• Why I’ll be Marching at Pride (2024)

    I slipped into an unknown pub in Middle England to get out of the rain and have a pub lunch. It was welcoming and cosy. Steak and ale pie, since you ask.

    The part of the pub I was sitting in was right next to the bar. A small snug. The kind of room where you can hear everyone else’s conversations though it wasn’t too busy. Just a group of fifty-something men in for their pies a table a few feet from me, right next to the bar. It wasn’t terribly busy and so our host behind the bar joined in with their conversation, which soon turned to the result of the General Election. Everyone was interested in what it might mean for them. (Bartenders round here want firm action on business rates, I can tell you.)

    After a while, one of the pie-eaters suddenly said for all to hear, “Did you know that 61% of the new MPs are gay?”  The others at his table and the host at the bar expressed surprise that it should be as high as that. “It just isn’t right – not that number, that’s far too many of them. How have we become a country where 61% of our MPs are gay?”.

    And I remained silent.

    I remained silent because I was in a strange place and didn’t want to risk any unpleasantness.

    Well no, I remained silent because homophobia stalks my world. I remained silent because I didn’t know how anything I might say might be taken. It probably wouldn’t have led to a punch in the face but the truth is, you never know.

    The person making the claim about the number of gay MPs was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. I suspect he’d been told that 61 MPs were gay and had heard it as 61% and accepted that as being true. It was true in his inner world, a world in which the gays were getting above themselves. It was also a believable fact for those around him. They were surprised it was 61% and yes, that did seem a bit high. And yes, the gays were getting a bit above themselves.

    I gather that a few more LGBT+ MPs exist than 61 – the number is about 66. That means that it is about 10% of the MPs in the House of Commons. LGBT+ people are sometimes estimated to account for about 10% of the population. So 60-odd members of parliament who fit that profile is something to be celebrated as a good example of representation. Once upon a time, every one of those MPs would have been subject to blackmail or worse. Once upon a time, every one of them would be silent.

    Me remaining silent in the pub for 10 minutes and then, after finishing the pie, going off without a word, is minor when compared with the violence that many gay people face on a daily basis in other parts of the world.

    Yet that incident played in my mind the rest of the day. I went over it again and again. Should I have spoken up and called out this nonsense? I can argue that both ways. But the thing that I care more about than putting someone right in a pub is that this nonsense claim inhabited my head for half a day. Not so much the absurdity of the suggestion that 61% of MPs were gay but the commonplace assumption, held by a group of apparently nice people in an agreeable country pub, that yes, the gays were getting above themselves. Too many in parliament. Too many in power.

    Power that should, apparently, be exercised by the dominant majority. By people who are not like me.

    How many gay MPs should we have anyway? And how many is too many?

    It is these thought patterns which form the framework in which homophobia thrives.

    Kelvin Holdsworth at Pride MarchI rejoice in the progress that we’ve made. But I’m impatient for more. I’ll carry my placard on Saturday at Pride and put a smile on my face. Blessed Are The Fabulous I’ll proclaim and I’ll mean it. But I’ll still be walking on streets in which it only feels safe for most same-sex couples to walk hand-in-hand for a couple of hours a year during Pride itself.

    I’ll also be marching wearing a black suit, clerical shirt and a white clerical collar because of the thousands who will be there for whom that will be an extraordinary thing to witness and something that they can scarcely believe possible.

    Yes, my own small corner of the world still has a lot of work to do. In my own diocese, the clergy asked clearly during the last Episcopal vacancy for intentional work to be done on racism, sexism and homophobia, recognising that these were all issues that were real in the diocese and that our attitudes to difference had played an ugly part in our attempts to try to choose a new bishop. A few years later, we are going into another Episcopal vacancy with none of that work done. And yes, what I experience as homophobia is deeply related to what my female colleagues experience and it is made out of the same basic material as the racist presumptions that black colleagues know well. And even since that time, anti-trans prejudice has grown and grown like an invasive new plant species. It poisons and diminishes all who taste its fruit.

    There’s nothing new about that poison either. Lots of us know it all too well.

    The easiest prejudice to counter is that which is most obvious. In-your-face discrimination is easy to point out if you are able to speak from a place of safety. Much harder is the bitter prejudice of the well meaning – that of those who couldn’t possibly be homophobic because they went to such a lovely wedding only last month, who can’t be sexist because isn’t it wonderful that we have lady vicars now and who couldn’t possibly be racist because that would be just unthinkable!

    Prejudice is part of the psychological air we breathe. It forms part of who each of us are.

    Think you don’t have any yourself?

