collapse from time to time.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think that Independent interview will turn out to be a game-changer. Truth expressed vulnerably and without malice has a powerful impact. May we never lose the wonder of that.
The (cached) EA response is really not very clever. Of course we cannot change the Bible but it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the "forever" meaning and application of ancient texts must be what "we" make of them.
Cue Jed Bartlet.
"Ignorant tight-assed" club members everywhere had better look out. To quote Desmond Tutu again. "You have already lost".
[ 16. August 2014, 08:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that Independent interview will turn out to be a game-changer. Truth expressed vulnerably and without malice has a powerful impact. May we never lose the wonder of that.
Yes; as one of my Deacons said portentously many years ago, "The truth always edifies".
I have long thought that the basis of this whole issue - and the reasons why Christians so strongly disagree - is down to the way different groups do hermeneutics. There is a strong sense from the conservatives that the more "progressive" elements do not take the Bible seriously; this is simply not true. Contrariwise, the "progressives" will say that the conservatives (who claim to always read Scripture "objectively") fail to recognise that the Bible was not only written but is always read within certain contexts, both individual and societal.
A new hermeneutic is fundamentally (pun intended) challenging to the conservatives, who would prefer to fight hard to maintain the status quo. Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
I think you just might be able to sense where I stand in this debate - which is, of course, not just about hermeneutics but about Real People.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Thanks for the cached version, the whole EA website seems to have gone down. My guess is that they be doing some frantic thinking, following this revelation and also Steve Chalke's change of heart.
Yesterday the article also featured in full on the livingout site it mentions, here. At present the text has disappeared there, too, and been replaced by a hyperlink to the page that's down.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think that there have been quite a number of folk within the URC who thought that this was exactly where their denomination stood. However its failure to reach an agreeable consensus at last month's General Assembly (however prettily worded) shows that premise to have been false.
[ 16. August 2014, 08:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that Independent interview will turn out to be a game-changer. Truth expressed vulnerably and without malice has a powerful impact.
I think it's a matter of continuing to try to break through the shell of ignorance and stupidity and get it through to evangelical leaders just how much harm they are doing to gay people. They seem ignorant, naive, stubborn, arrogant, and unwilling to listen to reason, but perhaps if they are told enough times how many gay people's lives they are ruining, in ways they have to listen to, they might actually start to think about their actions and find that one drop of empathy in their stone hearts and actually step back and realize "oh, we are actually being horrible nasty evil people who are deliberately doing our best to ruin gay people's lives and drive them to suicide... opps."
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think you just might be able to sense where I stand in this debate - which is, of course, not just about hermeneutics but about Real People.
I'm currently working my way through the Homosexuality and Christianity thread. This is a tangent to this thread, but in addition to the hermeneutical aspect you mention, you might like to consider a complementary analysis by Fr Gregory on page 21 of that thread, here, which makes a lot of sense to me.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Thank you - it makes a lot of sense to me, too!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Thanks for the cached version, the whole EA website seems to have gone down. My guess is that they be doing some frantic thinking, following this revelation and also Steve Chalke's change of heart.
Yesterday the article also featured in full on the livingout site it mentions, here. At present the text has disappeared there, too, and been replaced by a hyperlink to the page that's down.
PSA: The EA site is now back up. I have carefully compared the text of the piece before and after the hiatus and nothing has changed, so no conspiracy.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have long thought that the basis of this whole issue - and the reasons why Christians so strongly disagree - is down to the way different groups do hermeneutics. There is a strong sense from the conservatives that the more "progressive" elements do not take the Bible seriously; this is simply not true. Contrariwise, the "progressives" will say that the conservatives (who claim to always read Scripture "objectively") fail to recognise that the Bible was not only written but is always read within certain contexts, both individual and societal.
A new hermeneutic is fundamentally (pun intended) challenging to the conservatives, who would prefer to fight hard to maintain the status quo. Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
And not just this issue. Discussing another Dead Horse, I have twice been told that I believe in (the secular idea of) equality while my interlocutor believes in Scripture. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I know the feeling!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Well obviously she's not going to join TEC or the Swedish Lutherans, because she is British and living in the UK where those are not options.
True. But to judge from the link her campaign seems to be aimed at American evangelicals rather than British ones. (I wonder how American evangelicals have taken to being coaxed and urged to change by a British woman. Maybe her Britishness has made the experience more palatable!)
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think that there have been quite a number of folk within the URC who thought that this was exactly where their denomination stood. However its failure to reach an agreeable consensus at last month's General Assembly (however prettily worded) shows that premise to have been false.
Interesting. I know that a recent Methodist President of Conference has stated that the way is open for SSMs to be formally permitted in the future, if and when the Church is ready. They're not the sorts of people who make bold moves that are likely to be controversial. But, like the URC, they're very compassionate and accepting, and heaping condemnation on people isn't what they do.
I'm rashly going to predict that being younger, more uniformly middle class and educated, and also closer to mainstream culture, charismatic evangelical 'denominations' will be quicker to move towards a wholesale acceptance of SSM than the Methodists or the URC. But in the meantime, the evangelicals have to make far more of a song and dance about the whole thing.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I think it's telling that the EA article says "But tragically it is Vicky who is wrong on the morality of gay sexual relationships".
I don't remember reading anything at all in Vicky Beeching's interview about sex. All she discussed was her romantic feelings for other women. She isn't in a relationship - at least doesn't describe being in one. That sort of disparity does nothing to dispel my view that the EA are really rather over-interested in what other people do with their squishy bits.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
The interview around her coming out doesn't say anything, but she has been a supporter of same-sec marriage, so I assume they're just pulling it all in together.
It still reads as a very graceless article, though. Wouldn't have killed him to say "I disagree on ..." rather than "I am the gatekeeper of the One True Reading ...".
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm rashly going to predict that being younger, more uniformly middle class and educated, and also closer to mainstream culture, charismatic evangelical 'denominations' will be quicker to move towards a wholesale acceptance of SSM than the Methodists or the URC. But in the meantime, the evangelicals have to make far more of a song and dance about the whole thing.
Hmm, not sure about that - but we'll see! The URC is going to have some months of consultation with the aim of seeing if the denomination (nationally) is willing to allow churches (locally) to make their own decisions on SSM. To me it's a no-brainer, especially as I come from a "Congregationalist" position of church polity. URC congregations can already register their buildings for Civil Partnerships.
Where I do agree with you is that there is an age divide on this. Many (not all) younger Evangelicals just don't see this as a problem; that means that change will inevitably come as they succeed to national leadership positions in organisations such as the EA. Meanwhile, we have some younger Evangelicals leaving the churches because they can't agree with their hard-line policies on this matter.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's fairly well established that the conservative train of thought tends to equate 'sexuality' with 'actual sex'. If she 'comes out' as a lesbian, they assume it must be because she's actually been having sex with a woman.
This is not, of course, the way that GLBT think about the same question.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Many (not all) younger Evangelicals just don't see this as a problem; that means that change will inevitably come as they succeed to national leadership positions in organisations such as the EA. Meanwhile, we have some younger Evangelicals leaving the churches because they can't agree with their hard-line policies on this matter.
Peter Brierley, the evangelical church statistician, agrees with you about the likely generational change.
As I implied regarding the Methodists and URC, even if their members don't all agree on SSM, they're relatively tolerant of diversity, so there's no 'hard-line', to rebel against. Also, they have fewer young people to 'lose'.
The irony is that evangelism and popularity must make charismatic evangelical churches quite vulnerable to pressures of this kind; the more outsiders are attracted to your church, the more they're likely to bring their outside values and perspectives with them. The drive to bring in and hold on to large numbers of youngsters who can't realistically be shielded from the changes in society must lead to theological changes in the church.
