Once again posts on the Anglican Mainstream site are attacking a mission and relief agency over association with people or groups that are opposed to discrimination against the homosexual community. Last year Tear Fund was attacked because Desmond Tutu was a speaker at a Tear Fund event, now CMS are criticised for being supporters of the Greenbelt Festival. In both cases, those posting quickly suggest letters of protest and threats of the withdrawal of support if their demands are not met.
To my mind there are several issues with their approach. First, people and organisations are being characterised by those who post on Anglican Mainstream's site as 'pro-gay' as though this were their defining characteristic. A festival like Greenbelt is deliberately designed to be eclectic rather than mono-cultural in order to address a wide range of issues from a variety of different perspectives, yet for those who have posted on Anglican Mainstream's site all of that diversity is viewed through one lens and one lens only i.e. that of whether or not gay Christians are invited to contribute to the Festival. This approach makes clear the single issue nature of the Anglican Mainstream agenda. Such designations can also be applied fairly indiscriminately by such posters before some form of retraction. So, for example, in its orginal form this post included headlining bands Athlete and Royksopp in their 'pro-gay' designations but reference to them has now been removed from the post. Additionally, this is laced with unnecessary invective so that, for example, Gene Robinson is described as a gay poster boy.
Second, on the basis of this single issue those posting are essentially seeking to disrupt the flow of support to key mission and relief organisations. Lisa Nolland's post regarding Tear Fund and Tutu was entitled 'Farewell to Tear Fund?' and stated that she has redirected her sponsorship of a child from Tear Fund to another organisation. In her post on CMS and Greenbelt she urges her readers to contact the Chair and General Secretary of CMS with their concerns. What she is saying then, is that this one issue, whether a person or organisation is perceived as being 'pro-gay' or supporting those who are 'pro-gay', trumps every other issue and activity including the vital work of mission and relief throughout the world. In her view it is acceptable, on the basis of this single issue, to argue that funds for vital relief work should be directed away from Tear Fund and that CMS should be discouraged from engaging with those in its support base who attend Greenbelt and from seeking to broaden its support base for mission through the Festival.
Third, those posting call for other organisations to set up debates on the issue of homosexuality in a way that they are not prepared to do themselves. So, the call is for Greenbelt to "allow equal air time for traditional sexual views" but where are the examples of Anglican Mainstream adopting this approach of affording equal air time to those they oppose? As is often the case when a single issue comes to dominate an organisation's agenda, that organisation expects a privileged position for their own views at the same time as denying that privileged place to their opponents. Until Anglican Mainstream itself affords equal air time to those calling for what they view as 'non-traditional' sexual views, this call is a case of one rule for you, one rule for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Röyksopp - Remind Me.
5 comments:
Bang on the money Jonathan, nothing more to add.
My sentiments exactly - tabloid style headlines writing off organisations in one fell swoop have got to be challenged - amongst many other things.
Ive never come across anglican mainstream before. Im not detecting the love coming from that quatre...
nice one Jonathan written even handedly ....you are so correct about the imbalance seemingly shown by AM whilst it seeks balance itself
Jonathan, it may well be worth your checking up on the purpose and mission statement of Anglican Mainstream, before making comments like "This approach makes clear the single issue nature of the Anglican Mainstream agenda". After all, it was established to support/promote/ defend (depending on your POV) traditional orthodox Christian thinking ona variety of issues including, but not exclusively, sexuality.
At the same time,your comment "What she is saying then, is that this one issue, whether a person or organisation is perceived as being 'pro-gay' or supporting those who are 'pro-gay', trumps every other issue and activity including the vital work of mission and relief throughout the world." is, for many, simply a response to what they perceive as the gay agenda's trumping of the very same 'every other issue and vital work' of the church at large.
For several people in society - Christian or not - there is a growing feeling of fear for their safety as government bring in every more legislation that seeks to criminalise any expression of oposition to the shift towards the acdeptance of homosexual relationships. What is perhaps even more frightening for some - I know of several myself - is the double standards that soem homosexual campaigners seem to hold - using theology, science and/or socio-anthropological material to support their argument, yet referring to those who use the same disciplines to develop a perfectly rational, logical but opposing argument as bigotted, blinkered, homophobic, narrow-minded, etc.
The fact that some of these folk have spent years studying the evidence before coming to the conclusion they have is ignored or, at worst, dismissed as of no importance.
Finally, in case you haven't been following the AM forum over the years, there is a regular and largely well-balanced debate on this and other issues running most of the time.
Post a Comment