|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I'd add something about Romans 1. If you look at vv16-17, Paul makes a very strong statement about faith. He then goes on to talk about what happens if you don't have that faith, and vv18-31 is a list of the consequences of that lack of faith. Now, if I as a lesbian share that strong faith, am not, as Paul says "ashamed of the gospel," then how can my sexuality be a consequence of that lack of faith? Verse 32 is a right pain, but I would agree with Gregory that epilepsy as demon possession is a good argument (unfortunately, I'm currently arguing with someone who does still believe this about epilepsy.)
I look at my own story in this. I grew up in a bible-believing fundamentalist Anglican family (with a strange interest in church union, but we won't go there!) I had no exposure whatsoever to television, radio or newspapers until I left school and went to university. I didn't know that homosexuality existed. My life was bounded by the Bible and church.
Two weeks after I arrived at university, aged 17, I met up with a guy who was a year ahead of me at school. He was with his male partner. All of a sudden I realised what was missing in my knowledge of myself. Up until that point I had realised that I had no sexual interest in boys or men, but I didn't have any idea that it was possible to have an interest in women (that may sound a bit odd, but you'd have to be me to understand). The very minute I met Mark again I saw a whole series of things I'd have to do - come out to my parents, work out what to do about church, learn, learn, learn more about what I'd just found out.
Oddly, nothing in my rather extreme upbringing had given me any sense that this was wrong - instead it felt like such a relief that I rejoiced. I thanked God that I had been given this understanding (and then took some 7 years to get up courage to find a girlfriend - again, you'd have to know me to understand!)
I have never had any feeling of having given up my love of the gospel to become a lesbian. I still can't understand what Paul is on about in this passage. I had, and have always witnessed to the love of God and the saving grace of Jesus Christ. The whole idea of lesbianism as a consequence of being ashamed of the gospel is just a nonsense in my life.
Testimony over. God is a continual revelation in the world, and sometimes that revelation comes through gay and lesbian people.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Just chiming in to say that I agree with Fr, Gregory's last post. Put into words something I have been fumbling around with for a while.
And Arabella, Thanks for the insight. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[getting Arabella's name right]
[ 31. August 2003, 02:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
This is probably the best thread on the ship right now, and I am sure it will go on and on as long as we don't camp it up too much (hmm that's an idea for a heaven thread).
I certainly don't feel that sexuality is defined by genetics, but it certainly must contribute to an overall developmental process. I don't feel sexuality is fixed either, just because someone is in a same sex relationship now does not mean they will not fall for a person of another sex in the future. However some people do seem to be almost exclusively monosexual.
My personal dream is that we are able to fall in love with whoever we please without betraying a community.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think that will ba a lot easier once the spectre of discrimination and oppression has gone, or at least lessened.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Amen.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sakura
Shipmate
# 1449
|
Posted
African bishop 'breaks ranks' on homosexuality issue.
I wasn't sure where to post this link. Nice to see at least one senior Anglican from Africa prepared to acknowledge the reality and worth of homosexual relationships.
--------------------
Keep me as the apple of Your eye.
Hide me under the shadow of Your wings.
Posts: 478 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sakura:
African bishop 'breaks ranks' on homosexuality issue.
I wasn't sure where to post this link. Nice to see at least one senior Anglican from Africa prepared to acknowledge the reality and worth of homosexual relationships.
Might be an good idea to post your article on one of the Purg threads about the whole shebang? I'd suggest the New hampshire... one. Particularly as it (the article) is related to the furore about +Gene, and also the African bishops speaking out against gay clergy/bishops.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This is a reply to Welsh Dragon's post in Hell
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
I agree that we have to have a church in which we are all equal in Christ and there are no second class citizens.
However.
A friend of mine who is a pretty broad minded priest who had worked extensively in the third world made a significant point. She had been amazed at the opposition to Jeffrey John, and was herself supportive.
But after his resignation she commented that the association of Christianity with homosexuality could lead to reprisals against Christians living and working in the third world by other groups, especially perhaps Muslims.
There is likely to be a cost to our choices to be more liberal in the West. And that cost may have to be paid with other people's blood.
That doesn't change the rightness of treating homosexuals as equals in the church; but it remains possible that people in vulnerable Christians groups will suffer or die as an indirect result of our actions.
Something worth at least bearing in mind...
Innocent Gay and Lesbian people in Africa are already paying with their blood thanks to homophobic beliefs in their societies. That is the price for not speaking out and not doing anything.
Human Rights Watch
Churches and homosexuality in Africa
There are some African churches and church leaders who are brave enough to speak out on this.
Archibishop of Capetown.
I think we should be supporting these brave people not wimping out ourselves in case the persecutors of these people - horrors of horrors - identify Christianity as a religion which speaks out against violence and injustice and get mad about it. We wouldn't want them to get that impression!
People are being raped and assaulted and dying already - it's a question of whether we are prepared to support those who want to do something to stop it.
Also some of the worst perpetrators are not Muslims but Christians themselves and their fellow christians have IMO a duty to speak out on this.
Look at the way a journalist's report on the Miss World competition was used as an excuse to murder Christians. The hateful and unscrupulous of any religion will always find a way to manufacture excuses for violence. That doesn't excuse the rest of us from speaking out against them.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
Most relevant link I can find this afternoon is here .
And yes, it is irritating to be quoting senior African clergy in this context.
It is even more irritating that this particular point holds IMHO at least enough weight to be listened to carefully.
Of course I agree that it is terrible that people should be attacked because of their sexuality...
However it sounds as though in your example the young man's apparent association with the decadent UK (he was wearing a bandana with a British flag) might actually have been part of the pretext for the initial assault.
My impression from having worked in an Islamic country was that the West was seen as sexually decadent; whatever we say about homosexual rights is unlikely to be listened to attentively or sympathetically by many people. Our chances of reducing these assaults by denouncing them seem slim. Though concerted action/ sanctions/ insistence on human rights might be more effective...
Conversely, an opinion that is current, which I suppose may or may not be correct, and is difficult to verify, is that mob attacks on Christians are likely to increase if Christianity is further associated with active support for homosexuality.
This seems tied to prevalent attitudes in Africa and the East re homosexuality, which is seen very negatively. And our past attitudes as colonial masters, teachers and agents of conversion may have had a major part to play here.
There is strong opinion that there are significant risks associated with this. And inflammation of the situation could it seems follow directly from our choices.
Doesn't mean choosing equality is *wrong*. Just means it could be *costly*. Often it is costly. Here, the cost might be borne by other people, far away. And I *still* think this is something to bear in mind...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
It is so heartening that the Archbishop of Capetown is tackling other African bishops and the diversionary nature of homosexuality. And for them, such a safe issue to make a fuss over: the sexuality of priests in other continents. They would do better to take a leaf out of the late Archbishop of Uganda, Janani Luwum and die for the Church (killed by Idi Amin for speaking out against him).
