What is sin?

Someone posted the following comment on our www.out4marriage.org (video link here):

Equal marriage encourages sin.
You should know that if you've read the Bible AND you are listening to God.
If being a sodomite isn't sinful, is fornicating?
If being a sodomite isn't sinful, is adultery?
What is sin in YOUR opinion?

This is my response:
To offer an overly simplistic answer to a complex issue:

Adultery is the betrayal of a committed marriage relationship and fornication typically refers to consensual sex between non-married adults. Neither deals with people actually desiring to love and commit to each other.
Surely, people who deny equal marriage to same-sex couples are - in fact - encouraging these behaviours, outside of committed loving marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, sin is deliberately acting in a way which harms others or harms your relationship with God.

Committing to love someone for life does neither of those ... however, pointing fingers at others & creating a distance between them and their Creator, does both of those.


Consider the words of Matthew 18:6-7:
Causing to stumble
6 ‘If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung round their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

They then responded:
" creating a distance between them and their Creator "

Whatever I say doesn't create distance between a person and their creator but sin does. Christ died to close the distance between God and man but expects believers (and gives them the ability) to know what sin is. Your analysis of what sin is, is not correct.
Judging the behaviour of people who have no Christian profession is futile but those that profess Christ ought to be judged from within so they stop sinning.

To which I responded:
It does create a distance if your words cause them to abandon their faith because they believe that they are unwelcome.

I wouldn't want to be responsible for that. I would much rather affirm and include, and leave it to God to judge.

Romans 2:1-4
God’s righteous judgment

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realising that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

________________________________________________________________________

It's interesting to me that the person will refuse to interact with references from Scripture when offered in defence of the LGBT community, but will happily quote them when wanting to condemn.  This is much more about a personal agenda that drives the use of Scripture, than it is about obedience to Scripture.

Equal Marriage

The government's consultation has brought much out in the open ... some good ... a lot bad.

The good:

• It's raised awareness of just how poorly Civil Partnership measures up to marriage, and how big the legal inequalities are.  Very few people, including members of the LGBT community, were aware of this.  This has been the primary reason that those who campaign against it have been able to quote that "The gay people I know don't want equal marriage" ... it's not that some gay people actually think they have all they need in law, it's that they don't know how much they're currently discriminated against & not protected by their country's laws.  This is changing.
• As a result, it's also encouraged many people to engage more with the politics of equal rights - members of the LGBT community, as well as supporters & allies.  It's also encouraged a lot of straight people to sit up and say, we think of it as marriage ... our friends are not getting 'Civil Partnered', they're getting married.
• It's even encouraged many faith groups (Christian & other) to step in and say that - altough the consultation only affects Civil Marriage, they would like to perform same-sex marriages, which is a wonderful affirmation for the LGBT members. 

The bad:

• Sadly, the whole process has encouraged people to make increasingly alarming & bigoted remarks, and to feel perfectly justified in doing so.  People have been equating gay marriage to beastiality & paedophilia once more, and claiming that the LGBT community ultimately want to normalise gay lifestyle, because they want to recruit the straight community's children.  Comments like this are obviously unhelpful, untrue and profoundly unintelligent.
• It has also encouraged a lot of bigoted comments by people, using sections of Scripture as their motivation, and using Scripture to communicate their own political viewpoints, rather than the other way round.  Perhaps this is why people are feeling they have permission to verbally abuse the LGBT community once more ... because people are telling them that God is on their side.
• Unfortunately, there is also a concerted effort to scare people into a delirious frenzy because the very fabric of their human existence is apparently going to be threatened by two people of the same sex declaring their love for each other publicly, and receiving the support of their communities & the legal protection of their country.  People are being told that making this positive step will undermine family values and cause a breakdown in society ... which is obviously not the case.
• Amazingly, some MP's are claiming that they've not heard of any LGBT person who wants Equal Marriage! Evidently they must not have televisions, radios or computers.  Or perhaps they somehow feel less guilty about denying people's rights if they pretend there are no people whose rights are being denied. They just don't exist, therefore I cannot be harming them.

Personally, I would like to hope that people make the right decision for the safety of all members of society. A government should not be encouraged to deny the rights of any segment of society, no matter how small, because doing so would be unpopular. The nature of the law is that it SHOULD protect minority groups, precisely because they're minority.

