|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
politically correct
Which translates to "I'm conservative and I don't like what you said"....
Adeodatus---don't you know that you are being emotionally manipulative by asserting that any experience you might have had is the fault of the Church or those who are protecting "Biblical Christianity"? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Are you going to make any contribution to this debate apart from set yourself up as an arbiter on what 'conservatives' mean by what they say? Let me put it this way, you're not very good at it.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Are you going to make any contribution to this debate apart from set yourself up as an arbiter on what 'conservatives' mean by what they say? Let me put it this way, you're not very good at it.
Spawn---what constitutes a "contribution to this debate" in your view?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An example: a person whose life-partner of many years has just died cries a lot and shows signs of deep emotional instability. Is that person depressed? Of course they're not.
Another example: a teenager tells you they feel like a worthless turd. The first question to ask is, is this feeling coming (a) from the person or (b) from a lifetime of being told they're a worthless turd*? If it's (b) then the person is not depressed. Most of what they need to do in that case is to be shielded or removed from the harmful influences.
(* Oddly enough, this is precisely the expression used by an Anglican priest I knew a few years back, who was asked to conduct the funeral of a young gay man. He also said that "people like that don't deserve a Christian burial".)
It's actually not as simple as you describe. Feelings that are proportionate can become disproportionate over a period of time. Everything is under continual assessment when it comes to the general state of melancholy and grief. It is easier to make the assessment you make in terms of bereavement than in almost every other area. In other words the judgement is to some extent subjective. But I don't believe it is possible to objectively say that traditional Christian teaching tends to make people feel worthless. This may be true of the way some Christians treat others but not of Christian teaching in general.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Spawn: quote:
It's actually not as simple as you describe.
Like I said, I'm keeping it simple. Not everyone has your personal experience, or my professional and personal experience.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Spawn: quote:
It's actually not as simple as you describe.
Like I said, I'm keeping it simple. Not everyone has your personal experience, or my professional and personal experience.
Look Adeodatus, what is it about Christian teaching that makes gay men and lesbians feel worthless? None of the teaching, even the idea that there is a separation between orientation and behaviour, can truly be said to lead to this conclusion. As I've said the behaviour of individual Christians might lead some homosexual people to conclude that the Church dislikes them, but Christian teaching cannot be said to teach that you are a 'worthless turd'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law there is a parallel case in David Kertzer's book 'The Church's War Against the Jews'.
Kertzer eschew's the argument that the Papacy was directly complicit in the rise of Nazism (which is, I think, Contra Goldhagen, Cornwell et. al. completely untenable). His argument is more subtle and more damaging. He argues that Catholic propaganda against Jews - he cites the Osservatore Romano and Civilita Catholica (probably spelt wrongly) extensively - created an atmosphere in which prejudice against Jews was considered an acceptable part of public discourse. Catholic apologists note, correctly, that the Church's polemics against Judaism were not racial. The Church, as far as it was able, opposed Nazism - For example the encylical letter Mit Brenneder Sorge, makes it clear that National Socialism is incompatible with Catholic Doctrine. The Church had a fairly honourable record in sheltering Jews from the Holocaust. Nonetheless the introduction, or rather the perpetuation, of anti-Semitic tropes into public discourse helped create an atmosphere in which Nazi propaganda could flourish.
In the same way, the introduction of homophobic tropes into public discourse by conservative christians creates an atmosphere in which malign and violent forms of homophobia may also flourish. If churchmen are condeming homosexuals as subhuman and demonic (we all know the litany of notorious remarks on this subject) then we cannot really be surprised when homosexuals are the victims of violence or if homosexuals conclude that they really cannot expect God to love them. Of course, Barry the Basher no more takes his opinions on homosexuality from Peter Akinola or David Holloway than You-Know-Who got his opinions from the Catholic press. But the existence of a culture in which expression of hatred are deemed legitimate allows hatred to flourish.
I am not, by the way, advocating censorship. I merely would hope that one day remarks that homosexuals are lower than dogs, and the like, are no more acceptable in civilised conversations than the sort of thing that used to turn up in Der Sturmer.
Ah, I hear you cry, anti-semitism was very wicked indeed and cannot be defended on Christian principles whereas scripture and tradition are unanimous on the wickedness of homosexuality. However the charge of deicide can be found in the earliest Christian document (1 Thess 2:15), there are other NT passages which admit of such a reading and Holy Tradition is equally emphatic on the subject - one thinks of Chrysostom, Ambrose and Aquinas off the top of one's head. A real advance in moral sensibility combined with the catastrophe of the Holocaust obliged the Church to do some serious creative theology around this.
You are saying we're all Nazis if I don't agree with you? No I'm not. Plenty of Catholics who had hitherto held anti-Semitic views defended Jews from the Nazis - indeed Roman Polanski (IIRC)was sheltered by a Catholic family who decided that the Holocaust cancelled out any residual guilt left over from the crucifixion. I am quite certain that any of the anti's on this thread, if a young gay man who had just been beaten up turned up on their doorstep, would do the decent thing. Two of my dearest friends are a couple with traditional views and a gay son. If I were gay I would much rather confide in them than quite a few liberals I can think of. What I am trying to get across is that when Christians promote hatred of a particular group they cannot just say "nuffing to do with me guv" when that hatred is acted on by those outside the Church.
How one promotes Biblical Christianity, if that is one's thang, without promoting hatred is an interesting question. But it is one that conservative Christians need to address rather urgently.
[ 25. November 2004, 12:46: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Thanks, Spawn - this is an absolutely crucial issue in the whole debate.
The problem is (and I think you've alluded to it yourself, though not apparently recognising it as a problem) that those who discuss this matter, and more especially those who teach and preach on it, do so as if they were doing so in a cultural and moral vacuum. They also assume that because they are approaching it coolly and logically, their hearers will be doing the same. And to some extent, everything would be fine and dandy if this were actually the case.
Unfortunately, it's not.
The hearers of this gospel will often not be coming to it rationally at all. They may be coming to their pastor (who to them will be "The Church") having already experienced violence and rejection. They may be looking for comfort and support, and may still have words of abuse ringing in their ears.
Now, some basic communication theory will tell you that even if you're moderate enough to say, "Well God loves you, and we support you, but...." - then all that will really make an impression on that person is what comes after the "but", because all they can hear is that you're reinforcing the negativity they've already experienced.
This is why I recently made such a big deal about a despairing person who might accidentally come across this thread. Yes, there is plenty of affirming and supportive material here, but someone who knows only loneliness and rejection will only hear a "gospel" of loneliness and rejection.
In short, when people in such a situation come to us, there should be no "but". And if we can't manage that, then we should just shut up and send them off to someone who can manage it.
