Having started to consider some pastoral engagements and the ways we might respond, here's the second scenario for us to consider:
I am approached by a man who informs me that he and his partner are hopefully moving in to the area and wondered whether they'd find a welcoming place within our building. His partner is another man!
Do I tell him that he and his partner are going to burn in hell and leave in case I catch a dose of homosexuality?
I do understand that this is the method of choice for a fair number of people. It works better if you can perhaps have a placard with 'God hates Gays', and a megaphone, close to hand so that the point can really be made forcefully. After all, we are called to be watchmen and at the end of the day it's only 'being right' that matters, not being 'righteous'.
I don't know the bloke and if I haven't found out and at least gained some idea about him (them) and he (them) a bit about me, what he actually have is the potential for a shouting match and polarised positions doing the talking (shouting) for us.
Do I tell him I don't consider homosexuality to be a compatible Christian lifestyle but also explain that he's a brother and that was the place we needed, honestly and in dialogue, to work from?
Indeed I do, but it was not the first thing I did! It would be wrong for me to pretend that I supported the relationship for this would be hypocrisy at one extreme and weak, and unbiblical, at the other! But it would have been wrong to open dialogue in any way other than to say he (they) would of course be welcome.
One of the things that we appear often to fail to do is seek or celebrate the image of God in others and instead look for that which separates rather than that which unites. This, like withholding Communion, serves only to make a point and keep the 'religious' pure, just like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Homosexuality, if I understand it correctly, is not contagious nor genetic but is a choice and so I will deal with it as such. After all, what of those who choose other things, do I exclude them?
Do I tell him he's welcome but 'no communion for you'?
Aha, the parody of Seinfeld's tragic,"No soup for you!" 'Soup Nazi'! I'm not sure who this damages most, but my money is on those who refuse rather than the refused person. Not only that, if people want to play the 'victim' card, this act of refusal (like ejection) is a real winner in the garnering of the 'sympathy vote and actually hardens support for the liberals rather than solidify opinion against!
Another aid here are the lyrics of an old song:
"It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it - That's what gets results!"
Do I, looking to avoid conflict, merely smile and say nothing?
In this response we find plentiful supplies of the principal road-building material for the highway to hell, that is 'good intentions!'
We are called to let our 'yes' be 'yes' and our 'no' be 'no'. If we don't agree we should say so and dialogue, correct or be corrected. Silence is for cowards (I do accept that is the 'time and places' consideration here) and those who consistently disagree but smile and remain silent need to join the rest of the hypocrites and weak-kneed individuals in their local ecumenical gatherings! We seek unity but we do so honestly - with differences understood and lived with.
Phew, this is one of the 'difficult' issues because there's more politics and a fair deal of what appears to be, to be blunt, entrapment and engagement of a duplicitous kind apparent (or of course, because it's entrapment,not apparent!). If we respond honestly and without malice or nastiness then we live by our conscience, maintain our integrity and honour God (the most important bit!).
Wise as . . . . Gentle as . . .
No one ever said the role of Christian was an easy one to take on. Taking up our Cross and following Christ is always a challenge(and a joy).
Pax
29 comments:
Vic, you have said what your own reaction to these situations (or two of them so far) would be. I don't entirely agree with your view that homosexuality is a choice, even if how that is expressed may be. However, I digress. What I am interested in is the fact that you and I also represent communities. So the question as to whether this man and his partner would be welcome in the building depends not only on you but the reaction of other members of the church community. How do you go about ensuring that any welcome you personally may give is as widespread as possible within your congregation?
Vic,
I think the Revsimmy has a valid point. I am unsure how widely this aspect has been thought through, but I am aware of differing views in my own parish. Unfortunately, there is no half-way house here. It seems to me that we need to welcome all, without judgment and allow them to be Christians in the light of Christ.
I don't believe that anyone is asked to agree with another's lifestyle or sexual orientation, rather to accept people for who they are. It just seems wrong to me to condemn or to turn away anyone who comes to the Lord's house.
