We’ve featured a couple of posts here about the upheavals in the Anglican Church over conservative bishops’ hatred of teh gay, and the farce that is the Lambeth Conference, where openly gay American Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson has been prohibited from attending - alone of all the 800 something bishops worldwide. At the earlier conservative meeting in Jerusalem, GAFCON, where Sydney’s own Archbishop Jensen was among the movers and shakers, the pr line was that the conservative African bishops were only concerned with the purity of the biblical faith, standing against all the terrible first world postmodern relativism.
In fact, the story of Nigerian Christian gay rights activist Davis Mac-Iyalla, who has just been granted asylum by the British government, goes a long way towards demonstrating what is actually at stake in the alleged Christianity of the Nigerian church’s hierarchy. As does their attitude towards legislation proposed in Nigeria last year. All this is very far from some genteel doctrinal dispute, or a culture war only violent in its rhetoric.
Dear Kim
If the Nigerians and the Jensenites are the answer then - pardon moi french - but what was the fucking answer again?
At least the Catholics can point to a few hundred lousy years of persecution…all the the fucking Anglicans can point to is the spurting bloody neck of Anne Boyleyn and others. Torture and murder may be the Catholic stock-in-trade for 1700 years but they were not as ‘built-in’ as they were with these fucking Anglican fucking pukes.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Leviticus 20:13
There doesn’t seem to be much wriggle room in the Christian Operating Manual.
‘Question’ I mean. Not answer.
Mel,
Sadly the Christian Operating Manual is a huge document written by many different authors, most of whom disagree. The Levitical code is not used as a moral guide for much else in modern society, but someone always drags it up to justify homophobia. Accepting same-sex relationships on exactly the same basis as opposite sex ones is very much a modern phenomenon, though there have certainly been some interesting blurring of the boundaries in various societies across the centuries.
The interesting thing about the C.O.M is how much more it has to say about financial misdemeanours (charging interest is one example) than about same-sex relationships. At my last count there were six references to same-sex relationships in the bible directly versus hundreds about money issues. Sadly the Nigerian bishops and their like cannot kick up too much of a fuss about those, otherwise they wouldn’t have a congregation at all. Much easier to stick with something they personally feel they can avoid (at least in public)!
At what point does this sentence approach acceptable language anywhere, professor rat?
Professor,
There seems to be a lot of hate built up in your system about the Church of England and its various affiliates around the world. Is there a reason for this?
.
mel,
Christianity also does not now call for adulterers to be stoned - at least not with rocks. It is and remains silent on the use of marijuana. The Mosaic law is considered non-binding in most modern Christian Churches, including the Church of England. Not even the Southern Baptists would (I think) call for death to adulterers, particularly as this would (most likely) at least decimate the congregations.
The rebuttal of the biblical arguments is well known:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/minorities/GLBT.html
What I’m trying to get at in the post is not to restage that discussion yet again, but to point out that the Nigerian bishops are not in fact just acting for the reasons that they claim to, but defending a culture of violent homophobia which they not only refuse to condemn but actively fuel.
Kim,
I agree, and I feel their words and actions are incompatible with a profession of a faith that is meant to be centred on God’s love for His people. That incompatibility, though, should not be allowed to cloud the doctrinal question merely by association.
It almost inevitably does, though, Andrew, because they try to reconcile all this with “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
Kim,
It is possible to “…love the sinner…” without considering that (what you believe to be) the sinner should be a bishop and therefore a senior guider of the flock and instructing them in the correct moral path.
I believe the Church’s teaching on this to be that we all are guilty of various sins at various times of our lives - but that we should try to stop committing them and confess them (in the Anglican Church to ourselves at least).
Wilfully and openly persisting in them should be a disqualification for office, particularly senior office. If you believe that homosexual activity is a sin then active homosexuals should be disqualified from offices involving moral instruction in the Church. The conservative bishops believe homosexuality to be a sin and they therefore believe themselves duty bound to take the position they have.