[Cross-posted with Callan, to whom ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ]
[ 25. November 2004, 12:53: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, the introduction of homophobic tropes into public discourse by conservative christians creates an atmosphere in which malign and violent forms of homophobia may also flourish. If churchmen are condeming homosexuals as subhuman and demonic (we all know the litany of notorious remarks on this subject) then we cannot really be surprised when homosexuals are the victims of violence or if homosexuals conclude that they really cannot expect God to love them.
No one here is advocating homophobia or hatred of anyone at all. No one here is saying anyone is subhuman or demonic. It seems to conservatives here are saying homosexuals are as valued as heterosexuals as anyone of any sexuality. We are all dearly loved and precious to God.
To say than an action is morally wrong is a completely distinct matter.
I'm sure there are homophobic conservative Christians - but that is a result of prejudice not the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
This is why I recently made such a big deal about a despairing person who might accidentally come across this thread. Yes, there is plenty of affirming and supportive material here, but someone who knows only loneliness and rejection will only hear a "gospel" of loneliness and rejection.
In short, when people in such a situation come to us, there should be no "but". And if we can't manage that, then we should just shut up and send them off to someone who can manage it.
You advocate love at the expense of truth. We need both.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
You cannot have both, if it means the cost of a human life. It's as simple as that.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
No one here is advocating homophobia or hatred of anyone at all. No one here is saying anyone is subhuman or demonic. It seems to conservatives here are saying homosexuals are as valued as heterosexuals as anyone of any sexuality. We are all dearly loved and precious to God.
I know that you are not saying that.
quote:
To say than an action is morally wrong is a completely distinct matter.
I agree but the distinction needs to be made more clearly by several orders of magnitude.
quote:
I'm sure there are homophobic conservative Christians - but that is a result of prejudice not the Bible.
I agree, inasmuch as one's interpretation of the Bible is the result of the preconceptions we bring to it. But a strong case can be made that some forms of conservative Christianity generate a culture which perpetuates such prejudice. Now I think that you lot really ought to do something about it. There is a saying about motes and beams which suggests itself irresistibly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Callan,
The thing with your comparison with the Catholic church in inter war Europe is that it is an entirely different cultural situation.
In inter-war Europe the Catholic church was a sizeable political force, and a large proportion of the people in the continent had some connection to it.
You cannot convince me that my small independent evangelical church having it's now completely sidelined view of particular sexual acts is in any way comparable to the influence the inter-war Catholic church had on society at large.
And the same, in my view, goes for even the most outpsoken advocates of the conservative position that appear in the media. If anyone pays attention to them, it is ertainly not those who shape culture at large, nor those who are part of the odious sub-culture that is reposnsible for homophobic violence.
Ad, your argument about love and truth I assume doesn't apply in every situation. I presume that there are those you would counsel against particular courses of action, even if they were feeling suicidal? If so, I cannot see that it is that hard to imgaine a conservative minister acting in the same way over this issue.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
And before anyone compares heterosexual sexual feelings and says - oh well, I'm in the same boat cos I'm single and I don't feel my sexuality has been impugned because I can't express it at the moment - it's not the same thing. In the appropriate circumstances, heterosexuals are allowed to express it, whereas a homosexual never is. There is a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish
Well - that would be me. I actually think, in day to day life, it is exactly the same. I am single. I may desparately want to express my sexuality. But I am not married. I may want to be married - but if I can't find someone to marry, then I must deal with that issue right here and right now. Saying "Ah - you can get married" does not help at all if I cannot indeed get married! Its as insensative as saying to someone who has just broken from a relationship "There are plenty more fish in the sea."
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. Intellectually you might be able to make that argument, but in reality it doesn’t wash. The difference being that the feelings heterosexuals may be struggling with aren’t in themselves deemed a bad thing.
Any mature, psychologically well individual, would I hope see the virtue in exercising some kind of control over their sexual impulses. But, while doing this, the single heterosexual person doesn't have to feel bad that they have sexual urges that are regarded as natural and normal by the Bible. Or to feel bad that they find women attractive rather than men and aspire one day to having a full, loving, sexual relationship with a woman who is their wife.
The church community is not going to think this person is a bad person if they accept that side of their nature as something given by God, and if he wills it, something that they will joyfully express.
The heterosexual person may be (and probably is) perfectly well able to contain their sexual desires. But, while they’re doing that they don’t have to think that their desires are something God frowns upon. They don’t have to feel substandard, wired wrong, full of feelings that would be acceptable if directed at a member of the opposite sex but because they are for individuals of the same sex are wrong, wrong, wrong.
I don't see how the inference can be escaped that if expressions of homosexuality are wrong, then the feelings that give rise to them are wrong and the person who has the feelings has a much different problem to the straight person.
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. Intellectually you might be able to make that argument, but in reality it doesn’t wash. The difference being that the feelings heterosexuals may be struggling with aren’t in themselves deemed a bad thing.
Belle - thank you for your post - and for explaining that - I see more clearly what you are saying.
Can I disagree with that idea that homosexual feelings are intrinsically bad. I don't actually believe this at all. It seems to me that desire or temptation to a particular activity is not a sin. Jesus was tempted - but did not sin.
I think this is freuqently misunderstood on both sides. Many conservatives would reel in horror if they knew the secrets of people's hearts. And its tragic to read this quote from here
quote:
Why haven't I told my story to my church friends? Why is my identity anonymous? Because, despite all the claims by my heterosexual friends to 'love the sinner but hate the sin,' I do not trust them. I do not believe that they could know this about me and still want me to be their congregational president, their youth-group leader, their sons' coach. I wish I could believe it, but I don't. Perhaps I'm hypersensitive in not trusting, but I've overheard too many jokes, seen too many expressions of hate directed at homosexuals, to believe that these same people could be my friends if they knew.
This is tragic. We conservatives must repent that anyone who is struggling with temptation feels unable to share their temptation. That is tragic.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Fish Fish
I think it is often difficult to convey exactly what we mean – whether face to face, or on an internet forum.
I’m not quite sure if you mean to say that homosexual feelings aren’t bad – in that they in themselves are acceptable – so that the person who openly admits their homosexual orientation but doesn’t act upon it – is OK with God, or if you mean to say that they should struggle against it and try to defeat it.
For example, suppose that I had feelings of envy and jealousy towards someone. They might prompt me to doing something spiteful towards the object of my jealousy – which would be ‘a sin’. However, I personally would also believe that the jealousy in and of itself was a sin – in that it is an emotion that would do me harm, skew my vision of reality and come between me and God and me and my neighbour. I would readily agree that while all of us probably feel jealous from time to time, it is an emotion that we should counter and do our best to resolve.
However, for myself, I would have a problem with suggesting to someone who was aware that their natural inbuilt sexual orientation was homosexual, that experiencing feelings related to that sexuality was sinful in the same way my jealousy was. Any more than I would tell an innocent young lad just beginning to appreciate an attractive girl that his sexuality was a sin. I don’t believe that homosexuality is any more ‘bad’ or ‘good’ than heterosexuality.