Strangely enough this is one of the conversations I usually have with my minister when we talk about church expansion.
Within any congregation you are always going to get a range of views on every topic. Some of these views may well be at the 'extreme' end. We decided that with our congregation the best we could hope for is that anyone who had a major issue would come to the minister privately to discuss it.
If our Lord went and dined with prostitutes and tax collectors then we don't really have much grounds to complain when someone we regard as a sinner walks through the door looking for Jesus.
"Someone we regard as a sinner" - well didn't that sound pios and hypocritical? We are all sinners so make room on the pews guys...
[To note - agree absolutely with making the position clear at first contact. The lifestyle is not compatable with someone seeking to significantly deepen their walk with Christ, in the same way that habitual viewing of pornography would not be compatable. However is it certainly not a bar to someone seeking to establish that relationship and should never be treated as such. Fill the church with sinners - the rightouous are doing ok as it is]
You say: (fogetting all about the next life, and his/their destination): "The evidence is that the homosexual life (anal intercourse) is very physiologically damaging, and that yout immediate destiny, in this life, is what matters first".
- It's precisely at times like this that I'm very, very glad I'm not an ordained clergyman (Anglican, that is - you or I would have no problem if we were RC clergy, would we?)
Homosexuality is not choice.
By all means tell the man you believe gay people should remain celibate - but have the honesty to admit you've never been in his situation. Accept him into his church and recognise you may well be a much worse sinner than he is anyway and that you may have a lot to learn from him and his partner.
As for the rest of the congregation, it's none of their business anyway!
Sue,
Thanks for your comments,
Homosexuality is not choice.
At first glance I have two difficulties with it. The first is that I can't find anything (other than of course your opinion) to support the 'it's not a choice' position. I am seeking clarification and dialogue on this but only find entrenched personal views issued as fact.
My second problem comes from the fact that you obviously know me and can therefore state with such certainty facts about my life thus far. In asking for me to have the honesty about an issue that you know nothing of, and of course, as you say have no right to know as it's 'none of your business' I am a little saddened that you choose to attack rather than dialogue and condemn rather than engage.
If you read what I have written on the blog you will see that I (pretty much)already occupy a place which seems to be the very same place you want me to be at. This is probably why to the extremists (liberal and 'orthodox') I am condemned equally as either liberal or fundamentalist!
Thanks anyway, it's a start and I value all engagement, that's why I'm trying to discuss this and other areas (will I ever get to the next one I wonder?)
Pax
Well, I am gay and I'm telling you it is not a choice. This is not an 'entrenched personal opinion' but a fact about my psychological make-up. I do not experience heterosexual desire and never have. Like every other gay man of my acquaintance, I simply discovered at the same time my contemporaries became obsessed with girls that I responded sexually only to males. It isn't even a preference - straight sex is simply not an option for me. I do weary of Christians telling me it's a choice as if they knew me better than I know myself, especially when they have no direct personal experience of desire as we feel it.
Hi Vic,
I've never met anyone, gay or straight who says their sexuality is a choice. Sexual behaviour is a choice,of course.
You've also clearly misunderstood me. Where do I state or imply that I "obviously know you"? Where do I state or mention any "facts about your life?" Why do you say this is an issue that I "know nothing of?" Do you mean that I know nothing of homosexuality? or that I know nothing about these two men? If the latter, then if there is some key factor you haven't told us - why are you asking us how you should respond based on partial information? If you think it is no business of yours or mine - why are you blogging about it? Come to that, why are you blogging about the situation given that it is a sensitive and potentially confidential pastoral issue affecting potential parishioners?(I assume you have the man's written consent to this blog post?)
If you pretty much occupy the position I have suggested anyhow - then why are you so offended at my suggestions?
Also, I don't say it is "none of your business" - the man came to see you and ask if he would be welcome, that makes it your business (though NOT the business of your blog readership...unless, as I say, you have written consent.)
What I actually say is that it is none of your congregations business. Did you actually read my post BTW? I don't think I've ever had to use more words correcting someone's misunderstandings than it took to actually write the comment itself!
