Posts
Wish Me Luck, I'm Going In
Last night, the Equality Bill was halted in the British House of Lords, as Tories combined with 'Bishops' to cause another headache for the government. Then the Pope weighed in, saying that the Bill could stop the Catholic church from refusing to appoint gay people to senior positions. Well, I hope it would.
In the UK media, it's come down to that one line now, over and over: Christian equals homophobic.
This situation is mostly because a noisy... I don't know if it's a minority or not, but their numbers are a long way from the full story... a noisy mob of us are. Some of those use weasel words, like 'hate the sin, love the sinner'. Some of those, with aching consciences, and I have nothing but sympathy for them, feel they have to believe that, without wanting to.
I say there's no excuse for Christian homophobia. The New Testament references are tiny. There's nothing at all from Christ. But most importantly, he told us that when the book's wrong, you chuck the book and love.
Damn it.
And there are loads of religious people who think the same way I do. Vast swathes of Anglicans, Methodists and Catholics, absolute shedloads of Quakers. Probably a whole bunch of Baptists. There will have been several Bishops who voted the other way last night, but we don't hear about them.
The current situation suits both extremist 'Christians' (and it takes a lot to make me use those inverted commas, believe me) and a media that would much prefer it if we all just grew up and became sensible atheists. Church homophobia drives an increasingly socially liberal public away, and attracts to the faith only those who are homophobic themselves.
I wish there were a Christian organisation like British Muslims for Secular Democracy, who could liaise with the various gay Christian organisations, but also include those who aren't directly involved, who just think this cause is just. Then there would be a phone number for that liberal voice that the UK media could lay their hands on. If they ever wanted to call it.
In the meantime, I've started a hashtag on Twitter: #godlyforequality. If you're on Twitter, go and have a look, and let's see if we can retweet the message a long way. It's only a tiny thing. It's the least I can do.
Frankly, it's scared the living daylights out of me to post the above. Because my greatest desire is to live as a secular person. I don't want to be the writer that 'does God'. Or at least, not any more than Tolkien or Graham Greene did. I find living outside the closet very hard. Because I'm very aware of how much we're hated. Some of that is because we deserve it. And some of that we can, and should, change.
Ahem. Tomorrow, I'll be blogging about The Indominitable Iron Man. And hiding again. Damn it.
Labels:
Christianity,
Equality Bill,
Gay equality,
LGBT rights,
The Pope
|
Well said, and good luck.
I'm agnostic, myself, but can appreciate and appalaud your position.
What Marjorie said.
I'm glad to see that this is something you feel strongly about, Mr C. (Here's that more confident, more forthright Paul Cornell you promised us a month ago!)
I'm sorry to hear you (you-plural, generic, "you lot") feel hated - you shouldn't, and I'm not sure that you are, at least not more than any other group of people. As an atheist (but probably not a sensible one), it worries me just as much that the only ones who seem to get any press exposure are the rabid ones. Obviously being moderate and shushing Richard Dawkins aren't the kind of thing that excite the media, otherwise I'd be there.
The probable best I can personally do here is to assure you here that when I see the Pope or some other public figure claiming that it's their "right" to discriminate against people, I don't see the entire religion being spoken for, I just see one something-wit with an unpleasant interpretation of some fairly flexible source material. I'm pretty sure that other atheists feel the same, too.
Speaking as a very cranky and public atheist, good for you. I wish more Christians had the courage to speak out against Christianist bigotry.
Nothing to add other than I agree with all this. Well said, Paul.
I agree wholeheartedly with you - RT'd already, Paul.
Something that confuses me is: does the Equality Bill prevent discrimination on the basis of opinion?
What is the legal position on a church wishing, say, to reject a candidate for a position on the grounds that they have expressed opinions in sympathy with the BNP (let's say they're not a member of the BNP, as party membership is a different thing; let's just say someone with those kind of views is applying to some kind of church post)?
Or slightly closer to the point, what would be the position of a church wishing to reject an applicant who was not themselves gay, but who had expressed sentiments -- well, sentiments such as you have? Perhaps in favour of someone who is themselves gay, but celibate in accordance with that chruch's teaching? If the Bill merely bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then that should be perfectly legal (as -- in rejecting a straight candidate and hiring a gay one -- they clearly haven't discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation!), right? But I don't know if it is now or if this bill would change that.
That would still leave the door open for a challenge if a gay candidate endorsing active gay relationships were rejected and the church claimed it was on the basis of opinion (perhaps pointing to other straight candidates with unorthodox views who were also rejected) and the candidate claimed it was because of sexual orientation, and such a challenge would be very expensive and time-consuming for both sides. but that's what employment tribunals are for, to decide whether discrimination was legal or illegal (obviously lots of discrimination is legal, such as discrimination against people based on their exam results [except where they were affected by a disability, I guess -- anyone here an employment lawyer?] or which university they went to).
It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to me that organisations which are based on belief should be able to discriminate, when hiring, in favour of those who share their beliefs. One wouldn't expect Stonewall to be forced to hire someone who thinks homosexuality should be illegal, after all!
I'm not a person of any particular faith, but good for you for saying this. If it came to marching for this, I'd be happy to march with you :)
Well said. Don't worry, it's not about you being a writer that does God, it's about wanting to do what is right and end homophobia. Especially homophobia in the context of a religion, which should really understand persecution and the hypocrisy of the situation that some are propagating.
Well said, Paul. But one slight quibble:
"the Bill could stop the Catholic church from refusing to appoint gay people to senior positions".
This isn't what the Bill says, or what the Bishops and Pope object to. Senior positions - like the clergy itself - have special exemption, so the Bill does not require the church to appoint women, gay or non-Christian vicars.
But churches also employ lay people to manage the accounts, work in their little shops, clean the toilets, etc. The Bill argues that these positions should be treated just as any other business under employment law and without discrimination. Generally, the law has this idea that the same rules should apply to everyone, with as few exemptions as possible.