The small, cocooned congregation that's happy to remain that way must find it easier to maintain its theological boundaries than the biggest, liveliest megachurch.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, Svitlana, because the 'outsiders' don't all come in together as an organised group. They come in as individuals, in ones and twos.
And then if it's a large church they may well feel the pressure to conform - at least outwardly - to what they see around them.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
[ETA: x-post with Orfeo]
Actually, based on nothing other than intuition from general reading, I would expect the megachurch environment to find it easier to maintain a fairly hard line on any given issue, against the thrust of popular opinion. It always feels like there's much more of a consumer mentality with megachurch, so if people are coming it's because they're buying in to what's being offered, and will thus value whatever The Position is.
Contrast to your average MOTR Evangelical shack that gets a bit of transfer growth, a bit of conversion growth, and a reasonable degree of "grow your own" through long-term families, and IME (limited breadth, but decent depth) you tend to find that views on Dead Horses are largely, but not entirely, split on age grounds. There are a few outliers in each demographic, but essentially it feels like 55+ largely 'traditional' (it's OK to be gay, but don't make a fuss dear, and definitely don't have a sexual relationship); 35 - 55 a real mixed bag covering full acceptance and affirmation of SSM at one end, to the 55+ view at the other; under 35 more or less perfectly comfortable with Teh Gayz, and rolling their eyes when TPTB preach on the subject, as TPTB tend towards the conservative, or at least don't frighten the horses, position.
It's those smaller but largely vibrant local Evangelical churches that will see the rumblings and changes first, although it will still be CoE/big churches that make the headlines or herald the crumbling of the traditional position to what will be seen as a handful of die-hard extremists tilting at a ship that has sailed.
[ 16. August 2014, 13:56: Message edited by: Snags ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
If you think the big mega-churches are where it's going to play out first, look to see what happens at HTB. It's got a huge student constituency and if they change tack to keep their students coming then you're right. But I'm not convinced that that's going to happen.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I think it's telling that the EA article says "But tragically it is Vicky who is wrong on the morality of gay sexual relationships".
I don't remember reading anything at all in Vicky Beeching's interview about sex. All she discussed was her romantic feelings for other women. She isn't in a relationship - at least doesn't describe being in one. That sort of disparity does nothing to dispel my view that the EA are really rather over-interested in what other people do with their squishy bits.
That struck me as well. The only thing I know about her sexual ethics is that she appears to approve of marriage. There's nothing I can see in the interview to suggest that Ms Beeching has ever done anything at all that a conservative Christian would consider to be a sexual sin.
On the one hand, I'm happy with that, because (a) her testimony is exactly as powerful whether she is, or wants to be, in a same-sex relationship or not, and (b) it's obviously none of my damned business.
But on the other hand, it's so depressing that Vicky Beeching is going to be condemned by these people for who she is, not what she's done, when that's a distinction that conservatives are usually so keen on saying that they make (and without which their position is stupid, incoherent and evil).
Why the hell couldn't the EA say something like: "Our position on sexual ethics generally and same-sex relationships in particular is pretty well known. We may well have some disagreement with Vicky Beeching about that, but we admire and applaud her honesty and courage, and are glad to affirm our fellowship with her in devotion to our Lord Jesus, whom we believe loves everyone." That wouldn't be a betrayal of their principles, would it?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What I've read is that big churches are partly attractive because they allow people to 'hide' - smaller churches leaves a newcomer open to more scrutiny. I suppose it depends on how efficiently the big churches channel individuals into small groups that encourage uniformity.
I've also heard that some American megachurches have become so keen on targeting and reaching out to particular demographic groups that maintaining a strict line on particular theological issues is a secondary issue to getting people through the doors and keeping them interested. I don't know if that's happening in the handful of large British churches.
Really, though, I think Christians who are energised by this issue need to start planting a new bunch of churches that are suited to the developing culture of tolerance and acceptance. It's easier to plant a new church with new values than to struggle and strain to change the attitudes of an existing congregation. But yes, with time, the current 'mainstream' evangelical churches are likely to retreat from strict conservatism on sexual matters, as have most of the historical denominations, to varying degrees. It all depends on how long you want to wait.
[ 16. August 2014, 15:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
Most "conservative" theologians I know respect this view absolutely.
How would you see it BT if this "more truth and light" proved beyond all doubt God's condemnation of same sex activity?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Well, I would have to go along with it ... but, at present anyway, that would seem to be a regression to "old light and truth". The question, of course, is what Scripture can really prove "without doubt" - most of the time we are making the best, yet provisional, understandings that we can manage with our finite minds and limited intelligence.
Even the orthodox teachings about our Lord, which I absolutely accept (indeed, I shall be defending the traditional supernatural view of his miracles within tomorrow's sermon) are ultimately a matter of faith and trust, rather than "proof".
[ 16. August 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Not going to read the article because frankly I don't need that crap, but I am just baffled by other Christians referring to 'sinful lifestyle' when talking about Vicky Beeching's coming out. Like I could maybe understand it (though would still think it entirely wrong) if she was announcing a relationship with a woman, or that she was renouncing her faith because of her sexuality, but as far as we know her life is just the same as it was before, just with some extra freedom to talk about it. Since when did discussing one's sexuality equal a lifestyle?
But then again, chastity before marriage is frequently misunderstood as asexuality before marriage - single Christians, especially single women, are not supposed to acknowledge the fact that they are sexual beings and have a sexual orientation.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since when did discussing one's sexuality equal a lifestyle?
Since homophobia became the mark of a true Christian. Sometime in the 1980s.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Byron
That's true. But they're closer to that position than the CofE. And their leaders don't go around in public badmouthing the government for doing what the secular population agrees with.
Oh, I agree, although comparing any organisation favorably with the Church of England could be taken as damning with faint praise!
quote:
I'm coming to the view that we get the churches we deserve. If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think the problem is Establishment. The CofE (which absorbs every Christian innovation eventually) thinks it has to tolerate all theologies and attitudes, while holding to an official more traditional line when pushed. The American Episcopalians don't have any such all-embracing ambitions; in a religious culture dominated by evangelicalism, they and a few others have carved out a liberal niche that gives them a distinct identity. If the CofE were entirely independent it might not feel (or at least look) so trapped. I'm wondering if there's some sort of 'Scandinavian solution' that could be applied here; that deserves more thought.
However, Ms Beeching doesn't want to join the Episcopalians, or the Swedish Lutherans, or whatever. What's her faith background, BTW? Baptist? Pentecostal? Which American evangelicals in particular support her? Perhaps she's cannily chosen this moment to come out because she knows that her American evangelical fanbase is changing, and likely to change further. I've certainly heard that American evangelicalism is very broad. The most conservative elements of it are probably not as significant as they used to be.
With ya on establishment. It's suffocated the religious marketplace.
As others have noted, Beeching comes from a charismatic evangelical background (in interviews she said she used to attend a Vineyard church), but has now moved into liturgical worship in cathedrals.
It's to the Church of England's shame that, while there, she can't hear and experience the affirmation extended by other episcopal churches.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I don't remember reading anything at all in Vicky Beeching's interview about sex.
She's written several blog posts on LGBT theology and same sex marriage on her blog over the past 6 months, as well as speaking about the issues in person even before that.
Presumably Ed Shaw, before writing the EA's article, looked and some of what she'd said on the subject, just as I looked at some of what he's said on the subject elsewhere before writing my own summary of his anti-Beeching article in order to represent his views more completely and understand what he is trying to imply, rather than merely dealing with what is said explicitly in the article itself.