• Society will not fall apart because gay people marry. On the contrary, it will encourage greater commitment of relationships, will encourage people to be more honest and open about their lives. It will affirm families, because gay households will be secure places to live and raise children.
• Those who struggle with the term 'marriage' and don't want to emulate it, but instead want to pursue a civil partnership will still be able to do so (and indeed, this should be extended to straight couples, too), while those who wish to marry will be able to do that.
• Contrary to the scare-mongering, religious organisations & faith groups will NOT be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they don't wish to.  There are many churches who currently will not marry divorcees, or - in some cases - couples where one partner is not a member of the faith, until they profess that faith. This is not challenged and they are not fined or forced.  Same sex marriage will be no different.  And provided it's communicated honestly, with respect, I think it's right that people be allowed to stand by their convictions.  The law protects their right to do so ... why should the law not be allowed to protect the relationships of LGBT people, too.
• At the end of the day, it's not about straight people being forced to do anything ... it's about whether or not we believe the LGBT community are equal citizens, worthy of equal protection under the law. To deny the LGBT community the right to equal marriage, is to use the power of the majority to bully the minority.

I hope that equality will prevail, but I'm realistic enough to know that history is littered with examples where the majority have felt too uncomfortable to change the status quo and have instead decided to maintain the status quo where the minority are less equal.

Mike & I will be Civil Partnered in June 2012 ... a day which for us (& our friends & families) will be one of the greatest days of our lives, the day where we publicly declare our love & commitment to love each other for life. It will be an affirming day & a loving day, and a true celebration of love.  It does, however, sadden us that we can't get married, which is what all our friends and family are calling it.  The language, to them, is marriage.  The law doesn't allow it, but they've called it marriage from the word go.  We could wait to see what happens with the government consultation, but we want to commit to each other.  If equal marriage does go through, we will apply to change our Civil Partnership to a marriage.

It also saddens us that we can't include our faith fully in that ... we are being forced to separate our commitment into a secular registration ceremony, and then had to hunt around for a church that we thought would be willing to allow us to have some sort of ceremony where we can pray & be prayed for. It's a bit ludicrous that I'm ordained as a priest, and can't bring my relationship into my denomination. It's quite shameful that we can't even call our service a 'blessing', because the public line is that the Church of England does not officially 'bless' same sex unions.  It'll bless battle ships, park benches, donkeys, cats, dogs, jewellery & buildings ... but not a loving and committed same-sex couple.

That, to me, feels extremely discriminatory ... "you and your relationship are of less worth than concrete or trinkets".

As a result, it felt like the right thing for us to record a video in support of the http://www.out4marriage.org/ campaign, which hopefully will also serve as a bit of encouragement for the LGBT community from a person of faith, when they're encountering so many negative messages at the moment, and being told they are abominations, disordered, ill, sick, etc., etc..

I hope the government do the right thing.  I hope the faith communities do the right thing.

"Equal, but different, just isn't equal."

Link to the government consultation: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/
Link to the Coalition 4 Equal Marriage: http://www.c4em.org.uk/
Link to the Out 4 Marriage page: http://out4marriage.org/
Some further discussion about the Bible & the LGBT community: http://youtu.be/ezQjNJUSraY
Some of the differences between Civil Partnership & Equal Marriage: http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

As Mike & are planning our Civil Partnership in a few week's time, I've been following the public outcry by SOME people in SOME OF the Christian churches against the prospect of Equal Civil Marriage with a degree of sadness. I would love a marriage ... it is a deep public expression of our love for each other, with the community gathered around us, pledging their support. We can't have a marriage, because the law doesn't yet offer it.  Many think that Civil Partnership is the same as marriage, but it isn't (see http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM). I also don't see why some Christians are being so outspoken and bitter about it, when the proposal is about CIVIL marriage equality. It wouldn't affect them, and they would not be forced to perform same sex marriages, in the same way that some churches can refuse to remarry divorcees without repercussions.

I don't believe that Christianity is exclusive or judgemental, and I think people have got it wrong.  To explain this better, I will include the conversation between myself and a facebook friend...

