Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Bacchus:

Male Anglican priests and ordinands are, in my experience (which may not be normative), vastly more likely to be gay than the general population. I don't know nearly as many female priests or ordinands, but in my more limited sample would suggest that lesbians and bisexual women are perhaps slightly overrepresented. Of course, the degrees to which they're open about their sexualities vary quite a bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Also it should be pointed out that a lot of Millenial ordinands are conservative evangelicals, and youth does not guarantee liberalism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Palimpsest

Well, one reason that I wonder about a more general tide against Christianity and religion, is that I remember how vehemently anti-Christian my grandparents and parents were. And they didn't seem alone in that, in the working class area I grew up in. 50 years ago, I heard loads of adults scorning religion, and treating the local vicar as a complete imbecile.

I don't think this was because the church was anti-gay and anti-women really. One of my grandfathers conceived a violent hatred of Christianity during WWI, for reasons, too complex to discuss here. But he wasn't alone.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You exaggerate when you say that the feeling is that all Christian churches are anti-gay

---

No, I'm afraid I really don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

People who come out as Gay risk losing their job, custody of their child, being beaten up or killed.

---

quote:

---

Not, as far as I am aware, in the UK or really anywhere in Western Europe (well, okay, there are unfortunately some instances of homophobic violence, but mercifully few, and I'd feel much safer as a white gay male than a dark-skinned straight man, or a woman of any race or sexual orientation)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

I'm unaware of any cases where that has happened to Christians who revealed their faith.

---

quote:

---

Really, because I am definitely aware of cases where that's happened and continues to happen. But again, not in the UK or really anywhere in Western Europe.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Palimpsest

Well, one reason that I wonder about a more general tide against Christianity and religion, is that I remember how vehemently anti-Christian my grandparents and parents were. And they didn't seem alone in that, in the working class area I grew up in. 50 years ago, I heard loads of adults scorning religion, and treating the local vicar as a complete imbecile.

I don't think this was because the church was anti-gay and anti-women really. One of my grandfathers conceived a violent hatred of Christianity during WWI, for reasons, too complex to discuss here. But he wasn't alone.

---

It may be that the anti-gay and anti-woman positions of the Churches are only a late major blow to church membership. From where I stand I could see the British seething cauldron of class struggle having started the process much earlier. An English friend of mine said he had done some research in school about Robin Hood and that the original mythological figure was a priest-killer.
I understand British class even less than I understand Christianity so I'll stop there.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:


Of course, part of that is that as far as I can tell we haven't had a decent Archbishop of Canterbury since Robert Runcie. Carey was a homophobe. Williams was an academic.

---

What's wrong with being an academic? I have huge respect for Rowan Williams, who seems to be one of the few voices that's been willing to say that it's not that simple on this issue amongst others. To my mind, a recognition of complexity and a rejection of black and white thinking is a prerequisite of moral courage as well as intellectual integrity. Saintliness isn't easy, because it has to start with a flawed person interacting with other flawed people

---

quote:

---

I was disappointed about the Jeffrey John debacle. I continue to wish that the Church of England would bless same-sex partnerships. But I don't think that it's healthy or productive (spiritually or politically) to allow that disappointment to fester into blind rage or a crude 'us and them' mentality.

---

quote:

---

If we start dividing the world into black and white polarities, us and them, the good people and the bad, then I think we're going down a very dangerous route.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
... If we start dividing the world into black and white polarities, us and them, the good people and the bad, then I think we're going down a very dangerous route.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's understandable when anyone from a group of people who have been oppressed bats against those who oppressed them, or who they perceive as still oppressing them.

It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served.

---

quote:

---

Among Christians there are various viewpoints, as there are among every group of people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served. It's easy too to lump 'them' together as a type, and visit prejudice and hatred upon people whose reality is far from the caricature.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It isn't ducking the issue Justinian, it's directly to the point.

If there's a shocking level of homophobia within the Christian community, and a shocking level of Christianophobia among the LGB community as per the op, throwing eggs at each other with vehemence and name-calling is never going to help reconcile those people in love, regardless of who is holding the most eggs at any one time.

[QUOTE]
'Us and them' should be consigned to history. There really is only us, we're all brothers and sisters in the human race. We're all different from each other, we won't all hold the same opinions, we'll all have been influenced by our education, upbringing and culture, but we can live with that and with each other if we all make the effort and try to be a good influence to the current and to the next generation. As MLK said, 'I have a dream'. They take time and effort, but they can come true.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's understandable when anyone from a group of people who have been oppressed bats against those who oppressed them, or who they perceive as still oppressing them.