[ 16. August 2014, 22:15: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
The Living Out crew have gotta be pissed at their lack of impact. They were meant to be a game changer, but they've been ignored outside con-evo circles.
Time and again, they bellyache "Why not invite us on?" Answer, not only are people are wise to Uncle Toms, but their legalistic earnestness is ratings suicide.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
Most "conservative" theologians I know respect this view absolutely.
How would you see it BT if this "more truth and light" proved beyond all doubt God's condemnation of same sex activity?
If that were the case then God's idea of sexuality would be a minor issue. If God wanted to prove beyond doubt his condemnation of same sex activity, he would first have to prove beyond doubt his existence. So far he seems to be reluctant to do that.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
It's a really pleasant surprise to see such a vast majority of supportive comments on the various sites (Beechings twitter, her blog, the EA response article, another gay Christian who's come out in response etc). It's clear that the balance has changed - go back a few years and the majority of comments would have been negative.
It reminds me of this beautiful response (to this original ad), where the ratio of positive to negative feedback was ~10:1. When supporting and affirmative voices are ten times as numerous as the opposing and hurtful voices... it's game over.
I was, however, grieved by this comment on the EA response article, which while confusingly worded, boils down to "I have endured many many years in pain and suffering in grappling with my sexual orientation as an Evangelical, doing my absolute best to try to follow what I believe to be the Bible's anti-gay teachings. I feel angry at Beeching for claiming that the Bible isn't anti-gay, because that would make all the years of self-inflicted suffering I have experienced a mistake and worthless." I feel awful for that man and for what the church has done to him.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I was, however, grieved by this comment on the EA response article, which while confusingly worded, boils down to "I have endured many many years in pain and suffering in grappling with my sexual orientation as an Evangelical, doing my absolute best to try to follow what I believe to be the Bible's anti-gay teachings. I feel angry at Beeching for claiming that the Bible isn't anti-gay, because that would make all the years of self-inflicted suffering I have experienced a mistake and worthless." I feel awful for that man and for what the church has done to him.
But this is a problem many church leaders are facing, Starlight (frequently and inaccurately misrepresented by SSM advocates as "don't frighten the horses").
Even if leaders believe the time has come to take a firm position in favour of SSM, many are certainly faced with the knowledge that while doing so can embrace some who have felt excluded for so long, it will equally feel to others like a complete betrayal of a lifelong struggle to obey God.
If there is to be true, all-encompassing inclusiveness in a church, there needs to be a lot of compassion and pastoral care on all sides. In a local church one is dealing with people, in all our complex and contradictory humanity, not abstract ideas.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even if leaders believe the time has come to take a firm position in favour of SSM, many are certainly faced with the knowledge that while doing so can embrace some who have felt excluded for so long, it will equally feel to others like a complete betrayal of a lifelong struggle to obey God.
I'm concerned that you think there's any kind of dilemma here. The church has screwed over some gay people in the past by encouraging/forcing them to "obey God" in a way that has hurt them and been deeply harmful to them. Now that the church has woken up to this and realized it was a harmful idea and not what God actually wants for their lives, continuing to encourage these people down that path of self-harm just because those people are used to that path is not a morally acceptable or compassionate pastoral response.
I understand that many of these people will have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that decades of their suffering was unnecessary and unjustified. I am sorry for them. They will probably be very angry and very upset, and justifiably so... like many many many other gay people are.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The Church I served in West Africa faced a similar problem with polygamy. For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
But views changed and it was decided that polygamists who converted could keep their wives - although they could not take any new ones. This was felt to better mirror Biblical principles. I think this was right - but those who had taken the "harder line" in the past now felt somewhat betrayed.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
What usually happened to the "surplus" wives after they had been "gotten rid of"?
This whole "My suffering must have been worthwhile" idea also reminds me of a recent discussion I was having with a friend about laws on breast-feeding in public. Younger women usually want to be able to breast-feed in public when they are out shopping with their children, as it can be complicatedly inconvenient to need to find a private area to do so when trying to manage other children. Yet the biggest opponents of such laws tend to be older women who take the "I wasn't allowed that convenience when I was young, so I think it's unfair your life is allowed to be so easy" line.
[ 17. August 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I heard the tail end of the interviews on the BBC R4 Sunday programme this morning, with someone referring to a group called Living Out - so I searched for it, only to find a book called "Living it Out" by two women with the same double barrelled surname, which had an opposite view of things. Which came first? I did get to find the LO group. Not impressed. More than not impressed - fuming.
I would like to ask the people who put forward the views they do a few questions.
1. Do you feel same sex attraction? If No, shut up, you have no relevant experience, and feeling attracted to someone else's spouse and controlling it isn't going to be the same. As Vicky said, you can still hope for a partner for you.
2. Are you living a celibate life successfully? If Yes, lucky old you. But you aren't normal. Most people need companionship and contact with other people. Somebody once commented that it isn't good for a human being to be alone. Someone then made a help meet for them. Not a helpmate to hand them their tools while doing DIY. But someone who could be described with the same word used in other places to describe the sort of helper God is. Who are you to deny that sort of relationship to someone who does not share your gift of being happy in a solitary life.
3 Are you living a celibate life unsuccessfully, unhappy with being alone, paying a "single supplement" which is the equivalent of paying for an invisible friend, paying for a home on your own, and commenting on TV programmes out loud to yourself, never having a hug when you feel down, or a kiss in happy moments, being made to sit n the children's table at family parties*, and go out from worship to take the children's activities. Then show some empathy. You know what it is like. Who are you to force someone else into that life when they have been given the opportunity to share their life with a soul mate?
These people are so convinced that they are right in the face of all the evidence. (And Vicky isn't even in a relationship, so what ae they on about? She is living as she is supposed to live, is she not? And, though I don't know her music, but I gather that hitherto, she has been regarded as a channel for the Holy Spirit.)
*On a programme about childlessness last week. Not my family! The woman concerned then said what lovely people her nephews and nieces were, but she felt infantilised - in her 50s.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I gather that hitherto, she has been regarded as a channel for the Holy Spirit.
But you've got to keep in mind the verse "by the minor details of their theology you will know them" which means that anyone who has wrong views on minor things that aren't in the EA's basis of faith, or in any historic creeds of the Church, is nonetheless a demonically possessed false teacher in sheep's clothing who needs to be thrown out of the church because those minor things are essential to the core of Christianity.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Yes, looking at the comments by supporters of Living Out, I see one by Amy Orr-Ewing, definitely a heterosexually-married woman. I knew her in my teens. Her father is the C of E vicar who refused me communion at the rail in the early 1990s. It's a shame the attitude has passed down from one generation to another.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
What usually happened to the "surplus" wives after they had been "gotten rid of"?
That is a very good question, and one which actually served as a game-changer: divorced wives in West African society were, at that time, regarded as "shop-soiled goods". They could not get married again, they were regarded as a blot on their family, they might even end up in prostitution. The missionaries who had originally proposed the "hard-line" marriage position hadn't realised any of that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Church I served in West Africa faced a similar problem with polygamy. For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
But views changed and it was decided that polygamists who converted could keep their wives - although they could not take any new ones. This was felt to better mirror Biblical principles. I think this was right - but those who had taken the "harder line" in the past now felt somewhat betrayed.
Well you would, wouldn't you? These are relationships that in many cases must have involved real love and affection. The children of these abandoned wives are probably also resentful towards the church.
I think this is a problem that faces many denominations when they overturn a strict teaching for a more tolerant line. People who've denied themselves something desirable in order to be faithful to church teachings will inevitably feel cheated.
