To Stirling today for the Scottish Episcopal Church’s day of listening.
Quite a lot of the day was food for thought though it would not be appropriate to blog about the people or the stories involved. In the end I was generally glad that I was there though sometimes still frustrated by the process. It is all beginning far too late.
Two significant moments for me. The first was experiencing and articulating a sense of outrage that the main speaker had been put in the position of accepting to speak in the first session when he could not stay for the whole day. The act of speaking without listening could not more clearly sum up much of what is wrong. I still have reservations about the fact that the only two people who gave talks to the whole group were straight bishops. To speak and not stick around to engage with people modelled precisely what should not be.
WIth the exception of some inaccuracies about the Porvoo churches, Richard Clark actually spoke very well indeed, but by that stage, that was not the point for me.
Later in the day there was another significant moment for me. I realised in a group that I was hearing people speaking positively and lovingly about gay relatives. All of a sudden I was struck with the realisation that I have almost never heard anyone in a church context say anything positive about anyone gay. As that realisation dawned, I began to weep.
So you see, I’m glad I was there and I heard something that I was not expecting to hear. I never knew until today that I had not heard such things before. I was surprised by tears and now know not what to do with them.
you may not have heard words of affirmation and blessing, but you have spoken them, remember?
the tears today won’t be forgotten.
I’m sorry to hear about your tears Kelvin. I have heard lots of terrible things about gay people’s experience in the church (including a woman who was ditched by all her church “friends” when she came out; she’s now happily married to another woman). Much of your blog is helping me with similiar struggles, for what it’s worth.
Hi Kelvin,
Is there a list of who the witnesses were or at least what perspective they bring. How many former homosexuals were there there?
There is not a list of the witnesses and I don’t think that there will be. They spoke as people with a range of experiences in life, not as categories.
Kelvin,
Was there anybody there who was either deliberately celibate because of a conservative theology or a former homosexual?
I have no idea about the choices that anyone had made regarding celibacy. It was not a day about celibacy and frankly, to pry into people’s lives to such a level of detail seems to me to be inappropriate.
There were several people present who have been at one time or another former homosexuals.
Just to build on Kelvin’s comment ‘it was not a day about celibacy’: neither was it a day about discussing sexual activity.
It was about people telling their stories. None of us heard all of the witnesses, so none of us will be sure of the range of perspectives that were offered.
Peter, if you are concerned that someone, or some perspective, was silenced, can I offer the reminder that the invitation for the day went to the whole church, and in one of the sessions people were given a chance to raise any issue they felt hadn’t been adequately covered.
Peter, I think the church has, if anything, listened too uncritically to ex-homosexuals; there are many times where I’ve come across evangelicals who give great credence to those who fufill ugly Cameron-esque stereotypes irrespective of how representative they are of the wider gay community.
I go , perversely, to St.Silas.
Ah, now, that would be a sentence worth parsing.
Hi
Sorry about the delay in responding, am on the road. I wonder if I could add another point about the celibacy issue. My understanding was that the day was about listening to folk who were not following an ‘orthodox’ line with respect to their sexuality. As far as I am aware the catholic orthodoxy is to remain celebate and where possible marry if one finds one self attracted to those of the smae sex. In a sense those who opt for this are no threat to the continued order of the Church. Surely, the question is, what if one either doesn’t have a vocation of celibacy OR one doesn’t agree that adult consensual sexual activity for pleasure is inherently sinful (unless married to someone of the opposite sex)? Perhaps the other question for the episcopal Church to ask itself is why it is happy to push a ‘compliance’ line on celibacy without at any point actually valuing those who are genuinely called to it?