It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served. It's easy too to lump 'them' together as a type, and visit prejudice and hatred upon people whose reality is far from the caricature.

The only way to progress as a human race is for us to recognise all prejudice for what it is, and to take people as we find them.

Jesus demonstrated tolerance and taught love of God and love of others. Christianity is about following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Among Christians there are various viewpoints, as there are among every group of people. Tolerance of others despite their pov standing against our own, allowing them to speak even when we hate what they say, takes strength of character. But if it's what we all hope for from others, it's what we must learn to do ourselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It isn't ducking the issue Justinian, it's directly to the point.

If there's a shocking level of homophobia within the Christian community, and a shocking level of Christianophobia among the LGB community as per the op, throwing eggs at each other with vehemence and name-calling is never going to help reconcile those people in love, regardless of who is holding the most eggs at any one time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Quotes file

The problem with the statements from the hierarchy of the CofE, for example, is that membership of the Cofe puts someone in the moderate group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.

---

quote:

---

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's understandable when anyone from a group of people who have been oppressed bats against those who oppressed them, or who they perceive as still oppressing them.

It's easy for them to push so far that they become the oppressors, and see it as justice served. It's easy too to lump 'them' together as a type, and visit prejudice and hatred upon people whose reality is far from the caricature.

The only way to progress as a human race is for us to recognise all prejudice for what it is, and to take people as we find them.

Jesus demonstrated tolerance and taught love of God and love of others. Christianity is about following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Among Christians there are various viewpoints, as there are among every group of people. Tolerance of others despite their pov standing against our own, allowing them to speak even when we hate what they say, takes strength of character. But if it's what we all hope for from others, it's what we must learn to do ourselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I think this is a case when skies darken when chickens come home to roost and everyone ends up getting pooped on.

The church has been fairly consistent, and still is, on disliking homosexuality. You'll see it either openly labelled as a sin, see gay people told not to practice and so on. For all that there are a large number of Christians who aren't homophobic, those who are tend to shout louder and get more coverage, because if there's one thing that journalists like, it's a lack of ambiguity and plain statements.
.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
And yet Archbishop Michael Ramsey was outspoken in favour of the decriminalization of homosexuality when that was not a hugely popular position. I don't think his position would be seen as pro gay by today's standards, but he saw at least that criminalization was not just. But somehow that position did not develop while the secular world has (onthe whole) moved on.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I think this is a case when skies darken when chickens come home to roost and everyone ends up getting pooped on.

The church has been fairly consistent, and still is, on disliking homosexuality. You'll see it either openly labelled as a sin, see gay people told not to practice and so on. For all that there are a large number of Christians who aren't homophobic, those who are tend to shout louder and get more coverage, because if there's one thing that journalists like, it's a lack of ambiguity and plain statements.
.

---

And yet Archbishop Michael Ramsey was outspoken in favour of the decriminalization of homosexuality when that was not a hugely popular position. I don't think his position would be seen as pro gay by today's standards, but he saw at least that criminalization was not just. But somehow that position did not develop while the secular world has (onthe whole) moved on.

But at least someone has now been appointed to lead on tackling homophobic bullying in church schools.

Carys

---

My neighbor raises chickens and they do go home to roost. But his real problem when he bought the house was that 50 years ago some one was raising racing pigeons in the house and generations later without any encouragement they were still treating the porch as a dovecote.


The secular world has moved on a great distance. So much so that your list of deeds and good intentions is pathetic.

You might want to consider why it was felt necessary to appoint someone to stop homophobic bullying. In a well run school this would have been done automatically by the school authorities. Of course they have the challenge of stopping the bullying while still saying that gay children are sinners but shouldn't be punished for it.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You might want to consider why it was felt necessary to appoint someone to stop homophobic bullying. In a well run school this would have been done automatically by the school authorities. Of course they have the challenge of stopping the bullying while still saying that gay children are sinners but shouldn't be punished for it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The best bit in that was 'he even tried to kiss her in the paint aisle in B & Q'.

.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
You're trying to remove all context from the situation and use that to claim equivalence. Now the LGBT side might be throwing eggs. But the Christian side is throwing rocks. Reconciliation is almost impossible in the midst of an armed conflict.

