Presbyterians talk sex -- and education
The Irish Presbyterian General Assembly today which encourage the church to be more "understanding" of gay and lesbian people. The report containing those guidelines has been the subject of quite some controversy -- not least because its authors deliberately refuse to speak of "gay people" and the report endorses the kind of ex-gay counselling that many mental health professionals regard as unethical. Nevertheless, the report encouraged the church to create safe spaces for conversations about sexuality and called on church members and ministers to reject homophobic language and attitudes. All of which was too much for some of the more conservative members of the House, who lined up to deliver speeches condemning homosexuality and rejecting the need for any pastoral care guidelines other than those they already found in the Bible.
It was a tense debate. Dr Ken Newell spoke of the need to make the church a place of welcome and grace for gay people (update: I include his speech below); and the Reverend Richard Hill provoked some murmuring when he suggested that a gay person's sexual orientation may be as natural to him or her as their left- or right-handedness (see below for this speech). Others, including the Reverend Richard Murray, rose to challenge some of the tesitmonies from gay church members contained in the report, with some speakers rejecting the claim -- by definition -- that those gay people are Christians.
In the end, the House voted to receive the report and publish its guidelines, even though some of the report's defenders acknowledged that it was flawed and only the start of a new conversation for the Presbyterian Church. And make no mistake about it: this was a very new conversation. Whereas other churches across the world have been debating homosexuality for decades, Northern Ireland's largest Protestant church has avoided what is for them a troubling subject for a very long time. Today, they began a conversation, with voices on both sides of this debate being raised in a public session. Many of those on the losing side of the motion today lined up to register their dissent from the Assembly's decision to publish its new pastoral care guidelines -- and some of them had the sense that they had been defeated on a matter of serious moral principle. The divisions within the Presbyterian Church on sexuality were apparent, and, now that the conversation has finally been broached in a public debate, I suspect we will be reporting further rhetorical skirmishes in the near future.
Who won today? That kind of question does no justice to the complexity of the debate or the issues at stake within Irish Presbyterianism. The church's theological stance on homosexuality remains as it was yesterday; that wasn't the issue before the Assembly. But the church's supreme court today hosted the kind of conversation about sexuality that would have been inconceivable five or ten years ago in a church as traditionalist in its ways as the Irish Presbyterian Church, with contributions that were by turns moving, insightful, courageous and downright infuriating.
Then in the evening, the church hosted a event, with guests including the new Education Minister CaitrĂona Ruane. This was another history-making moment for the Assembly: a Sinn Fein politician was warmly welcomed by the Moderator, to spontaneous applause, then invited to address the event and take questions from the floor. They even had schoolchildren on the stage wearing Irish dancing dresses doing jigs, with a Catholic bishop, Dr Donal McKeown, seated the audience on the floor of the Assembly Hall.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if the First Minister himself turned up at this Assembly's closing session to pronounce the Benediction. OK, I would be surprised. But after today, I wouldn't rule anything out.
Speech to the General Assembly
by the Very Revd Dr Kenneth Newell
Moderator, I believe that this house owes a debt of gratitude to Rev Bobby Liddle and the Social Issues Panel for this illuminating and courageous Report. It takes us into the huge emotional distress and victimization felt by those who are gay within our Church and beyond.
Bobâs testimony moved me:
âI still love my family and respect my Church
but when I really needed someone
to listen to me without judgement,
there was no one. But Iâm not bitterâ
What a remarkable man and wonderful human being. I was also moved by the testimony of the anonymous mother:
âMy son attempted suicide several times
before he eventually âcame outâ.
I went through a grieving process.
I lost friends within my local congregation
and sadly there was no one within the Presbyterian Church that I could turn to for help.â
Moderator, there is a kind of Silent Valley reservoir of compassion within our Church; most of the time if flows freely and refreshingly into the lives of those we serve. But somewhere, as the Report argues strongly, we have failed to convince the gay members of our Churches that it is there for them too.
Bobby, what prophetic words you have addressed to this house:
âHomophobia is out. Fear, disgust, hostility and self-righteousness are not Christian reactions. If they dominate my reactions to gay people I am not fit to help or counsel them; I need help and counsel myself.â
But the Report leaves me one big question relating to our quest for âBiblical Integrityâ, that is finding a biblical way to look at all people, and especially gay people, through the eyes of Christ. You have drawn our attention to the abusive language fired by some at gay people, labels such as âpervertsâ and âsodomitesâ.
