Between Ourselves

I've just listened to an episode of the 'Between Ourselves' programme (series five, episode four)* as recommended. I have to say that it did nothng to make me any more supportive of homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle and did nothing to make me think of supporting the cause of Homosexual clergy - sorry, but that's the way it is I'm afraid.

It was in fact, for me, rather sad listening matter in that it contained nothing new and the focus, being two homosexual priests, was rather limited and the theology and logic rather light (as one probably would expect from such a show). For some it might well represent a 'shop window' in which to display and promote homosexuality as a fidelity-ridden and warm experience but there were so many grating down which one could lose our change that it made for uneasy listening (well for me it did, I'm sure some will go, "Aaah, isn't that nice - they're happy and isn't 'being happy' what it's all about?"

Now, I will come clean and tell people that I am troubled as much by the bigots and I am the liberals and having been attacked numerous times over the fact that I would rather take communion with someone than burn down their house over this issue, found myself amazingly polarised by negative thoughts by the programme.

We find ourselves being regaled with the claim that one of the people speaking is Anglican because they uphold Scripture, Tradition and Reason (the tenets of orthodoxy as I understand it) and yet they then proceed to undermine and effectively deny all three.

I was astounded that because of prohibitions on cooking meat and milk we find an attempt to extrapolate this into deny the dietary and thereby permitting homosexuality. Perhaps a quick read of the thirty-nine articles would be useful here (the religious and ceremonial versus moral bit!).

It was interesting that the image of the 'Holy Family' caused such distress, perhaps we need to revise our Bibles such that Adam and Steve start of in Eden and work our way along to Mary, Jackie and the holy turkey baster or something. Man-woman, possibly spogs (and don't we know people with no kids who also struggle?) seems to be the natural order of things.

Reason - procreation has the potential for progeny, everything else doesn't (excluding the clever scientific bits whereby we don't even need blokes now and women can go it totally alone!!!). Tradition - it wasn't right for two thousand years but now it has to be. Bible - who reads and believes that these days anyway, we make it say what we want (and I struggle over many bits by the way!).

Lambeth - affirms sexual congress as total commitment intended within marriage (only one marriage, male-female) and condemns adultery (hooray) and formication (thanks be to God) and says homosexuality not one of the options. This is bias, bigoted and to be fought against. Seems affirming Scripture, Reason and Tradition isn't what is wanted after all.

I thought the 'moved in together within weeks' was a little telling, but let's not go there. That said, if, as was asserted, 'it's not about sex' why the problem with being celibate? I know a fair few homosexuals and for many of them sex is not part of the relationship at all, it is (as Claire said) more about the focus of their love. This is a big difference and without the act many of those who utter awful and disgusting things about homosexuality find their arguments, like their faith it seems, empty and without any credibility.

My only dealings with 'inclusive church' is that they want an 'exclusive church' and seek to pillory, act against and work for a church whereby they are the only acceptable group. A rather sad and nutty lady I came across worked tirelessly to abuse and hound some people from the church. She started whispering campaigns and tried her best (worst?) to be a focus for fragmentation and fracture. Then she was gone - bitter, warped and perhaps just a little nutty, which was a shame because despite the cheers of others, she is still a human being and is made in the image of the invisible God. (we will we learn we have to get right not even :(  ).

To take a comment passed on the broadcast, "One does not matter more than another," unless of course you are homosexual and then all our attitudes and traditional values and standards have to be put aside.

Not a bad programme though - after all, homosexuals (priests or laity, Christian or other) are still human and need to be treated with respect even when we disagree with them.

A parting thought. Fifteen years ago, whist doing a post-grad course in Applied Theology I wrote a paper which stated that within fifteen years homosexuality would probably be acceptable and in fifty so to would paedophilia. In the fifties homosexuality was abhorrent and aberative but media spin and societal attitudes are changing this and moving the baselines regarding acceptable behaviour. In the same way people, portraying paedophilia as a 'pure' form of love would continue to move the baselines further until we san this as nothing sinister, aberrant or abhorrent.

I hoped I was wrong (and at the moment the press vilify and enjoy the sales paedophilia brings- look at Rome's problems) but we appear to progressing with our own societal version of Rake's progress and standards, attitudes and expectations appear to be continuing in the direction I first noted.

Sad - seems like we need a Saviour!


* This programme will only be accessible for a short time so sorry if you've read this after it has been deleted by the BBC.