Sam:
Hi Andy, noticed you've been putting a lot about Facebook on this issue. I'm not coming to start an argument, I just genuinely want to know how you (and I guess how Tutu too!) would interpret a verse like this from the NT? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-27&version=NIV

Me:
Hi Sam,
No offence taken, as I couldn't expect you to understand how deeply hurtful and exclusive the common interpretation of these verses are for gays, lesbians, bisexual & transgender people. In my view, there are a grand total of 6 ver...ses in the whole of Scripture that COULD speak of homosexuality, but whether or not they do is arguable.

For a start, as I say, there are only 6 verses, while there are hundreds that deal with behaviour in straight relationships that get overlooked. Why is the religious right focusing on loving gay relationships, but not being outspoken about other issues condemned in Scripture like divorce, adultery, etc.? Why are they focusing on condemning loving, consenting relationships, based on a POSSIBLE interpretation of 6 verses, when there are bigger Biblical issues like corruption, murder, war, poverty, deception, etc., etc.? Why are they focusing on excluding the LGBT community from discovering the loving, inclusive nature of Christ's love, while ignoring other commandments to not eat pork or wear mixed fabrics, or marry their deceased brother's widow, etc., etc.?

If ALL Scripture is infallible, what gives them the freedom to decide which bits they can enforce or not enforce.

Think for a moment, that they did not understand Homosexuality as we do, when they wrote Scripture. They didn't even have a term for it. As far as Paul was concerned, these were straight people engaging in sexual practises with other stra...ight people of the same sex.
Clearly that would be unnatural, but he had no idea that there could be people who were not straight, or who could only love people of the same sex, because that was how they were made.
Consider what it would be like, if you were only able to love someone of the same sex, and people told you that that was wrong. How would facing a life of loneliness feel to you? If you were told that you were unable to love a woman ... where would that leave your desire for a future and happiness? Celibacy has to remain a higher CALLING, not a sentence.

And then, think, if the term "Homosexual" didn't exist, where did it come from ... which translater decided on that possible translation, when they could have used words that translate to mean someone who is morally weak or someone who uses... power to get sex. Is the current exclusion of the LGBT people, and the attempt to enforce their loneliness in order to belong, based on a possible mistranslation?

Can we afford to exclude from the faith, an entire segment of the community, based on what may not be an accurate translation?

Have a look at http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html

And also at http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

Sam:
Hi Andy, Yeah I totally agree with all of that. I think there are much more important issues that we need to focus on as Christians. And it goes without saying that Christian persecution of the LGBT community is outrageous and horrible.

I'm also pleased we agree all scripture is infallible. And I agree it's not always easy to interpret the OT law and how it applies. I think most people would make a distinction between moral and cultural laws which would help iron out some of what you mentioned about pork, fabrics etc...though not all of it.

It's your second comment that really gets to the heart of the issue, I think. Although I have to admit I've never encountered the view that the above scripture was about straight people engaging in sexual practises with other straight people. Surely by definition, sexual practises between 2 straight people would mean they were gay? (I assume you don't mind me using terms of straight/gay, let me know if you do and I'll happily change. Have to be careful as some find them offensive.)

Paul was a devout Jew who knew the Torah inside out so if the OT verses didn't actually mean that homosexuality was morally wrong - wouldn't he correct them? And wouldn't Jesus? Again - I'm just asking the question, not trying to get at anyone. I really appreciate you taking the time to write a detailed response as I have yet to discuss this with anyone and have been somewhat afriad of doing so for coming across as a nasty homophobic so and so and adding to the unfortunate stereotype that christians hate gays. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm pretty sure that homosexuality was being practised in places like Corinth and Paul would have known about it. I've also yet to see any scholarly work that says the NT hasn't translated words around homosexuality correctly.

Do either of your links talk about this issue of mistranslation further? For me, as someone who believes in scripture as the ultimate authority, it's where I'd like to focus my reading.

Me:
I don't think they mean the same thing ... two straight people of the same sex engaging in sex does not make them gay, and would not be thought of as natural. It is also not the same as two people of the same sex who fall in love. I'm uncomfortable with the obsession on genitalia and the ignoring of deep love. Homosexuality has always been around, but not with the same level of understanding as we have now. Paul would not have understood that people are born gay, and can only fall in love with others of the same sex. He would have made the assumption that they were straight and choosing to do gay things (which is the misconception people still make ... that it is somehow a choice). It is definitely not a choice, and if it was, with the struggles and the bullying and the hatred they receive, most would choose to be straight. People are gay because they can only be gay. And it's not about sex ... it's about identity, and who they fall in love with.