    Think again.

    Think I don’t have it?

    I wish.

    How long will it be before it is unthinkable that women colleagues will ask whether another woman will ever be elected as a bishop due to accusations being made about the alleged behaviour of a bishop who happens to be a woman right now? How long before the qualifications of those who arrive in the church who happen to be black will be treated as being on a par with those who happen not to be? How long before I can simply sit and eat a pie?

    For all these reasons and 10000 other micro and macro aggressions, I’ll be marching at Glasgow Pride on Saturday.

    Anyone who shares the dream of a world where we are all treated equally and treated well is welcome to join me.

    Blessed are the fabulous.

    And blessed are the impatient too.

8 responses to “Questions for Ordinands #2”

  1.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    But what is a cyberspace?

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    “Unlike most computer terms, “cyberspace” does not have a standard, objective definition. Instead, it is generally used to describe the virtual world of computers. For example, an object in cyberspace is a block of data floating around on some computer system or network. With the advent of the Internet, cyberspace is now also used to refer to the global network of computers. So, after sending an e-mail to your friend, you could say you sent the message to her through cyberspace. However, use this term sparingly, as it is a popular newbie term and is already well overused.”

    A term coined by William Gibson in his SF novel Neuromancer (1984) to describe the interconnected “world” of computers and the society that gathers around them.

  3.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    Was it not coined in his short story “Burning Chrome” in 1982?

    Anyway, the original question implies a knowledge of “cyberspace”. Or are we supposed to compare the uncertain definition of the term with the concept of prayer?

  4.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    I never thought this question would become so literary.

    In Burning Chrome, I think that Gibson actually says:

    “It was hot, the night we burned Chrome. Out in the malls and plazas, moths were batting themselves to death against the neon, but in Bobby’s loft the only light came from a monitor screen and the green and red LEDs on the face of the matrix simulator. I knew every chip in Bobby’s simulator by heart; it looked like your workaday Ono-Sendai VII. the “Cyberspace Seven,” but I’d rebuilt it so many time that you’d have had a hard time finding a square millimeter of factory cir- cuitry in all that silicon.”

    My own feeling is that the use of the word cyberspace in this context does not in fact imply the meaning of cyberspace that we have come to recognise subsequently.

    As a working definition, to bring us back to the prayer question, perhaps we could agree that a cyberspace is a venue for virtual reality.

  5.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2

    “Prayer is a venue for virtual reality”?

    There is a lot of discussion in that, agreed.

    Interestingly, before Gibson's use of “cyberspace”, the term “cybernetics” was in common usage. It originally referred inter alia to the comparisons which could be made between man made “intelligences” (computers and machines) and biological systems. I believe this derives from the Greek verb kubernan, to steer or control. Some philosophers refer to cyberspace in anthropological terms. With regard to the original question, I suspect an answer can o­nly be relativistic.

  6.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    I agree that it might be so that an answer can only be relativistic. However, I suspect that many people would prefer to say that an answer to this question can only be relational.

  7.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    Perhaps we can agree that those who prefer to think of it as relational have some form of “faith”.

    It is probably on a practical basis very similar to people who rely on email or textual communication and relationships for part of their social interaction, which is one area where the original question can lead us to (those communications constituting “cyberspace” relationships). The difficulty with the analopgy is that without faith these cyberspace interactions can allow us to destroy relationships if not used carefully and judiciously. With prayer, one is guided by faith to realise that any inadvertant misunderstanding will be forgiven. This is not the case in cyberspace.

  8.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: Questions for Ordinands #2
    What?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – Reading the Signs of the Times

      In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. One of the nicest things that I’ve been at this week was the annual dinner that the Shia Muslim community put on to celebrate Eid-al-adha. The festival of the sacrifice. Islam has the same story that Christians and…

  • Emerging glistening from the water – sermon preached on 7 July 2019

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. I emerged from the water, radiant and glistening in the sunlight and made my way up onto the beach. Not like Daniel Craig emerging from the sea in Casino Royale. Not even like Ursula Andress coming up out of…

  • Whose Spiritual Mantle Will You Inherit?

    Sermon preached on 30 June 2019 In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Just the other week I was chatting with someone who asked me where I had studied. I told them that I had read Divinity at the University of St Andrews. Straightaway, the question…

  • 50 Years of Protest and Change

    As day turns to evening on the 28 June 2019, it is difficult not to think of a couple of relatively small-scale riots that took place 50 years ago and murmur a quiet prayer of thanksgiving for the rioters. I have little doubt that there was no way they could foresee the movement which was…