I’m grateful to Sheila Redwood of the Mothers’ Union for sending me this discussion booklet as a response to my earlier posts (here and here)) about the MU attitude to those who are gay.
It is a nicely produced book. A shiny cover has friendly stones piled on one another. It is clear that a lot has been put into its production. The booklet aims to discuss four particular issues, Marriage and Cohabitation, Divorce and Further Marriage, Being Single or Widowed and Lesbian and Gay Sexuality. It is the last of these which I will concentrate on in this review as that was the main purpose in my being sent a copy.
Here is what I think.
As I said earlier, I do have a number of criteria against which I judge attempts to engage in this current discussion. There are some limited areas in which this document is not too bad though I’d have to say that generally I find it quite disappointing.
Firstly, how do the authors fare when it comes to language? Well, quite positively really. The language used is not pejorative in the main text and there is quite a good glossary at the end. This is one area in which I give a hearty thumbs-up.
Secondly, are there positive role models of gay people? Here the booklet is very disappointing. All the role models are negative ones. There is no positive portrayal of any gay person in it. Everyone is presented as a problem case. A comparison with other sections of the book is quite instructive here. There is in the Divorce section a case study of someone who says that divorce has been the best thing for her. (Here I would acknowledge that I’m delighted to have been shown that I did not have the full picture on the MU attitude to divoce when I first posted my comments).
In the Lesbian and Gay Sexuality section we are offered a long anguished story from someone (“Susan”) who seems completely miserable and three further case studies. Firstly Sally and Rebecca who can’t find a church to provide spiritual resources to help them live out their faith. (Problem people!) Then there is Mary who has a gay son and a belligerent husband. (Problem gay child!). Then there is Sylvia’s son who is causing problems for her because the vicar won’t let him hold hands with his partner in church. (Another problem gay child upsetting the local vicar!). These stereotypes may provide starting points for conversation, but they are not fully representative of gay people. Very unhelpful all round.
Are people allowed to speak with their own voices? Not really. The stories are presented in an “objective” voice. Gay people are mostly talked about, not listened to nor engaged with.
Are gay writers acknowledged? Well there is some limited success in that, for example, Jeffrey John’s booklet Permanent, Faithful, Stable is mentioned in the reading list alongside anti-gay authors. However, there are no gay biblical commentators mentioned. (Indeed, the two recommended bible commentaries are by Tom Wright and J Motyer & John Stott). This is very poor.
Have gay people been included in the discussion from the beginning? Well, the representative from Mary Sumner House, MU HQ in London who called me to discuss all this when I made my first post, was unable to confirm that any gay person had been involved at any stage of the process. She was, however, keen to reassure me that the [straight] compiler of the Anglican Communion’s Listening Process document had been involved. Much as I liked Phil Groves when I met him a while ago, I have to say that I was probably not as impressed by this claim as it was hoped I would be.
There is no indication in the document that the process of its production has been an inclusive one.
There are a number of suggestions for how to use the material. At no point does the booklet suggest talking to a gay or lesbian member of the church or inviting someone like that to come to a meeting. That is an appalling omission. This is yet another example of Anglicans claiming to be involved in listening to gay people whilst actually silencing them and refusing to hear their voices.
Instead of presenting the voices of gay people for MU members to react to, we are presented with two columns “Understanding of the Bible A” and “Understanding of the Bible B”. This may seem reasonable. However, it isn’t. There are two reasons why I don’t think this is helpful. Firstly, it promulgates and therefore legitimizes homophobic readings from the Bible. Secondly it is listening to the voices of schism, not gay and lesbian voices.
The Bible passages suggested for study are Leviticus 18:22, 20: 13, Romans 1: 18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. (Commentaries suggested noted above). It is quite shocking that three passages known to be used out of context against gay people have been chosen and no passages which might challenge an anti-gay reading of the bible are mentioned. There is no mention of gay readings of the book of Exodus. Nothing said, either with irony or with a “straight” face about Jesus commanding Lazarus to come out. There is no mention of any of the bibilical characters whose lives might resonate with gay people (and there are many). This is a shoddy abuse of the Bible by the Mothers’ Union.
Is the MU dealing with its history in this area? Well, no. This was the area which originally caused me to make my original post. The MU has moved from being broadly supportive of gay people to its current position which is not.
The MU once produced materials which were supportive of families where a younger member of the family was coming out. Those materials were banned withdrawn in order not to upset MU members in other countries. I still believe that is a shameful episode for an organisation which claims to support family life. One of the case studies in the booklet asks what an MU branch can do to support the mother of a young gay man whose father cannot cope with his sexuality. The answer used to be clear – give them the video to watch. Now the MU have no such material to offer.
I still believe that the MU is made up of good hearted people who contribute a great deal to the church and society. However, in this area, I’m not impressed.
A number of questions remain:
If the MU in Scotland is going to conduct discussions about gay people in the Anglican Communion, will it actually involve such people in those conversations?
Does the MU in Scotland support the homophobic policy of the MU world-wide? (This follows Lambeth 1.10 which has never been accepted by either the General Synod or the College of Bishops in Scotland).
Does the MU in Scotland support the College of Bishops’ Statement of March 2005 or doesn’t it?