Both of the links deal with the Scriptures.

Me:
I should add that in the current understanding of sexual identity, two people of the same sex engaging in sexual activity could mean any number of things, but in Paul's understanding, I think he assumed that they were straight and engaging in unnatural behaviour, rather than being aware of any other way of being.

I also think that, for me, the core of the matter is about love, and who people are able to love, and how we support that. Some of the ignorant comments coming out about this potentially leading to the legalisation of paedophilia, beastiality or rape, are obviously unhelpful and incorrect, as they are about malicious and harmful behaviour, and not about love between consenting adults in love with each other.

As for the infallibility of Scripture, I agree, but I think we may have different angles on it. I view the WHOLE of Scripture as infallible, not necessarily all the parts thereof. So, I think as a whole, Scripture is a guide to life and a witness of the love of God for all of creation & the saving grace of God through Christ. But where the parts can potentially be used to disagree with that core message, I disagree.

Surely the best way to encourage healing, wholeness and family values, and at the same time, discourage promiscuity, is to allow people to enter into loving long-term relationships that they can be open and honest about, without having to hide them.

Sam:
I take your point but I can also see why people would want to preserve and not re-define what marriage is. I'll respond to the rest of it later :)

Me:
Indeed, but Marriage is not a Christian instution. It's origin is in secular, civil contracts between wealthy people or rulers. When Christianity became popular under Constantinople, it was brought inside Churches, because the wealthy wanted to show they had religious approval. It was also brought into churches to try to encourage openness.

The current consultation is about Civil Marriage, not religious marriage. So it is wrong for some Christians to assume that they own the whole of marriage, when historically they only have involvement in the very recent history of marriage as a whole.

No churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages, and will still be able to marry, bury, baptise & confirm who they wish to (in the same way they can now, and many churches have the practise where they won't remarry divorcees, and have the freedom to do so).

But same sex couples will have the opportunity to have Civil Marriages, with the same protection that offers to the rest of society. Because, at the end of the day, a Civil Partnership is not the same as a marriage (see http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM )

Gay Liberation Theology

It's been a while since I posted a link about any sort of Gay Liberation Theology.  Is there even such a thing as "Gay Liberation Theology"?  Some would probably say no, and that it's "Queer politics", while others would probably say yes. Anyway ... whatever it's called, I think it may be possible to get activism fatigue ... you seem to try for so long to get people to accept you as a whole person (rather than a "broken image" of the person they think you should be) and the longer you try, the more people you encounter that demand again that you justify your right to "be" ... you just get tired of saying the same things over and over again. Sometimes, it's easier to ignore them and just go on living life.  But then, I guess, that only encourages them to ignore you and go on living in their own bubbles. So here's another open and honest testimony I found online today ... happy reading ... http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/03/27/presbyterian_minister_changes_mind_about_gays

Another epistle about being both gay and Christian ...