Having sat through some of the debate in the Lords, the Bishops' objection seemed to have conscientious objections to employing women or gay or non-Christian people on equal terms. It might be seen as a church condoning such people, and it might mean - horror! - that church people would have to work with, speak to or even brush against them.
SK is wrong: it's not like Stonewall being forced to employ someone who thought homosexuality was wrong. Why would you employ someone actively opposed to the purpose of your organisation? But Stonewall would be in trouble if they discriminated against a candidate for, say, answering the phone, because they happened to be straight.
It was fascinating watching the Bishops twist themselves in knots over the issue of gayness. Being gay, it seems, is okay; *practising* gay is not. I recommend Lord Lester of Herne Hill's patient replies to this, available online in Hansard.
Another argument is that the law shouldn't interfere in the workings of the church - that the church answers to a higher authority. At least in England, that's not been true since Henry VIII split with Rome, though the first time the law proscribed religious practice was the 1548 First Act of Uniformity, under Edward VI.
But when the law is having to insist that churches show tolerance you feel something might have gone askew.
I applaud, and totally agree, with your sentiments. I suspect if I lived in Britain right now, I would have left the C of E in protest between the Bishops' behaviour in the Lords over the Equality Bill and The Archbishop of Canterbury's haste to issue vehement press releases against every appointment of a gay bishop in North America and then doing the exact opposite to condemn a violently homophobic regime in Uganda.
But what you remind me that perhaps one shouldn't spend so much time being embarrassed by the negative examples of their faith group and instead aspiring to model better behaviour. That's not a bad idea.
Thank you so, so much. I was raised Catholic, and still consider myself Catholic even though The Church probably wouldn't. I still love God even though I don't know how best to thank/interact with God except for just telling God so, which I still do. How I feel about The Church goes something like this: they're like family that I love very much, but hardly ever visit, because whenever I go over there we have nothing to talk about, and then it just ends up being this really awkward dinner where I stay in the basement playing video games with the kids, because they seem like the only sensible ones in the whole place.
And could I pick up the phone and call more? Yes I could. And I've tried over the years. But I also wish Catholicism would call me once in a while. I feel like they've lost my number.
And yet if anyone talks trash about my family, I'm the first person to jump to their defense, pointing out their good qualities, and letting people know that despite my family being really loud and obnoxious sometimes, they're good people. And while there are one or two members of my family that I'd rather weren't related to me, I love them, too, because they're the only family I've got.
I know we don't know each other, so I don't know how much this will mean, but I'm very proud of you for posting what you did, especially since it was difficult. Just because someone is secular doesn't mean they can't also have religion - they aren't mutually exclusive and it bothers me no end that people seem so determined to have SIDES. It seems we can't define ourselves without labeling an "other." It just sucks that we can't leave it at that without making that Other "less than."
Lastly, I wanted to show you this:
http://tinyurl.com/yj2fg8b
It's a blog post (with some great photos!) about my participation in last year's National Equality March in Washington DC. You'll notice that the first picture is of me with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church...well, not WITH so much as in front of and trying to block out her hate with my bright pink, smiley love. :) I think we should all do what we can to make sure that everyone is treated with respect. I'm going to Twitter right now to RT your hashtag, and will do so all day.
Thank you, Paul, for speaking up. Both for gay rights AND for religion. I agree with you that more people want to than do - but they're afraid. But all it takes is a few brave souls to step up and speak first, and suddenly everyone will want to raise their hand. :)
Thanks for clearing that up, Simon. There's so many claims and counter-claims floating about about the Bill that it's hard to know what its effect will actually be (for example, I saw one claim that the exemption for clergy referred to those who are employed in 'wholly or mainly' doctrinal positions, so if a minister spent more time doing administrative work than preaching (and I'm sure a lot would say it feels like they do!) then a case could be brought that that position wasn't covered by an exemption.
So, from first-hand knowledge you can say that (a) clergy are exempted however much of their time they spend organising rotas rather than preaching, and (b) where relevant it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of opinion (Stonewall don't have to employ someone -- straight or gay -- with views they disagree with to answer the 'phone, and a church doesn't have to employ someone -- straight or gay -- with views they disagree with to run their youth club) as long as it is the opinion, and not the sexual orientation of the person, that's the factor?
In that case, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the Bill.
The injunction against homosexuality in the old testament lists it - with no special emphasis - in a long list of behaviors that includes adultery, and being "disobedient to parents." Would love to see the Church take a hard line stand against anyone who disobeyed their folks. Of course, the OT prescribed response to that was stoning. Funny how they chose what to throw out and what to keep. Good on you, Paul.
Great post. Stay out of the closet and show the world that not all Christians are homophobic.
And keep doing that great secular writing. It's what you were born to do.
Andrew Wooding
The church still takes a fairly dim view of adultery, though.
Thank you so much for this. As an AmeriBrit in the States, it's hard to see all the ways that the U.S. lags behind the U.K. (not just healthcare, but things like my landlord being so proud that he just installed HE washing machines!), but it still feels a little safer and easier to be queer here. I'm glad to have another ally in the global fight to keep religious leaders from having the last word on whether we're real people.
P.S. I assume your fight is in behalf of those who are bisexual, trans, intersex, and so on; to that end, would you mind swapping out "gay" for "LGBT"?
Well Paul Sticking Your Head above The Parapet, means I have become aware of Your Blog! So things cannot be all bad.
(@Lou - it is also listed in the New Testament, which isn't so easily discarded as the Old.)
I'm one of the Christians who says love the sinner & hate the sin, but I recognize most people don't know how to do that; it's theoretical and people aren't good with that, they need examples and personification, and there goes any attempt at fulfilling the statement.
Showing love to a person whilst disagreeing with their lifestyle isn't easy, but no one said it would be. But it's no different from how we are called to love any sinner, and we're all sinners, I don't get the emphasis on certain sins. It's all detestable to God, including the majority of Christians' bigotry & pride.
