Christian to walk 160 miles to repent of homophobia

If you are not already aware of him, Symon Hill is probably one to watch – or perhaps even one to walk alongside. On his blog Repenting of homophobia he explains why he plans to walk from Birmingham to London from 16 June to 1 July to ‘repent of homophobia’. A self-confessed ex-homophobic Christian, he has got the support of several church groups, and has even received a message of support from the former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries. It’s a walk, though, not a run – he has allowed himself plenty of time as he will be giving talks at churches along the way.

His article Christianity and homophobia in Britain today is excellent. This is an article that should be read by Christians of all persuasions. Read it. Ask your friends to read it – especially your Christian friends. Pass it on. There is definitely some great ‘food for thought’ here, even for Christians who think their minds are made up. He includes within it ‘a whistlestop tour through significant moments in the history of Christianity’, starting:

We begin with Jesus, who practised radical inclusivity, challenged the powerful and taught forgiveness, nonviolence and love for all people, including enemies. He proclaimed freedom – freedom from social, political, religious and emotional oppression. They killed Jesus because he was too free.

He asks us all to look again at our own behaviour to see if we are really living out the example of Jesus:

Today, those who talk loudest about “Christian values” are often those who pay least attention to Jesus’ lifestyle and teachings. I am not suggesting that Jesus would be relaxed about sexual ethics or condone all sexual practices in our society. He condemned child abuse. His principles of love and fidelity are contrary to sexual activity that is selfish, coercive, manipulative, deceitful or without love for others involved.

Hill also makes a powerful case why doing nothing, for the sake of unity, is simply not good enough:

…it is vital that inclusive Christians stand up and speak out firmly against the exclusion and marginalisation of sexual minorities. As long as the anti-equality lobby can claim that they represent Christianity, they are able to give the impression of having a great many supporters while they misuse the language of rights and liberty to promote their agenda. I understand that many inclusive Christians care about unity and I’m not suggesting that we should treat all those who struggle with the issues as outright bigots. Nonetheless, there are times when we must choose between the idol of unity and the God of love.

Let me just repeat those last words – because they spoke strongly to me: ‘There are times when we must choose between the idol of unity and the God of love’.

I’m really thrilled Symon is doing this and I hope it will be a great encouragement to others to speak out and altogether to be more active on this issue. Flocked Out wishes Symon Hill all the best in his walk and, more importantly, in his impressive endeavors to spread such a positive message on this important and relevant issue. I have a feeling it will catch the imagination of a great many people. Do Symon and favour and spread the word via Twitter, or Facebook, by email, or, dare I say it, even by word of mouth.

Symon Hill’s walk is today the subject of this article on The Guardian website.

Same-Sex Marriage and Human Fulfillment

In his article Same-Sex Marriage and Human Fulfillment simultaneously published on Anglican Mainstream’s site, Carson Holloway of the very grand sounding Witherspoon Institute wonders if there is ‘anything of substance to be gained for homosexuals from the current quest for same-sex marriage’.

Though he is keen to punctuate his article with legal cases (e.g. Bowers v. Hardwick 1986, Lawrence v. Texas 2003), so as to make it clear to the reader that he is talking with authority and from a legal viewpoint, his argument does not come down to human law at all. Instead, he says:

The strongest argument against same-sex marriage—in the sense of the argument with the deepest philosophic roots, or the argument that gets to the most fundamental issues at stake—is that homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law. This argument is either true, or it is not.

The emphasis is mine.

Holloway argues that ‘homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law’, and therefore Same-Sex Marriage is contrary to ‘the natural law’. Not only that, he says, but it is ‘positively damaging, to the extent that it could mislead people to their own harm by bestowing a spurious respectability on an objectively disordered way of life’. Hmmm…

I have never really understood why people use the ‘Natural Law’ argument. Firstly, because of the lie that homosexual activity does not happen in nature (try telling that to these famously gay penguins, or to the gerbils my partner and I looked after while our nephew was on holiday: one of them – a boy – spent the whole time repeatedly raping the other – another boy – much to the distress both of the victim – and ourselves), and secondly that by using the ‘Natural Law’ argument, the institution of marriage need not exist at all – it is not required by nature. The ‘Natural Law’ argument is simply a way to huff and puff without any real argument at all, as Carson Holloway deftly demonstrates.