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Um - why did you pick out that one incident WD when my point is that there is widespread violence?
(tries to remember that this is DH and not Hell)
What conservative Islamic societies see as 'decadent' includes the rights of people like you and me to be treated as equals and to be treated fairly by the law. When people in conservative Islamic societies try to speak up for womens rights it can be very costly. When the church is associated with women who minister as priests, go out to work and don't wear hejab it is seen as 'decadent' and western. No doubt part of how people stir up hatred against Christians in muslim countries is to say that if you let these people get influence they will be teaching your women wicked uppity western ways.
Is this a reason for western women to censor themselves when speaking out against misogyny in the church?
It's one thing when there is a specific sensitive situation like that of Amina Lawal when pressure at the wrong point on the wrong people can be counterproductive. It would be another to say that in the case of a woman in Briain being treated unjustly by a church that we should watch what we say lest some Muslim bigot in Nigeria decide that it's an excuse to go kill some Christians. The evidence is that sort of idiot doesn't need very much of an excuse.
Can you see who has the problem here and who bears the full reponsibility for their actions?
People who go out to murder or maltreat other people because they refuse to join with them in ill-treating others carry the full responsibility for their actions. Not those who have spoken up for the persecuted.
The problem with what you say is that it comes very close to implying that murderous mobs in non-western countries are not wholly responsible for their actions. It's partly our fault, you seem to imply, for daring to speak out on behalf on the kind of people they hate.
If your friend is describing an actual documented phenomenon, it's not a case for people in the UK or US watching what they say when they come to the side of Gay and Lesbian Christians, it's a case for asking what the Hell is wrong with any Islamic society which tolerates that kind of behaviour and what they are going to do about it.
That kind of behaviour is not sanctioned in the Koran and any Muslim community which produces that kind of behaviour has got very serious problems which need more effective addressing than people in Manchester worrying about speaking out about bad behaviour by their Cathedral staff or people in Reading worrying about expressing their disgust about how Jeffrey John was treated.
When churches stood up against apartheid, that made them targets for South African secret police, the answer wasn't for anti-apartheid supporters to blame themselves and to watch their mouths lest they give offence to the apartheid state, the answer was to speak out even louder and more effectively against what was going on.
I think what you say comes too close to tripping people up with guilt so that they start to fear speaking up on this issue.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
1. From the thread in Hell where this particular bit of the discussion started.
quote:
So presumably if we're really, really worried about interfaith relations all missionary work to Muslims and all expressions of Christian worship in Muslim countries should stop, no?
Nope.
Not talking about interfaith relations as in we shouldn't upset Islamic factions per se.
Talking about repercussions for vulnerable Christians who, as Andrew Carey pointed out, probably don't agree with us over homosexuality anyhow.
I still think that making their already dangerous position more vulnerable is very worrying.
Bearing in mind that while we have to act justly and try to see right done i.e. tell the truth about God's inclusive love for everybody on equal terms, we also have a duty to protect the innocent if we can and not leave them to fend for themselves in violent situations, if there is a reasonable way of calming those situations down, or stopping them arising.
That doesn't mean we should leave the rights of minorities in the West to one side, it means that we need to look at the whole situation.
I don't understand why suggesting another level of complexity to it makes you so cross.
As Oscar Wilde said, the truth is seldom pure and never simple, and neither are political choices, like these, pure and simple, though it would be beguiling to think they are.
quote:
Um - why did you pick out that one incident WD when my point is that there is widespread violence?
My point overall was that I dont think our comments of support in the West are very likely to *reduce* anger against homosexuals at risk of violence, though it sounds as if it is possible that further reports of the Church supporting homosexuality might unfortunately inflame violence against Christians or even against homosexuals (one of the case histories you quoted said that violence against homosexuals was more likely if homosexuality had been in the news...)
quote:
Is [opposition to women's rights???] a reason for western women to censor themselves when speaking out against misogyny in the church?
Hmmm. I would say that the depiction of women in Hollywood & etc. is far more relevant to how Western women are perceived in Islamic countries than what is said by the church. And I'm not that keen on Hollywood's take on women overall either...as a feminist...
But I don't think that, say, the introduction of women priests into the church was seen in itself as a cause for reprisals against Christians in Islamic countries (please correct me if I'm wrong...), which is specifically what I'm saying we want to avoid.
quote:
The problem with what you say is that it comes very close to implying that murderous mobs in non-western countries are not wholly responsible for their actions.
Hmmm.
I don't think our choices in the West are responsible in the same way for putative mob violence as the man who throws a stone that ends a life.
I don't think we should feel guilt about speaking the truth or working for what is right.
But I suspect that we might need to bear in mind the possible political effects of what we say and do, in this as in other things...
For example, in trying to work for justice and openness in what had happened politically in South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation workers tried to de-escalate conflicts rather than allow *righteous* anger to have a full violent vent.
There may be different styles of working that will allow the right thing to be done ultimately but which are less likely to give rise to mob violence perhaps...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I returned to this matter on the Hell thread as the discussion seemed to have been carried on there and there hasn't been a hostly ruling to shift it.
To quote my post there
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Btw consider turning this on its head.
Suppose I have a bonkers neighbour who decides to attack the Islamic people on my stair because a Muslim group in the west bank held a demo against attacks by Jewish settlers and he associates Muslims with being anti-Israel because he has seen Muslims on TV speaking up for Palestine.
Is that the fault of the Palestinians for resisting the settlements? Is it the fault of people on TV who speak up for the Palestinians? Or is it the fault of my neighbour for being a bigot and a thug?
Is the correct response
(a) Muslims must be careful about speaking up for Palestinians because innocent Muslim Scots may find that 'costly'
(b) somebody should address my fictional neighbour's propensity for violence?
and I would add protect his would-be victims from him physically - not by telling Muslim activists to watch what they say.
Now if what you are saying is that we should continue to speak out and do more to protect people in other societies from mindless violence from people like the fictional idiot I mention above, then I agree with you.
But if you are saying that we should self-censor on what we say and do to support gay and lesbian people lest we anger the Islamic equivalent of the idiot Muslim bashers in our own society then I think you're wrong. Such people should not be the determining factor of what we feel we can or cannot say, just as we should not be telling Muslims to pipe down about injustices to their fellows lest they anger the BNP member next door.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
Well, I work with psychotic people Louise.
If you are dealing with 1 paranoid person who has an irrational response to a political event, no of course you couldn't predict or reasonably affect what he is going to do. Given that it is irrational.
If you however are looking at a political situation or situations where thousands of Christians are being attacked or killed over the course of a year, and there is a pattern to these attacks, and you know that choices you make are likely to affect these attacks, I think it is a bit different.
