Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: LGBT (Anglican) clergy: useful idiots?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
If Accepting Evangelicals is 100% CoE, why has Jayne Ozanne ostensibly left it to concentrate on work within the Anglican communion (according to her resignation statement)?
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
From the first link in mr cheesy's post, dated 2 February 2015, referring to Jayne Ozanne: quote: Today, Monday, she is to be announced as the new director of Accepting Evangelicals, whose patrons include Baptist minister Steve Chalke and worship leader and commentator Vicky Beeching, who herself stunned the evangelical community worldwide when she came out last year.
That doesn't look a CofE organisation but cross-denominational.
-------------------- Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I didn't think it was 100% CofE, because I think those denominational boundaries don't mean quite so much to Evangelicals as they do to those of us of a more high church view of things. But I thought it was basically a CofE set up. I may be wrong. I am more an AffCath sort so I cannot speak with any authority.
-------------------- A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems pretty obvious it isn't exclusively CofE, but then some of the top people are (or were) concerned with goings on in the CofE. I'm not sure there is any real contradiction.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
OK, my bad. My basic ignorance of Evangelicalism has led me astray. I thought it was a sort of low church Inclusive Church or Changing Attitudes.
-------------------- A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If they aren't even in the CoE - or especially if the director has resigned from the CoE in order to more effectively campaign for change - then I don't see the useful idiot thing at all (however odious the reply might be).
(I think it is correct to say that Evangelicals don't view denomination as terribly important, although they would usually have a view that some particular denominations are more prone to being "unsound".) [ 20. February 2016, 19:11: Message edited by: mdijon ]
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly anglicans, merely that the Abp of York honoured Ozanne's letter with a lengthy and yes, very tedious, answer. He enumerates every milestone on the gay debate for the last fifty years or so and points out that, whenever the church published awful, lengthy documents, there was always a couple of lines saying, 'oh but wait, we oppose homophobia and violence against you.' Actually they never do, can anyone even think of a single church initiative that has done so, more than a pronouncement? Now, any gay man or woman reading this after fifty years should conclude: I am a klutz... but am I a useful one? [ 20. February 2016, 22:12: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly anglicans, merely that the Abp of York honoured Ozanne's letter with a lengthy and yes, very tedious, answer. He enumerates every milestone on the gay debate for the last fifty years or so and points out that, whenever the church published awful, lengthy documents, there was always a couple of lines saying, 'oh but wait, we oppose homophobia and violence against you.' Actually they never do, can anyone even think of a single church initiative that has done so, more than a pronouncement? Now, any gay man or woman reading this after fifty years should conclude: I am a klutz... but am I a useful one?
My own - possibly somewhat embittered - interpretation of Church public pronouncements, certainly over the 25 years, is that they really mean "We wholly oppose homophobia - just not enough actually to get off our fat arses and do anything about it. Now pass the port."
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly Anglicans.
No, they are definitely interdenominational. At least two of the Patrons (Steve Chalke, Ruth Gouldbourne) are Baptists. Indeed, there is even a Baptist subsection (and there may be for other denominations).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: Now, any gay man or woman reading this after fifty years should conclude: I am a klutz... but am I a useful one?
I can see that is the message of the letter. It clearly is making too much of fat-arsed-besat pronouncements that are too little too ineffectually. But I don't see any propagandist use of Gay CoE clergy in it. I would see that if there was a paragraph that said "It is hard to imagine that the CoE is such an uninclusive place given the existence of x y and z parishes". It may well be that they thought about such a message, explicit or implied, but then decided against it as it would be quite likely that any named clergy would speak up about how costly it was for them to maintain an inclusive space within the CoE and how unsupported they felt by the church leadership. Anyone named in such a way who was then either unwilling or, because of pressure, unable to speak up would be thoroughly justified in feeling taken for a useful idiot.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Someone privately (why?) suggested that the recent effort to stamp out homophobia from schools should at least be acknowledged. I don't know, would that be the booklet sent to all CofE schools that begins with these words?
The Church is not changing its teaching on gay relationships but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality. Anyone who listened, as I did, to much of the Same Sex Marriage Bill Second Reading Debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. The majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behaviour or anything that looks like it and sometimes they look at us and see what they don't like. With nearly a million children educated in our schools we not only must demonstrate a profound commitment to stamp out such stereotyping and bullying but we must also take action.”