At present the overwhelming majority of Christians in Britain are members of groups whose leaders are actively trying to prevent LGBT people from marrying those they love. (Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church). This is a direct conflict. And reconciliation can only truly happen when Christian leaders stop this. In America it's worse, I believe.

In order for reconciliation to happen, Christians have to stop trying to smack LGBT people in the face as a point of policy. Because as things stand the conversation is something like this.

"Moderate": You two should learn to get along.
Christian: *smack* Absolutely. We should all love one another. *Smack*
LGBT: He's hitting me in the face. I can't get along with someone who hits me in the face.
Christian: *smack* It's my religion. Now I'm offering my right hand to shake and make up. *smacks with left*
LGBT: Ow! No I can't take the hand of someone who smacks me in the face.
"Moderate": Why must you be so unreasonable. There's only us. We're all brothers and sisters.
Christian: *smack* I couldn't agree more. Jesus came to preach the brotherhood of all and I can't turn my back on that any more than I can the instructions to smack you in the face. *smack*
LGBT: F**k this. I'm out of here. I'll shake hands with those of you that don't try and smack me in the face.
"Moderate": Why must you be so unreasonable? He's only doing what his conscience dictates. He's just been influenced by his education, upbringing, and culture is all.
LGBT: *Ignores moderate and shakes hands with the few Christians who do not try to smack him in the face*
Moderate: We must be a good influence to the next generation. Work together and it can come true.
Christian: *smack* Sorry. It wasn't personal. My book told me to.
LGBT: You know what I want to see for the next generation and how I want to see them be better? By making sure that people don't get smacked in the face.
Moderate: Can't we all just get along? I mean look at you. Why are you a Christianophobe?
LGBT: Because he keeps smacking me in the face.
Christian: *smack* As I said. It's not personal. It's what the bible says.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Your faux conversation, however, could be reversed, istm, with a smack in the face for possibly holding an opinion with which you disagree. You and others seem to be saying that if anyone thinks that marriage is about holy matrimony between a man and a woman, he or she is a bigot, is attacking LGB people, and should not give their opinion on the matter. It sounds to me as if this would undermine the whole idea of freedom of speech. In a democracy all voices should be heard. Moderate people should stand up against attempts to silence anyone or bully or taunt them into backing down imv, as well as speaking out if the law is unfair or being broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I thought that civil partnership was supposed to give equal rights in law to everyone.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I have to say that I regret having created this thread, and have hesitated to post on it (or indeed the Ship) again.

The recent harassment (thankfully not violent) of a friend on a London bus has made me aware of how naive the picture I painted of the UK as an LGBT paradise was. The fact is that I live, work, and go to church in something of a middle class ghetto where people don't look at you (too) strangely if you campaign for the Green Party, and where being gay really isn't an issue (I can't speak for being Trans, as I have no experience of that). It is also almost certainly true that, because I have spent so much of my life in very 'churchy' circles, I am not as aware as I should be of how things look from the outside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

I've been accused of being an Uncle Tom (for I don't know what else 'kiss the whip' is supposed to mean), but the fact is that I am acutely aware of the need for the Church to change its line on LGB people and their relationships. Within my own branch of the Church (the Church of England), a lot of this change is a matter of making the official line correspond to the pastoral care already provided on the ground by many, if not actually most, parish priests. I'm not currently involved in Church government at any level, but it's definitely something that I am willing to consider, although the structures governing the Church of England are designed in such a way as to make any change very difficult (not always a bad thing in itself, but frustrating on this issue).

In the meantime, I try to live my life, as honestly as I can, as a gay Anglican.

---

quote:

---

I do still feel that I was in the right in at least one aspect of the OP, which might be summarized by saying that I see two options for someone in my situation. The first would be to reject the teachings of the Church whole cloth; the second to 'test all things; hold fast that which is good'. The second, in my view, is almost certainly more difficult, but the superior choice when considered intellectually, morally, and spiritually.

For instance. I am not a Roman Catholic (and am unlikely to become one, because of my sexuality amongst other reasons), but say that I were. I might justly oppose the way in which the Roman Catholic Church's high view of the family (as expressed in Gaudium et Spes amongst other sources) has been used to justify discrimination against LGBT people. However, I might still very justly find Gaudium et Spes (which, of course, does not mention homosexuality at all, much as the gospels don't) to be in almost every respect an excellent work of social teaching, to respect its teachings on human dignity, on our response to poverty, and the prevention of war. There is no logical reason why this hypothetical version of me should reject these things, let alone reject and also to reject Pacem in Terris, Rerum Novarum, or for that matter the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the intercession of the saints, or the Assumption.

