• Not merely patronising

    Bishop Victoria Matthews is not merely patronising, she is actually wrong.

    Wait, you want me to back up a bit? OK.

    The story so far: We’ve been considering the idea of an Anglican Covenant for years and this year the Scottish Episcopal Church decided to reject it and did so in a very clear synodical decision. The Anglican Consultative Council is currently meeting in New Zealand and Bishop Victoria has been making statements about those who can’t agree with the Covenant that are, at best disingenuous. (Which is Anglican for “Completely Wrong and Verging on Deceit”).

    Here’s part of the report from the Anglican Communion Office:
    Bishop Matthews… was introducing a session on the history and progress of the Covenant as part of the 15th ACC meeting in Auckland.
    She stressed the point that it was not the work of IASCUFO [The International Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order] to promote the Covenant, but rather to monitor its reception.
    “As we have sought to do that,” she told delegates, “I have often thought that the document people discuss and the actual Anglican Covenant are two different documents.
    “One is the document that people have in their mind and the other is the Anglican Communion Covenant on paper. So I really want [people] to read the Covenant and be focused on that. Because often, when people start talking about the Covenant, what they describe in their mind as the Covenant is unrecognisable.”

    I have to say that I find the suggestion that we really need to read the actual Covenant quite insulting. No church could have done better at reading the thing than the Scottish Episcopal Church. We’ve discussed it at our annual General Synod over years. We’ve looked at each different version of the text. We’ve discussed it in dioceses. We’ve discussed it in regional councils. Some have discussed it in Vestries and in some places whole congregations looked at it. People preached on it. People studied it. We went over the text itself with a tooth-comb. The Standing Committee discussed and implemented every possible way of discussing the document. We talked about it until people were sick of talking about it. We printed it out so many times that people complained about the environmental impact of the Covenant process.

    And then we finally made a decision and the decision was a resounding “No.” We really don’t need to go back and read the text. We read it plenty and we made up out minds very clearly and overwhelmingly.

    Bishop Victoria also said, “Remember most of the Covenant reminds us who we are in Christ.”

    You know, the predominant thing that we said was not that we were worried about the punitive sections. That was true for very many of us. However the thing I heard people saying again and again was, “This just doesn’t represent who we are”.

    The claim that the Covenant reminds us who we are in Christ is a rather foolish one. The Covenant is an imagined identity which we have firmly rejected.

    It is certainly patronising of Bishop Victoria Matthews to imply that we in Scotland just have not read the Covanant enough. More than that though, it isn’t true.

    She’s just plain wrong.

13 responses to “The Comites Christi – Gay Icons”

  1. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    Whether or not these people had sex with each other is unknowable and irrelevant. A gift that they offer to all, of whatever sexual persuasion, is the understanding that people of the same sex can have beautiful friendships marked by tender affection.

  2. Daniel Donaldson Avatar
    Daniel Donaldson

    Jesus had sex, he was human Afterall. I don’t like the way churches destroy the humanity of bible stories, making everyday life and seem dirty and disgusting (sex, being case in point ) replacing it with a self interpreted image of the divine. Maybe if the church recognised and embraced humanity, they would get more folk in the pews, instead of pushing them away.

    1. Jo Avatar
      Jo

      Not every human has sex during their lives. People have, by accident or design, remained chaste throughout their lives. We have no reason to believe that Jesus was married, and likewise we have no reason to suppose that he did have sex. All we have in this regard is an argument from silence. One would expect, however, that were he married it would have been his wife, as well as his mother, whom he commended to John’s care at his death.

      1. Daniel Donaldson Avatar
        Daniel Donaldson

        That’s a matter of debate. Some people can be chaste all their lives. I’m not comvinced that is the case with Jesus. The church likes to destroy humanity, make us feel guilty and dirty about being ourselves. If other heretical writings were allowed to survive, we may have a better account of the human side of Jesus.

        1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
          Rosemary Hannah

          Actually you would probably have a much more Gnostic Christ in the destroyed writings, other worldly and detailing the orders and hierarchy of angels. In fact the New Testament as we have it is kind to our physical nature, by and large. Whether Jesus was unmarried or widowed or gay we cannot know. We do know that he touched the ‘untouchable’ and was blamed for party going. It is enough to be going on with.

          1. Tiggy Avatar
            Tiggy

            I don’t like the implication in the comment above that someone has to have sex in order to be fully human. Maybe there are less people today who go their whole lives without having sex, but it was very common in the past and not always a choice, certainly for women. Were those people not fully human?

  3. Ann Fontaine Avatar

    Thanks Kelvin – tomorrow on Speaking to the Soul on the Café — Leslie Scoopmire writes about our wanting to know “what” rather than opening up to possibilities — asking “why”. Also are the images available for use?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I was unable to identify the origins of the two icons. The middle one came from the wikipedia page on St John and is in the public domain.

  4. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    Thanks for this post. I enjoyed reading it very much. I tend to be a bit less reflective of Bible stories during Christmas days as my large family keeps me quite occupied – and we do live near the beach. I was reading Ruth 1 last night as it happens and I find the story of Ruth and Naomi to be one of love and fidelity. I don’t read their relationship as being of a sexual nature at all, my perspective. I also think black women and white women may read the Bible quite differently.

  5. Jaye Richards-Hill Avatar

    David and Ruth speak to me far more than the examples you draw in the blog post. Not so sure that Naomi and Ruth is all that far-fetched either. If literature reflects life,then why shouldn’t we look for examples of LGBT folk in scripture? It’s pretty much a given that they were there, after all?

  6. Kittredge Cherry Avatar

    I’m one of those lesbian people who gets excited about the same-sex love affirmed in the stories of Ruth & Naomi and David & Jonathan. In fact I blog about them and other “LGBT saints” (loosely defined” through Jesusinlove.org.

    I don’t disagree with your statement, “Instead of asking whether a given character in the bible ‘is gay’ those of us who read from that perspective would be better to ask of all the characters – what are you saying to our lives?”

    However I find that highlighting the same-sex love or “queer” people in the Bible helps catch the attention of LGBT people today who would otherwise ignore the Bible completely.

    Your description of the conversation about John the Beloved Disciple is amazing. I’ve engaged in conversations about this, but it never became anywhere near so detailed as what you describe.

    Today is the feast day for King David in some churches… another date to add to the gay comites Christi. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece, and happy New Year.

    You can find my LGBT saints series at:
    http://www.jesusinlove.org/saints.php

  7. Kate Odling Avatar
    Kate Odling

    I found this interesting. Both Stephen & John were quiet, “soft” men who were sympathetic to people who needed help, I think. There are many gay & straight people who are like them. They are the quiet ones who get on with doing good deeds. I think everyone can appreciate their love

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Naming the Demons – Sermon 20 June 2004

    What demons live in us! Competing voices which ensure that we are distracted from the still points where God can meet us. Voices which distract, torment, dominate and control us to the point that we can not longer hear the voice of the One who knows our name and can offer us nourishment, salvation, strength…

  • Aha

    Had an aha moment this evening when this question popped into my head… Are the Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson affairs not just reruns of the Donatist controversy? If so, of course, we know what the outcome will be.

  • Internet?

    To me, the net is all about people. Community breaks out where people have meeting places and all of a sudden, we have the power for people to meet in so many new ways. There are far too many places online where we are offered information only as though we are supposed to think of…

  • June

    What happens in June? I always think that there will be time for everything once the exams are over at the University and I get an “extra” working day each week because I don’t need to go there on a Thursday. Summer weddings and the General Synod don’t help, of course. Spent yesterday getting Saturday’s…