This language is actually found in some translations of Scripture; it is also quite common for Christians to build a case against homosexuality based on the Sodom and Gomorrah passage in Genesis 19. But this passage is about an attempted gay gang rape; to imply that gay people within our churches are in that debauched bracket of humanity is to feed the hunger of the homophobia already within our community.
In Leviticus 20:13 males engaging in gay sex are to be killed, probably by stoning: âThey shall surely be put to deathâ. Is the first part of that verse âThe Word of Godâ while the second we quietly explain away? When fired into the face of gay people it can sound very much like âPraise the Lord and pass the breeze-blocks!â
We misinterpret the Scriptures if we do not end up feeling for people with Christâs heart.
It is my hope, Moderator, that this house sends out a very strong message to the gay members of our church and community: that our General Assembly, our Presbyteries, our Kirk Sessions and congregations apologize for any hurt that you have experienced; and we pledge ourselves to cherish you, and everyone else, in the grace and compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ. To put it simply, if and when you need us, we are here for you.
Speech to the General Assembly
by the Revd Richard Hill
Seeking to justify himself a teacher of the law asked Jesus, âWho is my neighbour?" I think he may have been âgentile-o-phobicâ. Iâm not sure he liked the answer Jesus gave. We know it as the parable of the Good Samaritan. So who is my neighbour? Weâd better be careful how we answer for it says a great deal about us.
Rudyard Kipling has said, âAll the people like us are we, [pause] And everyone else is They.â
Who is my neighbour?
âMaryâ is an old woman today. When she was a young school girl she was caned for trying to write with her left hand. She eventually learned to write with her right hand. Today she can write with both, because, you see, she is still left- handed. Forcing someone who is left handed to write with their right hand -- now that is "unnatural".
Left handedness is not a âlifestyle choiceâ; it is part of who we are. Being gay or lesbian is not a âlifestyle choiceâ it can form a fundamental part of a personâs identity. Today I will speak for those you would characterise -- categorise, define -- as "different" and somehow not quite welcome. Today I say we need guidelines which donât build a higher wall to help keep out those who are ânot like meâ; we need guidelines that will help us find our way out of this ghetto we have constructed and into meaningful encounter with our neighbours.
Who is my neighbour? My neighbours are gay, lesbian and straight.
I want to encourage you to vote for the guidelines today. Bobby [Liddle -- author of the Report], I want to thank you. I have heard what you have said about continuing dialogue on these matters.
Finally, who is my neighbour? Be careful how you answer.
Comments
Incredible. I can just see the looks of astonished digust on the faces of some of the more conservative Presbyterians I know! What is the church coming to?
In the end it's all about....marketing.
Religion like any other business has to look at the bottom line and focus on keeping market share and profit margins up. That's what it all about.
The Irish Presbyterians have imported âPragmatism USAâ to try and put a halt to the numbers leaving the church, this Gay thing is just another USA style gimmick, after all they had do something other than, preaching the Gospel.
Going into the world is to hard a task; Presbyterian clerics no longer get their direction from GOD, but look to the Hybel and the Warren types for guidance other than looking to The Real Type Jesus Christ for true guidance.
The Presbyterian clerics have to realise "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; time to wake up you sleepy Christians and start working in the harvest fields, there's a big bad world outside the front door of the church ready to be harvested if you donât harvest the field there will be more churches going up for sale.
Be ashamed, O tillers of the soil; wail, O vinedressers, for the wheat and the barley, because the harvest of the field has perished.
For a different view of yesterday's proceedings check out www.protestant-gazette.blogspot.com
Everybody in this country is obsessed with what two consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. Church, politicans, media, you name it, they all have an opinion to peddle. And for as long as that is the case Northern Ireland remains an inhospitable place for homosexuals.
Chris Woods
you are in the wrong time/debate.
The gay political lobby are legally pressing for homosexuality to be forcibly endorsed by everyone in every walk of life now, eg church education, commerce, marriage...
It is not just a private bedroom issue!
PB
Even though it is hard for people to understand the difference between being Gay and being a practicing Gay I think the Presbyterian Church is trying to say that it has to reach out to those people who call themselves Gay but also has a responsibility to teach what the Bible says on it. The Church has a responsibility of care for all people including Gays and I know that there are plenty of Gay people out there who do not practice (and that must be hard for them) simply because they believe the Bible. I also know that there are lots of Gay people out there who do not believe the bible or intrepid the bible in a different way. There are also people Gay and Non â Gay who do not believe the Bible or read the bible and pick the passages to suit themselves but before we judge the Presbyterian Church to quickly about this remember God hates the ACT not the person (this is the main point of the argument) and people who practice homosexuality most Christians would agree can not be part of the Church. This does not mean that Christians hate Gays but rather the Act.