This guidance represents the action and commitment that the Church of England is taking to stamp out homophobic stereotyping and bullying for the children and young people educated in our schools.
Church of England schools need to ensure that, whilst clearly working to be inclusive spaces where homophobic language, actions and behaviours are unacceptable, those pupils, parents and staff who believe that homosexual acts are 'less than God's ideal' are given the safe space to express those views without being subject to another form of discrimination. [ 21. February 2016, 06:13: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: Someone privately (why?) suggested that the recent effort to stamp out homophobia from schools should at least be acknowledged.
It *could* be acknowledged but I don't see why anyone *should* acknowledge it unless it counts as an important omission of an inconvenient fact in their argument. I don't see anyone arguing that the CoE does nothing at all, but rather that the CoE doesn't do enough. This seems like the bare minimum duty that a school would have and it doesn't seem to me to undermine a view that the CoE isn't really looking after or supporting gay clergy.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
But the CofE doesn't support its LGBT clergy, mdijon. Or rather, my experience is that you'll be supported if you're "useful", toe the party line in public, turn a blind eye to the conservative financial stitch-up, and put on a big smile and say everything in the garden is rosy. If you don't do that, you're left to fend for yourself.
I think I'm at the stage now where, in my head, I'm no longer a member of the CofE. Now I'm just waiting for my heart to catch up.
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Adeodatus: But the CofE doesn't support its LGBT clergy, mdijon.
I get that loud and clear. I was taking that as a premise in what I said above.
quote: Originally posted by Adeodatus: if you're "useful", toe the party line in public, turn a blind eye to the conservative financial stitch-up, and put on a big smile and say everything in the garden is rosy.
This does sound like a description of a useful idiot. Sorry again.
I suppose in every organization there is a pressure to say it's all OK and get on with life. It seems in the case of the CoE the propagandist use is not all that blatant, but I should let that blind me to more subtle uses of useful idiots.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Adeodatus: But the CofE doesn't support its LGBT clergy, mdijon. Or rather, my experience is that you'll be supported if you're "useful", toe the party line in public, turn a blind eye to the conservative financial stitch-up, and put on a big smile and say everything in the garden is rosy. If you don't do that, you're left to fend for yourself.
I think I'm at the stage now where, in my head, I'm no longer a member of the CofE. Now I'm just waiting for my heart to catch up.
I don't know. I feel like those who are in categories the church wants to attract to the clergy (young/working-class/BAME/female etc) but also LGBT have more leeway. Take Sally Hitchiner for example - I know she's not a parish priest which might make a difference, but she's openly gay and openly pro SSM and openly in the media, but I wouldn't say she's left to fend for herself.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that you shouldn't leave, just that for some people it's different. I think some LGBT Anglicans might be useful idiots, but I don't think it's universal.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
It feels like part of the war on the catholic wing of the church. I have long disbelieved in the existence of such a thing, but the fact that there are a lot of gay men in the catholic wing seems to give an opportunity to remove two nuisances at once, and usher in the hegemony of HTB, or at least entrench it.
-------------------- Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
But aren't there signs, tiny I'll admit, but there nonetheless, that for all its faults the likes of HTB might be softening its stance on gay issues?
(It was Pomona who first pointed this out on these boards as I recall).
It might be sheer pragmatism, it might be fear of legal action, it might be a genuine change of heart*, but I'm not sure it's fair to level the "useful idiot" criticism against the evangelical wing.
I do think, again mostly from reading Pomona's posts, that this may depend on whether one thinks "innate but not God's best" is an acceptable compromise or an assault on one's very identity/still beyond the pale - a position Pomona (again) reports as gaining ground in UK evangelical circles in general, and an issue about which there seems to be no real consensus regardless of orientation or churchmanship.
*I was at an Alpha leaders' conference - in a non-paying capacity I hasten to add - when Nicky Gumbel made a public statement of repentance for his attitude to "some other Christians", let the reader understand; I concluded he was talking about gays and that certainly fits with what Pomona reports.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
It does indeed depend on whether one thinks "innate but not God's best" is an acceptable compromise. I think it's utter nonsense but I'd be prepared to live with the nonsense should its consequences be benign. If it means no partners, no civil partnerships, no sex, no marriage, no preferment for clergy and no leadership positions for laypeople then, frankly, what difference will it make?
oh, and no teaching kids that their relationships are 'not God's best' whereas their mate's are a beautiful sacrament and image of his love for his church. Thanks, but no thanks. [ 21. February 2016, 17:06: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: It does indeed depend on whether one thinks "innate but not God's best" is an acceptable compromise. I think it's utter nonsense but I'd be prepared to live with the nonsense should its consequences be benign. If it means no partners, no civil partnerships, no sex, no marriage, no preferment for clergy and no leadership positions for laypeople then, frankly, what difference will it make?