I would add that, to me at least, any bishops or priests advocating the persecution of homosexuals on any basis are promoting a sinful activity (as understood by the Church) and so, to the extent that they may be doing so they should also be disqualified from office.
mel Leviticus also says that, like sodomy, eating shellfish is “an abomination” (11:10), that he who disses his parent should be put to death (20:9), and that you should keep foreigners as slaves, including legal temporary residents (25:44).
Actually, I like the last - I could do with a couple of attractive young Chinese student slaves.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
The key word here is “lie”. If we’re going to be biblical literalists, then Leviticus is telling us that sex standing up between two men is OK, as is one of them kneeling with other standing, etc.
Also, there’s nothing there about girl-on-girl action, so that’s fine too.
The brothers Jensen were prominent in Adelaide 30 or 40 years ago. They were arseholes then, as well. They had (and obviously still have) an unhealthy obsession with other peoples’ sex lives and choice of entertainment.
Andrew at 10, the position of the Anglican Church is highly contradictory, in that Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference referred back to a previous discussion paper in 1991 which accepted that “genital relationships” (charming, isn’t it?) among same sex partners could be legitimate. (Since the whole focus was and is on clergy, perhaps the fact that this paper predated the ordination of women accounts for the lack of discussion of female same sex partnerships, or perhaps there are other reasons for that). Both the paper and the resolution were only interim and advisory respectively, but within the context of intra-Anglican politics, are now being treated as holy writ by the conservatives. The Episcopal Church, within accepted understandings of authority in Anglicanism, was well within its rights to ignore them both. As I’ve commented recently, this struggle is far more about power within the Anglican Communion than its ostensible subject. The Lambeth Conference is now considering establishing a body comparable to the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Inquisition). That’s the context for it now. It’s important - as the post does - to highlight the extreme hypocrisy of the pronouncements of the conservatives as well as their other agendas.
Incidentally, the South African Bishops have no particular problem with the decision of the Episcopal Church - which contradicts the “Global South v. Western liberalism” framework the conservatives like to propose. They reason that churches in Africa have bigger fish to fry in terms of justice issues, and they also hold to the formerly widely accepted notion of toleration within Anglicanism.
Perhaps African Bishops may have teh gays declared to be honorary albinos.
Then they could be eaten.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7527729.stm
End of problem.
*/end Swiftian parody.
Mark,
I am (broadly) aware of the context, but I think that the point needs to be discussed (if possible) without this clouding the issue. To me violent homophobia is an issue seperate from whether active homosexuals are appropriate people to be giving moral guidance in the Church of England and its associated churches. I have my own views on this and they have changed over time - but, whatever my views have been, I have seen no need to disparage those of the opposing views purely on this basis.
To me violent homophobia, or homophobia generally, is a cut and dried issue - it must be opposed whenever and whereever it rears its ugly head - but this can and should be seen as seperate from the issue of whether it is appropriate from an active homosexual to provide moral guidance.
I also feel it inappropriate, and wrong, for the “conservatives” to be described as motivated by “…hatred of teh gay”. There may be a few bishops who feel this way ( I do not know) but this is an important question for many and I do not think that all, or even most, of them are motivated by hatred.
BTW Katz - it may have been funny, but I think your joke there is inappropriately close to be incredibly racist.
Andrew, that’s an odd way of framing the issue, I think. Some of those who are opposed to gay ordination are on the Catholic side of the Anglican fence and would see the primary function of priesthood as ministering the sacraments. The evangelicals, I think, would see ordination as about recognition of spiritual “headship”. Your comment could be read as suggesting that same sex attracted people are incapable of or less capable of giving moral guidance to others - an assumption I’d want to strongly contest - but maybe that’s an artefact of how you’ve worded it.
Mark,
All I was saying was that there are those who take that position and, contrary to what Kim seems to be implying in the post, I do not believe that for the majority of those taking that position it is motivated by “…hatred of teh gay”.
In any case, I was very careful to limit that to active homosexuals, the position that, as I understand it, those opposed to Robinson’s ordination are taking. I am not aware of many, if any, that would argue that celibate homosexuals should not be ordained. Apart from anything else that would probably rule out many current and former bishops, some of whom would be on the “conservative” side on this issue.