This is another email to my friend about being gay and Christian and trying to reconcile the two ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your honesty and your reply. Sorry it's taken me a while. I respect your view ... it was one I tried to live by for a long time, but it was self-destructive. I tried to do what your friend is currently doing ... it left me so deep in depression, because I couldn't change who I was and I believed therefore that who I was was an abhorration to God and that would never be able to change. It was a bit of a rough place to be believing that my salvation had been removed from me because I couldn't become someone that God would approve of, and yet I didn't want to live because life was desperately lonely. [As I mentioned in my other note, caught between the hell I was living with and the hell I thought I was inevitably going to.] I suppose I should also add that the ex-Gay "ministries" that originated in the States have been discredited by medical boards and governments in the West as misleading, misguided and extremely harmful. Several of their spokespeople and directors have either left them or been caught soliciting sex in public places, because they craved companionship but couldn't pursue it openly, and were therefore reduced to the risky and emotionally harmful act of trying to secretly have anonymous sex with strangers, and then return to their 'wonderful and healed lives'. Consider the apology from some of the former leaders of such movements at http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/apology Take a look at the story of Randolph Baxter on the website of Courage UK , who used to be part of an ex-Gay ministry and is now part of an ex-ex-Gay ministry. ;o) http://www.courage.org.uk/testimonies/Baxter.shtml Look at their 'Basis of faith'. The ex-gay ministries still have their fans, and some of those are politicians, and some of the programmes are extremely powerful, but they are largely discredited in the West. Those programmes are now trying to market themselves to developing markets and Africa, in the hopes that they'll be able to develop their agenda there. So, in addition to being discredited and harmful, I often wonder if it's a power agenda, rather than a faith one, using a very credible-sounding faith façade for their own purposes. I don't agree with a purely fundamental reading of Scripture, as it's a vibrant and adapting document that remains relevant to all cultures but cannot be enforced in it's original context without mercy because - after all - it communicates a loving and merciful God. But, I am prepared to say that - as much as I believe my reading of the verses to be correct, the fundamentalists believe theirs to be correct - and they're not trying to be hurtful, they're only trying to be true to what they believe is right. I often wish they would have the same respect for my views. In my mind, rather than thinking of it as absolute in it's current English translation, I think it depends on the reading and the translation. There are a few verses (I think 6 in total) that speak against homosexuality, but the difficulty is in context and translation. The Greek and Hebrew words that were translated into 'homosexual' could mean several things, including 'promiscuous', 'people who use power to obtain sex' or even 'idol worship'. The difficulty in some of the cases is that the original word is used so rarely that it's difficult to find a confident translation. But someone settled on homosexual and since then, evangelical Christians the world over have used it to judge gays, lesbians, bi's and transgendered people, and even advocated hate crimes (and more recently, not speaking out against human rights violations, such as the Ugandan Government's new law which punishes gay men with the death penalty if discovered - or even if outed by someone else, that evidence is sufficient to sentence them to death, but the evangelical churches are silent on the issue). Of course, in the past, evangelicals have also supported racism, slavery and misogyny ... all of which is now acknowledged to be hugely incorrect ... but homophobia is still popular in faith. It's a very difficult and painful issue for a lot of people, and to be honest, influences a lot of evangelical Christians, and there is a lot of power play and a lot of money being poured into supporting Christians and churches that follow their lead in enforcing the judgement and/or expulsion of gays. They will hide behind 'we love gays, we just don't love what they do', and say that gay people are ok, as long as they're celibate and lonely, but they're operating under the severely erred belief that gay and lesbian people are actually straight people CHOOSING to have sex with people of the same gender ... not recognising that it's about identity, about love, about personality ... not just genitalia. Take a look at the http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/ page. And they offer a few alternative interpretations and insights on http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html Now, I recognise that some of the views they express may be difficult, as they're contrary to the views you've been taught so far, and go against what you believe, but if nothing else, look at them as an opportunity to discover that there are other ways of reading the scriptures out there, and each side believes their way to be correct, and tries their best to live it out in a way that honours their faith. Hope you're well, and as awesome as you always were! Luv Andy

A gay priest's story ...