Will the MU produce (or even recommend and distribute) up to date materials to support families with gay children, recognizing that homophobic bullying is one of the chief causes of adolescent suicide?
I’d like to think that the MU was an organization which any local church could be proud of. Whilst these questions remain unanswered, I struggle to feel that pride. I’m aware that MU members are troubled by my raising these questions.
My original challenge remains:
Prove me wrong.
I could not be more pleased if you do so.
If the MU was indeed trying to present a fair document, it’s a shame that they couldn’t have had this conversation about process before starting. Your list is simple enough to achieve.
Did you read the other chapters? I’m just wondering how the ‘single and widowed’ chapter was presented since the two situations of life can be very far away from each other in terms of emotional landscape and relational structures.
I came across this by accident really. I was interested to see that there was a chapter entitled single & widowed. I can see how this would have come about…….when I was 29 in 1994 I was widowed very unexpectedly with two girls of 6 & 10 months. I was looking for things to do as I was on my own but I was barred by my church mothers union because I was a single parent!!!! This seems unbelievable now but it really DID happen & my life emploded & I became increasingly isolated & a breakdown ensued. Needless to say I left the c of e!!!!
I agree that being single and being widowed are very different. The booklet does see quite a distinction.
There is some pejorative language in that section though. For example, “…in Sweden for example, 40% of households contain just one person”. What does that ‘just’ convey?
One of the case studies has someone say, “Churches seem to be so family orientated….” yet the questions presume that family is automatically an appropriate metaphor for church life. Thus: “Do churches also need to consider whether they are predominantly institutions for families? Or are they Christian communities that operate as a family, but with all kinds of members?”
I for one have no wish to belong to any congregation that thinks of itself as operating as a family. Churches which advertise themselves as family churches are advertising to people like me that I’m unlikely to be happy there and I would tend to stay away. There does not seem to be much consciousness of this in the MU.
Trying to avoid divisive language is one of the reasons that St Mary’s is growing at the moment. We are trying as much as we can to be an inclusive church where the maximum number of people would feel welcomed. For that reason, the “F” word (family) is one which we try not to use to describe ourselves.
Did I mention that we have grown in the number of communicants on a Sunday morning by 16% this year? I don’t think I did, but I suspect it will not be the last time that I point it out.
Ah yes, the family church.
I will always remember the Christmas Eve spent at the church I considered the most welcoming congregation I’d ever seen — the church was packed, with the notable exception of my pew, which I had to myself because no one could cope with me being there alone.
I was perfectly happy to be there alone, and laughed at all the space they gave me, but for someone else it would have been terrible.
I fully agree, I have no desire to be part of a church that considers itself a family: either *for* families or structurally a family itself. Now community – a gathering of diverse peoples, in different generations, some of whom participate as families, some not – that’s a kind of structural identity (that’s a terrible phrase but I can’t think of another one for working out what I mean) I want to be a part of.
I agree with you about the “family” idea , Kelvin, and liked the comment you made elsewhere about the ugly subtext to Family / All Age Services.
Well, that’s two decades of my ministry comprehensively rubbished! In my foolishness, I had thought that a family was a complex of relationships of absolute inclusiveness, in which all were loved as themselves, whatever their situation in life, whatever frictions there may be among them; and I have always sought to encourage congregations to care for each other in the same way, as the family of God. Should I resign now, or wait to be defrocked for being too-inclusive and insufficiently judgemental?
Thanks for your comment David – a helpful reminder that we don’t always speak the same language even when we use the same words. The complex of relationships of absolute inclusiveness are exactly what I think we all hope for.
I don’t find the metaphor of the family does speak to me of that and it would seem that I’m not alone. It doesn’t make me feel included at all, as it happens.
“Family” as a way of describing the church does seem to be language which divides rather than unites these days. I guess that Christians usually fight different battles in the culture wars and the family one doesn’t get explored much these days.
I think language matters a lot and I think about it a great deal. I’ve also no doubt that the sense of inclusion and acceptance that we all long for and all long the church to communicate is expressed in things which go beyond the language that we use too.
Part of the problem is that ‘family’ is surrounded with ambiguous connotations, depending on one’s experience. When I was teaching in university, staff were forbidden to give parents who called to enquire after their sons or daughters details of the students’ addresses or telephone numbers. Instead, we had to offer to pass on messages to the student concerned.This reflected an understanding that while the family can be a structure of love and support which enables one to flourish, it can equally be destructive and tyrannical. Clergy are in a good position to know that families can be dysfunctional.
Either of these sets of qualities, or both, can be present in any Church community, so I find myself agreeing with both David and Kelvin. But with society evolving (one hopes) towards greater equality and inclusiveness, the traditional metaphors are less expressive of the new and complex possibilities of human flourishing that we now have.
Yes, the family concept is a tricky one. A good family is diverse and can be both accepting and nurturing to LGBT people but it can also be the diametric opposite. I personally favour the concept of community but confess to having stuck with the title Family Eucharist once a month as it is aimed at younger families with children. Maybe I need to examine my use of language a bit more carefully!
I’ve no objection at all to things being aimed at families being designated with the F word. What I find difficult is when people think I’ll want to go to such an event and will feel included by that language.
I wouldn’t want to go to a service labeled as a Family Eucharist because, as you hint, John, it is not really aimed at me.
I just want church to be for everyone.