The questions for me would be
a) how tight is the corrolation between pur choices and this violence - because if the connection doesn't hold then this line of reasoning is invalid. So looking at the evidence for making the connection would be important.
and
b) weighing up all the consequences as carefully as possible of the different outcomes. And acting accordingly.
And no I don't think we should self-censor. I just think we should go about change in a thoughtful way.
[ 15. September 2003, 06:37: Message edited by: welsh dragon ]
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think this is hysterical propaganda put forward by the conservative lobby, and I would treat it with derision.
The US Anglican church or other churches will do what they do in any case - the threat to the Africans is losing potential converst to Islam. We forget that the Victorian Christianity of the CMS is hardly indigenous to Africa.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
Well, I work with psychotic people Louise.
If you are dealing with 1 paranoid person who has an irrational response to a political event, no of course you couldn't predict or reasonably affect what he is going to do. Given that it is irrational.
If you however are looking at a political situation or situations where thousands of Christians are being attacked or killed over the course of a year, and there is a pattern to these attacks, and you know that choices you make are likely to affect these attacks, I think it is a bit different.
The questions for me would be
a) how tight is the corrolation between pur choices and this violence - because if the connection doesn't hold then this line of reasoning is invalid. So looking at the evidence for making the connection would be important.
and
b) weighing up all the consequences as carefully as possible of the different outcomes. And acting accordingly.
And no I don't think we should self-censor. I just think we should go about change in a thoughtful way.
Well I agree that change should be gone about thoughtfully, however in the case of societies which legitimise political violence against religious groups on the flimsiest of pretexts, then I think we need to be very clear about where the responsibility for that lies.
It's like the thug who beats his wife because she didn't have his dinner on the table when he came home from the pub and who then says to her 'You made me do that!'. Christians in the west seeking justice within our own societies don't 'make' sectarian killers. Societies and local religious and political leaders who legitimise and glorify religious violence do.
That does indeed need to be addressed but not by us refusing to speak out - which is why I want to be really clear about that.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
the threat to the Africans is losing potential converst to Islam.
No it isn't. It is being raped, or murdered, or having your house and your church burned down. All that's happend to Christians in parts of north and west Africa, in recent months, for nothign other than being Christians.
quote:
We forget that the Victorian Christianity of the CMS is hardly indigenous to Africa.
WTF is that meant to mean? Christianity isn't indigenous here either. YOu maybe want to be an Odinist?
[Intriguingly broken code]
[ 15. September 2003, 12:58: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
By the sound of it (I would link a thread, but there're too many to choose from), he certainly doesn't want to be an Anglican!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
And what the Church of England or the ECUSA does in terms of gay people in the West makes a difference ? So if we said 'chuck out the poofs', those burnings , murders etc. would stop, would they.
What a feeble argument. It is a mark of the lawlessness of those societies, and has precisely nothing to do with this debate.
[ 15. September 2003, 16:07: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
And what the Church of England or the ECUSA does in terms of gay people in the West makes a difference ? So if we said 'chuck out the poofs', those burnings , murders etc. would stop, would they.
What a feeble argument. It is a mark of the lawlessness of those societies, and has precisely nothing to do with this debate.
Yes, Merseymike, your argument *is* feeble.
No one is arguing that *all* the violence against Christians is due to their support of homosexual rights, are they?
This is called setting up a straw man to knock down, and it isn't really worthy of the arguments on these boards.
What I am saying is that there is persecution of Christians in the third world by the thousand.
The reasons for that are complex; although liberal attitudes towards sexuality are part of it.
If this violence is inflamed to only a small degree, the result could be considerable loss of life. And yes, I supect that further stories of liberal change could conceivably make a difference; at least enough for it to be worth while discussing.
Are we adult and intelligent enough even to raise this issue as a significant and disturbing one?
I would hope so.
I'm not actually saying that we change what we *do* or that we should avoid a liberal stance; I'm saying that we shouldn't be politically naive about the consequences of our actions.
We are incredibly privileged in the West; our ancestors have been the rulers and masters in many of these lands; if people in Islamic countires are impoverished financially and in terms of education, if people are bitter and resentful, there is a history to that.
That doesn't mean we should "wimp out of" what we believe in; but I think it means we have a duty to try to understand the wider picture.
There is no easy answer to the conflicts facing the church and the world but pretending that a complicated picture is a simple one because it is easier to fit into a liberal mind set is not going to help the process of change...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Are we adult and intelligent enough even to raise this issue as a significant and disturbing one?
First of all you need to give us some proof that it is significant. You haven't so far. Please link to or cite specific occurrences where "liberal attitudes towards sexuality" in the west have led to actual persecution of Christians elsewhere.
I tried to think of one and the only one I could come up with (even though it isn't an exact fit) was the 'Miss World' riots in Nigeria and on later examination those turned out not be about the Miss World contest at all.
quote:
There was unanimity among the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Kaduna and elsewhere that the controversy over the Miss World contest was not the real cause of the violence in Kaduna. Muslims and Christians alike agreed that this was just a pretext or a trigger for unleashing frustrations and tensions that had been building up over many months, and even years.
Causes of Violence
So I think you've got a bit of work to do to prove this thesis that if a Church campaigns for equal treatment of gay people in the West that it may lead to violence elsewhere.
Louise
[ 15. September 2003, 19:13: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I agree with Louise. All we have to go on is the evidence that this sort of thing goes on and attempts to link what MIGHT happen in the future with this issue. The claims are all made by those deeply hostile to change.
Given that these things are already happening - and it isn't the fault of 'the West' - I don't agree with the bleeding-heart-Third-World lobby which blames everything bad in the Third World on western liberalism. Lawlessness and violence in the third world has nothing to do with what happens in the west and plenty to do with the nature of those countries, their governments, and their beliefs.
John Spong spoke more sense on this one than anyone else I have heard.
Incidentally, gay men and lesbians don't exactly get the welcome wagon in some of these countries either. Perhaps a bit of Western-style liberalism would help there.
[ 15. September 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
I have several times on the boards said that in my area (Ontario, Canada) same-sex marriage is legal. Recent news stories (about huge political debate over this issue in Canada) cause me to suspect that all of the gay people I've met who have wedding photos and who say "my husband" or "my wife" were married in a way that (although not illegal) does not entitle them to the same legal rights as opposite-sex spouses. I guess I thought it was legal for same-sex couples to marry because gay people have told me that they were married.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
I have several times on the boards said that in my area (Ontario, Canada) same-sex marriage is legal. Recent news stories (about huge political debate over this issue in Canada) cause me to suspect that all of the gay people I've met who have wedding photos and who say "my husband" or "my wife" were married in a way that (although not illegal) does not entitle them to the same legal rights as opposite-sex spouses. I guess I thought it was legal for same-sex couples to marry because gay people have told me that they were married.