I agree with you that the story of the man you posted is tragic. I cannot imagine such pain.
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
You cannot convince me that my small independent evangelical church having it's now completely sidelined view of particular sexual acts is in any way comparable to the influence the inter-war Catholic church had on society at large.
I don't know what's going on over in the UK, but here in the US the influence of thousands of small, independent evangelical churches combined with the influence of thousands of churches belonging to evangelical denominations is contributing in serious backward steps in the area of civil rights for gay people.
The fact of the matter is that in our culture gay people are the last acceptable objects of hatred. After Gene Robinson was elected last year, we had people showing up at our parish for the first time saying that they'd heard about the election and it had made them want to come to our church, "because if you'll take the gays, you'll take anybody -- even me."
Most churches accept divorce simply because it's a reality of our culture. You can argue all day long about what the Bible says about divorce, but the truth is that churches accept divorce not because of some interpretation of the Bible that says it's okay or forgiveable or understandable. Churches accept divorce because something like half of all marriages fail. When divorce wasn't culturally acceptable, the church didn't accept it. So arguments about having to hold up both truth and love, arguments about how important it is that we don't cave before a culture that promotes individual self-seeking above all -- these things simply don't wash.
The culture is changing. Just as it changed for people of color and for women, it is changing for gays and lesbians. The church can be on the right side of this change or the wrong side. It can contribute to a climate of fear, distrust and hatred, or it can promote the values Jesus taught. Love and compassion for the most reviled group in our culture must come first.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
I’m not quite sure if you mean to say that homosexual feelings aren’t bad – in that they in themselves are acceptable – so that the person who openly admits their homosexual orientation but doesn’t act upon it – is OK with God, or if you mean to say that they should struggle against it and try to defeat it.
I definately absolutely DO mean that homosexual feelings are not sinful. Temptation to do something is not a sin - the action is a sin.
This is complicated slghtly with lust - Jesus seems to say lust is a sin. If so, then fancying someone and being tempted to sleep with them is not a sin - but when it truns into fantasy and lust, then I gues a lin has been crossed. I know this is a tricky one to define - for anyone, no matter their sexuality.
I guess this relates to jealousy. I can be tempted to be jealous (ie the thought springs into my mind) - but to dwell on it and let myself be jealous would be sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
However, for myself, I would have a problem with suggesting to someone who was aware that their natural inbuilt sexual orientation was homosexual, that experiencing feelings related to that sexuality was sinful in the same way my jealousy was. Any more than I would tell an innocent young lad just beginning to appreciate an attractive girl that his sexuality was a sin. I don’t believe that homosexuality is any more ‘bad’ or ‘good’ than heterosexuality.
I totally agree. I guess other conservatives wouldn't.
Sorry to be hurried in my reply - must go out - hope it makes sense though!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't know what's going on over in the UK, but here in the US the influence of thousands of small, independent evangelical churches combined with the influence of thousands of churches belonging to evangelical denominations is contributing in serious backward steps in the area of civil rights for gay people.
Picking up on a rhetorical question literally, over here the combined social effect of evangelical churches, or any other, is minimal. No-one much cares.
The whole Clause whatever-it-is-this-week nonsense had very litte to do with churches and a lot to do with some rather nasty conservative politicians.
In England anyway - in Scotland & Ireland thigns a re a little different.
quote:
The fact of the matter is that in our culture gay people are the last acceptable objects of hatred.
Here its Travellers AKA Gypsies.
They get a lot mroe stick than gays.
And its coming to be Muslims.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Here its Travellers AKA Gypsies.
They get a lot mroe stick than gays.
And its coming to be Muslims.
I think Jewish people might think that they take most of the stick - from everyone including Muslims.
PS. Adeodatus, I owe you a response, I'll get back to you tomorrow when I've thought through what you've said and got some time to respond.
[ 25. November 2004, 19:56: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Picking up on a rhetorical question literally, over here the combined social effect of evangelical churches, or any other, is minimal. No-one much cares.
Except for gay Christians in Evangelical churches of course. I remember back in the mid 80s when the Synod debated declared homosexuality to be "intrinsically disordered" (if I remember correctly). A closet gay friend of mine was part of David Holloway's congregation, and went out and attempted suicide after that. For him it was the last straw; he couldn't take any more. For me that was the point when this discussion stopped being an academic one about how we interpret the Bible, and became a pastoral one about how we treat people.
Can I echo a concern that has already been expressed here? Forgive the sweeping generalisations, but several "pro-gay" posters have warned that the sort of views expressed at some points on this thread could tip a struggling gay person over the edge into depression and even suicide. Several "anti-gay" posters have said that this is ridiculous and would never happen. It can, and it does. By all means disagree with any view expressed here, but please be aware that there are some vulnerable people out there, and that what you say could have an enormous impact on them.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
As a former conservative Evangelical, I would say that the suicide impulse doesn't just come from Evangelical and other Church teachings against same-sex relationships.
As Spawn stated, one can simply walk away.
However, many people have bought into the idea that Evangelical or Tradition is the ONLY TRUE Christianity.
They can't walk away! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
To walk away from what one believes to be the TRUTH, or TRUE CHURCH is a very difficult thing to do.
The perception is that one is walking into damnation for ETERNITY! That is what is taught by these groups.
Therefore, some commit suicide rather than commit a sin that they have been told will damn them to hell forever. They do not have the option to just go and join a liberal church, because they are brainwashed into believing that liberals aren't real Christians.
By the grace of God, I was studying Theology at the time I came to terms with my transsexuality and sexuality. I was 32 at the time.
Make no mistake, from about 15 to 30, if I'd have been exposed at that time, before studying Theology, I would most likely have killed myself.
In my last job in the RAF I was teased for being gay, even though I was married. If my wife had have found out, and probed me about it, I may have handled it. If she'd had told her Mother (and she would have done) I would have killed myself. I had it all planned out just in case I was exposed.
Spawn, I understand where you are coming from about people being victims. I agree that it is harmful.
Your application of that knowledge though, I find to be totally clueless, and you show know sign at all of even wanting to TRY and walk in a gay person's shoes, to get a bit of empathy.
Scenario: "Asian man receives a torrent of verbal abuse from a group of white men."
Clueless person:" Now then my friend, don't be a victim! You shouldn't complain about racism you know, it just weakens you."
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
As a former conservative Evangelical, I would say that the suicide impulse doesn't just come from Evangelical and other Church teachings against same-sex relationships.
As Spawn stated, one can simply walk away.
Christina, I don't feel I said this about walking away. I have said that there is something more seriously wrong if your sense of identity and self and wellbeing depends purely on what other people think of you.
quote:
However, many people have bought into the idea that Evangelical or Tradition is the ONLY TRUE Christianity.