It saddens me that the Church is so known for what it is against than what it is for, and it shouldn't be against anything, really, judgment isn't ours. There are obvious things, like hatred of God, blasphemers and false prophets, okay, we could be against those, because our war is NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD (aka other people) but against Satan & his fallen angels. But we are called first to love and we don't do it. It's more than a shame, it's a sin in its own right.
As a catholic I've experienced a vast lack of knowledge in the public about my religion. Its all influenced by the media. They'll have you believe I'm a homophobic paedophile who was never taught evolution. Its just not true. I know Christians are a majority but that only makes the hate thats forwarded to us seem acceptable and its obviously not. I tell people I'm all about 'common sense christianity', a religion based on the ethics of 'love one another as I have loved you' rather than the baggage that comes with it because that is all influenced by human nature. Treat others like fellow human beings and you'll never go wrong.
Thank you, sir. As a queer agnostic, I find it most reassuring to see a Christian speaking out against bigotry!
I think this might be the liberal Christian voice you are looking for Paul:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11103
Well said Paul and don't be afraid to voice your opinion OR your faith - they are both yours after all :o)
Hey Paul,
I am an American Christian. My brother-in-law is gay which has made me think more about this issue. If the church opinion is right, that homosexuality is a sin, what makes that sin any worse than adultery, theft, hatred or any number of sins?
With one exception,disbelief,Christ did not rank sins.
I am not a writer, but I believe you should write about what you care about.
Hi Paul,
I'm here via Jay Lake's signal boost. Thanks for what you are doing. I am a Christian and feel the same as you.
I meant to add this onto my last comment.
As Christians we may not agree with each other on all of the issues. I do not find any problem with this. I believe that all of the different denominations of Christianity struggle mightily with "getting it right." We are sinful humans who are not perfect.
I think you identified the problem. You feel hated for being a Christian. It is ok to be on fire with the Holy Spirit and hold different opinions than other Christians.
Christians spend too much time hiding from what they are.
I have every sympathy with you. For 20 years I struggled to be an evangelical Christian in a family of militant athiests. A mixture of things drove me away - Christian friends dancing on the grave of my marriage when it ran into difficulties, exposure to different views on-line and the completely unjustified (and unjustifiable) removal of a thoroughly decent young man from youth work when he came out as a non-practising homosexual.
Moderates never make interesting copy. It happens with nonbelievers, too - they all get labelled as militant athiests. Philip Pullman has said publicly on many occasions that he considers himself to be an agnostic, but his anti-clericalism is almost invariably equated with shrill and strident atheism.
There used to be, and probably still is, a Lesbian and Gay Christian movement - although to be honest we don't need issue-driven campaigning, we need moderate religious people to stand up and be counted. I can see that as an SF/comic writer and a Christian, you do feel doubly isolated at times. I'm not really familiar with your work outside New Who, but speaking from that particular persepctive, it's interesting that all those "athiest" writers so often cast the Doctor as a God or suffering Christ figure. It's a story that still resonates with people and it seems that we can take Doctor Who away from God but we can't, somehow, take the God - lonely or otherwise - out of the Doctor.
I support you and I believe in G-d.
Well spoken sir. I'm glad that you have received so much positive feedback.
In the US as well, as you're undoubtedly aware, all of the loudest (or perhaps just all?) organizations shouting against LGBT+ rights are based in Christian conservatism. It is highly comforting to hear the voices of Christians promoting a loving and affirming practice of their faith, and it seems from the comments that plenty of other people understand how that voice is marginalized.
Much support, appreciation, and retweeting, from one more queer on a path of sexual and religious seeking.
I admire you for standing up and being counted for your beliefs and as someone who is cheesed off with the Christian=homophobe equation I'm happy to agree with you. However there are a couple of things that you said which I'd like to address.
"Some of those use weasel words, like 'hate the sin, love the sinner'."
Whilst I agree that it is a trite saying, I fail to see why it is a weasely sentiment. Christ taught us to love, but also to be ruthless with sin in our lives. Does this not equate to loving sinners (seeing as we all are) whilst hating the sin that we see ourselves (primarily) and others doing?
"But most importantly, he told us that when the book's wrong, you chuck the book and love."
Whilst this is obviously in the form of paraphrase I can't for the life of me work out which of Christ's words you're trying to paraphrase here.
Like Jay, I'm also a cranky and sometimes outspoken atheist; like Jay, I also thank you for this, and wish more Christians (or hell, more believers in general, regardless of their brand) spoke out for equality and against bigotry like you have.
This only increases the already sky-high opinion I have of you, sir. Well done.
Thank you for this, I agree with all that you say. Thank you also for being prepared to say it - I am a Christian who is surrounded by passionate atheists so spend my life in that secular closet. I have found today's wave of people whose work I admire and follow tweeting openly about their faith completely inspiring.
I don't pretend to know all the issues because am not in the least bit political.
However, speaking as someone who walked away from the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 14. I've always had issues with it and many things have never sat right with me. The biggest ones for me was the way they viewed the women's role back then and the fact that they'd exclude someone based on sexuality and such. Never did sit well with me.
In fact most my experiences in the catholic church, and we're talking several different churches. Were pretty bad.
Like John Toon says the Pope is an individual, and his views are not necessarily going to gel with exhibit - A or exhibit -B. Though the fact that the Pope who is supposed to be the religious leader of the Free World is preaching that homosexuals should be excluded isn't good.
No one should be excluded from ANY RELIGION. Everyone regardless of colour or sexual orientation should have the right to join a church.
Paul: my interpretation is. The new testimant references are next to none existent and can easily be put down to the fact that the Bible was translated into English from ancient Hebrew. It's also a well known fact that the bible wasn't written til 100 years after the fact and possibly by those who didn't bare witness who are writing from what has been passed down via the oral tradition.
I mean, there is lots of room for interpretation, I mean if I were to tell a story to someone and it got passed down a line of 10 or 12 people that story would change somewhat. Which is what may well have happened when it came to writing the bible. As in those who wrote the different chapters and verses would likely have put their spin on things due to a lack of information or a lack of understanding well enough to interpret it correctly.