If the RCC decides that divorce and remarriage is okay, many elderly people who've struggled in their personal lives but remained true to the earlier teachings will feel that their sacrifice was for nothing. Some gay people who've denied themselves sexual relationships for many years in order to be right with God but are then suddenly told by their clergy that SSM is perfectly OK may feel the same way.
Strict denominations do lose members as a result of liberalising their teachings in this way. I suppose the feeling is that if the clergy were wrong on something like this, what else are they probably wrong about? I don't know if there's a solution to this problem. Maybe it's to keep the theory the same, but to modernise the practice.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even if leaders believe the time has come to take a firm position in favour of SSM, many are certainly faced with the knowledge that while doing so can embrace some who have felt excluded for so long, it will equally feel to others like a complete betrayal of a lifelong struggle to obey God.
What would help would be if the church apologised and said to them "we're deeply sorry for having lied to you for most of your life".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
What usually happened to the "surplus" wives after they had been "gotten rid of"?
That is a very good question, and one which actually served as a game-changer: divorced wives in West African society were, at that time, regarded as "shop-soiled goods". They could not get married again, they were regarded as a blot on their family, they might even end up in prostitution. The missionaries who had originally proposed the "hard-line" marriage position hadn't realised any of that.
So where was the "virtue" in the original position? Not with the missionaries, this is certain. Nor with the men abandoning their wives.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
But that's not how the men saw it. They saw it as "giving up a wife/wives they loved, in order to align themselves with God's will".
I'm not trying to defend this line - just trying to explain how the men had felt it right to make a decision which was difficult for them. Unfortunately the wives' feelings and position don't seem to have come into it at all!
However I guess the same thing would have happened in reverse had the society been polyandrous. Indeed, one of the local tribes had followed this practice almost within living memory.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Comparing any organisation favorably with the Church of England could be taken as damning with faint praise!
We need to take into account the fact that many Methodists and URC are fairly old. They haven't grown up with gay church members clamouring to get married, and they probably don't come across that sort of activism very often now. In the vast majority of congregations I suspect it's not an issue of burning relevance. I also imagine that many Methodist churches are seeing a declining number of weddings nowadays anyway, so there's not much of a wedding focus. It would be interesting to see some stats, if there are any.
quote:
As others have noted, Beeching comes from a charismatic evangelical background (in interviews she said she used to attend a Vineyard church), but has now moved into liturgical worship in cathedrals.
It's to the Church of England's shame that, while there, she can't hear and experience the affirmation extended by other episcopal churches.
Ah. That's interesting. She may be moving in a general post-evangelical direction in general, then.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But that's not how the men saw it. They saw it as "giving up a wife/wives they loved, in order to align themselves with God's will".
I'm not trying to defend this line - just trying to explain how the men had felt it right to make a decision which was difficult for them. Unfortunately the wives' feelings and position don't seem to have come into it at all!
And this is where both they and the missionaries fail.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However I guess the same thing would have happened in reverse had the society been polyandrous.
Yeah, except no. The in the vast majority of polyandrous societies, men still run things. Polyandry is commonly a solution for the benefit of men.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
BT: quote:
I'm not trying to defend this line - just trying to explain how the men had felt it right to make a decision which was difficult for them. Unfortunately the wives' feelings and position don't seem to have come into it at all!
which just indicates that those men were still living in OT style: women were property, to be acquired or disposed as they saw fit. Jesus had something quite succinct to say about that, which the missionaries had obviously chosen to forget.
Divorce has consequences, and, in many societies, divorce means poverty and ostracism for the woman/women.
Were the missionaries actually preaching Christ or just some vague Salvationist thing?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I couldn't possibly say ... this was back in the 1950s! What I do know is that they came from a variety of Evangelical backgrounds, both British and American. And they took a highly literalist approach to Scripture.
I was only trying to use it as an illustration, not to start a tangent, you know ...
(BTW, I don't think Mudfrog will be very pleased by your "vague Salvationist thing"!)
[ 17. August 2014, 14:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I heard the tail end of the interviews on the BBC R4 Sunday programme this morning, with someone referring to a group called Living Out - so I searched for it, only to find a book called "Living it Out" by two women with the same double barrelled surname, which had an opposite view of things. Which came first? I did get to find the LO group. Not impressed. More than not impressed - fuming.[...]
I would be if I wasn't so inured to con-evo tactics.
Schadenfreude at their frustration helps offset things: the Living Out brigade have followed the media savvy con-evo playbook to the letter -- legalistic message wrapped in slick website and PR -- but it's gained no traction in the debate.
I hope the BBC and other broadcasters don't relent and put up "same-sex attracted" spokespeople. Using your victims as your messengers is apologetics 101. Indulging it is not impartial.
The power dynamic is that a straight majority has long oppressed a lesbian and gay minority. That should be reflected, not masked by a few collaborators.
[ 17. August 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We need to take into account the fact that many Methodists and URC are fairly old. They haven't grown up with gay church members clamouring to get married, and they probably don't come across that sort of activism very often now. In the vast majority of congregations I suspect it's not an issue of burning relevance. I also imagine that many Methodist churches are seeing a declining number of weddings nowadays anyway, so there's not much of a wedding focus. It would be interesting to see some stats, if there are any.
Age may well be a factor, although the picture's mixed: the rise in support for equal marriage cuts across demographics, and much of the worst homophobia is found in school.
quote:
Ah. That's interesting. She may be moving in a general post-evangelical direction in general, then.
Perhaps, although her core theology looks solidly evangelical. Personally I think that's great: reform in the church will only come when evangelicals are on board, as happened with equal ordination.
That's why groups like the Evangelical Alliance are so desperately trying to hold the line. They can sense the ground shifting under 'em.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
the biggest opponents of such laws tend to be older women who take the "I wasn't allowed that convenience when I was young, so I think it's unfair your life is allowed to be so easy" line.
Starlight I'd hope you'd agree that someone's lifelong struggling with how to live out their sexuality is hardly on a par with whether someone was allowed to breastfeed their infants.
For the record, in 25 years of ministry I don't ever think I have explicitly preached against homosexuality or homosexual practice at all, and have been suspected by my peers of pro-gay leanings since at least 1995 (when a March for Jesus I had helped organise encountered a Gay Pride march on the city square and we explicitly stated we were not a counter-demonstration). I realise this may come as a surprise to some here.
I understand that is still a long way from active acceptance. Orfeo suggests apologising to the constituency involved. Certainly when I have made major theological shifts before I have, as appropriate, done my best to do precisely that for the individuals or constituencies involved.
But none of that can completely undo their genuine suffering, any more than overnight blanket acceptance would undo years of suffering on the part of the likes of Vicky Beeching. If gay couples were to trample on that in a stampede to embrace acceptance then it doesn't do much for the cause, in my view. There needs to be a collective recogition of everyone's suffering as a result of our various imperfections.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Comparing any organisation favorably with the Church of England could be taken as damning with faint praise!
We need to take into account the fact that many Methodists and URC are fairly old. They haven't grown up with gay church members clamouring to get married, and they probably don't come across that sort of activism very often now. In the vast majority of congregations I suspect it's not an issue of burning relevance. I also imagine that many Methodist churches are seeing a declining number of weddings nowadays anyway, so there's not much of a wedding focus. It would be interesting to see some stats, if there are any.
quote:
As others have noted, Beeching comes from a charismatic evangelical background (in interviews she said she used to attend a Vineyard church), but has now moved into liturgical worship in cathedrals.
It's to the Church of England's shame that, while there, she can't hear and experience the affirmation extended by other episcopal churches.
