• We believe – a Christian LGBT creed

    Things are changing so fast – it became socially unacceptable some time ago in many circles to give voice to prejudice against LGBT people. It is becoming unacceptable to reject marriage for same-sex couples. And now it is becoming a religious act to oppose the criminalization of gay folk.

    Perhaps we need a short summary of what we believe. Do we need an LGBT Creed?

    We believe
    that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God

    and that nothing can take that likeness away.
    We believe that Jesus Christ
    brought a message of freedom, integrity and salvation for all.
    We believe in the Holy Spirit
    who brings delight, joy, liberation
    and holy common sense to the people of God.

    We believe in the church
    and are committed to remaining a part of it.
    We believe discrimination, prejudice and the criminalization
    of LGBT people to be sinful.

    We believe that God’s abundant grace is leading the church towards
    the full acceptance of God’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.
    We know the grace of God in the sacraments
    and believe that all the sacraments are given for all of the people of God.
    We believe that where God calls people into marriage
    they are called to a way of life based on
    love, joy, tenderness, faithfulness, permanence and stability.

    We believe that human rights are part of a divine mandate for justice
    that  is the birthright of all people.

    What do you think?

    [By the way, don’t forget that there’s a retreat for gay and bi men in March that I’m co-leading – bookings can be made online here: www.retreat.maniple.co.uk]

10 responses to “So, let me get this right…”

  1. Andrew Page Avatar

    I think you have understood if correctly (or at least as fully as it can be understood).

    This just shows how confused the church has become, or how keen it is to tie itself into the proverbial knots to appease both progressives and traditionalists.

    Either way, this position is both absurd and intellectually unsustainable.

  2. Kirstin Avatar

    Kelvin can I ask what submissions you are referring to, is there a new one?

  3. Joan H Craig Avatar
    Joan H Craig

    I think that, once marriage law is passed, current civil partnerships can convert to marriage by filling form, etc. Don’t think they said what happens if the couple want a religious marriage – or did I miss that?
    If our churches persist in saying no to marriage, wouldn’t it be better to do the blessing after they’ve converted their civil status – as in some countries where every marriage is a civil ceremony, and any religious service is done afterwards
    I hope everyone has completed the most recent consultation paper

  4. Rhea Avatar
    Rhea

    I think that the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants everyone to be happy, and this is probably the best way that it knows to do this.

    Is it ridiculous? Of course.

  5. Kelvin Holdsworth Avatar

    There is to be a new one. I’ve not seen it. I understand that the position that the Faith and Order Board is holding to is that “church teaching” is what Canon 31 says – that and nothing else and therefore we are doctrinally against change.

    Is that not the case?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      So far as I understand it, the SEC has not moved in its position since the first response at all.

      The first response included this:
      Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same sex marriage?
      The Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Canon 31) state that the doctrine of the Church is that marriage is ‘a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and as a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God’. In the light of that Canon, there is no current basis for agreeing that the law should be changed to view marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.

    2. Kirstin Avatar

      The SEC’s last response was in line with what the current law was, indeed still is, this consultation asks a very different question. To which the answer ‘well it isn’t legal, so we can’t say’, (I paraphrase) can’t be the answer this time, can it?
      Of course Canon 31 also states it is a “lifelong estate” but had clause 4 added at a later date to allow for divorce and remarriage.

  6. Rev David Coleman Avatar
    Rev David Coleman

    I was watching the evidence to the Westminster parliamentary committees the other day. In all these things, even from churches which are prepared to be tentatively in favour, or declining to be opposed, what is missing from all the evidence is the human experience of joy and delight that actually characterises a true and good wedding, of any combination of partners. How can we get across the compelling and converting happiness when processes take the form they do?

  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Is there any way of getting hold of the board – of ordinary church members getting hold of it and making it listen?? I mean I know my approach tends to lack in subtlety what it makes up for in directness, but then, well, it is very direct.

  8. Kimberly Avatar

    Rosemary, of all the many beautiful sentences you have written, that is the very very best.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Post Christmas

    A big thank you to everyone who helped get things ready for Christmas. The cathedral looked stunning, the choir sang magnificently throughout and everything that was supposed to happen did happen. Like others (Gadgetvicar and +David amongst them), I can report that numbers were up. Indeed, they were up significantly for all the services over…

  • Midnight Mass Sermon

    Most years at around this time, the same story appears in the press. A couple of years ago, I had a call 2 days before Christmas. It was a Sunday paper ringing to “just ask a couple of questions”. They were apparently ringing round a load of ordained people and asking them whether they believed…

  • Fairytale of New York

    UPDATED – See below BBC Radio 1 is missing the point by finding new ways to censor the Fairytale of New York by the Pogues and Kirsty MacColl. In the olden days, they used to suppress the word arse in the verse: You’re a bum You’re a punk You’re an old slut on junk Lying…