I personally feel that people are just to reverential to it. Sure its probably one of the oldest books on earth. But aside from the basic things such as common decency, charity and the like. Is what it says relevant for today? I mean everyone should aspire to be a good human being. Which is the most basic message the bible gives us. But aside from that. How much of it remains relevant now. And what has been lost in translation?
I mean the 'Without Sin' and casting the first stone passage comes in here. People in religious positions of power seem to conveniently forget that no one is without sin. Not even them.
And as a healthy red blooded heterosexual male. If two same sex folks love each other want to be with each other. Or are just having a fling. I don't see the harm. Why make such a big issue out of it.
The greatest gift God gave all of us, and this is taken from the bible. Is Free Will. True it can be seen that am using that Free Will line as a convenient means to back up what am saying here. But fact remains I am free to do so. Because God gave me the Free Will and the mind to do so.
Anyway. Have said my piece now. Which probably makes about as much sense as the dyslexic zorro trying to write his name while drunk.
But forming arguments and trying to put my thoughts down have never been a strong point.
Anyhow. Sorry for rambling again.
Though Ian, if you think that the Bible is unreliable as a source for what Jesus actually said, why would you be a Christian at all? How could you claim to follow Christ, if you don't think that we have any reliable way to know what Christ said? After all, the 'common decency, charity and the like' stuff comes from the same source, so why would it be any more reliable?
And as you note that stuff is common to many religions and philosophical positions, so if you're a Christian presumably you don't just buy into that stuff -- you do actually think that Jesus said something worth hearing and we have a better-than-evens chance of finding out what it was?
I'm also interest to know which bit of the Bible you take the 'greatest gift God gave all of us [...] Is Free Will' line from, as I can't remember ever seeing it there in such an explicit form (and inasmuch as it's there implicitly, the bible's very clear that there are ways of using one's Free Will that are good and ways that are not). So which bit are you thinking of?
(As a matter of accuracy, the New Testament was translated into English from Greek, not Hebrew -- that was the Old Testament (and for a while the Old Testament was translated via Greek too). The earliest New Testament writings -- the letters -- were definitely written within a hundred years of Jesus' lifetime, though the gospels may not have been (Scholars disagree -- some do put Mark as early as 70AD). I keep meaning to read this book on the subject.)
(Oh, and isn't 'everyone should aspire to be a good human being' the Pelagian heresy?
Re: free will, actually, I'm not sure of any Christian denomination which holds our wills are completely free: Catholicism has Original Sin, of course, which binds our wills, while Protestant Churches tend to fall into either the Calvinist or Arminian camps (or in the case of the Church of England, say 'Oh, dear, yes, that's a very interesting quest-- is that a deer over there? You didn't see it? Well, have some quiche.')
This is a long parentheses.)
Luke: re: throw away the book & love - isn't this what is said in St Mark 12:vv 30-31, which states that first you love god, then you love your neighbour as youself and that no other rule is as important?
But Marjorie, Jesus wasn't being original there: that had been held to be the greatest commandment by Jewish thinkers before him, none of whom thought that that commandment being the greatest meant that you could 'chuck away' the others. Do you think there's an implication in that passage that the other commandments are not important, and if so how do you square it with the famous bit in Matthew 5: 17-20?
Paraphrasing the Bible is always a dangerous sport. :) However, I think it IS safe to say that all religions consider free will in that, if we didn't have free will, we wouldn't need to be convinced or converted. We wouldn't need a book with guidelines. We wouldn't need God to speak to us at all, because we'd all already KNOW, and we'd all be God-following automatons w/no power or concept of thought. I don't think the Bible has to say that explicitly. Free Will is implied by the Bible's very existence. Yes? No?
Each religion does, however, have its own solution(s) for dealing with things that are freely chosen but "wrong", most of them boiling down to "well, if you don't like these rules, you don't have to be a part of the club anymore." And that's a free choice, too.
"I say there's no excuse for Christian homophobia."
Speaking as someone who still snaps the mackerel on occasion, I completely agree. Anyone who preaches hate and oppression should be called to account for it, no matter what kind of hat they wear.
I applaud your bravery in writing about this, Paul. However, I fear I must disillusion you on this:
"There will have been several Bishops who voted the other way last night, but we don't hear about them".
I fear that none did.
Assuming we are talking about the same votes on the same amendments, which took place on Monday last week, not last night, you can see from the voting lists here:
http://tinyurl.com/yeu8wk8
(see the bottom of that section, and the top of the next one) that all the Bishops who voted lined up against the Government's proposed amendment, preferring the rival and more restrictive ones tabled by a Conservative. I make the Bishops' score 8-0 on each vote, sadly. Don't know if any others were there and abstained, mind - and it's pretty rare for the Bishops to vote at all.
Not necessarily, Teresa. One very strong thread of Christian thought, from Augustine through Calvin and onwards, would say that God has chosen those who will be saved and there is nothing they can do about it: the Bible is there merely to inform us about God. On that view, 'convincing' people simply isn't an issue: those who believe do so because God has chosen them to believe, and those who don't, likewise.
Whether these views are correct or not they are not obviously illogical, so no, the existence of the Bible doesn't imply (in any modus ponens sense) free will.
That's why I'm interested to hear where the idea that free will is God's gift to us (that it's God's 'greatest' gift is another interesting point, as the orthodox view would be that God's 'greatest' gift to humanity was Jesus) is in the Bible, as it would solve a lot of questions.
Just adding my voice to the support crowd. I really respect anyone who can believe in a God and find it in themself to respect those who don't and those who are traditionally looked down upon by religion. Where I come from, some of the biggest support for LGBT folks comes from churches and temples in the area. Last year, the members of these churches and temples worked tirelessly against Proposition 8, which would make gay marriage explicitly illegal. One of these churches hosts a county-wide support group for queer youth. Churches like this might not get a lot of press, but they do exist, and I wish focus would move away from the fanatical bigots and toward people like you who want to practice their faith and let others practice their own.
But as ever, Mr Cornell, you're an inspiration.
