|
 This morning the Guardian has turned itself into the Church Times. It's leading on the possible appointment of Jeffrey John to the Bishopric of Southwark. The paper has clearly been heavily briefed by Jeffrey John's supporters: their characterisation of recent Anglican History on the subject is extremely one-sided and the Archbishop's attempts at dialogue are unfarily portrayed as weakness.
However, evangelical opposition to Jeffrey John's appointment remains highly dubious. Jeffrey John is not an iconoclastic "we've got to move with the times", cultural-conformity figure. He urgently believes that the Church needs to support gay and lesbian people; and he believes in the authority of the Christian teaching. His book "Permanent, Stable, Faithful" is an attempt to chart this middle course. Unfortunately it is influenced by the exegesis, prevalent at the time it was written, which held that the Bible said nothing about committed same-sex relationships. However John's integrity and intelligence are evident on every page. I suspect he may write a different book, were he writing now.
Most striking though, is Jeffrey John's insistence (and that of his partner) that their relationship is celibate. This is precisely what evangelicals have been demanding of gay and lesbian christians. When one of them does this, it is hypocritical to continue hyperventilating righteous fury.
Tradionalists may continue to protest that Jeffrey John lives with his partner, that he is vulnerable to tempation. However, after many years of living like this, surely Jeffrey John is a better judge of the situation than outsiders. If Jeffrey John thinks that this is the most whole way to live, if this is better than the loneliness and lack of companionship to which much conservative teaching condemns gay people, then he deserves support. He holds a beacon to the possibility of another way to live. His stance in this tortured debate has cost him much more than it has costs most of us. We have little right to start throwing stones.
The statement by Anglican pressure group Reform (I note that the Scottish pressure groups have so far stayed silent) mentions nothing of Jeffrey John's lifestyle, but simply opposes his appointment on the grounds of his teaching. Which then begs the question "why oppose this bishop on the grounds of doctrine and not others?" This leaves evangelicals open to the charge (again!) of having double standards. And finally, there is the impression once again that evangelicals will fight dirty when it suits them. This story has broken because of the leaking of confidential information, something that evangelicals should have nothing to do with. Or if they do, leakers should themselves come out the closet and admit what they did was on the grounds of conscience. You can't leak as an act of holy war, and then hide to keep your job; we must fight our battles with different weapons.
|
Tags
Subscribe to this comment's feed
The church is a damaging place for LGBT folk to be: the constant drip, drip, drip of vitriolic nastiness, or patronising platitudes are soul-destroying, energy-sapping, and emotionally/ psychologically damaging.
The church does not provide any viable strategy by which LGBT people can live their lives: it asks LGBT folk within the church to be celibate, and when they claim they are, it calls them liars/ doesn't believe that they can possibly be people of integrity.
It uses the term 'lifestyle' to infer choice and to insinuate promiscuity: as if it is completely reasonable to assume that human beings would actively choose to be reviled, be refused job opportunities, and to be beaten up just because of who they are... as well as to assume that heterosexuals are not at all promiscuous. And when someone who loves another of the same gender wants to live in a committed and faithful relationship... the church will not bless the relationship and continues to point the finger and say 'fornicator'.
Let's be really blunt: why on earth would LGBT folks actually want to stay within the church? When the phrase 'they are an abomination unto the Lord' is casually thrown about on the floor of a presbytery the message is clear - they are not welcome nor wanted.
It seems the church is incredibly fearful of LGBT folks: what I want to know is... why?