If I'm perfectly honest, "innate but not God's best" is where I'm at on this - for at least some cases. However, I certainly don't think that should translate into all the "nos" you list.
I'm not an Anglican, but I'd like to think I'd consider all those kinds of issues on a case-by-case basis for each individual. Of course, my moral/ethical views will impinge on that, but they would not be exclusively my views on homosexuality and neither would they be exclusively, or indeed predominantly, my views on sexuality*.
quote: oh, and no teaching kids that their relationships are 'not God's best' whereas their mate's are a beautiful sacrament and image of his love for his church. Thanks, but no thanks.
This touches on what I feel to be an important point, although I haven't as yet managed to articulate it to my satisfaction.
If "innate but not God's best" has about it a whiff of superiority, I agree, forget it.
I think where common ground might be found is a recognition that this phrase describes pretty well the entire human condition, albeit with the "not God's best" manifesting itself in different ways for different individuals, and with "not best" excluding neither great good nor grace.
In the specific field of sexuality, I think there are a pretty much infinite variety of ways our inclinations and behaviours can be "not God's best", but that is not a ban on us all trying to make the best (in all senses of the term) of where we find ourselves.
Where that gets complicated for everyone, of course, is how that impacts others' sensitivities. I think Paul's teaching on our own and others' consciences has a lot to say to this, but that doesn't stop it being difficult, frustrating or indeed very painful in some cases.
*I love the Adrian Plass story in which Jesus receives a young man for counselling on homosexuality and Jesus' PA is disconcerted to discover they spent most of the time talking about billiards. [ 21. February 2016, 17:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Sorry if I came across as bitter, Eutychus. I do appreciate the kindness in what you wrote. It's just awfully hard to grow up in a church school, being taught, reading in every book, that what you feel and experience is degrading simply because the object of your affection is of the same sex as yours... whereas the others get a free pass for pretty much every kind of behaviour. They can seek forgiveness because theirs are just mishaps that can be repented of, whereas yours is, allegedly anyway, some sort of inherent evil propensity. I could not understand, I still can't, and it did indeed make me feel like a moral idiot, and failure. And this is noxious when you're a teen, lethal even, for some. [ 21. February 2016, 18:55: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
'Innate but not God's best' is how I was told I am by a Roman catholic priest. For context, I said that I had to be honest about who I was, to God and myself, and he told me that I could be so much more. 'Innate but not God's best' really means 'flawed'. Frankly I am not happy with that. I do accept that I am far from perfect, but I cannot accept that my sexual identity is basically like having poor eyesight, or a tendency to theft or somesuch (another commonplace which is meant in a kindly way by those who just don't understand - usually introduced with the suggestion that 'we are all tempted to sin, some tempter in particular ways, some in others, but we are all called to resist that temptation).
Human love is a reflection of God's love for us. All human desire is a reflection of our desire for God. I cannot see it as anything other than a good thing, regardless of gender.
-------------------- A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bibaculus: 'Innate but not God's best' is how I was told I am by a Roman catholic priest.
We can't say this. It's just wrong. We wouldn't say it about women, black people, the disabled, the lower classes... we can't say it about gay people either. We are all God's best.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: quote: Originally posted by Bibaculus: 'Innate but not God's best' is how I was told I am by a Roman catholic priest.
We can't say this. It's just wrong. We wouldn't say it about women, black people, the disabled, the lower classes... we can't say it about gay people either. We are all God's best.
Well, I agree with you. But clearly substantial numbers of Christians don't. They see being gay as a sort of impediment or misfortune.
-------------------- A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bibaculus: 'Innate but not God's best' really means 'flawed'.
But we're all flawed; that's the human condition. I should think those flaws extend to a greater or lesser degree to everyone's sexuality, too. quote: Originally posted by mdijon: We are all God's best.