We've got the Christian == anti-gay thing going on here in the US, too.
It drives my Christian friends absolutely batty.
I remember being a progressive American, back in the Aughties: the ENTIRE COUNTRY was consumed by this massive bloodlust, and you kept reading these insane headlines of stuff that was being done IN YOUR NAME, and all the while there was NOTHING YOU COULD DO, because the leadership was not interested in listening to you. I imagine pro-equality Christians must feel something similar.
Good on you for speaking up!
I should have said one of the greatest gifts is free will. But as Teresa points out it can also be a curse.
The greatest gift being life of course. From that point on it is really our own choice as to whether we devote our lives to studying the bible and joining up with a religion or not.
As to anything else. I'd really have to pick up a bible again, which is something have not done since my 20s. I have a bad memory when it comes to chapter and verse.
But fact remains to exclude anyone from any religion regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender is plain wrong. Which is essentially what is at the heart of this post.
Sometimes you have to disregard what it says in books and bibles and go with what your own sense of right and wrong is. And I say excluding folks is wrong.
This is my last post on the topic.
Hey Paul...
Only really aware of your work because of my partner. But, for what it's worth, wanted to show my support. Both of us are very passionate about the media and creative industries (she is a writer and I am a musician) and we both try to live this life as followers of Jesus.
We too are pro LGBT rights. It would seem that the (for too long) silent community within Christian circles has started to find a louder voice and show that love is the movement on which our faith is founded.
Thanks for speaking up and adding another voice to the ever growing crowd... Craig
Well said. And way to shoutout to the Quakers! We appreciate it.
Paul
Thank you for writing what you did. As a middle of the road Anglican I frequently feel sad and frustrated when the only side of Christianity seen in public is the angry and extreme side, not the loving and accepting church which I feel part of.
It is always heartening to see moderates speaking out, especially those who are able to do so eloquently.
Hi Paul,
congratulations for this post. It took guts. And look at those great responses!
Although I am not a believer, I agree with you. In fact, I hope for more Christians who think and write and act like you do.
Personally, I would sometimes have liked to believe in God - but I can't, since official Church doctrines have distorted the image of God into that of a petty-minded and uptight schoolmaster.
An image suiting their own fear and superstition - not at all like an impartial, loving and supreme being...
So, no reason to be scared. No reason to fear you'd be hated. No reason to crawl back into your closet. All you did was: to be human and honest, to show compassion and love. And all those 'Christians' really need to take a leaf (or better a chapter) out of your book.
Excellent stuff. As someone who fell foul of Christian homophobia (http://tiny.cc/FatsOnCIF), your voice is the kind of voice that needs to be heard loudly from the rofotops.
Damn it.
Gods, why couldn't I have thought of that? You've put into five words something I've been struggling to articulate for years. Thank you.
Bravo for this post, Paul. FWIW, as a Christian I find Christian-based homophobia exceedingly distasteful too. In fact, much of what modern-day Christians say and do on a great many topics I find exceedingly distasteful.
As far as I can see, homophobia is rooted in an irrational fear that the human race will cease to exist if a consistently small but steady percentage of the species sits on a particular part of the sexuality spectrum. Of course, really, I think it's a more personal fear -- that the family won't continue if the only male offspring isn't hetero -- and that fear has been codified into blind prejudice masquerading as religious doctrine.
But then, speaking only for myself, I'm a very odd kind of Christian. I pay no attention to anything in the OT and only the gospels in the NT. If Jesus said it, I'll listen. If it's only somebody else's opinion ie Paul, I'll take it under advisement. If only because as far as I can tell, the bigotry and hatred and violence and repression to be found in Christian communities do not arise from Jesus's words as recorded in the gospels, but from the OT and the extracurricular commentary in the NT.
I think maybe if more Christians remembered that they are in fact a walking, talking PR rep for Jesus, then they might think twice before making such fatuous statements as Hurricane Katrina, Haiti and the Boxing Day tsunami are God taking humanity to the woodshed. Or advocating second class status treatment of fellow human beings.
And I have to say -- though it may get me into trouble eventually -- that when I hear these so-called Christians spouting their hate and their bigotry, I take great comfort in the reminder -- Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven.
God bless.
I'm once again amazed by the quality of comment here. Thanks, everyone. And yes, this was a product of me deciding, before Christmas, to be more open about what I say online. John: that's very welcome, ta. Loads of kind atheists piped up in various places. Simon: that's ever worse, thanks for bringing the details. I did, on advice, change the wording of the Tweet to be acceptable to all. I recognise that 'love the sinner and hate the sin' is often a perfectly fine way to behave, just not in this case, where the issue is whether or not we're dealing with a sin, and to use that form of words is to pre-judge. Mark: thanks for bringing that link. Andrew: that's the most important point here, in many ways: judge not. It's easy to keep throwing out what you don't like until there's nothing left: I choose to stop with what we know of Christ. He declared himself to be the completion of the Law, listed what we should take from it, and pointed out that the spirit of the law was love. If he was going to mention gay people, that would have been the point, and he didn't. Hey, it's James Enge! Welcome, James. And thanks. I haven't room to reply to everyone, but just want to say thanks again for all the debate and support, and I'm very pleased that there are so many pro-LGBT Christians out there. Well done, you lot.
I'm applauding madly from my obscure polytheistic corner, the land of us often forgotten in the great God / No God public rhetoric.
I know many Christians like you - the quiet, the honorable. Reading this makes me proud to enjoy your stories. Carry on and hold your head high.
Coming late to the conversation, but I hear you, and this is something I've been noticing and worrying about for awhile.
At first I thought it was just a reflection of the past eight years of politics that we've had...it seemed as if that extremist brand of conservatism was seeping into everything else. Suddenly there was no middle ground--you were either on the side of the terrorists or on the side of the "godly."
But we had our little pockets--the Pacific Northwest seemed to be isolated from it all, and we existed pretty much as we were. "Jesus Camp" seemed like a horrifying documentary that happened to everyone else, namely that mythical "back east."