They can't walk away!
To walk away from what one believes to be the TRUTH, or TRUE CHURCH is a very difficult thing to do.
The perception is that one is walking into damnation for ETERNITY! That is what is taught by these groups.
Therefore, some commit suicide rather than commit a sin that they have been told will damn them to hell forever. They do not have the option to just go and join a liberal church, because they are brainwashed into believing that liberals aren't real Christians.
This is a very serious issue. Christianity is always undermined by its disciples. I don't think it has anything to do with the right doctrinal position or anything, it is to do with loving people and accepting people unconditionally. My parents and my church situations (open evangelical) always demonstrated this to me personally. Frankly, until I became an adult I'd never come across a situation in a church where someone wasn't accepted for who they were - including people of different races, different sexualities and different religions. I could give you countless illustrations of the number of people who lived with us in our Vicarage household and home, including gay men and lesbians, while I was growing up, who became part of our family.
quote:
By the grace of God, I was studying Theology at the time I came to terms with my transsexuality and sexuality. I was 32 at the time.
Make no mistake, from about 15 to 30, if I'd have been exposed at that time, before studying Theology, I would most likely have killed myself.
In my last job in the RAF I was teased for being gay, even though I was married. If my wife had have found out, and probed me about it, I may have handled it. If she'd had told her Mother (and she would have done) I would have killed myself. I had it all planned out just in case I was exposed.
Spawn, I understand where you are coming from about people being victims. I agree that it is harmful.
Your application of that knowledge though, I find to be totally clueless, and you show know sign at all of even wanting to TRY and walk in a gay person's shoes, to get a bit of empathy.
Scenario: "Asian man receives a torrent of verbal abuse from a group of white men."
Clueless person:" Now then my friend, don't be a victim! You shouldn't complain about racism you know, it just weakens you."
Christina
In terms of your personal experience I'm truly glad that your 30-something-self was more able to cope than before. One of my biggest learning experiences was when a close childhood friend changed gender, she>he was also a god child to my parents, and continued to be loved in his new identity both by his parents and his godparents.
When I started going out with Helen, who became my wife, she had just experienced the suicide of her closest male friend. He was gay and hadn't even told his father. To this day, his father probably still blames himself even though he had never been given an opportunity to accept his son's identity - although he certainly would have done. Strangely Helen was probably drawn to me at that time because I was in the midst of depression and had recently attempted suicide myself (this is probably too much information for a bulletin board, but I'm going to risk it mainly because it seems a long time ago now). I do know some of what I'm talking about in this whole area of tragedy.
I believe it is wrong to project suicide on to others. In the end it is always a deeply personal dysfunction. Neither is it right to talk simplistically about suicide. It is late at night and I'm going to 'add reply'. Damn the consequences.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I appreciate the honesty of your post, Spawn, and your willingness to be so open with us. Thank you.
You're absolutely right that suicide is a deeply personal dysfunction, and of course it is a complex issue difficult to grapple with on a bulletin board. I just don't think deeply personal issues are entirely unconnected to social, cultural, religious and other contexts. Even when we can't claim a clear causal link of the sort we see in the instance of The Wanderer's friend, it seems entirely unrealistic to me to think that gay people can hear their lives and their loves being debated by religious leaders, political leaders, parents, friends, co-workers, et al. ad nauseum and not be affected by it in deeply personal ways.
I would never disagree with this:
quote:
Christianity is always undermined by its disciples. I don't think it has anything to do with the right doctrinal position or anything, it is to do with loving people and accepting people unconditionally.
What I'm saying, or trying to say, is that love has to take precedence over doctrine. Accepting gay people unconditionally means blessing same-sex marriages, putting their anniversaries in the church newsletter, photographing their families for the picture directory just like everyone else's, buying database software that doesn't insist that everyone in the same family have the same last name. It means having forms for couples to fill out that don't say "bride" and "groom." It means working for their rights in our society. If I truly love gay people, how can I do anything else?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Thank you Spawn, for a very thoughtful and honest post.
The bit that I want to take issue with is this:
quote:
I have said that there is something more seriously wrong if your sense of identity and self and wellbeing depends purely on what other people think of you.
Now being able to handle a certain amount of unpopularity is a sign of maturity. But I would have thought that one's sense of identity, and self and well being depends on being able to percieve oneself as loveable. If the message that one is recieving is that one is intrinsically unloveable, this is going to be highly damaging. One's sense of self-worth is, for better or worse, tied up with the perceptions and attitudes of others.
I think that the issue, as far as gay men and lesbians are concerned is exacerbated by isolation. I don't wish to mitigate the damaging consequences of any form of prejudice, but if you are subject to, say, anti-semitic prejudice you will at least know that your parents and Jewish peers do not think less of you for being Jewish and you will quite possibly attend a Synagogue where your identity and self-worth as a Jew will be affirmed. Now, none of this is true for a teenager who discovers that he or she is homosexual. Mum and Dad, by definition are not. It must be terribly difficult. Knowing who you can talk to or who you can trust is a fraught business for an adolescent at the best of times.
I don't think that the matter is helped, to be perfectly honest, by the line of argumentation that gay people should not be encouraged to self-identify as homosexual because it isn't a major ontological category. At that precise point in time being homosexual is going to be the major and defining part of one's identity at just the precise point in time as one most fears rejection because of that part of one's identity. This really does render gay people rather vulnerable in a way that straight people are not and find rather difficult to imagine.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Lep asks: quote:
Ad, your argument about love and truth I assume doesn't apply in every situation. I presume that there are those you would counsel against particular courses of action, even if they were feeling suicidal? If so, I cannot see that it is that hard to imgaine a conservative minister acting in the same way over this issue.
I'm not quite sure I see what you're getting at here, so let's backtrack a bit. I began by saying that my teaching with gay people has not "but" after the "God loves you". Fish Fish opined that I was preaching only love and not also truth; he wanted both truth and love. I replied that if the cost is a human life, you cannot have both. Then, Lep, you posted what I've quoted.
I think that as far as I can see, the only thing I would counsel a suicidal person not to do is kill themselves! If, for instance, it's, "I just have to sleep with my boyfriend or I'll kill myself," (a caricature situation - I'm not suggesting it as a serious scenario) well then go ahead and sleep with him. If there's anything to sort out about that, we'll sort it out later. But if you kill yourself tonight, then we can't sort that out later, can we?
So I merely reiterate: if I think that my proclaiming the truth (and it's only my perception of the truth anyway) will in any way contribute to the ending of a human life, then I will not do it. I have no use for truth that's written in blood.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Lep asks: quote:
Ad, your argument about love and truth I assume doesn't apply in every situation. I presume that there are those you would counsel against particular courses of action, even if they were feeling suicidal? If so, I cannot see that it is that hard to imgaine a conservative minister acting in the same way over this issue.
