• It’s not enough to #PrayForOrlando. People of faith must fight homophobia

    This article appeared earlier today on the STV website.

    As I stand outside St Mary’s Cathedral every Sunday in Glasgow I often witness a curious thing. As people walk down Great Western Road towards me, I notice that some of the gay couples who belong to the congregation reach out to one another as they get closer to the church and come in hand in hand.

    I’m proud to be working in a religious institution where that is something that generally passes without any comment at all. However, whenever I see it, I reflect on the fact that there’s all too many institutions, religious and otherwise where a simple display of affection from a gay or lesbian couple will result in disapproval, abuse or even violence.

    As I bless my congregation at the end of each service and send them out into the world, I know that the gay couples amongst them have less than a couple of miles of the streets of Scotland in which they might feel safe to show their affection for one another, and even then only at certain times and in certain company.

    Religions often have a problem with gay people. But gay people have a problem every day with homophobia which infuses and poisons the world in which we live.

    I simply don’t know any gay person who has never felt afraid to be themselves somewhere and I know all too many who are afraid to be themselves anywhere, even now and even after the passage of the hate-crimes and equal marriage legislation.

    The attack in the Pulse Club in Orlando has rightly shocked the world. But condemnation of the violence comes more easily than identifying what it is that motivates such deadly hatred.

    The question now is how do we prevent such a thing ever happening again?

    To begin to find an answer to this question, we have first to acknowledge the everyday commonplace homophobia that exists in every society, even including Scotland, widely acknowledged as one of the best places to be gay in the world.

    Religious institutions in particular have struggled to know how to respond to Orlando. The Church of England swiftly issued a “Prayer for Orlando” (recycled from the Paris and Lahore attacks) which mentioned neither Orlando nor LGBT people. The Archbishop of Canterbury tweeted his concern for all involved but especially “police and pastoral carers” and somehow managed to say nothing about those who were the target of the attack.

    Gay people will not be safe on the streets until homophobia has been defeated in religious contexts.

    This is something that even LGBT-positive institutions in society seem reluctant to tackle. The largest LGBT supportive organisations in Scotland sometimes seem to expend more energy on defending the right of religious people to hold anti-gay views than they do to tackling faith-based homophobia. Religion is not a special category. Faith based homophobia shouldn’t be off limits to those fighting for a more equal world. If anti-gay views can be tackled in healthcare, the police and even the armed forces, who have made tremendous progress, then it must be tackled in pew, pulpit and mosque as well.

    Religious people wanting to pray today, comment today and make things better on this day when America’s worst multiple shooting has explicitly targeted those who are gay then they need to face up to some uncomfortable truths about where anti-gay views are most nourished. Those trying to represent the love of God in the world need to remember that in order to be in any way helpful today they need to be explicit about welcoming gay people and working for gay rights. It isn’t enough to weep with those who suffered violence in Orlando this weekend without a commitment to tackle the roots of that violence tomorrow.

    Every gay person I know has been frightened to kiss in public. For the last few years I’ve been working to make it possible for them to kiss at their weddings in church. Recognising gay love at the altar is one of the most significant symbolic ways to tackle the underlying, prevailing homophobia of the everyday that every gay person knows instinctively.

    We’re getting there, but painfully slowly.

    The Orlando attack is a challenge to all who believe in the love of God. The idea that most religious people have is that God’s love is unconditional and open to everyone. The experience of countless people who are lesbian or gay is that the love of God that religious institutions have communicated is partial and very much conditional – not on offer for them unless they deny being the very person that God made.

    And yet, even saying that, I have to bear witness to being a gay man who works right at the heart of the church who has found it a place of encouragement, welcome and healing. Gay friendly congregations exist and they are frequently being sought out by straight people who want their children to grow up in a religious environment where they might never ever hear anti-gay words spoken. Many religious institutions are struggling these days, but my hunch is that the future is bright for congregations which can somehow rise to the challenge of tackling anti-gay views and do so whilst specifically speaking out against all forms of identity oppression. After all, homophobia has some ugly sisters – racism, sexism and sectarianism who are not unknown in religious communities.

    Preachers face a challenge this week. I know so many clergy who believe in gay equality who are frightened to speak about it publicly because they fear that their congregation just isn’t ready to hear it.