I think believers are all simul iustus et peccator - both justified and sinners.
I really do struggle with this.
I know it's not easy, too many responses are trite or dimissive, and that a cishet happily married for over 30 years, as I am, has zero chance of walking in your shoes.
I've been through Bibaculus' list (or something like it) more than once in the past in my mind and rejected those comparisons as inadequate. But I can't get away - so far - from heterosexual monogamy as an archetype in the Bible, although not a few people here have almost persuaded me otherwise.
It follows that I see the Church as having some responsibility to uphold that archetype. At the same time it has a responsibility to welcome all, and to adapt to social change, and for that welcome not simply to be a sugar-coated poison pill that expects people to repent down the line, be cast out, or be sidelined. It's complicated [ 21. February 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bibaculus: Well, I agree with you. But clearly substantial numbers of Christians don't. They see being gay as a sort of impediment or misfortune.
Indeed they do. But this is where I think Paul's teaching on conscience might offer a way through. Not throwing that attitude back in their faces might mean putting up with a lot, and perhaps you think it's too much to ask considering everything you've had thrown in your face, but still...what if that's where their conscience has got them to? Can you find it in yourself to respect that, even in the face of mountains of perceived disrespect for who you are?
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: Not throwing that attitude back in their faces might mean putting up with a lot, and perhaps you think it's too much to ask considering everything you've had thrown in your face, but still...what if that's where their conscience has got them to? Can you find it in yourself to respect that, even in the face of mountains of perceived disrespect for who you are?
I have never once spoken to the homophobes with anything but politeness. I have listened until my ears bled. Did they return the courtesy? No they didn't. It was my joy on one occasion to hear my mother give one of them a real talking to - much harder to be rude to a respectable middle-aged lady than a known sodomite (a word I started playing bingo with in one General Assembly).
I didn't just "perceive" disrespect, I heard it loud and clear and overt. It got to the stage where I invented my invisible Plastic Mac of Salvation (sort of like Maxwell Smart's Cone of Silence) off which shit slid without touching me. To be honest, I don't know how some of those people could call themselves Christian, they were so rude.
I am proud of my own record of not being sucked into equal rudeness. A newspaper article once described me as "nice," and I'm happy with that. [ 22. February 2016, 02:48: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
-------------------- 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: I am proud of my own record of not being sucked into equal rudeness. A newspaper article once described me as "nice," and I'm happy with that.
Well, more power to you.
That said, "rudeness" and "disrespect" aren't quite the same thing, are they? And, um, with respect, speaking to someone with politeness isn't synonymous with respect, any more than disagreement is synonymous with disrespect.
You might feel that the historic and disproportionate mountain of disrespect on one side of the argument cannot and should not simply be ignored, and you might not be wrong, but I can't help wondering whether the path to greater acceptance might involve setting that debt aside.
At the risk of sounding cheesy, this is one of the things I find so attractive about Jesus. He had this knack of confronting people whilst respecting them, and not letting their disrespect (or ire) get to him. A hard trick to pull off, but one I aspire to imitate (with nowhere near as much success as I would like, I admit).
In the LGBT debate (as elsewhere) I try and seek out those on either side who I feel have arrived at their views with humilty and sincerity, and who do respect (at least as people) those who differ, and then try and get them talking to each other.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: At the risk of sounding cheesy, this is one of the things I find so attractive about Jesus. He had this knack of confronting people whilst respecting them, and not letting their disrespect (or ire) get to him. A hard trick to pull off, but one I aspire to imitate (with nowhere near as much success as I would like, I admit).
Jesus got so annoyed with one group of people he went after them with a whip. He called another group "whitewashed tombs". Maybe I'm not getting the line between respect and politeness right but Jesus seemed to think rudeness and anger were entirely appropriate in some situations. Those of us not possessed of divine insight, of course, are better advised to err on the side of moderation.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I concede that, in fact I was waiting for someone to bring it up! I'm sure there's a place for militancy and activism too (just not my temperament). But part of Jesus' art was to get the timing right and not make a habit of it - thus making it all the more, um, striking. Also, I think he had his anger directed at the correct target. [ 22. February 2016, 05:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: But part of Jesus' art was to get the timing right and not make a habit of it - thus making it all the more, um, striking. Also, I think he had his anger directed at the correct target.