I'm not quite sure I see what you're getting at here, so let's backtrack a bit. I began by saying that my teaching with gay people has not "but" after the "God loves you". Fish Fish opined that I was preaching only love and not also truth; he wanted both truth and love. I replied that if the cost is a human life, you cannot have both. Then, Lep, you posted what I've quoted.
Ok, let me take an example. This is, btw, nearly equivalent to a pastoral situation I have actually been involved in, but I am NOT drawing any moral equivalence between it and the struggling teenager.
A man in the church comes to a leader and says he is on love with his secretary and hates his wife. the secretary says she will move in with him, his wife is unaware of anything going on, and he finds living with his wife so unbearable now that it is making him want to kill himself.
As he presents it, his options are - leave his wife and move in with secretary, or kill himself.
I think, as a responsible pastor I would have wanted to say there is an option - that ending the affair and working on his marriage without killing himself is possible. Am I wrong to say that merely because the person has waved the possibility of suicide over the situation?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You're absolutely right that suicide is a deeply personal dysfunction, and of course it is a complex issue difficult to grapple with on a bulletin board. I just don't think deeply personal issues are entirely unconnected to social, cultural, religious and other contexts. Even when we can't claim a clear causal link of the sort we see in the instance of The Wanderer's friend, it seems entirely unrealistic to me to think that gay people can hear their lives and their loves being debated by religious leaders, political leaders, parents, friends, co-workers, et al. ad nauseum and not be affected by it in deeply personal ways.
I think I agree with you. What I'm hitting out at is the idea that it can be reduced to simplistically saying that Christian attitudes lead necessarily to gay bashing or suicides. In the case of suicide, each tragic statistic is a person who has come to the end through a whole range of influences.
quote:
What I'm saying, or trying to say, is that love has to take precedence over doctrine. Accepting gay people unconditionally means blessing same-sex marriages, putting their anniversaries in the church newsletter, photographing their families for the picture directory just like everyone else's, buying database software that doesn't insist that everyone in the same family have the same last name. It means having forms for couples to fill out that don't say "bride" and "groom." It means working for their rights in our society. If I truly love gay people, how can I do anything else?
Undoubtedly accepting people, especially those who are vulnerable often means putting aside doctrine and right teaching. I don't agree that it means changing the teaching of the Church. But Christian love and acceptance of people implies a huge amount of pastoral latitude.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Now being able to handle a certain amount of unpopularity is a sign of maturity. But I would have thought that one's sense of identity, and self and well being depends on being able to percieve oneself as loveable. If the message that one is recieving is that one is intrinsically unloveable, this is going to be highly damaging. One's sense of self-worth is, for better or worse, tied up with the perceptions and attitudes of others.
You are right to challenge me on this point. I think I'm guilty of imposing my own bloodymindedness into the argument at this point.
quote:
I don't think that the matter is helped, to be perfectly honest, by the line of argumentation that gay people should not be encouraged to self-identify as homosexual because it isn't a major ontological category. At that precise point in time being homosexual is going to be the major and defining part of one's identity at just the precise point in time as one most fears rejection because of that part of one's identity. This really does render gay people rather vulnerable in a way that straight people are not and find rather difficult to imagine.
I agree that having a sense of community and people who do love you and accept you for what you are is fundamentally important - I wish more people found that in the Church. I concede that for mere survival of some adolescents the act of self-identifying as gay and gaining the support of the community might be the only option. For others, to identify as gay so early in life might create more problems than it solves.
Finally, let me just say that not all conservatives are coming from the same place on this one. I fully accept that lesbian and gay people within and without relationships are part of the Anglican Church. As far as I'm concerned they have as much right to the sacraments and ministry of the Church as I do. I believe in a comprehensive and diverse Church in which there will be different views and different choices on all sorts of issues. However, there are issues to do with authority, church teaching and church leadership which pose other questions and challenges.
Finally can I say to Adeodatus that Christians shouldn't impose '... buts' on others in the kind of situations he talks about. But I'd be very surprised if anyone stays in one place in a life of Christian discipleship and we are all going to hear challenges to our most deeply held views, beliefs, and choices in a life with Christ.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
A lovely story of what "loving the sinner" means from Minnesota
Some loons took it upon themselves to "exorcise" gays from the Cathedral. quote:
... fringe Catholics who advocate using sacramentals, or holy objects, to cleanse places where gays take communion.
Ok, they are fringe. But, please, stop claiming that these people aren't there.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Ok, they are fringe. But, please, stop claiming that these people aren't there.
The point is that they're completely off the fringe - and it sounds like some lone nut is probably responsible. So what's your point because I haven't heard anyone on this thread claim that extremists don't exist?
Should I assume that every homosexual thinks it's okay to blackmail, and 'out' church leaders just because Peter Tatchell did it. Or whenever I get a green ink letter or email from some liberal nutter, should I assume that all liberals are like that.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
... So what's your point because I haven't heard anyone on this thread claim that extremists don't exist?
Recent quotes:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... the bullies who indulged in this type of thing at my school had rarely been near a church..
and
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm sure there are homophobic conservative Christians - but that is a result of prejudice not the Bible.
I regard these as claims that conservative rhetoric does not encourage overt homophobia and hate crimes.
I don't accept that. There's a progression without a radical change through:
- We love you but you can't be married in our church
- Of course we love you but we actively campaign against your marriage rights
- ...but it's sinful if you ever have sex
- ...you can't take communion wearing that sash
- ...you can't take communion
- ...you can't come to our church
- ...we'll put up a plaque to say you went to hell when you were murdered
- The gay bashers are unchurched
- Brawling in the aisles
- and out-right gay-bashing
I don't generally accept "slippery-slope" arguments, because usually there is a clear transition somewhere on the slope. But on this issue, every single one of those steps and a good few more are the actual words and behaviours of people who self-identify as Christian.
When you take a stand, you have to look at who you're standing next to. It may be a long line from you to the man in the jackboots, but if it's an unbroken one - who's leading who? And in which direction?
No, Spawn, I am not calling you names, nor Fish Fish, nor Leprechaun. But I am saying that I regard it as true that in every nuanced, careful, "we love you but", there's support for a position just a little more extreme. And I don't like the end of that one little bit.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
When Bishop Chukwuma tried to exorcise Richard Kirker at Lambeth '98, was he a "lone nut" and "off the fringe", or a Bishop of Christ's Church?
(Personally, I'd have had him for assault.... Kirker showed admirable restraint.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Spawn: ... So what's your point because I haven't heard anyone on this thread claim that extremists don't exist?
And then, torn by Henry entirely out of context:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... the bullies who indulged in this type of thing at my school had rarely been near a church..