It has only been legal for gay people to marry in Ontario for a couple of months. Anyone else is talking about something else.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
So it is legal for gay people to marry in the sense that any JP can do it? Or what? Do they have full spousal rights as regards taxation and so on? And what's all this with Cretien trying to stop it becoming legal in Canada?
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Are we adult and intelligent enough even to raise this issue as a significant and disturbing one?
First of all you need to give us some proof that it is significant. You haven't so far. Please link to or cite specific occurrences where "liberal attitudes towards sexuality" in the west have led to actual persecution of Christians elsewhere.
There are a number of points here.
First of all, you don't have to prove a point statistically in order for it to be worth discussing.
But I thought it was worth looking at what evidence there is on the internet...
The risk of increasing persecution has been raised persistently in the discussion of this isssue, usually by conservative evangelicals e.g.
quote:
According to Bishop Robert Forsyth, of Sydney, the Western church does not understand how outraged the African and South American churches are.
In Africa, along the border with Islam, it is a life and death issue.
"Muslims have said, 'if this happens we will not even regard you any more as a heavenly religion'. Persecution and deaths will rise. A lot of this is to do with the utter shame they will feel in their context, in trying to explain how Christians can do this."
from http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/02/1059480604686.htm
Now, in the literature available on the web, there is some - only a small amount it would seem - from Islamic sources talking about Western degeneracy, e.g. this
There is also quite a lot of literature discussing persecution of Christians e.g. this on Christians apparently put to death and then accused of sexual crimes here
However,
1.the pages discussing Islamic thinking about Western corruption do not go on to discuss the persecution of Christians.
2.The pages telling the painful story of Christian persection are written by mostly conservative thinkers and don't tend go on to discuss Islamic sensitivities to the apparent corruption of Western culture.
3.There are quite a few comments such as that above of Bishop Robert Forsyth, above.
They tend however to be in news summary reports where there is not a lot of space for facts and figures.
More similar comments here
Also, conservative figures produce these comments rather dogmatically perhaps. Without pausing to give a breakdown of whatever facts or figures or reports they may have based their comments on.
4. There are a lot of links to local newspapers such as this rambling Jamaican article which does mention the Jamaican church's fears of violence (please note I am not claiming to endorse everything these guys say) . Usually, unfortunately, it is *not* possible to access overseas news articles without signing up to a subscription scheme...
So if the evidence isn't conclusive why should we be discussing this?
Well, I suspect the evidence *can't* be conclusive one way or another. But these arguments have considerable power in the church.
I don't think they should stop anyone from saying that people should be equal in the church, whatever their sexuality.
But I think they have a powerful effect politically on the choices that are made.
I was incredulous when it seemed that Rowan Williams had prevented Jeffrey John from becoming Bishop of Reading.
++Rowan is undoubtedly principled and has the courage to speak out for the truth; he has been able to speak against the government in the case of the War against Iraq.
So why the caution over Jeffrey John?
Well, ++Rowan has committed himself to leading the church with an eye to the current consensus of opinion re sexuality rather than his own more liberal understanding, out of sensitivity rather than cowardice, let it be said.
But I have also heard the opinion that this issue of potential danger to Christians in Islamic countries is a key one.
What a tragedy it would be if people were to die in circumstances linked to publicity around Christianity and controversial sexual issues.
Your own links, Louise, contain a suggestion by a persecuted homosexual that attacks on homosexuals in his area are more likely when cases involving "sodomy" have been aired. So it sounds as though the media can plausibly at least be implicated in street violence in this way.
And having Christian martyrs in such circumstances would be a disaster for the church, for the Archbishop - and for the cause of liberalism in the church.
So it made sense to me that this could give pause to the Archbishop...
And I have been surprised that this hasn't been raised in discussions on the ship before AFAIK. Because either yay or nay I think it is an issue of some moment.
If anyone else has any evidence for or against this argument I would be delighted to see it...
And, as I said, I will ask my more informed friend for her opinion - though I don't know whether I will see her before the start of the Unversity term...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But even if this is true, it is just one issue of many - in NOT taking action, is it likely that the persecutrion and violence against Christians will stop?
I would suggest, given the lawlessness of the countries concerned and the history of clashes between Muslims and Christians, the answer is certainly no.
I don't want to be patronising, but most of us here are liberal enough to respect other faiths and want to buld and develop understanding. This simply isn't the case in many of these countries, where Muslims and Christians are sworn enemies. It may have far more to do with established 'tribal' oppositions than theology - a bit like Northern Ireland, perhaps?
I still think its just another excuse used by the conservative lobby.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
So it is legal for gay people to marry in the sense that any JP can do it? Or what? Do they have full spousal rights as regards taxation and so on? And what's all this with Cretien trying to stop it becoming legal in Canada?
In Ontario and BC they can marry if they get a marriage license and can find an authorized person to do it. JPs don't, by and large, in Canada. These marriages confer all legal benefits, but there is one small catch.
The PM is not trying to stop anything -- his proposed legislation will in fact ensure it is available in all parts of Canada. The legislation will also make clear that religious groups are not required to perform same-sex marriages.
Finally, it will clean up that one small catch. Because of some quirks of legal drafting, although same-sex couples can marry in these two provinces, they cannot divorce if the marriage fails. There are some other legal quirks as well, and the legislation will ensure that same-sex married couples have all the privilegs and responsibility of heterosexual married couples.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I'll go one further than Merseymike: if you are such a raving nut that you are driven to kill people because of a third party's faith tradition and beliefs, then I really have no interest in sitting down at the table with you anyway, and the world would be a far better place if you just ate the bullet right here and now.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The legislation will also make clear that religious groups are not required to perform same-sex marriages.
Of course that will be the first part of that legislation thrown out by some provincial court judge as being unconstitutional.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The legislation will also make clear that religious groups are not required to perform same-sex marriages.
Of course that will be the first part of that legislation thrown out by some provincial court judge as being unconstitutional.
As it reinforces an existing provision of the Charter, that seems unlikely.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Louise:
The risk of increasing persecution has been raised persistently in the discussion of this isssue, usually by conservative evangelicals
... [snip made by me]
I was incredulous when it seemed that Rowan Williams had prevented Jeffrey John from becoming Bishop of Reading.
++Rowan is undoubtedly principled and has the courage to speak out for the truth; he has been able to speak against the government in the case of the War against Iraq.
So why the caution over Jeffrey John?
Well, ++Rowan has committed himself to leading the church with an eye to the current consensus of opinion re sexuality rather than his own more liberal understanding, out of sensitivity rather than cowardice, let it be said.
But I have also heard the opinion that this issue of potential danger to Christians in Islamic countries is a key one.
What a tragedy it would be if people were to die in circumstances linked to publicity around Christianity and controversial sexual issues.
Your own links, Louise, contain a suggestion by a persecuted homosexual that attacks on homosexuals in his area are more likely when cases involving "sodomy" have been aired. So it sounds as though the media can plausibly at least be implicated in street violence in this way.