That's interesting. In a couple of sentences (to avoid going too Kerygmaniay) it has always seemed to me that he directed his anger at the wrong targets - not the Romans, not Herod, not those Jews who were selling their own brethren, not the woman-in-adultery, not the Samaritans.. etc but the religious authorities who (arguably) were only doing what they were told to do by the deity. And the whole temple incident is pretty bizarre when one contemplates that JC appeared to believe that the religion of "temple and place" was being overturned and that the Kingdom of God was not a physical place but something that lived within believers wherever they were. Wouldn't it have been better to leave the temple in a huff proclaiming that God didn't live there no more?
Anyway, I think that the problem with these things is that they're open to equal and opposite claims. Who actually would Jesus be angry with today?
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: In the LGBT debate (as elsewhere) I try and seek out those on either side who I feel have arrived at their views with humilty and sincerity, and who do respect (at least as people) those who differ, and then try and get them talking to each other.
I can't work out if this is really patronising or what! I'm not just talking about my views, I'm talking about my life. I think this is a huge divide that those who are on the other side from me just don't get. When they start talking about promiscuous homosexuals, to take an extremely common example, they're not even pretending a basic respect for the person in front of them. Were I to raise, for instance, the number of divorced members of General Assembly, I'd be shouted down in flames for being too personal.
They are allowed to be full members of the church, I was not, and they were determined that it would stay that way. That is not a position from which respect can easily happen in either direction. The humility has to start with recognition of the power differential - which means it has to start with the powerful. My experience was that virtually every gay or lesbian person in my position is very respectful because we feel we have to be squeaky clean.
Did my politeness and willingness to engage earn me any respect? If you consider letters that suggested I would be struck down by lightening respectful...
My partner sat on a General Assembly Special Committee to consider sexuality. She was the only out person on the committee of 7, which also included people from the other end of the spectrum of views. They sat for 3 years, traveling up and down the country gathering the views of the church. It received more submissions than any Special Committee had ever received. At the end of the process, they produced a report that essentially said that the church (meaning all the church, not just clergy) was generally positively inclined towards LGBT people and supported a doctrinal change. There was one contrary opinion, couched in the usual judgemental language about gay and lesbian people.
Assembly tabled and shelved it, wouldn't discuss it. That was about 20 years ago now, and from where I sit, things have got worse. As an example of gross disrespect, it ranks right up there, given the real attempts at dialogue and prayerful consideration that the committee undertook right around the country.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: But part of Jesus' art was to get the timing right and not make a habit of it - thus making it all the more, um, striking. Also, I think he had his anger directed at the correct target.
That's interesting. In a couple of sentences (to avoid going too Kerygmaniay) it has always seemed to me that he directed his anger at the wrong targets - not the Romans, not Herod, not those Jews who were selling their own brethren, not the woman-in-adultery, not the Samaritans.. etc but the religious authorities who (arguably) were only doing what they were told to do by the deity. And the whole temple incident is pretty bizarre when one contemplates that JC appeared to believe that the religion of "temple and place" was being overturned and that the Kingdom of God was not a physical place but something that lived within believers wherever they were. Wouldn't it have been better to leave the temple in a huff proclaiming that God didn't live there no more?
Anyway, I think that the problem with these things is that they're open to equal and opposite claims. Who actually would Jesus be angry with today?
He could also have been prophesying the destruction of the temple and deportation of Israel, as so many of the Fathers assumed, and done so as a living parable, like the prophets of old: Jeremy and his pot, Isaiah and his prostitute spouse escaping through a hole in his house's wall, Amos (was it?) and his plumb line... That would explain the violence away.
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: I can't work out if this is really patronising or what!
I've been agonising since I posted about whether it would come across that way, it certainly wasn't intended to; sorry. quote: I'm not just talking about my views, I'm talking about my life. I think this is a huge divide that those who are on the other side from me just don't get. (...) Were I to raise, for instance, the number of divorced members of General Assembly, I'd be shouted down in flames for being too personal.
Yes, I agree this is completely and utterly unfair. I don't think it's made any easier by the fact that a lot of straight people don't feel their identity is bound up with their orientation or sexuality to the extent I perceive a lot of gay people do. It's easy not to realise how 'my' "view" hits home at 'your' "life".
(As I type I'm wondering if "straight privilege" might be a thing in the same way "white privilege" is.) quote: The humility has to start with recognition of the power differential - which means it has to start with the powerful.