Ah. That's interesting. She may be moving in a general post-evangelical direction in general, then.
Except that Beeching identifies as evangelical.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I heard the tail end of the interviews on the BBC R4 Sunday programme this morning, with someone referring to a group called Living Out - so I searched for it, only to find a book called "Living it Out" by two women with the same double barrelled surname, which had an opposite view of things. Which came first? I did get to find the LO group. Not impressed. More than not impressed - fuming.
I would like to ask the people who put forward the views they do a few questions.
1. Do you feel same sex attraction? If No, shut up, you have no relevant experience, and feeling attracted to someone else's spouse and controlling it isn't going to be the same. As Vicky said, you can still hope for a partner for you.
2. Are you living a celibate life successfully? If Yes, lucky old you. But you aren't normal. Most people need companionship and contact with other people. Somebody once commented that it isn't good for a human being to be alone. Someone then made a help meet for them. Not a helpmate to hand them their tools while doing DIY. But someone who could be described with the same word used in other places to describe the sort of helper God is. Who are you to deny that sort of relationship to someone who does not share your gift of being happy in a solitary life.
3 Are you living a celibate life unsuccessfully, unhappy with being alone, paying a "single supplement" which is the equivalent of paying for an invisible friend, paying for a home on your own, and commenting on TV programmes out loud to yourself, never having a hug when you feel down, or a kiss in happy moments, being made to sit n the children's table at family parties*, and go out from worship to take the children's activities. Then show some empathy. You know what it is like. Who are you to force someone else into that life when they have been given the opportunity to share their life with a soul mate?
These people are so convinced that they are right in the face of all the evidence. (And Vicky isn't even in a relationship, so what ae they on about? She is living as she is supposed to live, is she not? And, though I don't know her music, but I gather that hitherto, she has been regarded as a channel for the Holy Spirit.)
*On a programme about childlessness last week. Not my family! The woman concerned then said what lovely people her nephews and nieces were, but she felt infantilised - in her 50s.
Celibacy =/= not having companionship. Celibacy =/= being solitary. Many celibate people live in community with others, obviously monks/nuns/friars/sisters but also lay people. I agree that being called to celibacy is not that common, but it's not the picture of loneliness you're painting it as.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I have the impression that the sort of church making the arguments used in the arguments against Vicky do not go in for communal living.
And a person will still have to find the community they will fit into.
And don't you recognise when someone is having a bad day?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade Constable
quote:
Beeching identifies as evangelical.
I didn't say she shouldn't.
I identify as a Methodist, although my formal worship now takes place more often in a liberal catholic CofE setting. That doesn't make me CofE (as the Ship has made very clear to me!), but it problematizes my claim to have a clear, single spiritual identity. More and more Christians are developing multiple allegiances and poles of attraction these days, and I've read on the Ship about evangelicals who've taken up monastic practices, and so on.
We live in interesting times. The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end. They'll have to invent a new label quite quickly, before everyone insists on calling them fundamentalists!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have the impression that the sort of church making the arguments used in the arguments against Vicky do not go in for communal living.
And a person will still have to find the community they will fit into.
And don't you recognise when someone is having a bad day?
It might be nice if you didn't call celibate people lonely, abnormal freaks though. It's not for you - that's fine. But it is right for some people and that doesn't make them weird or wrong. It seems ironic to criticise those making those arguments for their misunderstanding of sexuality, but then have a total misunderstanding of what celibacy involves. The kind of church making the arguments against Vicky is irrelevant here - it is you misunderstanding celibacy, not them.
And no, how can I know you're having a bad day if you don't say so? Psychic ability isn't a requirement of Ship membership. I'm sorry you're having a bad day, but it's no excuse for making inaccurate and hurtful comments about celibate people in the same breath as criticising people for making inaccurate and hurtful comments about gay people.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It only takes one black swan to disprove the belief that all swans are white.
I am celibate. I didn't chose it, it was, little by little, thrust upon me. With one episode as the icing and the cherry on top when I met someone who was attracted to me (the real me, not my boobs in isolation), not married, and who then decided that he was called to be celibate.
I'm not going to attack people who are called to celibacy and are happy in it, of course not. But there are a number of women in my generation, which outnumbered the men of the same cohort who did not have the choice, in the same way as the women of WWI did not have the choice.
What I was attacking was the sort of person who decides, while not having to make that decision themselves, that people whose loves are of the same sex as themselves are not to have the consensual relationships that present themselves. Celibates who do not do that I have no argument with, as I have no argument with married people who do not do that.
Oh, and in my tirade I forgot the bit where everyone you used to go to parties with gets married and switches to couples dinner parties and one's social life shrinks almost to zero, and then all the female friends have babies and establish new social groups with the women they meet through the children and zero is reached. And the bit where all the activities in one's worshipping community are tied up with the children.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I tried to add this to the above, at the end of the second paragraph, but thought about it too much and ran out of time.
Being a natural celibate is not normal - that does not mean I mean to use abnormal as an insult. I used normal in a mathematical sense. I'm a bit literal like that. I did not at any point say freak, so you read that in to it. I also did not say that natural celibates are lonely. I think I have touched a sore point, so allowed you to read into what I wrote more than I intended, and if so, I'm sorry about that. (I realise that comes across a bit like those political apologies where the person does not apologise for the actual act, but only for the effect of it. Sorry about that, too.)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I made the mistake of reading some of the responses on facebook. Not unsurprising but saddening nonetheless.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Penny - sorry for the misunderstanding. What I picked up on the most was 'Most people need companionship and contact with other people.' That was what struck me as not understanding celibacy, since most Christians who are celibate surely have companionship and contact with other people through the church? I mean I am coming at it from the A-C angle so thinking primarily of religious and single consecrated life (though there are also more low church intentional communities), but even just celibate lay people will have companionship and contact with somebody surely? But then, I'm understanding those things as not necessarily being romantic or physical. I was reacting to an idea of celibacy being a life of loneliness, which suggested to me a lack of experience of celibacy in a religious context - but sorry for assuming.
Of course, celibacy is a calling and imposing it on people just because they are gay/bisexual is utterly wrong and contrary to the whole idea of a calling.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I made the mistake of reading some of the responses on facebook. Not unsurprising but saddening nonetheless.
Here, I think the positives are more instructive.
Beeching's received support from across the theological spectrum, even from those who currently hold a traditional view. I say "currently" as many have said that her interview is causing them to rethink their beliefs.
A few evangelicals are desperately trying to argue that she's left the fold. They know that persuading the flock to ignore her is the only hope they've got.
This continues to have all the signs of a game changer. Beeching's as media-savvy as it gets: she's already networking LGBT Christians like crazy via Twitter. The old school focus on producing reports and persuading bishops is already looking obsolete. The church used it to control dissent; as shown by the bungling of its director of communications, it has no idea how to control this.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I assume that Arun Arora only creates "communication" but doesn't process it for himself.
Sounds like quite a lot of church spokesmen, and not just C of E ones, either.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I assume that Arun Arora only creates "communication" but doesn't process it for himself.
Sounds like quite a lot of church spokesmen, and not just C of E ones, either.
He screwed the pooch, but TBF, Beeching's his worst nightmare: a fellow evangelical who's off-message and better at his job than he is. (Although on current showing, that'd be damning her media skill with faint praise.)