And having Christian martyrs in such circumstances would be a disaster for the church, for the Archbishop - and for the cause of liberalism in the church.
So it made sense to me that this could give pause to the Archbishop...
And I have been surprised that this hasn't been raised in discussions on the ship before AFAIK. Because either yay or nay I think it is an issue of some moment.
If anyone else has any evidence for or against this argument I would be delighted to see it...
And, as I said, I will ask my more informed friend for her opinion - though I don't know whether I will see her before the start of the Unversity term...
To be honest I think its obvious why almost no-one else on the Ship takes this seriously - but I'll get to that at the end of this.
You're linking to stuff like bogus claims of child abuse. Do you think fitting people up as an act of religious hatred is somehow new and caused by liberal beliefs in the west? I can point you to medieval cases.
Painting the other side as sexually deviant to justify persecution is as old as the hills - it's the classic slur against people who are seen as heretics or infidels. Protestant polemicists used to use it against Catholics in the 17th century - do you think that was because Counter Reformation Catholicism was sexually liberal or because when people want to persecute another faith any stick will do and sex makes for an intersting and sensational one?
I see that one of the articles you cite also mentions wearing Western clothes and drinking alcohol as similar excuses given for religious hatred. Has anyone yet suggested that we should think carefully about wearing western clothes and saying people have the right to drink the odd glass of gin in case a religious bigot somewhere in Africa takes exception? Or does this caution only apply once gay people are mentioned?
The Jamaican article is simply a very ugly comment piece by a journalist who doubles up as a pastor of the Church of God International, which doesn't help your argument at all. This guy isn't suggesting that anyone go out and persecute Christians (he is one!) he's just airing his very ugly views about gays, as deeply bigoted people are wont to do if anyone challenges them by giving equal treatment to a group they choose to malign. If the Anglican church has pissed off someone like him, then it's doing a very good job.
quote:
Your own links, Louise, contain a suggestion by a persecuted homosexual that attacks on homosexuals in his area are more likely when cases involving "sodomy" have been aired.So it sounds as though the media can plausibly at least be implicated in street violence in this way.
You mean this
quote:
It only takes one person to start a mob. One of them sees you and starts shouting, "homo, gay, Banana [a reference to the former Zimbabwean president conviced of sodomy]"-the repertory.
Normally we don't go to the shops if there is a case in the papers of "sodomy": we don't go around for a few days after. If they see a screaming queen or someone who they think is a homosexual, they will say, "You rape children." They think every gay man is a pedophile-I mean, the people in high-density areas.
You're grasping at straws here WD. This is a good example of the orchestration of violence against gays in Zimbabwe. The government mounts an attack on gays, including court cases, its mouthpieces (the heavily state-controlled Zimbabwean press)take up the cry and the Thugs in the street catch on. It's classic witch-hunting led from above by the government, the cause is a violent one party state led by a dictator who happens to hate gay people, not pronouncements by western liberal Archbishops!
We've already dealt with the issue of where real responsibility for any such acts would lie, but I think, sadly, that you're ignoring the most obvious explanation for why this has become an issue elsewhere when there is so little to back it up. The people who most talk this up are certain evangelical conservatives such as the ones you're quoting and I think there are no surprises there.
It is an excellent way for some people to pretend that they are not anti-gay or ambiguous about gay people, that they are holding down gay people in the Church for the purest of pure motives - to save lives elsewhere.
By the looks of it, in an effort to justify Rowan Williams stance on this you're prepared to buy into this new line of conservative scaremongering. Despite the fact that Williams has said nothing of the sort you seem willing to read this into his mind just to exculpate him! I'm sorry but this is a highly unconvincing argument from silence!
In the end it's all the same old stuff of people threatening gays and lesbians with dire consequences if they speak out and the rest of us with dire consequences if we speak up for them - only the new twist is the threat that the dire consequences will happen to others but it will all still be our fault for supporting gays.
That's why nobody's buying it. It's "Won't somebody think of the innocent Christians in Africa!" as a new way to bash people who speak up for gays and lesbians. The fact that some sincere and well-meaning people have bought into this doesn't alter that.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Despite the fact that Williams has said nothing of the sort you seem willing to read this into his mind just to exculpate him! I'm sorry but this is a highly unconvincing argument from silence!
quote:
Archbishop Williams, quoted here, Sunday 6 July 2003
"There is an obvious problem in the consecration of a bishop whose ministry will not be readily received by a significant proportion of Christians in England and elsewhere.
... The estrangement of churches in developing countries from their cherished ties with Britain is in no-one's interests. It would impoverish us as a Church in every way. It would also jeopardize links with other denominations, weaken co-operation in our shared service and mission worldwide, and increase the vulnerability of Christian minorities in some parts of the world where they are already at risk. Any such outcome would be a very heavy price to pay."*
*my italics
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Despite the fact that Williams has said nothing of the sort you seem willing to read this into his mind just to exculpate him! I'm sorry but this is a highly unconvincing argument from silence!
quote:
Archbishop Williams, quoted here, Sunday 6 July 2003
"There is an obvious problem in the consecration of a bishop whose ministry will not be readily received by a significant proportion of Christians in England and elsewhere.
... The estrangement of churches in developing countries from their cherished ties with Britain is in no-one's interests. It would impoverish us as a Church in every way. It would also jeopardize links with other denominations, weaken co-operation in our shared service and mission worldwide, and increase the vulnerability of Christian minorities in some parts of the world where they are already at risk. Any such outcome would be a very heavy price to pay."*
*my italics
Thanks very much I'd missed that. However as someone who has studied scapegoating, the dynamics of religious persecution and conflicts between religious denominations I think he is mistaken.
In areas where there is religious conflict, people make excuses for sectarian hatred. Sexual libertinism has been used as a stick with which to beat the most sexually conservative denominations. It's simply a stock-in-trade accusation deployed in religious power struggles. Where you have a militant denomination on the push to convert or get rid of the 'enemy' merely existing is quite enough on the 'enemy's part to bring about persecution. Excuses will be manufactured regardless.
But to use such dynamics to caution against bettering the condition of a persecuted group is really lamentable - 'We'd better not give militant anti-Christian groups an excuse.' Such groups will find or manufacture their excuses anyway. But when we hold back for that reason, then the good which we could have done will not be done, and the evil which such groups like to do will be done anyway.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
This is what I understand ++Rowan's statement to have said
[paraphrase of eminient & etc Archbish]
1. Canon John Jeffries has had a very tough time and he has behaved enormously well.
2.However there was very widespread unhappiness about this appointment, which obviously created a problem.
3.Especially, it was going to cause enormous upset in the third world, and increase the danger which some of these same people already face - too heavy a price to contemplate.