Great point, taken. I think though that care needs to be taken to distinguigh the "powerful" from the constituency they are supposed to represent.
In my opinion the importance of this nuance is borne out by your story. The power-brokers refused to listen to the grassroots OR the specialists. They are not doing what they are supposed to (in my view) in terms of being accountable to those under them - it's not fair or constructive to take their policy as representing what everyone in their constituency thinks.
In the evangelical world (which is the one I know best) it seems to me that at grassroots level, the lines are shifting, and it's those holding the power that won't budge. If that's the case, the problem isn't intrinsically about LGBT rights but about the use and misuse of power by church authorities irrespective of the issue.
(and mr cheesy, it seems to me that that was what Jesus got mad about. Shutting up the doors to the Kingdom and not going in themselves either).
quote: As an example of gross disrespect, it ranks right up there, given the real attempts at dialogue and prayerful consideration that the committee undertook right around the country.
Yes, I admit it does. Sigh. Maybe it's time to braid a whip after all [ 22. February 2016, 08:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
'In the evangelical world (which is the one I know best) it seems to me that at grassroots level, the lines are shifting, and it's those holding the power that won't budge.'
It may very well be so. I hear and read this all the time but I'm not sold. It's also very much part of the useful idiocy problem. A gay couple I know even attended St Mark's, Battersea Rise. They've given up now. They certainly fell from a very great height when they discovered what the staff were up to, bringing the parish under conservative African oversight and whatnot. Similarly, whenever faced with the gay question, Gumbel always comes up with: 'oh, but loads of gay people attend Alpha, there's even one held in (insert notorious gay American neighbourhood). We don't discriminate, we just let God do his work'... and presumably convict them of sin and call them to repentance some way down the line. Quite a few evangelical vicars I know toe the same line: everyone's welcome; it's not our job to convict, we'll just love them and preach the Gospel, God will show them...' but the Gospel they preach is pretty uncompromising in the first place and the very presence of gay people in their congregations, aka useful idiots, allows them to show they're not hateful in the slightest. [ 22. February 2016, 08:56: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Eutychus:
quote: In my opinion the importance of this nuance is borne out by your story. The power-brokers refused to listen to the grassroots OR the specialists. They are not doing what they are supposed to (in my view) in terms of being accountable to those under them - it's not fair or constructive to take their policy as representing what everyone in their constituency thinks.
In the evangelical world (which is the one I know best) it seems to me that at grassroots level, the lines are shifting, and it's those holding the power that won't budge. If that's the case, the problem isn't intrinsically about LGBT rights but about the use and misuse of power by church authorities irrespective of the issue.
This suddenly shot me into a different situation altogether, but one which may be relevant.
In science, and other disciplines, there is often just such refusal to move, just such opprobrium scattered about, though without being associated with Yukk, or backed up by Scripture.
I witnessed a most appalling row in the English Placenames Society about size of the Danish "micel here", as heated as if the great army were advancing down the A1, and anyone disagreeing were a traitor, about to allow them in. I've been told about the geological conference at which the evidence for sea-floor spreading was presented, and the academics who had been set against the ideas of Alfred Wegener about continental drift walked out in huffs. I've noticed recently how suddenly the heated argument that there was absolutely nothing of the Neanderthal in any moderns has totally disappeared (there may have been an element of Yukk about that one, with interspecies miscegenation being involved.) I have seen it said that the changes that overtake science do not happen because people change their minds, but that the old holders of the old views leave the field in some way or other.
The people in power, whether in the church, or in these other fields, may well be holding on to their position rather than the truth, and any challenge to their belief challenges their position, and their perception of themselves.
How much that may be mixed up with the visceral feelings and Biblical literalism of the gay issue I am not sure, but this thread has led me to think it may be. [ 22. February 2016, 08:58: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: 'everyone's welcome; it's not our job to convict, we'll just love them and preach the Gospel, God will show them...'
My default pastoral position on just about anything is "God will show them...". The challenge revolves around the limits of acceptability of whatever it is that God shows them, and/or leaders thinking they can legitimately second-guess what that will be.
And a further challenge involves leaving space for different people to come to different conclusions (back to conscience again)(*).