One of the funniest moments I have witnessed of the ‘Natural Law’ at work in the animal kingdom was in Chueca – Madrid’s famously gay district. I saw two gay guys greeting each other from opposite sites of the square, each with a male golden retriever. As they came together and hugged, one of the (boy) dogs mounted the other (boy) dog and started humping. Was that nature or nurture, do you think?

Just don’t call me a bigot

I know people who obstinately and proudly adhere to their ‘Biblical’ views and have a deep intolerance of more ‘liberal’ Christians, and yet are deeply offended if you call them a bigot. Why? Surely being someone who obstinately adheres to a belief, creed or opinion and is intolerant of others who do not share their views (the definition of a bigot) is what they are all about. They loudly proclaim their position and are not ashamed to speak their minds. They are out-and-proud bigots. But just don’t call them one.

Does ‘Biblical morality’ actually work?

Peter Denshaw has written a thought provoking post about this rant in ‘Christian Today’ against David Cameron, Tony Blair and ‘politically correct’ society in general by angry vicar Julian Mann of Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire. Denshaw exposes what he terms the ‘morality syllogism’ of Mann’s argument, through which Mann attempts to connect several otherwise disconnected and anecdotal incidents into a call for a more ‘Biblical’ morality (or rather against the lack of it). Denshaw questions Mann’s assumptions, especially his belief that the lack of ‘Biblical’ morality (as opposed simply to morality) in society causes the effects Mann attributes to it. Denshaw writes:

The USA has the highest proportion of single-parent families in the Western world – closely followed by Ireland; yet both countries boast 50% church attendance compared to 5-8% in many of these ‘liberal democracies’ which have far fewer of these so called ‘social problems’. They are far less violent societies, have less crime, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, divorce, greater social cohesion and equity and better average standards of living.

You can read Denshaw’s piece here.

The ‘Truth’ about the Homosexual Rights Movement

Anglican Mainstream today re-posted a link to this article on ‘Orthodoxy Today’ in which Ronald G. Lee tries to expose ‘the truth’ about the ‘Homosexual Rights Movement’. If you are interested in the sort of arguments a self-professed Ex-Gay writer uses to dismiss homosexuals, it is well worth a read. It is both funny and awful.

The writer begins by setting up a metaphor for the homosexual lifestyle. He talks about a gay bookshop called Lobo’s in Austin, Texas, which, from the window, he says, had an air of respectability about it, selling books by classic homosexual writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein,  W.H. Auden, etc. But behind the respectability, at the back of the shop, was, he claims, where the action was: the porn section. This was were the customers were. ‘As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo’s. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.’ Lee suggests this bookshop reflects the life pattern of a homosexual: it may seem almost respectable and acceptable to begin with, but eventually you will be drawn to the pornography and that’s where you will stay. He warns people lulled into homosexuality: ‘Eventually, they will find their way back to the porn, with the rest of the customers. And like them, they will start rooting through the videos. And, gentle reader, that is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes’. Wow. This is is where gay people like myself are heading: AIDS, drugs, alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age. Or God. Presumably he means God as rescuer, not as a God who loves and affirms us as we are.

He also uses the bookshop as a metaphor for the gay rights movement: ‘I recognized in Lobo’s a metaphor for the strategy used to ‘sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed’, and ‘There are millions of well-meaning Americans who support gay rights because they believe that what they see looking in at Lobo’s is what is really there. It does not occur to them that they are seeing a carefully stage-managed effort to manipulate them, to distract them from a truth they would never condone’.