This is the second time recently on this thread my words have been quotes supposedly meaning some quite different from what they say. This quote is merely a statement of fact about people I once knew who were involved in homphobic bullying. It was making no comment about extremism in the church, in fact it was demonstrating extremism OUTSIDE the church.
But the rest of your post is offensive. It's exactly the same as saying there is an unbroken line between your position and Peter Tatchell climbing into the pulpit with a certain ex-archbishop we all know.
[ 26. November 2004, 14:55: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
originally posted by Spawn: ... So what's your point because I haven't heard anyone on this thread claim that extremists don't exist?
And then, torn by Henry entirely out of context:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... the bullies who indulged in this type of thing at my school had rarely been near a church..
This is the second time recently on this thread my words have been quotes supposedly meaning some quite different from what they say. This quote is merely a statement of fact about people I once knew who were involved in homphobic bullying. It was making no comment about extremism in the church, in fact it was demonstrating extremism OUTSIDE the church.
But the rest of your post is offensive. It's exactly the same as saying there is an unbroken line between your position and Peter Tatchell climbing into the pulpit with a certain ex-archbishop we all know.
Note: not abridged to avoid further claims of out-of-context quoting.
Having found out who Peter Tatchell is, yes, there is an unbroken line between my position and his. I think he's gone a bit far, but I am definitely on his side.
I did not intend to quote Leprechaun out of context. As to Leprechaun's original post, if I took it out of context, and it wasn't off topic... what did it mean?
Leprechaun indeed said that the bullies he knew were outside the church, in the context of discussing whether positions inside the church promoted homophobic actions, yes?
So, did Leprechaun mean that there are no extremists in the church or no extremists in his church (apologies if the gender is wrong).
We would all agree, I hope, that there are extremists in "society at large". I think I have substantiated that there are extremists in the church universal. And I would argue that the extremists in the church are visible to and encourage extremists outside the church.
Similarly, when the Anglican Bishop of Ottawa, Peter Coffin was standing literally shoulder-to-shoulder with Svend Robinson, prominent gay MP in Canada, in a protest against Fred Phelps, that too is visible inside and outside the church. (I can't find the picture online anymore, alas.)
Nor did I intend to offend with my post. I said I wasn't calling anyone names, and I wasn't. The positions I named are all real, and can be substantiated. Where is the difference in kind?
As Adeodatus said quote:
The problem is (and I think you've alluded to it yourself, though not apparently recognising it as a problem) that those who discuss this matter, and more especially those who teach and preach on it, do so as if they were doing so in a cultural and moral vacuum. They also assume that because they are approaching it coolly and logically, their hearers will be doing the same. And to some extent, everything would be fine and dandy if this were actually the case.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I fully accept that lesbian and gay people within and without relationships are part of the Anglican Church. ... However, there are issues to do with authority, church teaching and church leadership which pose other questions and challenges.
I need to say, in light of my recent posts, that I do see this as a legitimate position, and not one that encourages extremists,
[ 26. November 2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
When Bishop Chukwuma tried to exorcise Richard Kirker at Lambeth '98, was he a "lone nut" and "off the fringe", or a Bishop of Christ's Church?
(Personally, I'd have had him for assault.... Kirker showed admirable restraint.)
Yes Kirker showed admirable restraint and yes Chukwuma was a lone nutter. Some African Bishops of my acquaintance were ashamed, and a leading Nigerian Archbishop, Josiah Idowu-Fearon took the opportunity when he spoke to the Church of England General Synod in November 1998 to apologise on behalf of the Nigerian House of Bishops for Chukwuma's antics. This in particular is a fact which has been little quoted in this whole cultural debate between Africa and the West, but needs to be noted.
The invasion of a pulpit on Christianity's most sacred feast day, in one of Anglicanism's most important shrines is also a terrible thing to do. But I'm not going to judge every gay person by the standards of Peter Tatchell.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
To go back to an earlier matter which I haven't had time to return to:
Spawn and Leprechaun, I think you've forgotten what happened in Scotland over Section 28/2A. I'm surprised that Spawn, as another media type, doesn't remember how this was covered up here.
A well-known Scottish conservative evangelical from the business family who run Stagecoach, Brian Soutar, put up a lot of money to privately fund a referendum on Section 28 and to found and further the 'Keep the Clause' campaign- and engaged Jack Irvine and his PR company Media House to make sure the whole thing was splashed all over the front pages and endlessly on the telly. (Jack, in case you haven't heard of him is not known for his softly-softly concilatory approach - you hire him if you want to play tough). He was joined in this by the Cardinal of Scotland, the late Thomas Winning and by many ordinary Christians who wrote to local papers lobbied MSPs, parents associations etc. I was combining another job with media freelancing at the time, as well as being active in my church, and I remember it well.
I can assure you that this was all over media aimed at working class men - titles like the 'The Daily Record' (The Sun's Scottish rival which outsells it), and popular local papers that people turn to for local and sport news (like Glasgow and Edinburgh 'Evening News') were full of it. It was well covered on STV which aims at a working class demographic in central Scotland too. It was all over local radio phone-ins too. There was a time when you couldn't open a Scottish paper without seeing stuff about the potential menace of gays to our children with the most hateful stuff (usually going on about sodomy and paedophilia) so often written by people identifying themselves as Christians that it made me feel thoroughly ashamed.
At one point the convener of the Board of Social responsibility of the Kirk, Anne Allan tried to take us on board with it and I thought I would have to leave rather than be associated with this, but luckily the then moderator John Cairns refused to have anything to do with it. However other church groups were happy to be seen on TV and on the front pages lobbying parliament that a law which insulted gay people by describing their families as 'pretended families' must stay.
Jack Irvine's firm Media House had good links with the Daily Record and the whole thing got high-profile approving coverage there. No doubt this was precisely because The Record reckoned their core young male working class readership would buy into this anti-gay campaign - an anti gay campaign led and financed by Scotland's highest-profile Christians. The Record even ran a poll with its readership to support Cardinal Winning's infamous remark describing gays as 'perverted'. So please don't kid me that working class audiences never knew about this or bothered or connected it with high-profile Christians giving it their blessing. They did - it was all over the very parts of the Scottish media targeted at them. Someone as smart as Jack Irvine was not going to waste his time targeting Guardian readers like me.
And lo and behold, the Scottish media, specially the tabloids, was filled with an avalanche of shit aimed at gay people, and lo and behold, up went the gay bashing. Nothing to do with Conservative Christianity, you say. Well it's nothing to do with you two as you were in England but it's plenty to do with those Scottish evangelicals and conservative catholics who signed up to Soutar's campaign and wrote and called in to the papers, radio stations and TV to support him - many of them in hateful terms. I honestly believe that without realising it they put blood on their hands by whipping up a public atmosphere of 'gays are perverts and a menace to our children' hatred which made the sort of people who would normally look for another football supporter to beat up consider gay people as a target instead. Not to mention the numbers of gay people this must have driven away from chuches.