4.There has been a lot of noise about paying attention to the Bible on the issue of homosexuality - which would be a very good idea, IMO. Maybe we can really do that as a church and move forward on this - and soon. I have no intention of stifling the debate on this one.
5.A lot of people who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment have simply behaved very badly - in contrast to his own example, which I have just praised to the skies.
6.This has been an open and unedifying catfight which has damaged the church in some ways and not been a very good witness to the outside world in others.
So can we pull ourselves together a bit then?
[/paraphrase of eminient & etc Archbish]
As you may have gathered, I think that ++Rowan has a good point or 3 here.
I don't see why people have to have views fitting in neatly to either the liberal or the conservative mindset.
I can see that ++Rowan had to look to the whole church. I don't think he capitulated to financial pressures or gave in for an easy life as primary motivations. I think he was actually trying to do the right thing by a lot of disparate people in a situation where whatever he did it was going to look wrong from a lot of angles.
It is hugely sad that Jeffrey John won't be our bishop in Reading (where my parish is).
It was also hugely sad the amount of distress and upset that was going on in my parish before he resigned, from older people who had been taught a very negative view of homosexuality. It had been illegal when they were growing up in the first half of the last century. They simply couldn't understand the changes that seemed to have happened in their lifetimes.
It is very sad that Christians are already persecuted in the third world or Poor South or what ever.
It would make me still sadder if they were to be attacked or killed because of outrage at beliefs attributed to them, which they would find abhorrent.
It is tragic that gay people in the church feel alienated or unvalued by what has happened.
And I don't think it helps to talk as if there is an easy answer because I don't think there is.
What there is, is a lot of pain and brokenness.
I won't start on Muslim/ Christian scapegoat thing; that is IMO a bit more complicated than that.
But then what the church deals in is pain and brokenness. That is where we start from and that in different ways is where we all are.
And I think it is very important that we can at least have talk about all this...I think a conversation about how angry this makes some of us feel and how confused it makes us feel, how unfair it is and where we go from here is what we should be doing.
But then I *am* a shrink...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
This is what I understand ++Rowan's statement to have said
[paraphrase of eminient & etc Archbish]
1. Canon John Jeffries has had a very tough time and he has behaved enormously well.
2.However there was very widespread unhappiness about this appointment, which obviously created a problem.
3.Especially, it was going to cause enormous upset in the third world, and increase the danger which some of these same people already face - too heavy a price to contemplate.
4.There has been a lot of noise about paying attention to the Bible on the issue of homosexuality - which would be a very good idea, IMO. Maybe we can really do that as a church and move forward on this - and soon. I have no intention of stifling the debate on this one.
5.A lot of people who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment have simply behaved very badly - in contrast to his own example, which I have just praised to the skies.
6.This has been an open and unedifying catfight which has damaged the church in some ways and not been a very good witness to the outside world in others.
So can we pull ourselves together a bit then?
[/paraphrase of eminient & etc Archbish]
As you may have gathered, I think that ++Rowan has a good point or 3 here.
I don't see why people have to have views fitting in neatly to either the liberal or the conservative mindset.
I can see that ++Rowan had to look to the whole church. I don't think he capitulated to financial pressures or gave in for an easy life as primary motivations. I think he was actually trying to do the right thing by a lot of disparate people in a situation where whatever he did it was going to look wrong from a lot of angles.
It is hugely sad that Jeffrey John won't be our bishop in Reading (where my parish is).
It was also hugely sad the amount of distress and upset that was going on in my parish before he resigned, from older people who had been taught a very negative view of homosexuality. It had been illegal when they were growing up in the first half of the last century. They simply couldn't understand the changes that seemed to have happened in their lifetimes.
It is very sad that Christians are already persecuted in the third world or Poor South or what ever.
It would make me still sadder if they were to be attacked or killed because of outrage at beliefs attributed to them, which they would find abhorrent.
It is tragic that gay people in the church feel alienated or unvalued by what has happened.
And I don't think it helps to talk as if there is an easy answer because I don't think there is.
What there is, is a lot of pain and brokenness.
I won't start on Muslim/ Christian scapegoat thing; that is IMO a bit more complicated than that.
But then what the church deals in is pain and brokenness. That is where we start from and that in different ways is where we all are.
And I think it is very important that we can at least have talk about all this...I think a conversation about how angry this makes some of us feel and how confused it makes us feel, how unfair it is and where we go from here is what we should be doing.
But then I *am* a shrink...
We had an enormous conversation about all this to the tune of 11 pages in Purgatory just recently and that thread has only just been moved to Limbo
I can see from your response that I didn't make myself clear enough about where exactly I disagree with Rowan Williamson.
To be clear, though I think he should have stood by Jeffrey John, I can see where he's coming from, its only when it comes to this:
quote:
and increase the vulnerability of Christian minorities in some parts of the world where they are already at risk.
that I think he is talking through his pointy hat and setting the scene for the ecclesiasical equivalent of emotional blackmail. Any time non-western conservatives want to try and turn the tide back, all they'll need to do is cry 'wolf' about this. Some of them are already.
The problems of Christian minorities in Muslim countries are, as Nightlamp sensibly pointed out a long time ago, much more linked to political stuff like Israel and, I would add, the response to 9/11.
Christians = The West =America! = friends of Israel
But the rise of radical forms of Islam goes back to the 60s, and owes a lot to oil wealth, reactions to the victories of Israel and disenchantment with the problems of more secular Arab regimes. Such radicalism has been exported round the world now in various forms. Such problems can also be heavily linked to local enmities and local politics - as in Nigeria. To claim that western Christians having gay bishops is going to make a serious difference to the anti-Christian violence which can be found in countries like Nigeria, in my opinion, is greatly exaggerated. It might become a new excuse in the repertoire of such fanatics but it's not going to substantially alter or add to their current patterns of violence which have quite different roots.
On the other hand, it is something which can easily be used by conservatives to panic liberal people into backing down.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Possibly, of course, ++Rowan believes it is not the appointment of a gay Bishop, per se, which would weaken the position of minority Christians but the resultant schism.
If it were percieved by others that the Nigerian Church (for example) did not have powerful and wealthy supporters in the West, but had been abandoned by the rest of the Anglican communion then a weak Nigerian government might be less inclined to defend them from Islamic extremists.
If it were percieved that Christians no longer believe in key Christian doctrines (I don't, of course, accept this) then it might appear to some that Christianity was a busted flush.
If Muslims percieve secularisation as an irresistible acid that can only be withstood by force majeure then the appointment of a gay bishop would be seen as confirmation of this thesis and the Nigerian church (rather ironically) might be seen as an agent of secularisation, rather than possessing the status of dhimmi, which is the historical understanding of Christian communities in Islamic jurisprudence.
One could multiply examples. The Church Times this week reports that Muslims pulled out of an inter-faith meeting to commemorate 11 September because of the appointment of Gene Robinson,which suggests that the stronger thesis does have some validity.