Oh, and it wasn't an attack , it was genuine advice based on the kind of response that friends in same sex relationships say they have valued from more conservative priests and churches.
"In asking for me to have the honesty about an issue that you know nothing of, and of course, as you say have no right to know as it's 'none of your business' "
I've been puzzling that rather obscure sentence, which I took to mean that I knew "nothing about" the "issue" of these two men and that it was "none of my business." This led me to assume that you were saying the situation - "the issue" - was not in fact hypothetical but a real life situation which I knew "nothing about".
BUT it now occurs to me that you mean your own sexuality and are referring to MY comment about you having never been in his situation!
But then if you are gay, you would know that orientation is not a choice, but only what you do with that orientation, wouldn't you?
Could you clarify for me what you mean by "the issue you know nothing of "?
VS - Thank again for your comments.
I do understand your weariness of being told who you are, it is indeed most frustrating and I'm sorry if you feel that's what is happening here.
The purpose of the five engagements is to encourage certain people to engage and dialogue within those situations rather than withdraw for fear of attack (not sure that's going to plan!).
I have homosexual friends who, having made their choice (I know, 'choice' is a contentious word in this context) entered a world which was costly and painful and I don't want to dismiss or diminish the personal cost either. But I do want us to be able to stand in places where although possessing opposing views might be able to dialogue so that there is understanding,
The added difficulty is that what is a discussion topic for some is a lifestyle, and more explicitly 'them', and this brings added tensions and difficulties.
Thank you again for your comments, which are valued.
V
Gosh Sue, so many words (but thank you for them).
Although this is not about choice it is fast becoming so (so I will leave this thread shortly and get back on track I think).
You present your views as hard fact and you also engage in mind-reading in that you clearly state. The evidence for this:
"Homosexuality is not a choice!"
This is your view, but not one that is (apparently)universally held, regardless of how much people might want it to be.
You clearly engage in mind-reading or are demonstrating that you know me when you make the statement:
"But have the honesty to admit you've never been in his situation . "
Or perhaps you are making an assumption (which I have tried to answer elsewhere and lost the comment and my reply!) and you're not mind-reading me or making an observation based on knowledge at all.
I didn't see it as attack, merely a bit of a full-on opening engagement. I realise reading a later post that you've realised this and perhaps can see that I'm trying to get people to engage rather than flee. Dialogue rather than deny or decry.
Sorry it's all started on the wrong foot - hopefully it'll get a bit better.
As for confidentiality, there is no chance for anyone to be identified thus the encounters provides a good opportunity for encouraging those who might refrain from engagement.
Thanks for comments.
V
It certainly wasn't an attack.
It still seems to me that in the comment about, "honesty about an issue that you know nothing of, and of course, as you say have no right to know as it's 'none of your business" - is most likely a reference to the "issue" of your own sexuality?
Your response seems deliberately terribly vague. So, what DID you mean by the "issue that you know nothing of"? Where you saying that you MIGHT be gay? ( I promise not to ask if you actually are...)
BUT... if sexuality is a choice... and you think being gay is wrong - then you would just be straight, wouldn't you? Simples!
So...you're straight...obviously...(not that I'm asking if you don't want to say or anything...)
OK, let's say homosexuality IS a choice. When did I choose it? Moreover, why did I choose it in working class Northern England in the early 1970s when having a girlfriend and getting married would have fulfilled everyone's expectations and saved me a lot of hassle? Why do people continue to 'choose' it in present day Uganda where they risk getting lynched or immolated? Some choice.
Sue,
Thanks for the added comments- I have friends for whom it would have, as you say, been simpler to take other path, but they made their choices and did what they felt was right for them.
I thought that it might be possible to demonstrate how, even though we might differ, we could dialogue and engage in something which took note of our differences and still let us (a general 'us', not you and me) engage and dialogue - appears I am wrong.
It also seems that we have no choices - we're all pre-programmed and some are more right than others when it comes to having free-will and making choices as to what they think or what they believe.
Seems that there will need to be a fifties style move to change what is unacceptable to freedom of thought and speech then, doesn't it?
