• The Equality Network Gets it Wrong

    There’s so much that the Equality Network gets right but to be honest, I’m of the view that they got it wrong this weekend. An article appeared in the Scotsman giving a few glimpses of what the Equality Network is planning during the Commonwealth Games. Apparently there is to be a Pride House which will highlight work done for LGBT rights in different commonwealth countries. Well, so far so good, what’s not to like?

    Indeed, the idea of highlighting the work of LGBT rights organisations across the Commonwealth is a very good one indeed and I wish it every success.

    What concerned me greatly was this comment from a staff member at the Equality Network:

    What we won’t be doing is outwardly criticising Commonwealth countries because the last thing I think that is useful for LGBT people in those countries is for the former colonial power to be saying this is how we do it and we do it right and you are wrong when in fact the majority of the homophobic laws in these countries were put in place by the former colonial power.

    Now, that just doesn’t seem right to me.

    The Equality Network has been quite up front about criticising Russia in the last few months. Why on earth would we tone it down when we are talking about Commonwealth Countries with which we have much stronger ties and much greater influence? Yes, it is indeed true that we must be sensitive to where homophobic laws in Commonwealth countries came from. That hardly means that we have no right to speak out about government actions today.

    To put it bluntly, if the President of Uganda signs the bill which is before him which will bring in life sentences for gay people in that country and prison sentences for anyone who knows about someone being gay and who does not report it then I expect to have something to say about it. Not only that, I expect the Equality Network to have something to say about it and to do so loudly during the Commonwealth Games if necessary. If the President of Uganda signs that bill I expect Alex Salmond to refuse to shake the hand that signed it and those of any other government ministers from that country who turn up in Glasgow.

    I saw on twitter last night that it wasn’t just me who thought the emphasis in this article was misguided. There were other voices too and some of us have been the Equality Network’s greatest supporters in recent months. Rather surprisingly, we were not listened to but argued with.

    I think the Equality Network has got it wrong on this. There is very likely to need  to be very direct protests about governments whose officials will be showing up in Scotland with the rest of the Commonwealth this summer.

    It simply isn’t good enough to say that we must represent the views of LGBT networks in those countries. They, like the Equality Network, are in hugely privileged positions. We can’t possibly know what gay folk on the ground think in many countries simply because they are left almost entirely voiceless by forces of oppression and homophobia.

    If they can’t protest the actions of their governments others can. Indeed, that’s how decent people who care about the world behave.

    The Equality Network need to continue their brilliant plan for a Pride House at the Commonwealth Games and make sure they are robustly prepared to use it as a platform to speak out clearly and stridently against cruelty, oppression and hatred whether it comes from individuals or from government ministers. If it comes from the latter, the Equality Network is well placed to whisper in the ears of Scottish Ministers and make sure that they behave equally appropriately and robustly.

    As a gay member of Scottish society who has done my bit for the Equality Network, I expect no less. The gay kid in Kampala who is unrepresented by anyone because he is terrified and can speak to no-one should expect no less either.

    Of course we must directly criticise homophobic Commonwealth governments. How could we do anything else?

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

  1. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    I try to stick to the policy, whilst commenting on it.

    Most of it pretty understandable/standard. But,
    1.using Scripture as a weapon/quoting isolated verses. To a point I agree, but surely as well as the whole has to be understood as part of the whole, the whole is made us by parts. People misuse the Bible by taking a verse out of context, but they can easily be shown up. Otherwise we can’t use the Bible at all, other than saying – read all of it – there’s something that relates to what I’m saying.

    2. How does the disclaimer square with not being able to comment on PSA? Is that a given (i.e. that it’s nonsense)? Are other opinions banned? Like Roman Catholic views. Even if (highly unlikely) it’s a minority view, are other historically minority views banned (charismatics, baptists) and non-Christians and all liberals – as there views are pretty minority.

    3. Likening gay people to murderers. Unpleasant I agree. Although if (if I may quote a verse – but not to prove a point), this a reference to the 2nd 1/2 of Romans 1, the list includes people who disobey parents and the greedy. Presumably they’re still fair game?

    Just not sure this quite stacks. It’s why people ask, “What are you afraid of?” when it comes to PSA?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.

  2. John Sandeman Avatar
    John Sandeman

    Kelvin,
    When reading about theories of the atonement, there is a real risk of continually reading things that have been said many times over – as you point out. But can I credit you with something reasonably original? “We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it.” I have never worked out how to determine the proportions of Christians who believe the various atonement theories. Is there some research out there?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks John – I’m not aware of any research though I’d be interested in any there was. When I wrote that, I was thinking not simply of who believes what now but also of Christians through time. The history of these various ways of understanding the (or an) atonement is fairly well attested and it is clear that some have risen and fallen through time.

      My presumption is that most of the people in the great blocks of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (both now and through history) don’t believe in penal substitution – or at least, don’t believe it in the same way that a classical evangelical might believe in it as doctrine which must be personally accepted in order to lead to individual salvation. However, as you rightly point out, who believes what may not be so simple.

  3. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    There are a few bits of research on this, but mostly from the context of PSA
    E.g. Chapter 5 of “Pierced for our Transgressions”, by Jeffery, Ovey & Sach (IVP), which is a quite survey of theologians, east & west, a dozen of which are pre-reformation, starting with Justin Martyr.

    Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors of the atonement”, in the journal of the evangelical theological society, 47 (2004), pp629-645
    “The divine substitution: The atonement in the Bible and history” by Shaw & Edwards (Day One).

    I get the your blog, your rules. Just doesn’t sound like decent is welcome.

    1. Darren Moore Avatar
      Darren Moore

      Bit of a PS,
      Robert Letham’s, “Through Western eyes”
      Looks at the differences & common ground with E-orthodoxy on lots of things, including salvation. Letham (Reformed), thinks there’s lots to get from the East re:-Trinity in worship, incarnational stuff, divination (rightly understood), but still holds that his “Reformed”

    2. Kelvin Avatar

      Well, Darren, I’ve found that there are quite a number of people who do want to meet and chat without the Atonement Thought Police stepping in to correct them all the time. In fact, though I expect you’ll be surprised to hear it, to those who don’t believe that particular doctrine, comments rather like your own can appear to be quite aggressive and verging on bullying.

      So, you may not feel welcome to behave exactly as you like here. You are not. And there’s a comminity of folk who like it that way.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Lotions & potions, pills and powders

    Am living through a litany of lotions and potions, pills and powders. Thus far, the past few days have included: paracetamol lemsip (max strength) vicks vapour rub (v sticky) benylin strepsils tyrozets lightbox (first outing of the winter) multivitamins rhodiola rosea cod liver oil The remarkable thing is that I’ve had to buy none of…

  • Vestry Cancelled tonight

    Vestry members – please note that this evening’s vestry meeting is cancelled. (I had been hoping to be well enough, but am still afflicted and don’t want to be passing what I’ve got to the rest of you). Please deal with questions arising from this month’s reports by e-mail during the coming week. I will…

  • All heaven will break out

    Here is the sermon that I croaked this morning. Not having much voice, I’ve no idea whether people could hear it or not. The snuffling of the mancold which I’ve been afflicted with prompted me to dip into the file of “old sermons about the rich man and lazarus” and pull this one out. Last…

  • Things that are being said about me

    I’ve been called quite a lot online this week. Anglican Mainstream was referring to me as the Provost of Glasgow. I’m not,of course. The provost of a city in Scotland is its civic leader, like a mayor. In any case, Glasgow has a Lord Provost. I’m the Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow. Similarly, I…