A friend, when discovering that I was gay and in a relationship, expressed that it was a bit of a shock and asked if others were shocked when they found out.  This was my rather lengthy reply and is another telling of my story, which you may know some of, through previous entries. "I guess I did shock a few people when I came out, but not really when I started dating. I told a number of friends when I came back to PE after my first year in the UK when I'd had time to come to terms with it, but it wasn't a big surprise for many of them ... the pieces just fell into place I guess. To be fair, my own journey was so traumatic and took so much of my emotional, physical, spiritual and mental energy, that I can't really worry about how someone will receive the news. At the same time, I don't broadcast it, because I know some would struggle with it, but I can only be who I am, and when they find out, I can't take on their struggles as well ... they need to walk their own journey. I have always known I was gay, but tried to suppress it for many years (28 of them). I guess I have to admit that my work/life balance was unhealthy, but I poured myself into my youth work as a way of hiding from myself. I frequently worked 18 hour days and believed I was being committed and pious, but occasionally I caught up with myself and despised who I saw. I even tried seeing a psychologist for 2.5 years and putting myself through a "Healing from homosexuality" course that was organised by someone that had been on the Living Waters / Desert Streams courses, with financial support from one of the pastors at Harvest Christian Fellowship. All that transpired was that the psychologist got me to sever my links with my family, because he believed it was all down to nurture and imperfect family relationships, and the "healing" course left me feeling hopelessly inadequate and guilty, because I wasn't being healed. It was also unhelpful when the guy who ran the course couldn't admit that he was still a gay man struggling with his need for companionship, not a healed straight man, and even less helpful when he became attracted to me and stopped talking to me. LOL. It was an extremely dark period in my life, where I believed that I could never know love and companionship unless I put myself and some poor woman through the sham of a marriage without intimacy. I couldn't do that to someone else, and I could no longer run from who I was, so I faced a life of loneliness and hiding the real me. At the same time, I knew that I was called to ministry, but that the institution I worked for would never accept me, so I had to hide from them, too. My emotions were all over the place and I was an overworked, exhausted, lonely and miserable wreck, who occasionally went from extremely low to manic. I often thought of death as my only escape from the desperate loneliness and used to ponder suicide as a better alternative to an indeterminate number of lonely and unhappy years, and I remember sharing with my friend, Tim, my Methodist friend, that the only thing keeping me alive was the belief that the hell I was in was somehow better than the hell I would go to for being gay. So, yeah ... not a great place to be. All of this was going on at the time I first met you guys. You were a breath of fresh air and a joy and you energised my ministry at the time, but all of this was going on in the background. When I moved to St Hugh's in Newton Park, things had become even darker for me and Eddie Daniels who was the Rector at the time, reassured me that I could share anything with him in confidence and he would support me. Against my better judgement I let my guard down and shared some of what was going on inside me with him. He made all the right noises and promised to support me, but then I discovered he was going to parishioners behind my back and starting rumours that I was sexually involved with a lot of the guys at St. Cuthbert's ... Neal, Dylan, Gregg, Mike ... and Tim, my Methodist friend, and JP, one of the young adults at St Hugh's. Good guys who I was very close to, but they're all straight and just close friends. They were all very good about it when I told them what rumours were going about, and offered to take the matter to court, but I was too scared of being forced to publicly come out, so I never did. Eddie used this and kept spreading the rumours, and when I eventually plucked up the courage to confront him, hoping he would back down, his defence was, "I am your Rector and I'll do whatever I want." He then forced me into a relationship with a woman I was close friends with, which ruined our friendship and broke her heart. After that relationship failed, and it broke her heart, he even tried to force us to live together in the parish house, which I think was abominable and - even worse - the leaders in the parish saw no wrong in his actions. So, I decided the most mature thing would be for me to hand in my resignation and ask Bishop Bethlehem Nopece to move me to another parish, which I did in a perfectly adult way, meeting with the Bishop before resigning and explaining the situation to him, and him agreeing with me and saying he would find me a parish to go to. I wrote to Eddie, explaining honestly that I was saddened we could not work together, but wished him well in his ministry and wished to move on in three month's time (the suggested notice period in the Anglican Church). He responded by kicking me out of the parish immediately, without any chance to say goodbye to the congregation and without any formal farewell. Obviously, the parish then assumed that I had done something worthy of such banishment, and combined with the rumours, Eddie was making a pretty good job of ruining my reputation and my chance at ministry in Port Elizabeth.  It also didn't help that Terry Beadon, who'd moved parishes, then felt it important for him to post a letter to the congregation on the noticeboard, telling them I was being disciplined for being bad and calling for them to pull together behind Eddie. When the matter went to the Bishop, I presented evidence to him and two of his advisors.  