And during those years, if I disagreed with my fellow parishioners, it wasn't a big deal. We were all still Catholic. That's really eroded over here since the last election, though. Now it seems like there's a litmus test for one's Catholicism in everything and a host of angry bloggers waiting in the wings to decry what they see as the latest desecration to tradition (with a small "t".)
Then this past November, another election (mostly regional) passed, and the bishops out here--who seemed so level during the Bush years--came out on the same side as the KKK for a referendum that would've extended the benefits of domestic partnerships (which had been legal for some time.)
but I could look to other countries and think, "Thank God they're not as nuts as over here." It's disheartening to know that brand of conservatism is happening in other places, too.
I found this quote by Andrew Sullivan for when I start getting depressed about how things are: "I stay because I believe. And I stay because I hope. What I find hard is the third essential part: to love. So I stay away when the anger eclipses that. But the love for this church remains through the anger and despair: the goodness of so many in it, the truth of its sacraments, the knowledge that nothing is perfect and nothing is improved if you are not there to help it."
Well done again on stimulating such debate, Paul. Just to put into perspective the way that the Lords (including the Bishops) were actually talking abut this last week, may I point everyone towards this*?
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/01/26/a-disproportionate-debate/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yjnr58u
*Lords of the Blog: a collaborative blog written by Members of the House of Lords for the purposes of public engagement.
MWx
This post has been duly pimped.
And again, well said sirrah!
Paul: by Jesus listing what we should take from the Law you mean the sermon on the mount, presumably? Or something else?
As someone who was brought up Catholic and is increasingly leaning towards atheism it is very
refreshing to see such a fantastically articulate, honest and balanced article.
Very well said.
Thank you.
"Chuck the book and love": that sums up my hermeneutic in a nutshell. The organisations you're calling for do exist, as I said in my tweet yesterday - the ones I know best are Inclusive Church and the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum (which works closely with its Lib Dem Humanist counterpart), but there are others. The media just don't call them, and they don't have big PR budgets.
Paul -- there is a very good progressive Christian magazine called Sojourners; not sure if the print edition is available in the UK, but their online content is robust.
If not a whole bunch of Baptists, certainly one.
Thanks for the post & the hashtag - inspirational stuff
Thank you for this. I think you're right about not wanting to be identified as a writer who 'does God' because it's something I struggle with as well. I'm devout in my faith, but I don't feel that gives me the right to shove it down everyone's throat. But that does come the time to speak and I think that time is now.
I've long joked that my personal ministry is showing others that not all Christians are scary, bigoted, mean, hateful people. I think it's time to work a bit harder at that.
I am a Christian, and I believe in equal rights for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community.
Thank you, Paul, for stating your position on this.
Fantastic - followed a link for TV's James Moran on Twitter and very glad I did too.
As a closet Christian, I'm glad you've had the stones to say what I couldn't articulate. Many thanks!
Brilliant post - my thoughts and feelings exactly.
Paul, thank you for your words. I'm not a believer but I have spiritual inclinations. Here's hoping you can spread the word that Chrisitianity (or any organized religion) should be a haven for hatemongers.
I agree entirely. I spend a large amount of time debating with my more homophobic brethren online and frankly, it's wearying. More of us need to stand up and say "we're with you, not against you" to the LGBTQ community.
chuck the book and love
That's awesome. Is there a specific bit of the NT you're paraphrasing there? I'd love to be able to quote it at people.
As a fellow Christian who has gotten incredibly weary of a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites dragging the rest of us through the mud, it's always a huge relief to see someone who has a voice people will hear stand up and say, "Hey, this is not right OR Biblical." Thank you for being that person; it's taken the respect I already had for your work and added a layer of personal respect to it as well. :-)
Just about all Quakers in Britain are against homophobia, and we have just decided to move towards treating unions equally, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Lots of Anglicans are against homophobia too. Why hate something that does you no harm at all?
Thank you for speaking out. You will get through to all those who think "Human Nature" was the best Doctor Who ever.
Abigail.
I too am impressed by the number of positive feedbacks you have had. Is it something to do with a filtering system? Negative equals homophobic and therefore filtered out, positive equals homophilic therefore published.
Thanks again, all. Mark: thanks, all documents welcome. SK and Kate: Sermon on the Mount, 'I did not come to abolish, but to complete (the Law)' and Mark 7, where he certainly abolishes some of it (the food laws). I take it from the sense of 'finishing' that he mentioned everything he wanted to continue. It's possible to argue against that. I think the commandment to love over-rules. Liz and Stephen: thanks for those. I'm glad they're out there. Peter: I think you meant 'shouldn't'! Abigail: I knew about that, and I nearly said *all* Quakers, but I felt that was a bit presumptuous. Great stuff. Mike: I have a general anti-rudeness rule on the blog, and zapped your last post (and only one other) for being abusive. You called me 'self aggrandising'. Which may well be true, but, as you can see, others have managed to be against the thrust of the piece without making it personal. You're welcome to make your case if you can do it in a polite manner.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
Though...
It does occur to me that if you were the kind of mad person to debate hermeneutics, you might say that if the only things that count are what Jesus explicitly says (and that's a big and, as you say, arguable 'if' -- I don't think it can be denied that there's clear blue water between it and even the far reaches of orthodoxy; perhaps not oceans so that you can't see orthodoxy even on a clear day with the sun behind you, but at least a Dover Straits' worth) then all the things Jesus said must count, which includes Matthew 19:4-6, which brings forward Genesis 1:27, and is the only reason ('for this cause' in the AV, 'for this reason', all singular, in the other translations I've looked at) Jesus ever gives for marriage.
So a theology of marriage based only on the words of Christ would have to have the Genesis passage as its foundation, wouldn't it? If you were to ask the question 'what is the reason for the existence of marriage in the universe?' and base your answer only on what Christ said, Genesis 1:27 has to be it.
That's if you were the kind of mad person who thinks of hermeneutics in the bath.