Thanks to all who have contributed, it has demonstrated much I am sure.
I can't make any sense of that last comment. You sort of replied to Suem but ignored me. We have no choices? Of course we have choices. We can follow our natural inclinations instead of allowing Christianity to make us hate them and ourselves, for one.
'Some are more right than others when it comes to having free-will and making choices as to what they think or what they believe.' What do you mean?
'Seems that there will need to be a fifties style move to change what is unacceptable to freedom of thought and speech then, doesn't it?'
I don't get that either. Please elucidate.
VS - I don't know you or the paths your life has taken, I do know Unganda a bit, but not the current attitudes or wickedness that you speak of (wasn't an issue when I was there, or if it was it was buried very deeply) so how can I be expected to answer the 'when' or 'why' questions you pose?
I have written posts which have been almost totally ignored, the only focus being that of 'choice' which logically exists regardless of the driving or motivating force. I was looking at encouraging some with whom I am engaged with to come out of their holes and not be afraid to enter into pastoral encounters, however potentially difficult, and the resulting contact has done nothing but tell them to keep their heads down and avoid such.
I am trying to challenge some people to engage where others would merely condemn or reject and the reality others are seeing is that non-engagement is the simplest route. A sandess indeed.
I don't want to engage in mind-reading, second guessing or dragging out the same old same old stuff - and that is surely where this is going and I have people around me whop have lives that need pastoral care and hollow dissipation will not serve them well.
I'm into ellenctic not bar room brawls (I leave that to Stanley Hauerwas :) ).
As for the fifties comment - one of your initial observations. It seems that the tide has gone out, but (like multiculturalism perhaps) will also come back in at some stage - perhaps to a more balanced and equal (for all) place.
Thanks for the engagement - wasn't ignoring you, merely dealing a card at a time.
Pax
Hi Vic,
The question of choice is engaging with your post, because you clearly said that being gay was a choice. Now, it clearly isn't - and Vilges has explained to your from personal knowledge that it isn't. It does amaze me that anyone thinks being gay is a choice. Most people understand that their own sexuality isn't a "choice".
What people DO with their sexuality is a choice - I don't argue with that idea, sexuality itself simply isn't. That is not "personal opinion" it is fact! Anyone who says it is a "choice" is lying, or the habit of lying to themselves and others has become so deeply ingrained that they cannot rationally see the truth of this.
Certainly not a choice - as Suem says, the choice is whether or not you act on the desires your genes and hormones inevitably give rise to. I simply cannot understand the need some Christians have to turn their desires into a problem and make a struggle out of them.If you have a lot of sexual energy, you use it. Why not? And so what?
I entirely agree with Sue and Vilges, but you seem to interpret their points of view as a personal attack. You ask for people to "engage" with you, and then totally ignore the rational points they are making, and go off on some obscure tangent. I am also amazed that an Anglican priest who has been to Uganda should be unaware of the recent murder of Mr David Kato in that land of violent homophobia. You will, no doubt, disallow this comment as being a personal attack.
Sue,
Having popped back after a few of the days services I think I see some light here.
My comment about the choice the man in the encounter has made is about living in a relationship with another man. I don't see being actively engaged in a sexual relationship as being compatible with a christian lifestyle. I see in this (as in a heterosexual setting) that celibacy is the only option.
I'm not saying that people choose to be homosexual - I am merely referring to the way they take that forward. My friends who are homosexual all wish that they hadn't found themselves to be, because it is an alienating and difficult place to be (think I have said that at least once in the posts but hey ho!).
I think we've been perhaps engaging on crossed lines. I'm not saying that being homosexual is a choice but I am saying that how they choose to live within that is a choice.
We all face choices and this is what I have been saying all along [duh] this is why I re-iterated the sexual choices before us elsewhere.
One of the problems with electronic comms in that engagement of the face-to-face sort might have challenged what I meant by 'not compatible.'
I think my words, "It would be wrong for me to pretend that I supported the relationship," indicate that I am speaking of that choice not saying he chose to be homosexual!