Neither managers like Arora, nor Christian gay-bashers, have a clue what to do about this. Unlike Jeffrey John or Gene Robinson, Beeching's got no past to use as a weapon; she's walked their path, and it almost destroyed her. She's a world away from the secretive, male Anglo-Catholic clubhouse. She was an evangelical superstar when this hit them out the blue. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I wouldn't call it quite out of the blue. In some ways her coming out shouldn't really change how she is viewed - she already supported SSM so was completely off message as far as those who are now 'against' her are concerned. It's interesting that there didn't seem to be much debate about her stance on SSM before this, considering the reaction to Steve Chalke. Maybe it's because she is not in any official position of responsibility so wasn't deemed a danger. That certainly seems to be changing now.
What really got me about the article on the EA website was how he said how supported he was when he came out. Well of course he was, because he is toeing the line. Evangelicals love nothing more than someone battling temptation, 'not giving into the devil' etc.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Sorry, I don't understand ... (I know what the "emergent" post-evangelical means).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
It's interesting that there didn't seem to be much debate about her stance on SSM before this, considering the reaction to Steve Chalke. Maybe it's because she is not in any official position of responsibility so wasn't deemed a danger.
And because she is a "Christian rock star" and - dare I say? - a woman?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Sorry, I don't understand ... (I know what the "emergent" post-evangelical means).
I read it as the conservative end of the spectrum moving from evangelicalism to fundamentalism.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, that's what I wondering, too.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Jade, thanks for that generous reply.
There are all sorts of solutions around to the situation of enforced singleness - I must admit the invitation to the local weekly OAP lunch and Bingo didn't quite seem like one for me. Nor the idea that people who grew up with the Beatles will feel at home singing that it's a long way to Tipperary. Churches vary a lot, and what is on offer can depend on the existing demographic of the group.
That wasn't really what I was getting at - and I think it is worth reiterating. People should (Ugh) "check their privilege" before imposing restrictions on others that they do not have to observe themselves.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Sorry, I don't understand ... (I know what the "emergent" post-evangelical means).
I read it as the conservative end of the spectrum moving from evangelicalism to fundamentalism.
You've got the move in the wrong direction - I'd actually see a liberalisation (but only up to a point).
It's more a disowning of labels than adopting another one - and in the debate we're in it's jolly easy to throw labels at each other. The hard part is to dialogue - and there are guilty individuals on both sides.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Really? I would have thought the first sign (however inadequate) of liberalisation would be the gracious acceptance those, such as VB, who are not "active" (and what a loaded term that is), who are not, in con evo parlance, "adopting a sinful lifestyle". That is not a good summary of what we have seen, quite the reverse. There seems a much lower threshold, that of failing to uphold the party line, which brings on the opprobrium.
Of course, this isn't new, much the same happened to the celebate Jeffrey John, but it seems more like a retreat to the laager than any sign of humility, much less a softening of attitudes
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I wouldn't call it quite out of the blue. In some ways her coming out shouldn't really change how she is viewed - she already supported SSM so was completely off message as far as those who are now 'against' her are concerned. [...]
I'd probably include her declaration of support for equal marriage: before the end of 2013, Beeching was viewed as thoroughly "sound" on evangelical doctrine. There wasn't a hint of the "well, he would say that, wouldn't he" attitude to Steve Chalke's affirmation of gay relationships.
Intriguing point about the lack of response to Beeching's pro-equal marriage views. If anything, I think much of that's down to her fellow evangelicals' surprise. As for the rest, so long as an evangelical remains generally "sound," silence is the preferred tactic.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Maybe also because she's a woman. Women don't often preach in con-evo circles.
She's a music-leader, but there aren't many Christian songs about equal marriage or homosexuality (or priestly genitalia, or abortion... - hey, there's a whole Dead Horse songbook waiting to be written, maybe the 8th Day crowd could get onto the lyrics and those of us with musical backgrounds could knock out the tunes - or we could use existing tunes like Wesley did, in which case the 8th Day denizens could just crack on to the finished product. They could complete the Dead Horse circle by ending up here ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
. Anyway, I digress, badly. Sorry) - so maybe there's less 'problem' there. Steve Chalke preaches, and at big events like Spring Harvest. Maybe it was less of an issue when Beeching publicly supported equal marriage because she wasn't seen as being as likely to be mentioning it in a sermon, whereas Chalke might?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Jade, thanks for that generous reply.
There are all sorts of solutions around to the situation of enforced singleness - I must admit the invitation to the local weekly OAP lunch and Bingo didn't quite seem like one for me. Nor the idea that people who grew up with the Beatles will feel at home singing that it's a long way to Tipperary. Churches vary a lot, and what is on offer can depend on the existing demographic of the group.
That wasn't really what I was getting at - and I think it is worth reiterating. People should (Ugh) "check their privilege" before imposing restrictions on others that they do not have to observe themselves.
Yes, I agree with all of that. I think also coming from a younger person's perspective (where there are more casual group activities eg going down the pub after a service) I hadn't taken into account the older single POV. Also it just depends on how much contact one needs as in individual - I personally am happy in a relatively solitary life as long as I have weekly Eucharist and an animal or five! Oh and yearly Greenbelt ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, this isn't new, much the same happened to the celebate Jeffrey John, but it seems more like a retreat to the laager than any sign of humility, much less a softening of attitudes
I can see what you're saying but I do see a softening in the sense that VB hasn't been pilloried in the same way as SC.
The case of Jeffery John doesn't help actually. For hardliners, there's distrust of him claiming celibacy now, since he was admittedly not before - in contravention of CofE teaching and Canon Law. As the argument goes, he was prepared to lie once (as were those who knew about it) - it's established that he's prepared to hide the truth. Why wouldn't he do so again?
VB may well help the liberalisation, as she's being honest about her celibacy. Acceptance of an orientation being valid before God is the first step towards wider acceptance in the con evo ideals. Acceptance of same sex activity will I'm sure follow - but it will also be accompanied by division across all denominations for those individual fellowships that cannot, in their conscience, condone it.
[ 20. August 2014, 06:57: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Having thought about it I guess the biggest difference with her coming out compared to what she said about SSM is that this is in the national newspapers, being interviewed on radio etc. So, whilst previously she could be ignored this is demanding a response.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
I see from her twitter that Vicky's not very happy with Robert Gagnon's swipe at her.
Vicky cites this sentence from Gagnon's article, which I think sums up his absurd psychobabble nicely:
quote:
Her error lies in thinking that she can rectify any deficit in her feminine self by absorbing in another woman what she perceives to be lacking in herself.
That sort of thing is standard for Gagnon, and his rants are typically filled with things like "all gays are narcissistic by nature".
Unfortunately, and horrifyingly, he's managed to convince a lot of conservatives over the years that his biblical interpretation can be taken seriously. His bible reading can be summarized as "of the various ways this passage can be interpreted, it should be interpreted in the most anti-gay way possible, because the rest of the bible is very anti-gay (repeat in a circular way for all other passages)."
Many years ago when someone challenged me to respond to Gagnon's views, my only reply was: "I think you severely misrepresent him as being reasonable."
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
Regardless of whether Gagnon's right about NT exegesis, the second he moves to psychology, he reverts to amateur status.
Even if he didn't, that was an appalling personal attack. If he doesn't apologize publicly and unreservedly, depending on his tenure conditions, Pittsburg Theological Seminary should consider sanctions. It goes way beyond the boundaries of legitimate debate.
Crap like this drags a fine school into disrepute.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
And ironically, Beeching recommended Gagnon's book on the Bible and homosexuality as the best statement of the traditional view!
Your idea of thanks, asshole?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I tried to add this to the above, at the end of the second paragraph, but thought about it too much and ran out of time.