(The commandment to 'love', of course, while a great guiding principle, is a bit unhelpful when trying to work out exactly what the loving thing to do in a situation actually is; it's clearly not loving to encourage a sin (one is supposed to love one's neighbour 'as one's self' and one doesn't want one's self to persist in sin), and as you point out in your reply above, we don't want to pre-judge whether any particular thing is a sin or not.)
Thank you for sharing you thoughts! I live in the American South and it does my heart good to hear a Christian stand up for the rights of gays. Wish more people would speak out. I for one can't tolerate an intolerant streak in a faith that to me is based on love, not on thinking we're meant to judge each other.
Hermeneutics! Yay! :)
@SK - Interesting point about Genesis 1:27-28 (I'm including both for context) and Matthew 19:4-12 (again, the whole chunk for context). I'd bring up a couple of things w/regard to gay marriage
1) In the Genesis passage, God is simply providing a way to reproduce, which still exists regardless of whether or not gays are married. God doesn't discuss marriage w/Adam and Eve. God just says "Go have babies and make this world your own."
2) The Matthew bit is about divorce, not about marriage at all. But if we're going with what Jesus says about marriage, he says "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, etc, etc." He doesn't say it's the ONLY reason. He just says it IS a reason.
He then proceeds to make exceptions about eunuchs - some of which are that way by birth, some made that way by men, and some who renounce marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven (religious reasons) and says "He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (King James) or "The one who can accept this should accept it." (NIV)
But again, all this is in reference to STAYING married, not who's allowed to get married in the FIRST PLACE.
And thank God! Because if getting married were ONLY about having children, then sterile people wouldn't be allowed to get married either. Terminally ill people wouldn't be allowed to get married.
But the bottom line is, the Gay Marriage debate shouldn't have anything to do with religion (even though I don't see any reason in Christianity why gays shouldn't be married), because not all people who get married get married in churches. Some get married in other houses of worship. Some get married in their City Halls. Some get married in Las Vegas by a licensed Elvis impersonator. All those people are allowed to call themselves married, no matter how they marry, and reap the LEGAL benefits of being a married couple. The same LEGAL rights should be afforded to gays. Everything I've learned of God leads me to believe that justice and fairness are important things to fight for, too.
Oh, I'm afraid not, Teresa. The passage from Genesis 1 is about man and woman being created in the image of God, not about reproduction: that comes afterwards (very shortly afterwards, in fact the next verse, but it's clearly a new thought). And in the other Genesis passage Jesus refers to, Genesis 2:24, reproduction is nowhere to be seen. So I'm afraid you simply can't explain it all away by saying 'that's about reproduction': it's not, it's about the image of God.
(And actually, the Matthew passage is prompted by a question about divorce, but it's not about divorce: Jesus is asked about divorce and begins his answer by saying 'right, well, before I answer your question, let's go back to the basics of what marriage is for so you understand the context of what it is you're asking.' And all the translations I've looked at have 'for this reason' or 'this is the reason' or some variant thereof, never 'this is a reason' -- or do you have some reason to think there's ambiguity in the Greek?)
Hypothesis: the Genesis 1:27-28 passage cannot be used to argue against gay marriage because its context is a scenario in which only two people, one man and one woman, exist at all, and therefore in which other sexual combinations, because excluded by the scenario, cannot be addressed. Does that one have legs, d'you think?
It's all good so long as courts don't end up saying that Muslims must be allowed to apply for positions as Rabbis, that nunneries must be open to men and that the fact that you're a porn star shouldn't disqualify you from teaching in a school with a christian ethos.
John, Genesis 1 isn't really a story, so it doesn't have a 'scenario'. It's a liturgy -- in fact, I think the best way to describe it is as a creed. It's saying, poetically, 'this is why the world is the way it is -- because God made it that way and it is good'.
So I don't think you can talk about the 'scenario' of something that isn't a story in that way.
(Genesis 2 is a story, though.)
@SK - You originally quoted Genesis 1:27, which yes, says they are in his image and that he created people male and female (still doesn't talk about marriage), but I included the verse right after that, 28, which says "go forth and multiply" "or be fruitful and increase in number" (reproduction), because you HAVE to read them together. That's the problem with so many people who quote bible verse. They quote ONE LINE when they should be looking at passages as a whole. People read and quote NOVELS with more care...
Again, none of this mentions marriage at all. Nor does it say anything about two men or two women. God has created male and female and told them to have children. If you can find something in Genesis that says "Oh, but first, before you have children, you need to have a ceremony where you promise that you'll only sleep with each other and share your worldly goods, and THEN go forth and multiply, and if you see two men or two women trying to have a relationship you must do everything you can to stop them", do let me know.
And here's Matthew 19:4-6:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Whether you read Verses 4 and 5 as A reason or THE reason why men and women get married, it STILL only talks about men and women, but he DOESN'T talk about two men or two women NOT being able to get married. So it can't be assumed that he'd be against it, as he doesn't address it at all.
This'll be my last post discussing the Bible in relation to this issue, though. Because as I said in my last comment, Gay Marriage is a LEGAL issue, not a religious one. Churches can marry or not marry whomever they like. But that's not the point. When we talk about gays not being able to marry, we're talking about citizens not having equal legal rights. I think that discussion of religion in relation to this issue is a tactic used to distract people from the real issue - that gays are being treated like second-class citizens according to the law. Which is unacceptable.
Coming up on a year in Houston after twenty in San Francisco. I got genuine culture shock coming here and even now I still feel like a speck of strange-coloured rust on the Bible Belt.
Although I don't belong here, it hasn't stopped me opening my heart to my workmates who are believers and listening to their dreams and their outlook on life.
We are all most definitely connected and I'm happier drawing parallels than solitary lines.
So, Teresa (these would have to happen on Sunday evening when I've been to the pub, wouldn't they):
Regarding Genesis 1:27 and 28, you'll notice that the first chapter of Genesis is a a liturgy or creed with each point introduced by the 'and God said' formula. Verse 28 begins with a variant of that, translated something like 'And God blessed them, and God said unto them'. It's a subordinate point but definitely not the same point. You might imagine it as the second level of indentation in a Word document style. It's about the previous point, and it follows on from it, but it's not a direct continuation of it.