The whole thing was a really sad and awful episode - but you do yourselves a great disfavour by trying to shrug it off as harmless. It certainly wasn't. As people with conservative views you should learn from it to make sure you don't go and do likewise, unless you really want to harm people, which I don't think either of you want to do.
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
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Had a very quiet day today so thought I'd stroll over to Dead Horses.
Spent an shed-load of time reading this far.
Could I make an outsiders observation?
There's theory and then there's the practical out workings of this theory.
Just for a wild moment imagine that you are the Pastor of an undisclosed, Bible believing, mainstream denomination?
You've been there for about ten years, love and are loved by the congregation, keep short accounts with God and encourage others to do so as well.
You have managed by Gods grace and the willingness of others in the church to build up the congragation to a point where they managed a church plant four years ago which is now independent.
Your church group to annual shindigs is impressive but so also is the churches record with social action involvement in the area.
A respected member of the congregation comes to you and says that he has been battling with 'problems' in the area of his sexuality and needs to "Come Out"
Question
What would you do?
This is not taken from an actual 'case'.........but I've been very interested to see how various churches address this issue As It Arises.
( and it does arise...oh yes it does)
The most sensible and compassionate response I have come across came from a well know church leader (who will not be named here even under torture)
"I think that you're wrong. But I could be wrong. I have known and loved you for years, that won't change. Let me know how we can help you and I'll try to understand. "
NOW..........I don't think this leader is known for his public pro-gay stance.
But in some circles he is known for being a loyal and a true friend and pastor.
What would you rather be known for?
An advocate of The Truth?
Or a True Friend and Pastor ?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
originally posted by Spawn: ... So what's your point because I haven't heard anyone on this thread claim that extremists don't exist?
And then, torn by Henry entirely out of context:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
... the bullies who indulged in this type of thing at my school had rarely been near a church..
This is the second time recently on this thread my words have been quotes supposedly meaning some quite different from what they say. This quote is merely a statement of fact about people I once knew who were involved in homphobic bullying. It was making no comment about extremism in the church, in fact it was demonstrating extremism OUTSIDE the church.
But the rest of your post is offensive. It's exactly the same as saying there is an unbroken line between your position and Peter Tatchell climbing into the pulpit with a certain ex-archbishop we all know.
I did not intend to quote Leprechaun out of context. As to Leprechaun's original post, if I took it out of context, and it wasn't off topic... what did it mean?
Leprechaun indeed said that the bullies he knew were outside the church, in the context of discussing whether positions inside the church promoted homophobic actions, yes?
So, did Leprechaun mean that there are no extremists in the church or no extremists in his church (apologies if the gender is wrong).
I meant merely this: that the only homophobic bullying I have ever known take place was perpetrated by people who despised the evangelical church more than they despised anyone because of their sexuality,(as incidentally I found out to my own cost) and so in that case any claim that it had to do with my church, or any other, preaching against particular sexual acts is preposterous. That was really all.
This unbroken line theory, is, if you'll forgive me pretty much a load of rubbish. The thing is, as you and I both are, I take it, credally orthodox Christians then there is far more of an unbroken line between us than any of the extremes we have mentioned in this discussion. (much as we may disagree over this issue, or as that may be distasteful to you)
So the bottom line of your theory is that there is an unbroken connection between Peter Tatchell and Phelps, which is an interesting thesis.
Actions have consequences, but I am afraid that blaming conservative church leaders who express their views moderately, for homphobic violence and teen suicide is getting perilously close to 1984 for my liking, and one must pause to wonder why the message of repentance and faith in Christ on which they are far more insistent has apparently so little effect on the nation.
Yes people may be subliminally influenced by what others say, but frankly, violent individuals are responsible for their own actions.
Nevertheless, I really don't know how to engage in this debate any more without being accused of either trying to hound people off the Ship or promoting teen suicide. So I intend to take a break from it now.
My last thing to say would be to Ethne: were I the pastor in your situation I would probably have said almost exactly what you quote, (without, actually the "I think you are wrong" which I don't think is very helpful) although I don't really understand what you mean by "coming out" in this situation.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
"Coming Out", in this case, means being open about one's sexuality.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I believe it is wrong to project suicide on to others. In the end it is always a deeply personal dysfunction. Neither is it right to talk simplistically about suicide. It is late at night and I'm going to 'add reply'. Damn the consequences.
Spawn,
In my eyes, you have been writing simplistically about suicide, victim mentality, etc, etc.
My clueless statement in my last post, wasn't aimed at your knowledge or experience, but at your application of your knowledge.
Reading your posts, if they were true, then:
1. A person who commits suicide is dysfunctional.
2. A gay or lesbian person who is upset about negative messages from churches and society, has a victim mentality.
What is the common factor here?
You are simplistically giving a convenient label to people, so that nothing has to be done about it! You are dismissing people.
It could be that a person who committed suicide had a family that tore them down instead of building them up as a child. I know a case like that! According to you though, the family shouldn't feel guilty about it, because the person was dysfunctional!
I guess children who get bullied should be told off with your logic too.
It isn't true that the normal state of human beings is to be unaffected by what others say about them. We are not totally independent, we are interdependent. A person who has studied spirituality or psychotherapy, may rise above and be less affected by what others think, say or do, if they apply their studies to themselves, of course.
The only type of person who rises above totally, would be a Saint or a spiritual master (in other spiritualities) you are insisting that all people should have that.
IMO, your statements about victims are clueless, because you are using very good psychological and spiritual teachings, meant to help people, as WEAPONS. You are using them to insult people, or at least dismiss them.
Labelling someone with a psychotherapeutic label to dismiss what they are saying is wrong.
Using it as a diagnostic aid is fine, if you are a psychotherapist with a contract to provide therapy to a client.
If we were living in the United States in the 50s, and we were discussing segregation, would you label a black woman who said what Arabella said (but in the context of black people not accepted in many white churches) as a victim? Would you tell her she was throwing her baby out the pram?
I'm glad you had good, open experiences as an open evangelical, but such experiences, I believe, would be a minority in Evangelical circles and churches. When I was an Evangelical, I would have said that open Evangelicalism isn't Evangelical at all. Many do today.
When I was an Evangelical, I visited a gay man who was dying of AIDS related illnesses. The church wouldn't bury him. Why? 'Because a lot of his gay friends would show up at the funeral and people would get the wrong idea about the church.'