    This week, it isn’t just their congregation that needs to hear it from the pulpit, it is the whole world.

    Next Saturday night, “I will survive” will play in every gay club in the world as people shimmy their way into the great global dance for justice that even yet is proved a matter of life and death.

    Next Sunday morning, gay people need more than just a few awkward prayers from religious leaders. We need commitments from religious people to turn faith institutions around and bring about change. That’s what repentance means and that’s what religion is at least partly about.

    God’s beloved gay and lesbian children deserve nothing less.

41 responses to “The Columba Declaration”

  1. Edward Andrews Avatar
    Edward Andrews

    As Anglicans get down to the important issue of the niceties of Theology, lets get into the broad brush situation.
    The relationships between the Churches of the Celtic tradition and the Southern tradition have been fraught since the 7th Century (Whitby). Part of the whole question surrounding the war of Independence (and before with King David was teh independence of the Scottish Church.
    The irony is that the present attempt is to bring the Churches of the united Kingdom together may well blow back on them. While the Kirk today doesn’t mean much in Scotland the most secular part of the UK I’m not convinsed that playing footise over Bishops is going to impress the older members – the ones who voted No.
    The fact is that the Scottish Episcopal Church has the Anglican franchise in Scotland. It is an authentic Scottish Church (especially if you ignore the instances when it has gone to England for Episcopal ordination.) and to negotiate over its head about something so sensitive it at the best discourteous.
    Those of the reformed tradition don’t get wound up by the antics of a few Episcopalians. We seek whatever degree of true unity is available to us, but do not see the need for uniformity. I spent some very pleasant years as a guest of the Scottish Episcopal Church when the climate of the Kirk became unattractive to me, and am grateful for the table fellowship which I received.
    The site of two big boys presuming to set things up is not pleasing. For the information of those who want to get up tight about the real presence, that is what the reformed tradition believes, we are Calvinists not followers of Zwingli. I am not going to seek to discuss which Greer philosopher we get our understanding of existence from.

  2. Father David Avatar
    Father David

    Father Ron: let us not forget that the great Arthur Michael Ramsey was born an ecumenical baby. His maternal Grandfather was Vicar of Horbling in Lincolnshire and his paternal Grandfather was a Congregationalist Minister. His Anglican Grandfather baptised him and when in adult years he visited Horbling parish church he was deeply moved when standing by the font – the place where this great man of God began his Christian pilgrim journey. However, as a child he worshipped with his family at the Congregationalist church in Cambridge. To the great benefit of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – the kind of High Jinks that took place next door at Little St. Mary’s proved to be an attractive magnet and so the pull of Anglo-Catholicism brought to us a spiritual giant and a contender (in company with William Temple) for the title of the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury of the 20th century and a man who yearned and longed for Christian Unity.
    Edward Andrews: Even as we all long and hope for the unity of all Christians your words are wise when you point to unity not uniformity.

  3. Keith Barber Avatar
    Keith Barber

    Cynic I may be, but my first response is to ask what is the hidden agenda. For I’m pretty certain there will be one, whether it’s about trying to create an ecclesiastical bulwark against disintegration of the UK or get ++Welby an ally or two in the aftermath of the huge and hostile reaction to the Anglican Primates’ decision to punish TEC (sorry Kelvin) for its moves towards inclusion of LGBT people.

    1. Jeremy Bates Avatar
      Jeremy Bates

      Or perhaps it’s like the Easter-calendar announcement–a convenient way of changing the subject, at Synod and elsewhere.

  4. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    Whatever the motivation for this ‘secret’ accord with the Church of Scotland; simple courtesy would require that the Church of England promoters consult with their Episcopally governed equivalent in Scotia.

    Another point is this; do the Presbyerians realise that they may have signed up to the catholic premise of recognition of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion? Are they happy with that?

    1. Edward Andrews Avatar
      Edward Andrews

      Well actually the Presbyterians believe “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” You will see the word real is there. Don’t know what the 39 articles say you believe.
      Those of us who are big on the real presence use the Platonic rather than the Aristotelian understanding of reality.