None of them knew my side of the story (not that they asked) and they agreed that Eddie was acting irresponsibly and irrationally. However, I also discovered that rank is more important than honesty and justice, and the Bishop didn't challenge Eddie's rapid removal of me, and also didn't keep to his promise to find me another parish, so I was left without a parish to work in, without a way to publicly clear my name (unless I took the matter to court and made it public knowledge that I was gay - something I wasn't ready for). So I was left to deal with it, in silence and on my own. Robbie, a friend of mine, took me into his parish in Walmer, where I worked for 6 months.  However, I had no desire to remain in the Diocese of Port Elizabeth anymore and told Rob that before I made any rash decisions, I needed a year out overseas, maybe at a Theological College, maybe even a monastery. Coincidentally (God-incedentally!), 48 hours later Rob had a phonecall from a monk he'd never spoken with before, asking if he knew of any young clergy who were available to do a year's exchange in the UK at a Theological College - owned by a monastery!! Obviously, I jumped at the chance, and that's how I ended up in the UK in 2002. It was at Mirfield that I first encountered Christians in ministry who were gay and not ashamed about it, and began gently being honest with myself and others about who I was. I realised that I couldn't fight the fact that I was called to ministry and I couldn't renounce my faith. But I had also spent a long time trying to run from who I was and change who I was, and I couldn't do that either. So I had to realise that I was both Christian who was called AND gay. Not easy, but unavoidable. So I would have to try my best to be faithful to both. To practise my faith in a way that was inclusive and to share that inclusive faith with others who were being told that their faith would not accept them. At the same time, I needed to live my life as a gay person who was being true to my faith.  I have to recognise that I'm gay - I can't hide it, I can't pretend to be anything else and I don't need to be. I didn't choose to be gay and given the choice I probably wouldn't have, but it's who I was and I needed to be honest in my relationship with God as much as with other people. So I need to responsible about that and represent gay people to my faith as much as the other way round. It's a difficult gap to bridge ... on one side, gay people are extremely hurt by the Church (global, not just Anglican) and are forced away from it and it's alleged good intentions ("loving the sinner not the sin" is really just another way of saying, "you can belong as long as you act like one of us") and there's a lot of bitter feeling. On the other side, the Church is very distrusting of gay people and operating with loads of misconceptions, such as gay people are somehow straight people who choose to have sex with people of the same sex, or that all gays are paedophiles (when, in fact, paedophiles are paedophiles, and they may be straight or gay), or even that gay people are somehow trying to recruit straight people (if it was that easy to change orientation, then gay people could become straight and save themselves a lot of grief!).  I also operates under the misconception that being gay is purely about genital intercourse, and not about falling in love and sharing your life with someone you love, where physical attraction MAY form part of the story, but is not the whole. So, sitting between the two camps can be difficult ... I have a lot of Christian friends who don't like gay people and I have a lot of gay friends who don't like Christians. I try to be frank and unashamed of who I am to both of them. So I've reached a place of finding a purpose in who I am, rather than trying to hide it or run from it. At the same time, I'm alarmed that the Church as an institution is become increasingly hateful, exclusive and alarmist when it comes to it's dealings with the gay community, and I need to recognise that I may not always be able to be in ministry, but as a wise friend of mine once told me, "always remember that you were called to serve God, but not necessarily with a dog collar." I am still in ordained ministry, but work as a University Chaplain. That enables me to work in an institution which is inclusive and in which I can be myself, but also to do a lot of good work with the LGBT students and the students of faith, and with students who struggle with either or both. I find it very diverse, challenging and interesting. For now, I'm happy in Chaplaincy. We'll have to wait and see how long I remain in full-time ministry. If anything, what I went through in Port Elizabeth broke my love affair with it. I love ministry, but I don't need to be a part of an institution that deals with people in that way. So, my work/life balance has improved remarkably. I now spend time investing in me as well, which is nice. I also decided to start dating in 2003, as I couldn't continue living life miserably and lonely. I was nervous at first, and was probably damaged goods, but met some great guys who are still friends, broke one or two hearts and had mine broken once or twice along the way. How very normal. ;o) I met Mike in 2008, and we hit it off straight away. He's absolutely lovely, and we've both had an interesting time, learning to trust someone else with our deepest emotions. I'm very lucky to have met him, and I'm not letting go anytime soon. Obviously, we have our abrasive moments, but that's relationships. I'm saddened that I can't share that joy with everyone ... and that I need to watch what I say and how we act in public. We can't hold hands, we have to watch eye contact. We can't even sit too close. There are some functions I can't take him to and I sometimes feel I've betrayed him when I introduce him as a friend, rather than my partner, but sadly, that's the way things go from time to time. Thankfully, however, there are places and friends with whom we can be ourselves and just be normal, which is great. It's been a helluva rollercoaster ride, but I'm thankful for where I am now and for the opportunities I get to just be me, and the opportunity to finally have someone who loves me for me and not the me I think they want to see."