His article goes on to talk about ex-Father John McNeill’s influential (to Lee) book ‘The Church and the Homosexual’ and his later autobiography. The autobiography shows the disconnect between the respectable homosexuality for which McNeill was trying to make a case, and his own ‘promiscuous’ lifestyle. A reasonable point to make, as long as one acknowledges that there is a disconnect in the lives of so many who preach one thing and do another, but Lee’s language is strong: ‘ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.’ Strong indeed: an accusation of manslaughter.

Give the article a read if you want to get into one ex-gay man’s mindset. There are juicy nuggets to be found, such as this one: ‘Gay culture is a paradox. Most homosexuals tend to be liberal Democrats, or in the U.K., supporters of the Labour Party. They gravitate toward those Parties on the grounds that their policies are more compassionate and sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed. But there is nothing compassionate about a gay bar. It represents a laissez faire free sexual market of the most Darwinian sort.’ Thus, gay people are not really interested in compassion, they are interested in sex.

To summarize Lee’s thinking, he urges us not to fooled by ‘respectable’ gay people. Behind the veneer we are dirty, dirty, dirty. He ‘knows’ – because he is ex-gay.

Towards the end of the article, it’s difficult not to feel sad for Ronald Lee. He talks about his own experiences struggling with his homosexuality, and fills the article with examples of unsavoury or tragic gay lives, and one gets the profound sense that the unhappiness he felt, and his determination to believe that it is the lot of the homosexual to be unhappy, has totally dominated his world-view. Not only does he seem to believe it, but he is suspicious of anybody who thinks otherwise. Here’s an excerpt:

A popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. That was me, the whole time I was laboring to become a happy homosexual. I was a lunatic. Several times I turned for advice to gay men who seemed better adjusted to their lot in life than I was. First, I wanted confirmation that my perceptions were accurate, that life as a male homosexual really was as awful as it seemed to be. And then I wanted to know what I was supposed to do about it. When was it going to get better? What could I do to make it better? I got two sorts of reactions to these questions, both of which left me feeling hurt and confused. The first sort of reaction was denial, often bitter denial, of what I was suggesting. I was told that there was something wrong with me, that most gay men were having a wonderful time, that I was generalizing on the basis of my own experience (whose experience was I supposed to generalize from?), and that I should shut up and stop bothering others with my “internalized homophobia.”

Poor man. Honestly, as an extremely happy homosexual man in a wonderful, long-term relationship – and as somebody who knows lots of happy gay people – I find this very sad. He believes homosexuals live in a world of ‘self-deception’ and that the ‘homosexual rights movement’ is trying to pass this deception on to others. Genuinely, I feel sorry for him – he must have had a miserable live to be so embittered, but I am not convinced his experiences give him the right to say ‘I know’.

God-breathed Scripture

I love to see how some Christians can push a belief to the limit. Here’s a fine example.

At the bottom of this page about the 1928 ‘watered down’ wedding service – http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com/2011/05/1928-watered-down-vintage-1662-at-royal.html – is a comment from somebody named Rich Parry which reads “Quick question Julian- do you regard the New Testament as a ‘Christiad’ or a ‘Pauliad’?”. In response, Julian Mann writes:

“Thank you for your question Rich Parry. All of God-breathed Scripture is the Word of Christ – both his recorded words and deeds in the Gospels and the writings of his apostles including Paul.”

So, by this logic, all the words of Paul are in fact the words of Christ. End of argument. No discussion.

Wonderful. I love the way some Christians argue – they leave absolutely no room for any other point of view, which saves everybody a lot of wasted time.

T-shirt Evangelism

Anglican Mainsteam today highlights this story from breakpoint.org about one teenager’s court battle to defend her right to wear a t-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Be Happy Not Gay’ which brought her into conflict with her school. This story is unremarkable in itself (many similar stories of the alleged repression of Christians are highlighted weekly on Anglican Mainstream), however one line is typically infuriating:

“In effect, the school has outlawed Christian beliefs and free speech.”

