6 responses to “What institutional homophobia looks like”

1. 

   Edward Andrews

   19/04/2017

   Yes, I noticed that as well. It is nothing to do with what was said on both sides (the internal conversation in the Kirk) everything to do with what was said or about people who are gay.
   I would however put in a plea of mitigation for him in that he has to reflect what the institution can get away with. Personally I would have no problem if the so called Confessing Bunch (which an abuse of the name of the Church of Barth and Bonhoeffer neither of whom they would give house room) packed their traps and left, but John can’t say that because that is not policy, though I know a number of people who feel my way.

   Reply
   1. 

      Kelvin

      19/04/2017

      I think the problem here is not so much what the institution can get away with but that the words he says are factually wrong. What the Assembly is being asked to do is not what he says the Assembly is being asked to do.

      As I’ve said, I recognise the pressures on someone in his position. But that’s kind of the point.

      Reply
2. 

   Fr Keith

   19/04/2017

   Extremely well put, Kelvin…

   Reply
3. 

   Richard Ashby

   19/04/2017

   Since I don’t know the man I have no idea whether or not he is homophobic personally, but you’re quite right. That’s not what the report says. And in anycase why apologise for only ‘some’ of the harsh things. What about the rest?

   Reply
4. 

   Bryan Kerr

   24/04/2017

   Hey Kelvin,
   Thanks for your post.
   I think it is helpful as someone who is going into preparation for the General assembly.
   I hear what you say … I for one, on behalf of me, my congregation (the one I serve now, the ones in which I have served and the one in which I grew up), and my denomination seek to apologise unreservedly for any ways in which we have treated those who are LGBTI in any way which falls short of mirroring the love of God.
   John was in a challenging position, defending a report which had been leaked to the media before he could get his head around it fully. He may have been the secretary of the forum but our timescales mean this report would have been finalised in late January and, since then, as Principal clerk, he will have been through every other report going to Assembly.
   Perhaps, we might see this as more of a need for a refresh of what the leaked report said in its entirety at a time when called for comment out of the blue, than anything else. I would imagine that might be close to the mark in this one!
   Blessings.

   Reply
   1. 

      Kelvin

      25/04/2017

      Thanks for your comments, Bryan.

      I’m struggling a bit with your interpretation of what happened. The report doesn’t call for “both sides” to apologise – that isn’t even it’s tone. And in the rest of the news report, the Principal Clerk is shown sitting at a table reading it.

      I do hear your desire to think the best of him – and honestly, this isn’t personal, I’m sure he is lovely.

      The consistent experience that I have is that the most difficult things that are said about gay people come from people who would claim to be supportive.

      A number of gay C of S clerics were in touch with me to affirm that they had heard these comments in the same way that I have outlined above.

      Reply