I have no time at all for the thesis that accepting homosexual people as clergy or laity is wicked because it means importing secular assumptions into the Church, whereas Islamic homophobia is uncontroversial. Nor do I think that it is proper or responsible to blame gay Christians for the behaviour of Islamic extremists.
But the appointment of Canon John (which I supported) and the election of Gene Robinson (which I support) is akin to dropping a rather large stone into a pool, the ripples from which extend out across the entire surface. The consequences of a schism are rather more than an exchange of anathemas with Peter Akinola. On balance I rather regret ++Rowan's decision in the case of Jeffrey John and I would seriously contemplate leaving the C of E if we declared ourselves out of communion with ECUSA over this issue.
But I do think the consequences of schism might be rather more serious than merely pissing off a few objectionable fundamentalists in our own ranks. I can't blame Rowan for acting with caution and it is the role of a Bishop to act as a focus for unity, and as the senior Bishop the Archbishop of Canterbury has far less freedom than we do.
Mind you, I still think he should have stood up rather more robustly to Akinola. But there you go.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I'm familiar with the argument that supporting gay Christians gives more ammunition to violent opposition. There have been many predecessors, within the same framework as this argument. I think it's misguided because it's a circular argument and because it leads to no kind of moral development whatsoever.
It's similar to a different argument which people today use against homosexuality: that gay people shouldn't exist because they'll want to have children and the kids will be bullied at school because of their parents' sexuality - the apologists generally fail to connect the circle fully: in fact the kids will be bullied because of society's prejudice because of people like the apologists who argue that gay people shouldn't exist. The fact that they do exist is neither here nor there.
This argument is completely circular: using hatred to justify hatred. I know it's something that gay people struggle with - I've heard people say "How could I do this to my family/kids/church?" even though they recognise that they have no choice about their sexuality. (Incidentally the issue about having kids is no skin off my own particular nose, as I don't want children anyway and am frankly grateful that my lesbianism means I won't get pregnant accidentally; however, I know a lot of gay people who really do have as much desire to reproduce as their heterosexual counterparts.)
But the circle gets us nowhere because it is simply that: it goes round and round to the same places and changes nothing. If you believe that homosexuality is not wrong and that gay people should be supported and valued, then you must support the change that will lead to their achieving that status. And the change requires breaking out of this circle. Otherwise it's "we can't change this here and now because of situation X", but it is the forbidden change itself that would move us beyond situation X. You can't use the existence of homophobia to justify stopping a campaign against homophobia.
The same arguments emerged in support of racism. Countless commentaries on the civil rights movement in the USA focused on how the campaigners were moving too fast and winding up too many whites, and how this would cause increased racial tensions. In Britain, we had Enoch Powell telling us that nonwhite immigration was a bad thing because of the negative reaction to it. Circular, racist argument.
It's all part of the "I'm not (insert prejudice of choice here), BUT...." outlook.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Nor do I think that it is proper or responsible to blame gay Christians for the behaviour of Islamic extremists
Exactly my point.
Naturally there will be consequences of affirming gay people when dealing with violently homophobic religions and states, just as there were consequences for affirming black people in the face of violently racist governments and religious believers, and affirming Jews in the face of anti-semitism, but once we start thinking that those who affirm gays must carry the can for the actions of religious vigilantes and violent homophobes then we have crossed the line from sensitivity to cowardice.
The primary motivations of such people lie elsewhere. If groups outside their countries speak up for their hate-figures then that is not the cause of their violence. It's simply a convenient excuse to do what they would do anyway.
I somehow doubt that the Nigerian church would lose powerful western backing in a schism, there are quite enough conservatives to give them vocal international support.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
Having lived and worked for a short time in Pakistan, in both Karachi, a city and in rural areas of Baluchistan, I was aghast at the attitudes to Western women that I found.
A good deal of the attitude to the West in Islamic countires is due to economic inequalities, to a feeling of mistreatment, of being bullied themselves by the West.
There is also considerable outrage at what is seen as the excesses of the West in terms of liberal sexual practices.
People feel beleaguered by a publicity machine dispensing cocacola adverts and Hollywood products into their homes and turning their children away from traditional values. They feel desperate about this. And the ill feeling is very widespread.
I think it's difficult to exaggerate how deep this goes in this sort of culture.
Of course, only a minority would act out in a violent way.
But various incidents and comments gave the impression it was a culturally held belief that western women must be very sexually available, deriving from the films and television programmes they had seen.
Now, of course this was abhorrently sexist. Even if you could sort of see why it was happening.
And presumably the behaviour we encountered would not have been sanctioned by the Koran, even if the local men thought our cultural norms would dictate wild promiscuity.
But however feminist we thought we were, it would have beeen crazy not to have altered our behaviour in these circumstances to keep ourselves safe.
Of course we explained that things weren't like that really if people wanted to listen; and we were role models who challenged the status quo just by being there.
But you have to work with the situation you find yourself in...
I dont think the man in the street in many third world countries would necessarily understand what a bishop was, let alone a gay one.
But I think he would understand that the Christians were honouring homosexuals. And he might well feel that this was a terrible and unGodly thing.
Of course - and evidiently I need to repeat this point - no one would argue that this is the *only* reason why Muslims would attack Christians.
But it might be the last straw on the camel's back.
Just like the political infelicity that might set off a riot in Northern Ireland.
Of course in these circumstances, the person unwittingly triggering violence (or the archbishop making a difficult decision) is not "responsible" in the same degree as the mob throwing stones & etc.
But they have had a small part to play in the sequence of events; they could choose whether or not to play that part; it is certainly reasonable to look very carefully at these sequences of events if you particularly don't want violence to erupt against vulnerable people.
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:I have no time at all for the thesis that accepting homosexual people as clergy or laity is wicked because it means importing secular assumptions into the Church, whereas Islamic homophobia is uncontroversial. Nor do I think that it is proper or responsible to blame gay Christians for the behaviour of Islamic extremists.
Erm, no I don't believe any of that either.
quote:
Originally posted by skielight I'm familiar with the argument that supporting gay Christians gives more ammunition to violent opposition. There have been many predecessors, within the same framework as this argument. I think it's misguided because it's a circular argument and because it leads to no kind of moral development whatsoever.
Well, I wasn't saying we shouldn't support gay Christians. The argument is really that if people are likely to die because of violent reprisals in the third world which may be influenced by decisions we are making then we probably need to take that into account when working out how to take things forward. That might mean that progress is slower than it would otherwise be. But how is that a circular argument?
There is no way that things can just "stay the same" in the church on this.
When the ordination of women first was introduced there was an elaborate system for compensation, early retirement and alternative episcopal oversight.
Well, of course I think it was right for the church to have women priests. Of course I think it was centuries overdue. But I am still very glad the C of E didn't split on this. And making a change after so many centuries of something different meant working hard to keep the church together - and probably going more slowly than many people would have wished...