Barbie gets religion

I thought I'd send you this pious beauty to bring you special Easter wishes. ;o)   It's from an American blogsite ( http://beautytipsforministers.com/2010/03/28/the-genius-of-the-rev-julie-blake-fisher/ ) which is silly and fun and written by a very funky and sassy minister called Victoria Weinstein (Peacebang).   Every blessing, this Easter, and always ...

RIP Kristian Digby

Such a sad day. I share Alistair Appleton's sentiments that Jan Moir should leave his grieving relatives alone, and not try to step on the memories of a deceased man, in order to boost her own bigoted agenda. Obviously, I didn't know him personally, but he was a smiling face and a warm personality on the telly.  He was gifted, bright and enthusiastic. We need more Kristian Digbys, and less Jan Moirs.

At last ...

... I have found something meaningful to do with bad Theology books. ;)

"God works DESPITE the Church, not because of it ..."

Time and time I am reminded of the above phrase, and in fact rely on it to stop me becoming disillusioned by the bigotry, politics and power struggles within the Church.

The Anglican church in Port Elizabeth has again proclaimed it's love of bigotry and regression http://www.epherald.co.za/article.aspx?id=467360

Unfortunately, what the person who wrote the article forgot to state was that it's not all Anglicans that are opposed to gay clergy or gay marriage, but only those who have a limited understanding of Scripture and find it too uncomfortable to read it inclusively.

Thankfully, there are many who are willing to recognise that Theology is not always comfortable and should always be practised in a way that is relevant to both the current context and it's original context ... even if that is not the way it was taught to you. That's what discovering truth is ... and thankfully there are many who are happy to discover it.

Good News can be found in South Africa

There is good news in South Africa. Now, if only the rest of the clergy were as committed to sharing Good News with all.

http://archbishop.anglicanchurchsa.org/2009/08/resolution-of-diocese-of-cape-town-on.html

The race is on...

LOL ... I've just found the news articles about the atheist bus campaign that's ruffling evangelical tail feathers. The buses have amusing phrases on them, like "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." This became a news item when a bus driver refused to drive one of the buses, because the website name ( http://www.atheistcampaign.org ) offended him. I guess I can understand how evangelical Christians could be upset at the banners, but I just find them funny. And you can't really make exceptions ... the evangelicals have been using buses for years ... with the alpha course and jesussaid.org banners. So why should the atheists not get a crack at it? Interestingly enough ... people seem to be a lot more passionate about the atheist campaign than by the alpha or jesussaid campaigns. Compare http://www.justgiving.com/alphaposters/ with http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus . The difference is astounding, and quite funny. Who knows ... Perhaps this is people saying that Christianity needs to find a message that includes people, rather than attempts to scare them into submission and conformity? That the Church should focus on how it can serve people, rather than dictate to them? That Christians should not feel so threatened by people who don't conform to their method of thinking, but should be ready to share the playing field and hear (and understand) their views? That the Church is in no position to focus on how it can exclude people ... it should focus on how it can include and welcome them and celebrate their differences? For that reason, I reckon the atheist bus campaign is a good thing. At least it encourages discussion and inclusion.

Bizarre...

Who would have thought they would ever see the day when footballers were better at expressing God's will than the pope? I guess it ties in with the commonly felt notion that football stadiums are the new cathedrals. Perhaps footballers have now become the proclaimers of Good News to the masses, and the pope is now an overpaid, overly dramatic individual with an over-full wardrobe, a distorted sense of reality and a home that's oversized? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/beckham-fights-antigay-prejudice-1228180.html

Benedict the bulldog

What do I think of the Pope's recent hateful comments that will no doubt give rise to new enthusiasm for homophobic attacks and discrimination? Well ... the thing i've learned is that the pope has authority, but he doesn't represent all Catholics, pretty much the same as Bush didn't represent all Americans, Mugabe doesn't represent all Zimbabweans and Osama doesn't represent all Muslims. What it shows, is that - sadly - the loudest voices aren't always from the best people, and often the people with the loudest voices, not the best character, end up in positions of leadership.  It would be a mistake to judge all those under them by their misguided behaviour.

Some informed and inclusive thoughts ...

I am encouraged today by a few pieces in a recent edition of the Church
Times ...
Firstly, by an article in the Comments section, by Dr Michael King.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752
Secondly, of some interest are the letters in the same edition ...
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60769
And thirdly, not from the Church Times, but a link I've often mentioned
before which is good for generating some informed discussion is
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/ , which also has a very good video
introduction.