But is it the same as people who are alcoholics but do not drink anymore they still are alcoholics and will be to the day they die but may never drink another drop of alcohol in their lifetime should they be excluded from Church or holding a post in Church if they stay dry?
The church must have the same pastoral care for this section of the community and must have people trained to communicate with them as they share their questions on life and where they fit into Church life. It is easy to condemn and it is also easy to try and make things fit in that do not fit in to keep things right.
The Bible has a lot of hard things for us mortals to swallow but it is the word and teaching of God
This is a hard question for the Church Worldwide and one I think will be around for a long time yet.
Ian Hall - your website says you are a Free Presbyterian Minister. This is your "alternative" view on the debate, I quote from your site:
"The so-called evangelical wing of the Irish Presbyterian suffered a shattering defeat at yesterday's meeting of the General Assembly. A motion which radically alters that denomination's approach to the issue of the sodomites was passed by a clear majority of the delegates . The passing of the pro-pervert motion ensures that the PCI will never again confront and condemn the sin of sodomy but will seek to "understand " this vile and abominable act."
I don't know why I bother to put you right on this, because you are misleading people with falsities on this, but I'm going to put you right anyway:
1. Evangelicals were included on both sides of the Assembly debate. It wasn't evangelicals on one side and liberals on the other. There are hardly any liberals left in PCI.
2. Thanks for using the word sodomites, you help to make the case for a more loving attitude to gay people. Pathetic.
3. You are simply wrong that PCI voted to change its theology on homosexuality in this debate. The 1979 position of the church remains unchanged. Ministers are, in any case, permitted to maintain their own views on this topic. Those who believe homosexuality is a sin are entitled to say so (and they will).
PLEASE, for the sake of truth itself, don not bear false witness against others as you have done in your comments. This is an abuse of God's truth my friend.
Im new to this person "pb", but I notice that every time I hear someone use the expression "the gay lobby" they turn out to be trailing their knuckles along the ground behind them. Hey guys, wake up! It's 2007 and gay people aren't being executed anymore. Why don't you spend your time attacking evil people instead of people whose only "crime" is a desire to go to bed with their parnter!?
It seems to me that in Northern Ireland where Catholics and Anglicans will barely tolerate each other to begin with, the Presbyterians are lucky to be allowed to live in the country at all. By considering acceptance of homosexuals as human beings whose rights and dignity should be respected equally along with everyone elses, they are just making things harder on themselves. After all, you'd never see Catholics or Anglicans taking such a stance. What would become of Northern Ireland if they did?
Cathy
Thats quite a personal attack on me there ref the knuckles.
I dont mean or see anything pejorative in the term "gay lobby" though if you can point it out to me I am all ears.
If a group which identifies itself by its (homo)sexuality and in practise is politically activist then it seems a fair description.
You have totally sidestepped the valdi point I made to Chris Woods and instead gone for me personally. Thats not very nice, I would have more respect if you showed me how I am mistaken, if I am.
What term do you suggest instead?
And how do you justify implying that I am a "knuckle dragger".
That is not very mature or helpful to a serious discussion.
PB
PB- She's saying your views are archaic, and I agree with her. Do you use the term "the black lobby" or "the female lobby"? No, you don't, because even you've realised that the former would be a wholly racist and the latter would be a wholly sexist way of describing the legitimate fight for rights that those groups are involved in. As it stands, "the gay lobby" is an inherently disrespectful term, if you ask me.
Cathy D,
What is your definition of evil and where have you obtained this definition from?
And here I thought the gay lobby was an orange and yellow painted entry foyer.
What do you suppose would happen if the homosexuals started their own religion, would the collection plates in the old ones dry up? The Anglican church may be about to find out.
Cathy, I don't know if pb has arms so long his knuckles drag along the ground but he admits that he's all ears. Does that mean he's a cross between a chimpanzee and an elephant? See, evolution is real. pb, do you have a trunk too? I once had a girlfriend who had a neck like a swan.....8 feet long. :-) The comedian Alan King said the reason it took two hours for his wife to put on her lipstick was that she had....A BIG MOUTH, A REALLY BIG MOUTH!
JW
How very tolerant of you.
If you are really the culturo-linguist expert what term do you suggest?
Womens rights lobby or racial equality lobby sound fine to me.
Archaic?
Is everything that is old bad?
Is everything that has stood the test of time useless?
Old does not mean wrong or bad John.
You are implying that there are no "truths" that never change? Is that really true in your life John?
Isnt your belief in Christ and God, after your own fashion "ancient"?