Thanks for your responses to Jade; my reaction was similar to hers and I appreciate the exchange between you.
quote:
Being a natural celibate is not normal - that does not mean I mean to use abnormal as an insult. I used normal in a mathematical sense. I'm a bit literal like that. I did not at any point say freak, so you read that in to it. I also did not say that natural celibates are lonely. I think I have touched a sore point, so allowed you to read into what I wrote more than I intended, and if so, I'm sorry about that. (I realise that comes across a bit like those political apologies where the person does not apologise for the actual act, but only for the effect of it. Sorry about that, too.)
I agree that being Asexual is not statistically normal, but I would tend to avoid using 'not normal' in that sense outside of a clear statistically context because the connotations of 'not normal' in general conversation are not good and likely to touch a nerve. I winced at your second point.
I also agree with you that society often fails to cope well with single people, especially as one's social group marries off and that much provision for older people hasn't yet realised that Boomers are now 'older people' and so cultural references etc are different!
Also agree about not imposing celibacy. One thing which shifted me to accepting equal marriage was the experience of being in a relationship as I realised how much more there was to that than sex and the extent to which my position was coloured by my asexuality which means that I don't find celibacy burdonsome.
Have been reading posts from Sarah and Lindsey on their experiences as a celibate LGBT couple. Celibate by calling not imposition. They write about what they call the 'celibacy mandate' and challenge it because of the unfair expectations that go with it
Carys
Carys
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I tried to add this to the above, at the end of the second paragraph, but thought about it too much and ran out of time.
Thanks for your responses to Jade; my reaction was similar to hers and I appreciate the exchange between you.
quote:
Being a natural celibate is not normal - that does not mean I mean to use abnormal as an insult. I used normal in a mathematical sense. I'm a bit literal like that. I did not at any point say freak, so you read that in to it. I also did not say that natural celibates are lonely. I think I have touched a sore point, so allowed you to read into what I wrote more than I intended, and if so, I'm sorry about that. (I realise that comes across a bit like those political apologies where the person does not apologise for the actual act, but only for the effect of it. Sorry about that, too.)
I agree that being Asexual is not statistically normal, but I would tend to avoid using 'not normal' in that sense outside of a clear statistically context because the connotations of 'not normal' in general conversation are not good and likely to touch a nerve. I winced at your second point.
I also agree with you that society often fails to cope well with single people, especially as one's social group marries off and that much provision for older people hasn't yet realised that Boomers are now 'older people' and so cultural references etc are different!
Also agree about not imposing celibacy. One thing which shifted me to accepting equal marriage was the experience of being in a relationship as I realised how much more there was to that than sex and the extent to which my position was coloured by my asexuality which means that I don't find celibacy burdonsome.
Have been reading posts from Sarah and Lindsey on their experiences as a celibate LGBT couple. Celibate by calling not imposition. They write about what they call the 'celibacy mandate' and challenge it because of the unfair expectations that go with it
Carys
Carys
Thank you for that blog link, extremely helpful and I agree with what's said there. The 'celibacy mandate' is as devaluing to celibacy as it is unfair on LGBT Christians - celibacy becomes a punishment, not a vocation. IME celibacy is a decision you make with God, rather than having it imposed on you by an unsympathetic God or begging God for the vocation of celibacy when you don't have it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also, because I missed the edit window - obviously, sexual attraction and desire both exist on scales, and not necessarily together. They manifest themselves differently for different celibate people, and you can be non-asexual and also not find celibacy too burdensome.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Even if he didn't, that was an appalling personal attack. If he doesn't apologize publicly and unreservedly, depending on his tenure conditions, Pittsburg Theological Seminary should consider sanctions. It goes way beyond the boundaries of legitimate debate.
He's been spewing this sort of vile bile for the past decade. If PTS has been looking the other way for all that time, I doubt they'll rein him in now. I'm not sure that the fact that his awful statements are targeted at a particular person in this case is any worse or better than the usual when he says this about all gay people in general.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Thank you for the link to that blog, Carys.
All I was originally trying to do was to use my own experience as a model for what shouldn't be imposed on others.
I omitted the colleague who advised me that I should pretend not to be intelligent in order to attract a partner.
I did, at one time, read various religious books to see if they had any good advice for the single, even from traditions I would not otherwise give thinking room to. They didn't quite have nothing, but what they did have showed that they had at no time consulted anyone who lived that kind of life. I gave up when one book said that, as a woman, I could not relate to Christ without having a male as my "head", so I should seek out a couple, the man of whom would act as what, in other traditions, would be called a spiritual director. Not relevant to SSM, of course, especially for men.
The particular point that has affected my attitude to this argument is the way life can wave the possibility of companionship in front of one, and then pronounce that it is not going to happen. Not because the potential companion is in another relationship, or turns out to be secretly a religious with other vows, but for reasons which to outsiders make absolutely no sense. It is not a nice place to be. Sort of like the universe is going Nyah Nyah Nyah at one. On a bad day. There were bits in that blog that would have touched that sore point at one time - where they imagined an extreme situation.
For the universe to become embodied in the members of one's church turning their distaste and their Biblical authority on one would be even worse. Not imagining that there is something profoundly wrong about oneself, but being told again, and again, and again that one is disordered and responsible for that disorder by making a choice one never made, must be an incredibly awful place to find oneself.
And the people who push people into that place, while never having to be anywhere like it themselves, and talk through the ignorant top of their heads really need to shut up and listen, and think, and learn empathy.
[ 21. August 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[Robert Gagnon's] been spewing this sort of vile bile for the past decade. If PTS has been looking the other way for all that time, I doubt they'll rein him in now. I'm not sure that the fact that his awful statements are targeted at a particular person in this case is any worse or better than the usual when he says this about all gay people in general.
I agree it's often moral hairsplitting, but under several codes, comments about specific individuals are viewed as crossing a line. (Defamation, etc.)
I guess Gagnon (if ever a name were appropriate ...) would just reframe it as a general comment about lesbian and gay people.
What's baffling is a) how a man with such a dazzling liberal arts education can spew this ordure, and b) why a world class seminary for a mainline, affirming church ever gave him a job.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
A bump, 'cause Gagnon's rolled out a followup piece, in which he doubles-down on his whacko psychoanalysis.
I'll say this of his theological rivet counting: if they awarded qualifications for emotional intelligence, he'd struggle with the GED.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A bump, 'cause Gagnon's rolled out a followup piece, in which he doubles-down on his whacko psychoanalysis.
I'll say this of his theological rivet counting: if they awarded qualifications for emotional intelligence, he'd struggle with the GED.
It's amazing how arrogant this piece is, as if he can tell someone (who he doesn't know), that they're incomplete.
The irony is, that no therapist or analyst would lecture people like this.
I wonder if he's involved with some gay-conversion outfit, of which there are quite a lot in the US.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A bump, 'cause Gagnon's rolled out a followup piece, in which he doubles-down on his whacko psychoanalysis.
It possibly deserves framing as an example of crazy word vomit at its finest.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The irony is, that no therapist or analyst would lecture people like this.
Well I'm actually strongly reminded of Sigmund Freud when I read Gagnon's stuff. So while it's true that no qualified therapist in the present day would say or think any of this kind of stuff, Gagnon's writing does come across as very similar to a discredited guy from a hundred years ago who made stuff up as he went along.
quote:
I wonder if he's involved with some gay-conversion outfit, of which there are quite a lot in the US.
As far as I can tell, he strongly supports the use of conversion therapy in general and believes that it works for some people. For those it doesn't work for he passionately believes they should stay single or marry someone of the opposite sex anyway.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
i don't think that all Freud's ideas are discredited; actually, part of my training was in psychoanalytic therapy, so obviously some of it is still useful.