Well, indeed, Andrew, but note the way that Jeffrey John was bullied into resigning his appointment to the Suffragan See of Reading before his consecration, a process that Rowan Williams - in the end - put into effect. John was living with his partner, but stated that his relationship hadn’t been sexual for a long time. According to the new “orthodoxy”, that was supposed to be ok, but the bar was raised higher than it had already been set by the conservatives, and he was called on to “publicly repent”. To his credit, he refused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_John
Christ you lefties are sick and immoral. Everyone knows that when Jesus said treat others as you would have them treat you what he meant was go find some fags and kick the shit out of them. It’s Christian love.
Thing is Leviticus also prohibits the wearing of cotton blends and the eating of rabbit and blah blah blah. It’s been demonstrated fairly clearly that homosexuality is natural. This begs the question if God hates gays why did He create ‘em?
.
Think about that. God creates people who’re as sexually attracted to the same sex as heterosexuals are to the opposite sex. With that level of desire. And then He says: don’t do it. Sounds like a right arsehole to me.
.
Sorry but the history of religion shows that when our stock of reliable information about the cosmos increases to the point that throws into question the assumptions of established religion then the established religion is replaced by something new. It’s been a good innings 2500 years or so. See ya.
Mark,
I have been trying to keep my own views out of this, but I would agree that it was to his credit that he refused and I did not believe at the time (nor do I now) that he should have been treated the way he was.
Just to repeat myself, though - I can see the “conservatives” point (whether I agree with it or not is another question), I believe this is an approriate debate for the Church to be having and I do not think it is correct, or even fair, to be typifying it as about “…hatred of teh gay”.
Adrien,
Speak for yourself. I grew out of my S&M phase years ago.
Damn! And I was hoping you were in the market for all my rubber fetish gear!
I know I’ll go ask Birdy. He’s always live.
No that is true. However when an institution of moral authority says there’s something inherently sinful about the desires you harbour it’s not exactly pleasant is it.
Adrien,
I have harboured sinful desires all my life - some of them have even been non-sexual in nature. For example I believe that it is human to want to choke the living **** out of a person who has a particular position on fractional reserve banking. I believe the Church would probably minister against that. Perhaps not.
More seriously, though - I believe it is natural to want (from time to time) to engage in some activities that probably would be regarded as morally incorrect by the majority of the population or any church. Any such argument may be regarded as “not exactly pleasant”, but a religious organisation has a role in saying what is, or is not, morally right in their opinion. It is (IMHO) up to them to decide what that is or is not and then it is up to their members, and society at large, to take a position on it - or not to care about it. Up to them.
Andrew, I’m sorry if my flip phrase was taken the wrong way. I’d have thought the “teh” should have signalled a bit of irony. I’m sure that some of the bishops in question have genuine doctrinal concerns, while others really are homophobes. But I don’t think either motivation, or both, is easily distinguishable from (a) disputes over power and authority in the church or (b) the cultural context of sexuality.
Here’s the latest on Lambeth from Ruth Gledhill at The Times:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/07/lambeth-diary-s.html
No. You are lying.
Yes but in this respect we’re talking about a ’sin’ which involves life partnership, something ingrained. Unlike, say, stealing or throttling Graeme Bird, it doesn’t make victims of anyone. However if you think about the misery produced by compulsory heterosexuality for people who are homosexual that does produce victims. The Abrahamic faiths do have a conundrum which can’t be boiled down to bigotry. Leviticus directly prohibits male homosexuality in the direst terms. They can’t simply decide to ignore the central rule book text of their religious faiths for modern convenience.
.
However before all that is the edict that one is to treat others as one would oneself be treated. None of us would like to be forced to engage in sexual activities basically against our will and our desires. Add to this the rather axiomatic situaton that says homosexuality is not optional but innate it does provide problems.
.
