What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • New Year Predictions 2017

    Here’s my New Year Predictions…

    1. Trump will become President of the USA later this month but won’t manage to survive for 4 years. (And don’t be rejoicing anyone, take a look at his VP).
    2. No significant progressive change will be proposed by the bishops of the Church of England in relation to LGBT issues.
    3. A solid majority in all houses of the Scottish Episcopal Church synod in favour of opening marriage to same-sex couples. (But I’m not predicting whether or not it will be enough to pass the legislation).
    4. SNP to lead the next administration of Glasgow City Council after the elections in May but possibly in coalition with others.
    5. Lib Dems will claim they’ve turned the corner after the local elections. Greens will continue to make very little progress in a political situation that seems almost designed for them to thrive. UKIP will do badly in Scotland. And is there another party?
    6. #Brexit will be triggered. And we will all end up the  poorer for it. Especially those already poorer.
    7. Success for the TIE campaign – I expect that they will make significant progress in getting more inclusive education in Scotland’s schools. By the end of the year I expect there will have been progress either in new Scottish Government guidelines or proposed legislation.
    8. Wikileaks-esque publication of details of membership of a large pornographic internet site and consequent sackings, suicides and divorces. (It is only a matter of time).
    9. François Fillon to win the French Presidency but Le Pen to do frighteningly well.
    10. The end of the beard. (Oh, I know I’ve predicted this before but how long can this hirsute tyranny go on? How much longer can good looking men keep their faces covered. Come along boys, enough is enough. Lather up.)

     

10 responses to “The Tim Farron Question and the Archbishop of Canterbury”

  1. Bro David Avatar
    Bro David

    This brings up an interesting memory with the long-time leader of Changing Attitude England (CA). This leader was taken in by Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation (MF) when he visited the UK in conjunction with some big outdoor Christian festival you lot hold anually. Marin and his followers were attending Pride Marches/Parades around the US and getting their photos taken hunging GLBTQ folks in the marches. His foundation claims to be attempting to build a bridge between the LGBTQ community and conservative Christian communities.
    Marin was invited to comment on the CA blog. He spouted his pablum message of love for LGBTQ folks. Then, in a comment, I point blank asked Marin if he believed that we LGBTQ folks were sinners and needed to repent and become straight. He refused to answer the question. He said that I was asking the “wrong” question. Then he gave this answer verbatim from the Marin Foundation website;
    “We call these the “Big 5.” They are:
    Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?
    Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
    Can a LGBTQ person “change?”
    Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?
    Are LGBTQ people going to hell?
    “The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the conservative or the LGBTQ community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.
    “Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.”
    I spent the next three days searching the MF website and reading through articles and white papers. I realized that it was a ministry to the LGBTQ of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people were trying to love vulnerable LGBTQ folks into their embrace, to slowly chip away at them until they had brought them to realize that their sexual/gender orientation was false, acting upon it was a sin and they needed to seek the help of Jesus to beome heterosexual and accept their gender assigned by birth.
    I posted my findings on the CA blog and was promply chastized and barred from further posts. In a personal email from the leader of CA I was ripped a new arsehole and declared anathema. Sadly, even LGBTQ folks in prominent positions are taken in by these folks. I think that we need to continually ask the Big 5, of everyone, epsecially those non-LGBTQ folks who profess to be our allies and supporters, secular or religious.

    Reply
  2. Peter Davison Avatar
    Peter Davison

    Good column.
    So who is entitled to express opinions on ethical issues? I’ve long understood it’s the duty of all of us to have INFORMED consciences and to obey them. We may wish to consult people we believe to be more informed than we are, such as our presumed leaders, but in the end, when asked, we should at least be ready to state, however firmly or tentatively, where we stand. As for our leaders, they may or may not be better informed than we are; but we also know that ‘experts’ may be people who know more and more about less and less – and that politics often intrude into our public morality. Much of ethics is situational. That said, Jesus seems to have had much more compassion for alleged ‘sinners’ than for those who chose to label them as such. And much of our present troubles seem to stem from our desire to label and scapegoat people who appear to be different. What would happen if we simply accepted people for who they are and learned to accept that love is indeed ‘a many splendoured thing’?

    Reply
  3. Graham Evans Avatar
    Graham Evans

    A very interesting new perspective and certainly a question that should be put to all the Anglican bishops who sit in the house of Lords.

    Reply
  4. The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB Avatar
    The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB

    Absolutely spot on, Kelvin. The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer (whatever it may turn out to be) instead of the usual yards of ecclesiastical flannel.

    Reply
    1. June B Butler Avatar
      June B Butler

      “The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer…”

      Justin Welby wails piteously: “I’m not the pope.”

      Reply
  5. the Rev. Grant Barber Avatar
    the Rev. Grant Barber

    I always wondered how the preachers in Pepys’ diary could preach such long sermons. I think I understand better now. So glad we’ve already settled the matter in the Episcopal Church. (Oh, the answer can be a succinct “no, not sin just by its nature).

    Reply
  6. Bernard Silverman Avatar
    Bernard Silverman

    if I asked an archbishop whether deliberately stamping on someone’s toe is a sin they would give a direct answer. So they should be asked the Farron question over and over again until they do similarly. If the Prime Minister can do that so can they. Indeed the question should be “the PM thinks that gay sex is not a sin. Was she right?”

    Reply
  7. Alan Wilson Avatar
    Alan Wilson

    Spot On…

    Reply
  8. Kate Odling Avatar
    Kate Odling

    Very interesting. I always think that if someone does not give a clear answer to a question that they have something to hide or that their true belief/thought would be unpopular. I think the ABC has looked very uncomfortable when any direct questioning about LGBT issues are raised. So someone should ask & not accept anything but a straightforward answer. My final thought is that we are all qualified to have an opinion – what’s wrong with that?

    Reply
  9. Bruce Gulland Avatar
    Bruce Gulland

    Whatever I think about the answer to the question, I did rather enjoy the style of your post – you had me on the edge of my seat!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Who we are

    Right, here is a little verbatim to get you thinking. The scene is a concert given by a famous jazz musician a few weeks ago in an American cathedral. I’ve been nudged to the front to sit with the bigwigs. As we sit waiting for the music, I hear this conversation going on somewhere behind…

  • Cathedral as Emergent Community

    Cathedrals are doing quite well. Now, as with all generalisations and stereotypes, this is both sometimes true and sometimes not. However, it is something that quite a lot of people are talking about. The recent Grubb Institute report had some astonishing statistics suggesting that large portions of the adult population in England had entered a…

  • Guest Post: How to Hear a Sermon by Rosemary Hannah

    In this guest post, Rosemary Hannah reflects on how to hear a sermon. Rosemary teaches in TISEC, has just written the definitive biography of the Third Marquess of Bute and is a member of the congregation at St Mary’s. ‘I always listen to the sermon, knowing the word of God will reach me through it,’…

  • The Five Marks of Mission (Useful or not?)

    Following on from my diatribe about the word Missional the other week, here’s another thing. Are the Five Marks of Mission which are so very often discussed in Anglican circles as useful as people presume? Here I would have to say that I believe in them all. I think they are all lovely, vital, necessary…