I dropped in to see a gay acquaintance in another city a few weeks back (on a completely unrelated issue!). I had kind of assumed he had given up on church because he'd given up on christianity in exchange for resuming a gay relationship.
When I discovered he hadn't given up on christianity, I assumed he'd stayed away because of condemnation. What he told me was that he was convinced he was engaged in sinful behaviour, but enjoyed it too much to give it up (and was worried about his partner becoming a christian and thus splitting up with him). I mention this headache merely to point out that there are, I think, as many cases of conscience here as there are people and ideally, the church needs to find room for them all.
Again, I think this is where the "innate but not God's ideal" paradigm can help - if applied across the board.
To take another example, there's a world of difference between a remarried couple of divorcees turning up in your church fully conscious of the fact that things didn't work out the first time and hoping not to be thrown out, denied communion, and so on, and someone storming out of a church and setting up another one in an attempt to legitimise their marriage to their mistress on the grounds of their lovechild sealing the relationship, citing David and Bathsheba as support (this is someone I knew!).
quote: the very presence of gay people in their congregations, aka useful idiots, allows them to show they're not hateful in the slightest.
Again, I think this is a bit unfair unless you tie down who "they" are. I'd guess the motives and attitudes vary across the congregation. The function of "useful idiot" is dependent on the motives and attitudes of those in power.
(*) I got nettled on the UK civil partnerships thread because it seemed to me that this was precisely what was lacking on the part of several critics.
(Penny S, I am currently struggling with translating some horrendous (for me) geology, so your example spoke powerfully to me, although perhaps not in the way you anticipated... certainly food for thought)
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I've never heard of 'innate but not God's ideal' before, and it's certainly an interesting, not to say, astonishing idea. I suppose it could be applied to lots of things, for example, snot. And masturbation? Not sure if that's innate though.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I've never heard of 'innate but not God's ideal' before, and it's certainly an interesting, not to say, astonishing idea. I suppose it could be applied to lots of things, for example, snot. And masturbation? Not sure if that's innate though.
I think a more frequent comparison is with disabilities rather than bodily fluids
That's not without disagreement either - there are some Christians with a disability who view their bodies as "broken", and others who take the line that God intended their body to be blind / deaf / unable to walk / whatever.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: I don't think it's made any easier by the fact that a lot of straight people don't feel their identity is bound up with their orientation or sexuality to the extent I perceive a lot of gay people do.
Yes, in just the same way that white people don't feel our identity is bound up in being white because we don't have to think about it, since it's presumed to be the default setting. A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: (As I type I'm wondering if "straight privilege" might be a thing in the same way "white privilege" is.)
I think you are on to something here.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: I've noticed recently how suddenly the heated argument that there was absolutely nothing of the Neanderthal in any moderns has totally disappeared (there may have been an element of Yukk about that one, with interspecies miscegenation being involved.)
I hope this doesn't seem petty if I point out that it may well have been data that changed this one. Genome sequencing data have shown pretty clearly that there is a lot of Neanderthal DNA in modern European humans. I suspect that people really have changed their minds, or if they haven't they only talk about it quietly and can't make a fuss.
Also (perhaps even more petty) interspecies miscegenation doesn't seem like a sensible term to me. Miscegenation is a non-biological term with a lot of racist baggage attached to it - and the completely unscientific idea that race was a term with biological meaning. It isn't and doesn't have any useful scientific evidence or meaning.
If two individuals can breed and produce fertile offspring then strictly speaking they are of the same species (although people fudge and probably have to fudge about subspecies). So I think we are left with the conclusion that Neanderthals were humans rather than a separate species.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: innate but not God's best
How on earth is could this be proper theology in a Christian context?
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: (As I type I'm wondering if "straight privilege" might be a thing in the same way "white privilege" is.)
I think you are on to something here.
Why is this even a question? Of course there is straight privilege. Any group which is considered the default will have a built-in privilege even in the absence active discrimination. It is human nature.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: Why is this even a question?
For my part, because that's just how far I've got in my thinking. I apologise for not being as penetratingly lucid in all areas as you expected
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: quote: Originally posted by Penny S: I've noticed recently how suddenly the heated argument that there was absolutely nothing of the Neanderthal in any moderns has totally disappeared (there may have been an element of Yukk about that one, with interspecies miscegenation being involved.)