And no one btw is saying that homophobia is right.
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dragon (welsh):
People feel beleaguered by a publicity machine dispensing cocacola adverts and Hollywood products into their homes and turning their children away from traditional values. They feel desperate about this. And the ill feeling is very widespread.
But God forbid they should turn the TV off and read to their kids or anything. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Personally Welsh Dragon I don't think we should give tuppence for what Muslims or anyone else thinks about us on this issue ... and this includes the prospect of Christians being affected as well. We must always do what is right.
Only 9 posts to go until, we hit 1000 on this thread! Will this be a record?
[ 28. September 2003, 13:48: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Doing my best to get the thread to 1000.
Seriously, what Welsh Dragon is saying is something I wrestle with somewhat. If the church really isn't calling people who are lesbian or gay, what should we who have a call from God and are lesbian or gay do with it? I mean, seriously, the church is loudly proclaiming its reluctance to call us. A call, as I believe Gregory has said somewhere else, has to be both from God and from the church. If we want to be part of the church and accept church polity, what do we do? You will notice I am not mentioning doctrine here, because as far as I know not many of the mainline churches actually have a doctrine of excluding queers. Certainly no denomination I can think of in NZ has such a doctrine.
Now just before anyone thinks I've gone a bit addled, I'm not even beginning to suggest we shouldn't stop agitating. I think God calls who God will and the church should be seriously considering it. And we need to agitate if there's to be any change.
So, a very serious question, one which affects me intimately. I'm getting to the end of my tether after 20 years of being "in the process." The next few weeks are going to be the decision time for me.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
A church, however big, is simply an accumulation of people who worship God together. As such, a church possesses the accumulated wisdom of a large number of people. It also possesses the accumulated folly of that same large number of people.
I prefer to think of the process of being called to the ministry as a call from God TO a church, not a call from God and the church.
First of all, God is fully capable of picking the people God wants to be minister. God does not need any person's, or persons', help in that regard.
Second, a church has legitimacy only because it worships God and we give it that legitimacy by our mutual consent.
APW, much beloved sister of mine, if the team won't let you play with their ball, go home and play with you own ball.
Quit trying to change a church that is mired in centuries of inertia and start your own church. I have seen it done on more than one occasion. Start preaching in a school on Sundays. Build up enough congregation to rent, or buy, a small church building.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
A church, however big, is simply an accumulation of people who worship God together. ... Second, a church has legitimacy only because it worships God and we give it that legitimacy by our mutual consent. ... Quit trying to change a church that is mired in centuries of inertia and start your own church. I have seen it done on more than one occasion. Start preaching in a school on Sundays. Build up enough congregation to rent, or buy, a small church building.
Except that some of us really don't see church that way, and don't think we really can start our own church...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
ChastMastr, I understand. My comment was based upon a genuine affection for Arabella Purity Winterbottom and a dismay at her problem. I think she would make a fine minister, priest, preacher, etc.
I also believe that there is a giant sized ego problem in people who believe they must be the dog in the manger, guarding people of whom they do not approve from ever getting to the altar to preach. My view is that if God calls someone, you better have a GOOD reason to not let them do as God directs.
When I look, and this is just me, at the history of the different churches, denominations, etc. I see people branching off from churches for a number of reasons, including some very human reasons. (The Church of England comes to mind here.) So I view a situation where the established church is refusing someone who has had a calling from God and believe that the church needs change. Arabella has told us of years of effort to effect that change. She has also told us of her lack of success. I am all for trying to change within. It seems to me that she has tried. Now she writes that she has just about had it. I cannot find it in my heart to blame her. (I would probably have given up some time ago.)
If Arabella is ready to quit fighting (and she may not be) then she has the choice of quitting, or doing something else. My suggestion is that she do something else, if she wants. And it is just that, a suggestion. If Arabella wants to quit, or continue fighting within her church, or kick me in the shins, that is fine by me.
If you believe it is wrong to leave a church because of any number of reasons, that is fine by me too. To quote one of the great wise characters of opera(tta) "You must always act according to the dictates of your conscience, and chance the consequences."
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Never Conforming
Aspiring to Something
# 4054
|
Posted
I really hope that things do get sorted out for APW, and other people in her situation right across the world. I think that we (as christians) need to see what gifts each person has, and based on that and God's calling accept or decline them. I don't think that sexuality is at all relevant to being able to do a job, and hope that as I apply for jobs throughout my life I will be judged on only the relevant matters. I know that is a naive hope, but it's still a hope. I will continue to keep you in my prayers APW.
Jo
--------------------
I used to poison Student Minds™ and am proud to have done so
Never Conforming in the Surreal World
Posts: 1419 | From: Oop Norf | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I don't know whether I'm ready to give up fighting, its just that I think there are other things that need more energy. My ministry is not to be fighting about homosexuality, its about trying to help people in their relationships with God and people and the world. And quite honestly, I think I'm not really that persecuted compared with some of the people I spend time with.
In a note to a lesbian friend this morning I wrote the following:
quote:
I guess another part of me feels that I am incredibly privileged, even in the church, compared to say, many Samoan women, since I can actually take a case knowing that I will have support within my particular community. Rosie and I went to the Wellington East Girls College (local high school at which my partner teaches English to a large community of refugees) multicultural evening at the end of last term and we were struck, yet again, by the hopes and dreams that her refugee students have for their lives and the uphill struggle they will have achieving them. Young women who come to the alien culture of a New Zealand high school having walked through war zones, been used sexually in detention camps, lost most of their families, and still hope, still want to learn in order to find meaning and make something of their lives. Watching the Assyrian dance group and listening to their families yell and scream to have a bit of their own culture up where they can share it with others. Being flabbergasted at the Somali Muslim dance group performing their unbelievably sexual dances. Admiring the gorgeousness of the Indian group, whirling and singing in fabulous Bollywood style. Laughing with the Samoan comperes, who were generous and encouraging to both performers and audience. I get impatient with the church, when I see what places like Wellington East are trying to do for their young women, encouraging them to think they can be someone, do something in the world.
How can I get on with ministry when I'm forced to struggle with the church every step of the way? I love the church and I don't have the prophetic gifts that would energise me into starting a new one (as if the world needed any more churches!) I'm becoming more convinced that my ministry is with the marginalised (particualarly disability) and refugee communities. I want to help people think they can be someone, do something. I would like to do that with the church as my base, because it is something the church damn well ought to be doing, but I'm doing it anyway around the edges of the rest of my life.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Oh, and I forgot to say, I really appreciate having the Ship as a place to talk about this stuff. Particularly I like the friends I make here like my brother Tortuf and people who write me wonderful supporting things like Jo has now and in the past. Blessings on you all.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
APW, you have a lovely spirit.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