This, despite that he told me he had found Jesus, on one visit I made to him, and he told me he'd repented of being gay. (I just replied that I'd done sinful sexual things)
My experience of Evangelicalism was in non-Anglican churches, BTW.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Actions have consequences, but I am afraid that blaming conservative church leaders who express their views moderately, for homphobic violence and teen suicide is getting perilously close to 1984 for my liking, and one must pause to wonder why the message of repentance and faith in Christ on which they are far more insistent has apparently so little effect on the nation.
Yes people may be subliminally influenced by what others say, but frankly, violent individuals are responsible for their own actions.
Leprechaun,
You wanted to deny to me that there was a causal link between Christian commentators on this issue and homophobic violence.
I have described to you, as someone who was then a Christian working with the media, how high-profile Christians paid large sums of money for a publicity stunt, engaged an expensive take-no-prisoners PR firm, got up a public lobbying campaign and then knowingly went for a ride on the back of the tiger of the tabloid media with a message of how even just being allowed to talk positively about homosexuality in schools would put our children at risk. Violence against gay people went up.
And your response to this is to cry '1984'?
Let me ask you a question - why do think we all know about Alpha courses and so many people have been on them? I've seen the billboards for them, I've seen high-profile articles on them, I've seen the TV series. Thousands of people have taken part in them and many have joined churches. Now why do you think good use of advertising and PR should be effective for that and have no effect when people with a much bigger budget use billboards, TV, tabloids and professional PR to push an anti-gay campaign?
Legitimising and providing expensive fuel for tabloid hate campaigns has an effect. Imagine if church leaders decided to stage a national referendum on chucking out asylum seekers, funded an expensive 'asylum seekers are a menace to our children' campaign and courted the tabloids to make sure this message got across - and attacks on asylum seekers went up?
All I'm asking you to do is to take on board that yes, when Christian leaders decide that they want to put money and muscle into an anti-gay message they can really harm people. They lost the battle to 'Keep the Clause' but because of the way they fought it they temporarily opened the floodgates of the Scottish media to attack after attack on gay people and how they live their lives and as a result of this gay people suffered and physical attacks on them rose.
You don't want these sort of effects any more than I do - which is why I beg of you to think about them. I can understand why you get defensive about your views - nobody likes hearing others witness to them that they think their views can cause suffering and injustice.
It would go against your conscience to tell me that homosexuality was not a sin. It goes against mine not to share with you that from my experience, if not carefully handled, that particular viewpoint can cause tremendous damage to others - not to you. If I didn't think that you cared deeply about others there would be no point in my even mentioning this.
I've seen a Christian-sponsored campaign against gay people close-up. Some of the sweetest, kindest gentlest people I know got involved in it because they held beliefs identical to yours. I almost cannot put into words how sad that made me. They truly did not intend to harm anyone. Yet hand on heart, I have to say that I am convinced that what they got involved in did harm people.
If you intend to take a break from the issue then please think about that. Gay people aren't coming on these boards and telling you how their lives have been made miserable in the name of traditional Christian views because they want to get at you or do you down. They're telling you because they've suffered at the hands of people who hold the same positions as yours and because they don't want you to unwittingly cause that same suffering to others.
I think what I'm trying to get across is that, for me, a theology of 'homosexuality is sinful' needs a very serious response to gay people which takes into account the suffering which they have lived through on account of such views, rather than trying to minimise it or deny it or to claim that they just need to be 'cured' or that it's in the Bible so 'tough'. When I see people holding traditionalist views seem to try and minimise or to play down what gay people have gone through, I feel very very uncomfortable about that indeed.
I don't share your views or expect you to suddenly convert to mine - but I do think you could be a bit more open as to how the traditional position can actually hurt and impact upon gay people.
best wishes
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Even Rowan Williams agrees with you, Louise!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
To go back to an earlier matter which I haven't had time to return to:
Spawn and Leprechaun, I think you've forgotten what happened in Scotland over Section 28/2A. I'm surprised that Spawn, as another media type, doesn't remember how this was covered up here.
I am much more convinced by this explanation of the link. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for being bloodyminded, but the whole idea of a linkage between a traditional view on sexuality and violence and suicide has not been as helpfully specific as you are. In fact some posters have given the impression that they believe any expression of the traditional view, however moderate, creates the atmosphere in which homophobic violence or the pushing of someone into suicide becomes more likely.
I would however continue to say that things are always much more complicated than they seem. The impulse of young working class men to engage in homophobic violence and racist violence cannot be separated either from an environment whereby they are committing acts of violence and murder against each other as well.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Spawn,
In my eyes, you have been writing simplistically about suicide, victim mentality, etc, etc.
No, I think I've been suggesting that suicide is complex and while it sometimes seems that there is one catalyst there may be many other factors that have led that person to have such a low view of themselves that they want to end it all. The language of blame is usually unhelpful when it comes to suicide.
In talking about 'victim mentality' I'm not denying that there are genuine victims - how could I, of course there are? But it can be harmful to encourage people to think of themselves as victims when the perceived victimisation is fairly mild or even non-existent. I recognise that the reverse danger is that people blame themselves for being bullied or abused. I'm sorry if I've given the impression that things are simple, but in truth that is not what I've been arguing.
quote:
If we were living in the United States in the 50s, and we were discussing segregation, would you label a black woman who said what Arabella said (but in the context of black people not accepted in many white churches) as a victim? Would you tell her she was throwing her baby out the pram?
There is no comparison here between a discussion on a bulletin board and segregation in the 1950s. I despair at this lack of perspective.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Spawn,
It would seem that your fundamentalism has become so extreme that you would rather blind yourself to human suffering than accept that there is an extremely serious problem with your theology. What has your brand of Christianity become? Something very harsh and cold indeed – you can’t ever grasp love with the metal gauntlet of “God’s Truth” that you preach.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
Spawn,
It would seem that your fundamentalism has become so extreme that you would rather blind yourself to human suffering than accept that there is an extremely serious problem with your theology. What has your brand of Christianity become? Something very harsh and cold indeed – you can’t ever grasp love with the metal gauntlet of “God’s Truth” that you preach.
If you want to call me to Hell then please do so. I don't particularly need to put up with ad hominems on this thread. Other people have more serious points to make than accusing me of fundamentalism.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
My point was deadly serious Spawn.
"accusing"?... I was merely being observant.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
My point was deadly serious Spawn.
"accusing"?... I was merely being observant.
Paul, I'll engage with you if you have a serious point to make. What is that point?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
That is a very revealing response Spawn. You really can't see it can you. You really are that much in denial.
My point is that you fundies have become so obsessed with literalism that you deny human suffering in situations where it might call into question your particular version of the truth.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
That is a very revealing response Spawn. You really can't see it can you. You really are that much in denial.
My point is that you fundies have become so obsessed with literalism that you deny human suffering in situations where it might call into question your particular version of the truth.
It is very difficult to engage with someone who is calling you names. I'm not going to respond because I don't recognise myself in your descriptions.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