I hope that clears up some of the confusion!
VS - you raise a question that I can only answer with "Because it's not a Biblically right use of that energy!"
I know you will disagree, after all I have many friends who ask why what some have is forbidden to them as they compare hetero/homo-sexual settings.
I don't have an answer outside of that which I understand to be the orthodox Christian stance. I merely follow what is before the best I can (as I assume we all do) and try to be salt and light and accepting (which doesn't mean approving) rather than condemning (as some obvious want me to be!
Hopes this helps.
I don't interpret them as attacking and am trying to tread a path which seems to be heading into depths which (as repeatedly stated) I would rather enter as a topic in it's own right rather than have a subsidiary become the main!
You appear amazed at many things as are many others over you being a priest and writing as you do.
When I was engaged in working in Uganda there was never any conflict (and having missed the murder of David Kato in the news) and so I assumed it was a reference to my having written about working in Uganda. Having written a blog a while back against the involvement of (apparently US) ultra-orthodox influences in that land I assumed this wasmerely a reflection on that with regard to me previous involvement there.
Having now taken the time to catch up I note that this is apparently a murder attached to robbery rather than a hate crime, which is no comfort to those who knew the man, but is in an odd way a positive note.
Let's hope it proves true, we don't need heroes or martyrs in this arean!
Well, yes, of course I disagree. Thanks for engaging, though. 'It's not a Biblically right use of that energy.' What should we do with that energy, then? Suppress it? Deny it? Bad idea - it won't be denied, as anyone who's tried to deny it knows very well. Why not live it joyfully? It's obvious that you can be a homosexual and a saint, and straight and a jerk, just as vice versa. In the absence of barmy prejudices and idiotic rules for rules' sake, sexual orientation is simply irrelevant.
But our disagreement shouldn't be stopping either of us from celebrating the image of the visible God in us. (1 John 4)
I don't have an answer and I realise the difficulty and understand and feelings involved and am praying (what else can I do) for you and others (not as sinners but as family members) and is what I feel most acutely is that which separates us.
I struggle so much with those who would vilify and exclude from communion those who just have a different sin (which I understand you might struggle with as a sin) and I have had some great homosexual friends and seen some absolute plonkers who were straight. After all - Micah 6 - Humility, justice and mercy - what more can we show or hope for?
I do thank you for the dialogue and hope to be able to come to a place where even if we don't understand each other, or agree in everything, that we might at least be able to share where we can and love even when we can't.
Thank you for your responses - sorry if we were using crossed wires earlier - thought I'd be clear (obviously wasn't).
may God bless you.
V
There may have been confusion over the word "choice". You are obviously against homosexual relationships which are given physical expression. But you will surely allow there are many Anglicans who see that same-sex human love cannot be reduced to comparing it to a dislike of Marmite. You did yourself no service when you wrote :-
"I have been taught by culture and church that homosexual relationships are wrong and therefore do not choose to engage in one myself. I don't like Marmite either, but this is merely a personal choice"
http://victhevicar.blogspot.com/2010/07/gays-and-ecumenical-stability.html
Aha, the Marmite comment - one of these logopodeia moments where I tried to point out that how I live is a personal choice and just because I don't have a certain lifestyle as my own because of a number of reasons, this doesn't make me anything phobic.
I used Marmite as a focus because I didn't want to use homophobic (and it also responded to a comment by someone which included dislike of Marmite as a parallel with homosexuality),
One of those moments when I hoped people would see the logic - for others still choose Marmite! - na perhaps stop and smile for a second and then pick uf the dialogue on a slightly different tack (it didn't work, the person I was responding too with the Marmite returned by bringing up the personal lives of others, naming names and I chose in the end to ignore their email).
Sometimes what one hopes will be seen merely gets passed by and the flames get higher.
Pax
Good morning,
I do just :-)
Been fun to revisit this blog entry so thank you for bringing it back to me.
Some challenges remain, as do the attitudes of many, but love and God are indeed always to be found.
V
Post a Comment