Which implies that all Christians have the same beliefs which, on this issue, we absolutely and undeniably do not . These beliefs are not ‘Christian beliefs’, they are the beliefs of many Christians*. Not the same thing at all. It is the resolute and stubborn refusal to accept that not all Christians share the same viewpoint that makes this issue so heated – there is nothing more anger inducing than the feeling that however much you try to lead a Godly life, you are, and always will be, invalid in another’s sight and your beliefs, and the beliefs of those that support and love you, count for nothing, because your beliefs are not ‘Christian beliefs’. Believe me, being gay is easy to deal with in comparison to the crushing knowledge that other Christians find your relationship with God to be unpalatable and will do whatever they can to keep you in separation from Him.

* According to this page on the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches site, the Evangelical Alliance survey of 21st Century Evangelicals found that 26% were “uncertain” or “disagreed” to some extent that homosexual actions are always wrong. This may be a minority, but it is nonetheless a significant number, especially as the survey is from a subset of Christians not noted for their liberal views.

‘New Age’ is not to be confused with ‘The Age to Come’

Anglican Evangelicals are in a lather about a new controversy to hit the church in the UK, and, no, it’s not Rob Bell’s Love Wins which hasn’t really hit us yet, but a one day ‘New Age’ style festival in Manchester Cathedral. The ‘Spirit of Life‘ festival, organizers say, will provide ‘clear Christian alternative to the usual offer at Mind, Body Spirit events’ and will include such controversial pastimes as ‘choral evensong’ and ‘contemporary spiritualities’ (whatever they may be). Needless to say, the quick to jerk their knees are jerking: concerned emails are flying throughout the church community and prominent websites (for instance, here, here and here) have been quick to wade in. Accusations of ‘tarot reading’, first made in the UK press, have been swiftly rebuffed, but the organizers have goofed up royally in the PR department and some people are rapidly trying to distance themselves from the event.

Needless to say, few people really know what is going to happen on the day in question, but the propaganda machine is well and truly at full-throttle and the more adept are quick to make the link with he ‘homosexual lifestyle’ and the LGBT community (even though the event has apparently nothing to do with either) because one of the ‘contributors’ allegedly has ‘an ideological commitment to homosexual lifestyles’.

We’re looking forward to the seeing how this spat develops. It should be thrilling.

God can change you

An interesting point is made in this testimony from a Presbyterian minister who changed his mind on the Gay issue. He says:

“Looking back, I see how much my own opinions had been formed by the fact that I was representing a split congregation. Our church, like so many, was divided. And while the people who believed it should be accepted were not going to leave if we maintained a position of non-acceptance, those who felt it was a sin would bolt in a heartbeat if we ever allowed gay clergy or gay marriage. If they bolted, half our budget would go out the door. I knew the issue could tear the church apart. What I didn’t realize was how it could tear apart the people in the church as well.”

I suspect a similar dilemma may trouble the leadership of of many other churches. I remember the words of the former vicar of one of London’s most influential Evangelical churches having listened to my impassioned plea for understanding as a gay Christian: “My heart wants to believe you, but my head cannot.”

Do please read the article.

Coming Out Christian

I was really struck by the ‘Who We Are’ statement on the site Coming Out Christian. Hopefully they won’t mind if I reproduce part of it here:

“We are followers of Christ, first and formost. We are gay people who have prayed for healing. The healing came… but not in the way that we expected. We prayed to be straight. Instead, God opened our hearts to the amazing fact that He loves us and accepts us just as we are.”

This is very much my own experience, with a slight difference. I prayed for understanding, in the firm resolve that if God showed me that he wanted me to change my ways, I would do so. Far from condemning me, he has reassured and confirmed me and my relationship in countless ways.

I know that God does not want me to stop being who I am, he wants me to use it.