      1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

        Not believers, then, in con-substantiation? Freely translated as bread and wine ‘together with’ the Body and Blood of Christ? Note, not the more literal trans-substantiation, which would nean the disappearance of the bread and wine. (although as some of my more scientific friends would say, this is a tautology.

        What all must agree on, though, is that some members of the Church of England, and many of its constituent partner Churches of the Anglican Communion, do have a problem with the ‘Real Presence’ – a reality that, for me, and I suspect most Anglican Catholics, means that the substance of the bread and wine consecrated at the Eucharist is truly “The Body and Blood of Christ” in accordance with the dominical instruction: “This IS my Body, my Blood” (Not, you will notice, “this REPRESENTS my Body, my Blood”). ‘A Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ – this saying sums it all up pretty well, I think

        1. Kelvin Avatar

          I think it is time to draw the discussion about the real presence to a close on this comment thread. It is hardly the main point and I’ve never ever known a comment thread about transubstantiation to be constructive.

          Comments on the Columba Declaration welcome. Comments trying to explain what transubstantiation *really* means – not so much.

          1. Edward Andrews Avatar
            Edward Andrews

            Thank you Kelvin. As I see it the C of E has come poaching in your preserves. This is wrong and unhelpful. If there were going to be Anglican/Presbyterian dialogue the SEC should be the lead player. I have my own problems with the declaration as a Member of the Church of Scotland who seeks an end to the United Kingdom. However as a Catholic Christian I am in solidarity with my SEC brothers and sisters who have been left out of the loop. Both the Cof E synod and the Kirk’ General Assembly should reject the document, but I don’t suppose that they will.

  5. Augur Pearce Avatar
    Augur Pearce

    A contribution to the ‘establishment’ discussion: In my book the terms ‘establish’ and ‘Church of England’ both have more than one meaning. ‘Establish’, for example, can mean ‘set up, bring into existence’ (sense E1), or it can mean ‘endow, privilege’ (sense E2).

    Most people who use it of the C of E use it in sense E2, and they understand the C of E (in what I might call sense C3) as an association with its own rules, distinct from the English nation but privileged by law in various ways (with some concomitant obligations).

    In fact I think this describes the C of S position fairly well, but is quite wrong as regards the C of E. The C of E (I contend) is not distinct from the kingdom of England, it is that kingdom ‘wearing its spiritual hat’ (sense C1). England, as church, has various spiritual responsibilities to discharge, and in order to do so, it establishes (=creates; sense E1), by its law, a complex of specialist institutions, offices, rules, and assets which itself becomes known derivatively as the C of E (sense C2).

    One clear example of how the C of E (in sense C1) and the C of S have been differently understood from very early times is found in comparing Richard Hooker’s well-known words ‘There is not any man of the Church of England, but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth, nor any man a member of the commonwealth which is not also of the Church of England…’ with the Church Act 1567, declaring those ‘quha outher gainsayis the word of the Evangell ressavit and apprevit as the heidis of the Confessioun of Faith professit in Parliament of befoir in the yeir of God 1560 … or that refusis the participatioun of the haly sacramentis as thay ar now ministrat, to be na memberis of the said Kirk within this realme now presently professit’.

    The Church of England, in short, is simply England; the Church of Scotland is a privileged sectional group.

    1. Seph Avatar
      Seph

      If this be so, it strikes me as uncomfortably caesaropapist. This may be one of the things that makes me uncomfortable when I am down south and find myself in a C of E church.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Scotland Says No!

    The Scottish Episcopal Church has resoundingly rejected the Anglican Covenant as a way forward for the Anglican Communion. At the same time, the Synod passed a motion rejoicing in our commitment to the Communion itself. What we have said is No to the Covenant, but Yes to the Communion. The vote was decisive – 6…

  • Anglican Covenant Debate

    Bishop Gregor proposes the motion to adopt the covenant Further updates on my twitter stream – twitter.com/thurible

  • Votes for Nuns

    The synod decides (by an extremely close vote in the house of clergy) to allow a religious community to elect a voting member of Diocesan Synod. I speak against on the grounds that religious communities can be a haven from the politics of the church. I also ask whether religious communities will now be expected…

  • Discussion Groups

    Two motions are considered to allow Synod to meet in Discussion Groups sometimes. They clarify the position to ensure that we understand that Synod is still in session when groupwork happens.