I think Freud's attitude to patients was common at that time, a rather haughty 'we know best' one. See the following image of the famous Salpetriere asylum, under Charcot.
http://tinyurl.com/k6ebeds
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I doubt whether much can be gained from psychoanalysing Gagnon from a distance either.
Suffice to say that, on the basis of his writings, he would appear to have problems beyond the dreams of analysts.
To misquote Gag Halfrunt from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,
" Vell, Gagnon's just zis guy, you know". Don't think he's got two heads unlike Zaphod, but the one he's got seems capable of of producing significant misfiirings.
He does seem emotionally dumb.
[ 03. September 2014, 10:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, forgive a tiny bit of psychoanalysis - he scrutinizes others' psychological problems, (badly), hmm, I wonder why.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's amazing how arrogant this piece is, as if he can tell someone (who he doesn't know), that they're incomplete.
The irony is, that no therapist or analyst would lecture people like this.
I wonder if he's involved with some gay-conversion outfit, of which there are quite a lot in the US.
Gagnon's emotionally deaf in that piece, that's for sure. This is all an abstract "issue" for him. He feels confident psychoanalyzing Beeching 'cause he thinks the Bible tells him so. Guy's EQ comes across so low it's given me pause: if that article's representative, he may truly not understand the harm he's doing.
I doubt the same can be said of his employers at Pittsburgh. This crap is dragging their name through the mire. They need to find a way to step up.
Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on
:
To return to the OP subject:
there were a couple of aspects of Vicky Beeching's coming out that irritated me a little bit.
For the last couple of years she has spoken as a voice of the progressive evangelicals and been vocally pro gay marriage.
She's done so under the banner of "I'm a theologian". She could have remained silent on this issue until such time as she felt ready to come out...I think to speak on it while still "in the closet" was perhaps a tad disingenuous.
The second issue is more troubling to me:
She received a lot of mainstream secular media coverage after coming out.
One thing that got a lot of headlines was when she described how, as a teenager, she was subjected to an "excorcism" for being gay.
Wow. The mainstream media loved that. The narrative was "poor girl..victimised by the nasty evangelical church.".
Now, I have a bit of an issue with this, on a couple of accounts.
Firstly, this "Exorcisim" apparently occurred in front of the mains stage at some pentecostal-charismatic type event after she went forward for prayer. Those of us who know these kind of events know that these things are faintly rediculous, but that excorcism for everything from being gay to having a nasty cold (accompanied by fevered praying in tongues) can be the norm for these events.
I'm not saying I think it's ok (It's not - it's crap theology for starters, and worse pastoral care.) but I am saying that just sticking that out there to the mainstream media probably portrayed it as something rather different to how even Vicky herself, familiar with pentecostal/charasimatic culture would have viewed it at the time.
More notably. Vicky Beeching is has had a 10 year extremely successful career, both in terms of fame and I would expect, fortune. She has had that almost entirely because of the evangelical church.
Fairly recently, she has established a quite successful career in the mainstream media as a "media commentator" and (apparently) "theologian".
I think it's fair to say her profile in the first career helped launch her second career. Given that she has not yet even completed her PhD, can I suggest, without sounding too harsh, that her second career has probably been, well, not exactly harmed by being an attractive young blonde female?
Is sexual stereotyping /discrimination only bad when it works against you?
She's had the opportunity to achieve something very VERY few people do in life: To make a good living out of doing something she loves. She has acheived that because of her talent, yes, but largely because of the evangelical church. Without it, odds are she would have been working 3 jobs and busking at open mike nights in run down clubs for the last 10 years. (Not because she's a bad musician or songwriter - she's not, but it's just a fact of the industry)
To put her story out to the world in such a way as to draw scorn upon the very people who, to a great extent, "made" her career seems...well..uncharitable.
Ultimately, nobody forced her to be a world famous Christian rock star. It's not something you just "fall into", (as many failed/struggling muscians will give testamony to) and it would have been enormously easy for her to walk away from it anytime she liked..but the fact is, she felt the pros outweighed the cons.
So going for the sympathy vote about how the big bad church was nasty and mean to her seems rather unfair.
That's by no means all her fault, a lot of it is how the media portrays her story, but she's supposed to be a "media commentator" so she's smart enough to know exactly how her story would go down.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
3M Matt - not sure why it was disingenuous for her to be for marriage equality while still in the closet. It makes sense that she may have felt comfortable with intellectual arguments for marriage equality before she felt comfortable with her own sexuality. Coming out is still an emotionally challenging thing, even nowadays. It's hard.
Also, I didn't get the impression that she's been blaming the church wholesale - rather, talking about the reality of life for LGBT Christians in more conservative churches. Do you think she should pretend none of what happened to her ever happened? I get that some churches are uncomfortable with what she's talking about that, but I think that's because they realise repentance is needed for how they treat LGBT people. Too many evangelical churches assume there are no gay people in their churches, and that LGBT rights is a 'liberal issue'.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
3M Matt, you paint it too black and white.
By her own account, Beeching was raised in charismatic evangelicalism, and wrestled to reconcile her sexuality and her faith throughout her teens and twenties, until an auto-immune condition brought things to a head. I very much doubt she was thinking in the calculating way you describe. It'd be a heckuva lot muddier, with conflicting feelings and beliefs.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
3M Matt,
I disagree with pretty much every opinion expressed in your post. I think you are being insufficiently empathetic toward the difficulties gay people can face in involvement in churches and to the psychological harm that the church's anti-gay attitude does. The evangelical church has been absolutely horrible to gay people for years. If Vicky uses her media savvy to convey the smallest piece of the realities of that through the media, then good for her, it might wake up a sleepy nation to the atrocities the church has been committing and lead some in the church to repent of their sins.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Well I'm actually strongly reminded of Sigmund Freud when I read Gagnon's stuff. So while it's true that no qualified therapist in the present day would say or think any of this kind of stuff, Gagnon's writing does come across as very similar to a discredited guy from a hundred years ago who made stuff up as he went along.
To be honest I was reminded of the story about Karl Popper and Alfred Adler. Adler was convinced that power, rather than sex, was the wellspring of human motivation and, hence, diagnosed the inferiority complex as the basis of neuroses. Popper told Adler of a case which, he thought, was not explicable in those terms. Popper asked him how he could be so sure if he had never met the person concerned. "I know it through my thousand fold experience" Adler explained. "And next time you will make a similar diagnosis based on your thousand and one fold experience" retorted Popper.
Originally posted by 3MMatt:
quote:
I'm not saying I think it's ok (It's not - it's crap theology for starters, and worse pastoral care.) but I am saying that just sticking that out there to the mainstream media probably portrayed it as something rather different to how even Vicky herself, familiar with pentecostal/charasimatic culture would have viewed it at the time.
I think that Robbie Burns may have summed that one up for you:
O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
She was on Radio 4's 'Thought for the day' yesterday. i am glad to say that she did a simple 'thought' which had nothing to do with sexuality. Showing that she isn't a single issue person.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
I have to say I was struck at how careful she was not to play the "poor me" card, and not to put the boot in on the Evangelical church or the event in question.
Obviously if she's talking about various experiences over her life then journalists are going to pick out the dramatic ones. She was also clearly aware that she was talking to people who were not naturally sympathetic to Christianity and particularly not to the cardboard cutout bogeyman of Evangelical Christianity, and went out of her way to say that she:
- still identifies as Evangelical
- bears the church no ill-will
To try to frame it as a calculating bite of the hand that feeds is, I would suggest, a wee bit disingenuous if not overly cynical (and I write as someone who is shot through the cynicism).
{Edited for code}
[ 04. September 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: Snags ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0