My brother’s best friend at school was from a very (my brother reckons ridiculously) devout Catholic family. At the end of high school he realized he was gay. He went thru a lot of mental anguish about this and even went so far as to have my brother rent out porn movies in a bid to ‘cure’ him.
.
Naturally it didn’t work as my brother said it wouldn’t. Luckily for this kid he did have my brother who brought him around to accepting who he was. But I can’t help thinking of what transpired between him and his family afterward. Being homosexual is difficult even in the most tolerant of circumstances. For a lot of people however it means permanent alienation from family, violence, depression etc. I simply can’t square that with a loving God.
.
Neither can I square the behaviour of some Christians etc with their creed of love. As I’ve said I don’t think it appropriate to tar all religious people with bigotry but some of them for sure.
.
I’m also inclined to think of the repressive attitude to sexuality generally as dangerous. Just about every faith that makes extreme repression compulsory (and this includes non-Abrahamic faiths like the Hare Krishna movement) results in sexual crime.
AR, it is flattering that your reaction to my little joke is identical to contemporary reaction to Swift’s little joke that the starving Irish should eat their young.
The old testament stuff is more complex than that actually:
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/sodom.htm
And that’s even before you get to the issue of whether “male homosexuality” makes any sense in the Biblical cultural context:
http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/the_role_of_scr.html
Further to 29, see this excellent article by Steve Schuh from a biblical studies perspective challenging the conservative interpretation of the biblical take on same sex relations:
http://www.integritycanada.org/publications/Challenging_Conventional_Wisdom-Schuh.pdf
Adrien,
Many of the Abrahamic faiths have been ignoring the “central rule book” for centuries. I do not, for example, keep slaves - not even from nations nearby. I also eat shellfish.
As an interpretive note, most of the Mosaic law was correct for the times it was written, to help shelter and protect a militarily weak group of former slaves wandering in the desert. Like any group of laws they must be set in context - even the groups of “conservative” Protestants in the US tend to cherry-pick the laws they agree with and seem to gloss over the rest, so please cut the Mosaic stuff out of your understanding of the Abrahamic faiths.
On to the main point - you may notice if you studiously read my Delphic utterances that I have not said what my position is. I will maintain that stance.
My main motivation in engaging here is to try to help to explain why this issue is a difficult one for the church (and the Church) and to try to dispel the idea that it is driven by hatred.
.
Kim, thanks for your clarification on this. I would agree that the question has arisen from questions of the understanding of sexuality and that cultural positions are a part of this. The Church, however, has held these positions for over 2,500 years and it is only recently, and only in some areas, that the cultural ground has shifted underneath the Church to make this even an issue. The simple fact that the Anglican Church is one of the first of the major churches to start to deal with this internally to me should be cause for at least some respect, rather than the criticism than lampooning that seem to accompany it.
Stephen Bates in the Graudian on all this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/religion.gayrights?gusrc=rss&feed=commentisfree
“As an interpretive note, most of the Mosaic law was correct for the times it was written, to help shelter and protect a militarily weak group of former slaves wandering in the desert.”
Pithy summary Andrew.
And so hence, among other things, the Jewish and Moslem (another archaic sky god desert religion) prohibitions on eating pork as trichinellosis was rampant at the time in an place and era where there wasn’t enough firewood to properly cook to death the parasites in question.
And further, this culturally critical lack of firewood may explain why homosexuals and other sexual outcasts were stoned to death rather than burned to death, as they were in Europe, often at the feet of condemned witches, thus achieving the soubriquet “faggots”.
PS, there was no shortage of stones in the desert. Contrary to the famous stone-selling scene in “Life of Brian”, suitable stones could be found virtually anywhere.
The Pythons deserve to be stoned for this falsification of Bible Truth.
“homosexuals and other sexual outcasts were stoned to death rather than burned to death, as they were in Europe, often at the feet of condemned witches, thus achieving the soubriquet “faggots”.”
This has the ring of apocryphy to it, NTTAWRT. Got a cite?
Andrew -
.
I had noted that you did not express your position. I didn’t mean to infer that I was commenting upon it. Apologies if I contributed to a misunderstanding.