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.
I’m actually atheistic myself though I agree that what one should value in a relationship is commitment, compassion, and forgiveness (I would also add mutual support). I’m inclined to judge by the fruits and if the fruits are joy, peace, kindness what does it matter the sex of the two participants.
As for welcoming congregations, the Mississippi Atheist has been visiting several of his local churches and blogging about them. His experiences have varied though they did include one Episcopal church (he was a bit lost) http://www.msatheists.org/search/label/Church
Erp, thanks for the point to the Mississippi Atheist’s website. That was a very humorous description of an Anglican service from an outsider; including the part about the priest swinging that smoking metal ball!
He is a very respectful atheist. He tries not to offend.
I’ve come to the discussion a bit late, but offer a few thoughts….
As a Christian in the SEC tradition I embrace the College of Bishops Statement of 2005. As a member of the MU I was under the mistaken impression that the MU in Scotland was in line with the SEC view and I thank you again, Kelvin for bringing this issue to public attention. I hope and pray that the leaders of the MU in Scotland resolve this anomaly speedily.
In the meantime the MU at a local level must continue to do what it does best to be welcoming to all who wish to be members or wish to attend meetings. The MU on behalf of the church takes the gospel message to many peope living on the margins and provides valuable social support.
I don’t find the image of ‘taking on the MU’ helpful in the discussions. I thank ‘challenging’ members for making it a bit easier for me to reach my potential as a Christian woman. Women know the meaning of oppression. I don’t know if being a member of the MU would bar me from caring for children. As far as I know this has not been tested, so it is unknown.
The MU has been rightly challenged, it needs to put its house in order, to be open and transparent, but we all need to go forward in a spirit of cooperation, love and tolerance.
Thanks Ann (and others leaving comments).
It is the thoughtfulness of those leaving comments in threads like this which keeps me blogging.
I’ve been enjoying your MU posts, lots to think about. I don’t like the concept of “family” much either and I am finding my new church very hard at times with so much emphasis on family and children and so on – or maybe I’m just occasionally a bit bitter or sensitive about my lot in life?!
On a broader note though, I’ve always been concnerned about our “father” in heaven for similar reasons – for some people this could be worse than hell.
I suspect I try too hard to please everyone all the time however.
As Mothers’ Union President in Scotland I can say that in line with the Scottish Episcopal Church we do support the College of Bishops Statement in 2005.
I did ask you to review the MU discussion book ‘We are Created by God’ so I expected some adverse comment as well as some good and have taken on board all that you have said. I know that the authors of the book also value your comments.
We are all anxious to know more about the video which you mentioned was so helpful to the young gay man. The problem is that no one at our headquarters at Mary Sumner House can remember anything about it. What was it called? Obviously you thought it was very good and we need to revise and update it if we can locate it. Maybe you could help us to produce some up-to-date material? I think we are in need of something new on the subject.
I am fascinated by the way this discussion has developed into one about family and the various interpretations of the word and, more generally, the whole subject of the way we use language in church. The basic structure of life is the family whether it is a good or bad experience and MU knows very well about the bad family experience that some people have. Our members work to reach out to those who feel isolated but we also need help to get this right.
I am glad to hear all the different views that have been expressed and I can understand how ‘Family Eucharist’ can be off-putting for some. I’ve learned a new word – familyolatry; thank you.
Many thanks for this comment Sheila.
I’m afraid that I have not got a copy of the video in question. I never did have my own copy. However, I will ask around again and see whether I can lay my hands on it.
In any case, it is probably out of date now – it was a long time ago that it was produced.
I’d be very happy to help produce some up to date material and will be in contact with you about this off-blog. Perhaps this is something that we could get off the ground in the new year.
I’m glad you asked me to review the book. It made me think a bit about where we are in this debate at the moment and what I think the criteria are for making progress. I’m also aware that the book was prepared a little earlier than I had assumed.
One of the good things about this conversation is that it has put me back in touch with Phil Groves, and I’m pleased that this has happened too.
This has been an interesting discussion, hasn’t it? I’d like to thank all those who continue to contribute to this blog so thoughtfully.
Thank you for this discussion. I’ve recently gained a new follower on twitter, @CathButcher, editor of the MU magazine, Families First, and I wanted to find out about the MU attitude to the LGBT community. There doesn’t seem to be any info on the Families First website, nor any clear info on the main MU site apart from pointers to this booklet, so your review and the discussion have been most helpful.