Watched ‘the trouble with the pope’ dispatches last night on C4 last night. Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell lambasting the pontiff for rigidly adhering to traditional catholic teaching in ways perceived to harm people round the world. At the heart of this kind of controversy are opposing perceptions of the same doctrine. Faithful and strong, or rigid? Moving with the times or being swayed by the crowd? Timeless truth or backward anachronism?
The bible contains the seeds of some revolutionary values that have bloomed and worked themselves out down history. Jesus’ and indeed Paul’s treatment of women for instance are recognised as being radical and pioneering in their day, setting a course that, dare I say it, ultimately helped fuel some of the modern movements towards equality of the sexes(?)
The LGBT issue is a little more thorny. I remember a talk in St Silas church in Glasgow years ago, from a man with a homosexual background, arguing for the deep theological underpinning of complementarity of the sexes, and their fusion in marriage. Adam and Eve’s union Jesus himself alluded to significantly – and Paul picturing marriage as a symbol of Christ and the church.
This may provoke some disagreement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
14 comments:
Yes, but St.Silas talks on homosexuality tend to be deeply unhinged and inaccurate Bruce. I think I can remember the talk you're thinking of (circa 2001, the speaker wearing camp diamond cross ear-rings that arguably call into question his 'ex-gay' credentials). The speaker talked about his being molested as a child and how this is a common pattern amongst gays. The fags=paedophilias line of ''thought'' is a pernicious stereotype comparable to black=criminals and Jews=blood drinking money grabbers. I was amused when, circa the repeal of section 28 debate, a speaker in St.Silas tried to whip up some timely homophobia by claiming that we need to protect our kids from 'anal buggery'(as opposed to the oral kind?).
Gagnon (who you'll recall that David and others regard as the best 'traditionalist' scholar on the subject) http://www.robgagnon.net/ indeed makes much of the 'complimentary' argument. As do others. But this leads them naturally to (e.g) rope in Paul 'kicked out the APA for making shit up' Cameron's ludicrous statistics (lesbians 300 times more likely to die in car crashes, gay men only live to 40) to support their contention on the 'unnatural' nature of gay relationships. Given that, in fact, there is no such evidence of essential structural failings in same-sex relationships and that, from a Christian perspective, they have just as much potential for grace, self-giving love etc etc, then doesn't that suggest that the complementarians fallible human *opinion* of particular genesis verses is, in fact, wrong? And, of course, you need to give the pope props for consistency - natural law, properly thought out, of course precludes artificial birth control, masturbation etc etc. This is arguably more intellectually honest than, say, homophobic evangementalist churches capitulating to secular feminism in order to fill the pews (and coffers).
Seriously Bruce, the church and the bible have kept women back. Paul even states that women must be quiet in church, must not hold authority over men and have babies, So I on't know where you grt this idea from.
And what is your view on whether value are rigid or not?
You say you want to throw out ideas. Would it not be better to fully address some issues rather than leaving them unresolved, then repeating the cycle.
Why do you emphasise the fact that he is a gay rights activist? He is also a human rights activist? Does the gay thing somehow belittle what he says to you?
What is your view on the actual content? does the contraception issue spread AIDS and poverty?
Is the pope wrong to not treat the rape of childern as a criminal case?
Please wake up and smell the coffee
But this leads them naturally to (e.g) rope in Paul 'kicked out the APA for making shit up' Cameron's ludicrous statistics (lesbians 300 times more likely to die in car crashes, gay men only live to 40) to support their contention on the 'unnatural' nature of gay relationships.
As posted previously, it is natural. However what these muppets are doing is claiming that life expectency, driving proficiency etc are actual indicator of morality. Even if there was a link, it only has any relevance to life expectancy or motor skills - not morality.
Gay may not = paedo, but fundie certainly = dishonest nut bag with a total lack of critical thinking (or any type of thinking) ability
i think i've caught up with comments from this and ercent previous posts, thanks billy and ryan.
i suppose billy i don't like to get bound into having to fully explore one issue or q, i sometimes like to leave it simmering a little unresolved then maybe come back to it later. i most want simply to make original comment from my own perspective. doesn't mean i don't listen to your points. if you want to find in depth analysis of these and all issues you don't have to go far into books, as i haven't yet tired of saying. you should join icc international christian college library, the offerings there wd really give you some meat to sink your teeth into :)
Well said Billy. Someone who wanted to give an impression of Christianity as unhinged nonsense could do a lot worse that conflate ICC type fundamentalism with the H.C.F. I know of someone who was told by a fellow ICC student that 'no intelligent Christian could believe in evolution' (!). There are of course lots of great people at ICC, attracted in good faith, but the place itself is an environment where homophobia, fundamentalism and creationism flourish like a particularly nasty bacteria. It should really, in the interests of honesty in advertising, rename itself 'Evangementalist Bible College - Glasgow'. St.Silas' worst creationist (quite an accolade, eh? ;))publicised creotard speakers at ICC that no real university would give the time of day. It does crack me up when people, supposedly wanting to educate themselves, opt for silly Fundyville Community Colleges as theology departments in real universities are too 'liberal' (i.e. sensible, concerned with standards, peer-review, decent arguments etc etc)
I know of someone who was told by a fellow ICC student that 'no intelligent Christian could believe in evolution' (!).
I have had that said to me by St Silasites too. Interestingly, they had ICC connections. One of then in particular was heading down the pentecostal/Benny Hinn route at the time - I don't think I need to say anymore :-)
you can have your views, i only recommended the library!
Think it's objective fact - not a view :-)
'fraid i've decided to delete the comments that are a bit insulting to icc and st s guys, my blog is linked to email news updates i send out so don't really want them to have to read that kind of thing if they happen to look. feel free to make reasoned points but not ones unpleasant and branding to people or groups like that, cheers.
i guess billy that yes, i respond to qs i are interesting to me at a particular time. you may ask a q that i think, well if you'd go and read up about that you'd find there is/are intelligent christian response to. or you may ask a direct q like are values rigid that is v abstract, doesn't interest me as such greatly and where if i do answer i know will lead me into a pointless quagmire with you.
i'd rather explore issues in my own way and if your response interests me i'll respond back in due course.
Ah, so speculative linking of all LGBT people to padeophilia is perfectly ok - laudable even - but reasonable (certainly in the sense of 'justifiably')comment about Benny Hinn or ICC are not. Think you've just proved our points, Bruce.
guys, it's the hostile and derogatory tone of some points in your earlier comments i objected to. the throwing around of terms like homophobes and fundies in connection to icc and st s. just not nice to read. sorry.
Actually, I made a point of not naming names. Are you saying that you don't believe such things as homophobes or fundies exist? Or that in a church of many hundreds of people that SOME people might warrant the label? And, as if your linking of LGBT people with paedophilia wasn't bad enough, banning the word 'homophobe' is far more offensive than anything me or Billy have ever said here. Perhaps you could print a full list of approved newspeak to prevent such mishaps in the future.
Bruce, should I remove your link on my blog because some of my gay readers may find your posts on gays offensive or should I let people make their own minds up?
Regardless of your protest, telling folk they cant be christian and pro evolution is a fundamentalist position that goes against any rational position. If folk stopped seeing them and homophobes as acceptable, then perhaps the problem would be addressed. All you are doing is enabling extreme views here
Post a Comment