Cant I rule that out of order and rubbish by *your* own standards then?
Christ said: "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away."
And yes before you quibble John, he did affirm the historical fact of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, which, before you quibble again, scripture records God had decided to destroy *before* the mob of men attempted to gang rape the two male angels.
Apologies to other readers for preempting JW's infamous quibbles there - please ignore it, it was just for JW.
PB
PB- "Is everything that is old bad?"
Of course not. But surely archaic ideas are not inherently good either? That's why we need constant evaluation of our adherence to certain ethics, and I think future generations will condemn your attitudes on this one.
pb,
The Gay Lobby: The reason this is unacceptable as a phrase is this. You wouldn't describe an antiracist campaigner as a member of the Black Lobby. That's insulting. Why can't you learn to use language that's respectul? A gay person is not usually a member of any lobby group, or a card carrying member of an organisation. He or she is usually just someone who wants straight people like you and me to leave them alone.
I was at this debate and I agree that it was historic. Open minded presbyterians have allowed fundamentalists to dominate the theological debates for too long. In this debate, they spoke up and northern ireland's gays and lesbians heard for the first time that there are ministers who want to change the church from a stance of rejection to an embrace of justice. Please, please, Ken Newell, Richard Hill, Simon Henning and others, continue to speak up for God's wide open arms.
Richard P.
I intend to carry on speaking on issues like this one.
Thanks for your comment.
R
REF: POST #17
Cathy your language towards PB is duplicitous, the fact being that your argument is flawed in the sense that you suggest that heterosexuals are straight would you then advocate that homosexuals are bent, and would you find this acceptable language on your part to refer to homosexuals as bent in the same way that you refer to heterosexuals as straight.
When I listen to The Christian Hippy and PB on language I want to give up. They just don't get it. The term "straight" is NOT insulting to gay people. Instead of making thse kinds of idiotic comments, why don't you go meet some gay people, befriend them, and find out what kind of language they find hurtful or not?
Dear me Jeffery,
"language they find hurtful"
Do you not think that calling someone's comments 'idiotic' might be a tad hurtful?
Rick Hill,
Please, please, please read your Bible.
JW, Cathy, Jeff
I have repeatedly asked you to suggest an alternative term to the gay lobby that you find ok and you all you can do is attack me.
Why can you not suggest an alternative - I hope it is not because you are deliberately invoking the victim card.
As usual JW your arguments are so arbitrary the words mean whatever you want them to mean, just like humpty dumpty.
And I totally reject the idea this is nothing to do with me and that gay people simply want me to leave them alone.
That implies I am abusing them which is totaly untrue. I have challenged abuse of gay people on numerous occasions in public. And I have also met and known quite a few.
But I have a responsibility to repeatedly ask why nobody wants to look at the white elephant in the room in this debate;-
If so many gay people have tried to go straight and so many gay people HAVE gone straight (alfred Kinsey and Peter tatchell) then I think this should be opened up, in fairness to freedom of information and choice.
Another point is that nobody really wants to discuss what causes homosexuality; there is certainly no case for a genetic cause.
Also, as the new laws threaten to enforce views on churchs, schools and businesses this is NOT A PRIVATE MATTER.
Anyone proposing such things is effectively lobbying, which they have every right to do.
But I am not going to call them "still life artistic painters" for fear of offending a few bloggers with a semi-accurate description.
At least, not until they come up with another term they are happy with.
PB
PB- You called them "gay people" in your last comment: nothing wrong with that. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' about using the phrase "gay lobby" either, but it's just a little ignorant and insulting to people who have a legitimate fight for rights in these days. I'd stick to "gay people" if I wanted to identify with them, rather than alienate them.
John you are like a jack russell;
if there is nothing wrong with the term gay lobby (and there is nothing at all pejorative about it) then what the heck are you arguing about?
Not all people with homosexual feelings lobby for additional rights I have to say John, BTW
True Freedom Trust UK says there as many gay people in the church fighting their tendencies as there are those who embrace them.
So "gay lobby" is still 100% valid, though "gay rights lobby" might be a little more accurate.
PB
PB
PB- Why can't you distinguish between the concepts I'm proposing here? Nothing I've said in this thread contradicts anything else I've said. "Gay lobby" is a wholly insulting way to describe them. That doesn't make it ethically 'wrong' (a word used to describe some kind of moral violation), but it's certainly insulting, demeaning of the legitimate fight for equal rights that they have, and indicative of your general attitude toward homosexuality. I said it was "archaic" and "disrespectful" in #12. I didn't say it was ethically 'wrong'. That's "what the heck" I'm "arguing about".