As to it not mentioning marriage, I'll remind you that I introduced this because Paul indicated that his hermeneutic was 'only the things that Christ explicitly said, matter'. And Christ explicitly gave this passage as the reason for marriage. So I think that under Paul's hermeneutic, this passage is definitely relevant for constructing a theology of marriage.
As for our analysis of the Matthew passage, I think that's a very odd reading. Jesus is addressing the question of marriage. He gives the scriptural (and at this time, 'scripture' meant the Old Testament) basis for marriage. You're trying to argue that anything Jesus didn't explicitly rule out is implicitly permitted. But that's, I think, an odd reading of the passage which is only possible if you've already decided the answer you want and are willing to accept anything but direct refutation of the point as positive confirmation. Jesus says 'This is what marriage is for:' and gives the Old Testament account. There is no clue that there might be any other reason for marriage, no indication or even implication that that might not encompass the whole reason for marriage. If Jesus had wanted to allow other reasons for marriage, could he not have done so? Would have have pointed so explicitly and completely to the Old Testament passage?
Argument from silence can be made both ways. Your way seems like a way which is trying to find loopholes through the wording of the law: he didn't specifically mention this as wrong, therefore it should be allowed. But to try to find the spirit of the law, do you not have to say that Jesus gave one reason as the reason for marriage, which is the making of mankind as two sexes in the image of God, that they might be brought together as one flesh and therefore complete God's image? Yours is a negative interpretation of Jesus' words,
confining them to some kind of legalistic ruling-out of What Is Not Allowed. The alternative is a positive reading of them affirming the union of man and woman as an integral part of Creation, the completion of the image of God which is shared between the sexes.
As for the matter of legality versus religion, for a start I'd mention that I was addressing Paul's hermeneutic and avowed desire to see churches performing marriage ceremonies with two people of the same sex as the principals, so the legal issue is slightly to the side of what I've been addressing.
That said, there are two types of law which state might be said to make: we might call them 'administrative' laws and 'moral' laws. Administrative laws are those designed to ensure the smooth running of the state and the safety of its citizens: tax laws, banking regulations, the rule of the road. Moral laws, on the other hand, are those which the state enacts because they recognise a pre-existing moral law and wish that the laws of the state be in line with it. for example, few (except some hardline utilitarians) would argue that murder is against the law because of the damage to society that might ensue if murder were unchecked (true as that might be); rather, killing is simply wrong, and so there should be a law against it.
You can note this in for example the debates about abortion, where both sides frame their arguments in terms of their side having a pre-existing moral principle on their side: a woman's right to control over her body, or whether it is wrong to allow a bundle of cells that has the potential to become a human being to be removed from it. Neither side wants to argue on the grounds of which is more useful for society, because they recognise that this is not an area where society gets to decide on utilitarian grounds. It is about doing what is right, whether for potential babies or actual women.
So the question is kind of law those about marriage are: administrative or moral? Is the government trying to formulate marriage laws which suit society best (for the stable bringing up of children, etc), or which recognise a pre-existing moral order in the universe?
If you take the view that marriage laws are administrative laws, of course the Bible has no relevance (but then you also can't argue on those grounds that churches should perform marriage ceremonies for couple of the same sex, which Paul has). On the other hand, if you take marriage laws as moral laws, then if you're a Christian, there does rather seem to be a connection between how the laws of the state are set up and how the universe has been ordered by God -- just as there is in murder laws.
(Of course, you may be an atheist and also think that marriage laws are moral laws, but in that case none of this in-depth discussion of Genesis and Jesus is relevant to you at all, except as a matter of interest, but I can't see as how it's very interesting!)
I'm not an atheiest, and while I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, I continue to consider things from a Catholic point of view (which is difficult to help if that's how you were raised) and attempt to find guidance from the Bible. However, I believe the Bible is a starting point for Christians, not an end point. I also find it interesting that, for example, some people fall on Leviticus to condemn gay marriage, but not to condemn, say, eating shellfish, which is also described as "an abomination". Who decided which abominations were more abominable than others? I am not the first to "pick and choose" from the Bible to "find loopholes" and make my arguments. Thing is, that's what I think we're SUPPOSED to do. Interpret it. It has never been followed to the letter, nor do I believe that even The Church wants us to. Otherwise, priests would never eat shrimp or pork.
I think it strange to divide laws into "administrative" or "moral" as all law is both. From who gets a driver's license to issues like gay marriage, abortion, and laws against murder and theft, all of them are administrative AND moral. Murder laws aren't just moral, they're practical and administrative. If people are allowed to kill each other willy-nilly, society can't function, so we make murder illegal. However, we also believe it is wrong to take a human life, because no human should have that right, thus making it a moral law, too. However, we make exceptions for moral laws all the time. For example, murder is against the law, but people don't go to jail if they've killed in self-defense, because we understand how that can happen, and these people will not be a general danger to society. The morality of the life taken is then left to the individual, who will have to live with the pain of what they've done on their own.
A Christian is obviously going to take the Bible into consideration when making a decision about gay marriage or any issue. However, in most (if not all) countries, Christians share citizenship with people of other faiths, and people of no faith at all. And while one should vote his/her conscience, one should also consider that Christian laws don't and shouldn't apply to other people, but secular laws do. One has to consider that the laws that apply to everyone should exist to be as just and fair as possible, as all people, no matter what their faith, will have to live with them. Again, justice and fairness are just as much Christian values as anything else. And perhaps they're even more important than whether or not gay men or women have sex with or marry each other.
Paul
These people were very active when I last lived in Britain - 10 years ago or so(My then partner was a member)
http://www.lgcm.org.uk/
I wonder if they are the sort of organisation you are looking for.
That's great, PG, thanks for posting it.
Yes, LGCM are still very much active. They're a nice bunch too.