I hope this doesn't seem petty if I point out that it may well have been data that changed this one. Genome sequencing data have shown pretty clearly that there is a lot of Neanderthal DNA in modern European humans. I suspect that people really have changed their minds, or if they haven't they only talk about it quietly and can't make a fuss.
Also (perhaps even more petty) interspecies miscegenation doesn't seem like a sensible term to me. Miscegenation is a non-biological term with a lot of racist baggage attached to it - and the completely unscientific idea that race was a term with biological meaning. It isn't and doesn't have any useful scientific evidence or meaning.
If two individuals can breed and produce fertile offspring then strictly speaking they are of the same species (although people fudge and probably have to fudge about subspecies). So I think we are left with the conclusion that Neanderthals were humans rather than a separate species.
It was the intensity of the older attitude that led me to include it in my list, and its dogmatism, and I deliberately referenced racism in inventing the term about miscegenation, because there had seemed to be something visceral about it, in the same way that people respond negatively to women priests and to gays. There had seemed to be something irrational about it, back in the day when no-one could possibly have known either way. (I do recall reading from an academic from Trinity College Dublin, who took the other view, the suggestion that if one got hold of a Neanderthal man, shaved him and dressed him in modern clothes, he would attract no attention on the banks of the Liffey. (I suppose that being Irish he was allowed to say that.)) [ 22. February 2016, 17:29: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: Why is this even a question?
For my part, because that's just how far I've got in my thinking. I apologise for not being as penetratingly lucid in all areas as you expected
My comment really wasn't meant to be rude or dismissive, but your comment truly surprised me. Though we often disagree, I do respect your intent and intellect. So, when something that seems obvious to me wasn't so to you, I was a bit nonplussed. But then, that is the nature of such privilege; it is transparent to those who posses it.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: that is the nature of such privilege; it is transparent to those who posses it.
Exactly. It has however given me an unexpected and great train of thought for a forthcoming preaching engagement on the subject of minorities, so all is not lost.
(I promise this is not a homework thread).
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RuthW: Yes, in just the same way that white people don't feel our identity is bound up in being white because we don't have to think about it, since it's presumed to be the default setting. A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.
Quite. I find it really interesting that these days I hardly ever experience homophobia except indirectly here and in the media when a church person says something unfortunate. We're thinking about moving cities, to a more provincial area, and all of a sudden, the spectre has arisen.
We noticed it, unexpectedly, in the difference between real estate agents here and in the other city. Here, the agents we've met treated us with respect (admittedly with dollar signs in their eyes, given the location of our house): there, we noticed the doubletake when we introduced ourselves as a couple. Not in every case - there was one major and hilarious exception, who clearly had some ideas about houses suitable for lesbians, who took us to his heart - but in most. The mighty dollar asserted its primacy and they generally got over their little moment quite quickly.
-------------------- 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Not in every case - there was one major and hilarious exception, who clearly had some ideas about houses suitable for lesbians,
What would that be? Needed DIY? Built-in denim press? A Timberland 'round the corner? Already had an Ani DeFranco mural? What?
Please tell me you told him it was your second date...
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Tangent on lesbian houses:
He showed us beautiful old cottages, with gardens, often with interesting sculptures and artworks. Which, to be fair, is what we live in now (although our house is quite a bit bigger than most cottages). And they were all lovely. But...
What we're looking for is a large modern house with more than one bathroom, a large kitchen, no repair work needed, and yes, a garden.
We are emphatically NOT DIY lesbians, and we want to be able to grow our own food, and entertain lavishly.
Tangent over
-------------------- 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RuthW: A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.
I think you'd have to live in a gay/black/brown society, not just a neighbourhood, for that to be close to true.
I'm a white Brit, living in a community which is mostly white Americans, with a few Americans of color. So the thing that distinguishes me from most of my neighbours is my Britishness.
Now, Britishness is certainly part of my identity - it encapsulates a set of cultural assumptions and references that I have - but it's not any more part of my identity than it was when I was a white Brit living in Britain, surrounded by a whole bunch of other white Brits.
British forms a significant part of the way my neighbours see me, but not nearly such a large part of the way I see myself.
I imagine if I was living in a mostly black area, the situation would be similar. I'd be recognized and thought of as the white guy, but I wouldn't see "white" as a significant part of the way I see myself.
Put me in a universe where there's widespread discrimination against white folks, and I might find that I choose to identify more strongly with other people of pallor.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|