My dignity as a human being (upon which my dignity as a gay human being is dependent) demands the liberty to make these decisions of my own accord. For the same reason, I have no right to demand (and no grounds to expect) that anyone should agree with me. I should, however, hope that they might respect the integrity of my position.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


The non-Anglican Gay community can mitigate the attempts of the Church to wrong gays by secular fights over the law, by diminishing the influence of the nastier church leaders and by welcoming those that seek to flee the hierarchy rather than fight it or who move to a church that doesn't do bad things.

However fixing your church so it doesn't do these things and not wither into an embarrassing memory is only going to come from people like you and only if you fight for it within your church. The gay community has its own history and the lesson we have is that silence does not accomplish this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


The non-Anglican Gay community can mitigate the attempts of the Church to wrong gays by secular fights over the law, by diminishing the influence of the nastier church leaders and by welcoming those that seek to flee the hierarchy rather than fight it or who move to a church that doesn't do bad things.

However fixing your church so it doesn't do these things and not wither into an embarrassing memory is only going to come from people like you and only if you fight for it within your church. The gay community has its own history and the lesson we have is that silence does not accomplish this.

---

Or, alternatively, it might be better to let the CofE 'wither into an embarrassing memory' and to support a smaller denomination that is fully committed to a more liberal theological outlook, certainly as far as sexuality is concerned.

As a state church the CofE feels it has to try to have a niche for everyone, which means never speaking with one voice on gay issues. IMO the best way to get a totally gay-affirming church is to focus on getting the CofE disestablished, at which point the evangelicals and the liberals will part company, and the liberals will be free to conduct SSMs, etc. If the desire for sexual conservatism is short-lived or unprofitable then the evangelical churches will either fade away or they'll become as liberal as the others, at least on this issue.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As a state church the CofE feels it has to try to have a niche for everyone, which means never speaking with one voice on gay issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Racism and anti-semitism still exist in English society, and it would be a mistake to think that they present no more challenges for the CofE.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

---

But surely your own country is the example here. From what I understand, a number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent decades, with the changing theology on this issue as one of the main contributing factors.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Am I just over-sensitive or do other people (and particularly other LGB Christians) find more prejudice based on their faith than on their sexuality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos :
A number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent centuries. It's what American denominations do. Take, for example, the formation of the Southern Baptists in the mid-nineteenth century over the issue of slavery.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos :
A number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent centuries. It's what American denominations do. Take, for example, the formation of the Southern Baptists in the mid-nineteenth century over the issue of slavery.

---

Didn't most mainline denominations had such a split?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the Anglican church leadership DOES speak with one voice on the gay issue - all the official statements on the matter agree with each other, and the opposing views within the Anglican church are totally ignored by the leadership.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:


The Southern Baptists are an interesting case study. If we go by SvitlanaV2's standard that number of adherents is a good measure of the correctness of church positions, then as the largest denomination of American Protestants the Southern Baptists must have made all the right calls. Or at least more right calls than any other group of American Protestants.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos :
A number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent centuries. It's what American denominations do. Take, for example, the formation of the Southern Baptists in the mid-nineteenth century over the issue of slavery.

---

Didn't most mainline denominations had such a split?

---

Disagreement over the issue? Yes. An actual organizational schism that persists to this day? No.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:


I see no reason not to try to fix all fragments of the Church and not assume that fissure is required. It was only a few decades ago that they all thought gays were evil.

---

But surely your own country is the example here. From what I understand, a number of American denominations have experienced fissure in recent decades, with the changing theology on this issue as one of the main contributing factors. The denominations that have taken the liberalising move haven't grown as a result, but have declined.

Of course, you might say that decline and fissure don't matter, that being right is all that counts. That's a valid point! But for a denomination whose previous modus operandi has been to tolerate diverse theologies, being 'right' hasn't been the primary focus of their identity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[Basically, what comes across is that the church is at sixes and sevens with itself. I don't understand why it should be this way. I mean, the CofE leadership quite obviously invites people with all sorts of divergent theological views - and sexual histories - into the ministry or into , so why would it ignore them? What's the point?

It's almost as if the congregations, theological colleges and official leaders and spokesmen are each entirely separate entities, compelled by different agendas to pursue different goals. It's quite peculiar, really.

---