This is also from Ekklesia:
"Dr Lisa Severine Nolland has written on the conservative Anglican Mainstream website comparing gay Christians to the BNP. Her argument is that the Greenbelt arts festival wouldn't give a platform to the racist party's views, so why is it giving Christians who believe in the inclusion of gay and lesbian people a platform? What kind of message does this send off about the Church's attitude to LGBT people, asks Jonathan Bartley."
Read the full blog by Jonathan Bartley here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Specials - Stereotype.
Showing posts with label anglican mainstream. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anglican mainstream. Show all posts
Monday, 20 July 2009
Saturday, 18 July 2009
One rule for you, one rule for me (2)
This is my response to comments left by Dolgwyn on the original post. There are too many characters, apparently, for them to be posted as a follow on comment so instead I am making them a new post:
Thanks Dolgwyn for your comments. As you might expect, I disagree with much of what you say.
You said, "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."
I am well aware of AM's aim and mission but think that its practice (i.e. its public statements and activities) reveal it to be a group that is primarily concerned with supporting/promoting/defending its views on sexuality (i.e. a single issue organisation).
You wrote, "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."
The legislation that this Government (and previous Governments) have introduced outlaws discrimination and criminal offences motivated by hatred against people on the basis of disability, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. The only reason someone would have for "fearing for their safety" from such legislation would be if they were discriminating or committing a criminal offence, or intending to do so. I assume that neither are true of you, so have no idea on what evidence your fear is based.
Nevertheless, feeling such fear does not justify discouraging support for the vital work of mission and relief undertaken by organisations like CMS and Tear Fund. On what basis could it ever be right to say that because I feel afraid of changes regarding sexuality I am justified in trying to discourage support for mission and relief?
You wrote, "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."
Pots and kettles come to mind. Lisa Nolland's post describes Gene Robinson as "gay bishop poster boy" with a "sadly amaturish biblical hermeneutic." We have to practice what we preach and much of so-called debate on these issues is sadly little more than the flinging of invective instead of there being a real engagement with the views of those we oppose.
"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."
This is the list of Recent Posts on the AM site as it stands tonight: 'To the Anglican Communion: Pray, Fast and Resist'; 'Canterbury in a Corner'; 'Episcopals’ First Openly Gay Bishop Speaks'; 'Homosexuality to Heterosexuality: Can the Transition Be Made?'; 'ACI: Committing to the Anglican Communion: Some Will, Others Won’t'; 'Roman Catholic marriage agency advocates gay and unmarried parents'; 'US vote ‘not a snub to Archbishop of Canterbury’'; 'Their Separate Ways'; 'GC2009: Clarity Attained at 76th Episcopal General Convention'; 'A Message from Bishop David Anderson'; 'Why FCA UK and Ireland?'; 'GC 2009: Statement from the deputation of the Diocese of South Carolina:'; 'West Texas bishop drafts ‘Anaheim Statement,’ reaffirms moratoria commitment'; 'Signatures on the Anaheim Statement'; 'Anglicans and Their Unwelcome House Guests'.
The overwhelming majority of these posts are to do with the issue of homosexuality. The AM forum may well debate other issues but issues of sexuality are consistently its dominant agenda. It would be an altogether healthier place if mission and relief work were its primary features, instead of its current preoccupation with sexuality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athlete - Street Map.
Thanks Dolgwyn for your comments. As you might expect, I disagree with much of what you say.
You said, "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."
I am well aware of AM's aim and mission but think that its practice (i.e. its public statements and activities) reveal it to be a group that is primarily concerned with supporting/promoting/defending its views on sexuality (i.e. a single issue organisation).
You wrote, "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."
The legislation that this Government (and previous Governments) have introduced outlaws discrimination and criminal offences motivated by hatred against people on the basis of disability, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. The only reason someone would have for "fearing for their safety" from such legislation would be if they were discriminating or committing a criminal offence, or intending to do so. I assume that neither are true of you, so have no idea on what evidence your fear is based.
Nevertheless, feeling such fear does not justify discouraging support for the vital work of mission and relief undertaken by organisations like CMS and Tear Fund. On what basis could it ever be right to say that because I feel afraid of changes regarding sexuality I am justified in trying to discourage support for mission and relief?
You wrote, "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."
Pots and kettles come to mind. Lisa Nolland's post describes Gene Robinson as "gay bishop poster boy" with a "sadly amaturish biblical hermeneutic." We have to practice what we preach and much of so-called debate on these issues is sadly little more than the flinging of invective instead of there being a real engagement with the views of those we oppose.
"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."
This is the list of Recent Posts on the AM site as it stands tonight: 'To the Anglican Communion: Pray, Fast and Resist'; 'Canterbury in a Corner'; 'Episcopals’ First Openly Gay Bishop Speaks'; 'Homosexuality to Heterosexuality: Can the Transition Be Made?'; 'ACI: Committing to the Anglican Communion: Some Will, Others Won’t'; 'Roman Catholic marriage agency advocates gay and unmarried parents'; 'US vote ‘not a snub to Archbishop of Canterbury’'; 'Their Separate Ways'; 'GC2009: Clarity Attained at 76th Episcopal General Convention'; 'A Message from Bishop David Anderson'; 'Why FCA UK and Ireland?'; 'GC 2009: Statement from the deputation of the Diocese of South Carolina:'; 'West Texas bishop drafts ‘Anaheim Statement,’ reaffirms moratoria commitment'; 'Signatures on the Anaheim Statement'; 'Anglicans and Their Unwelcome House Guests'.
The overwhelming majority of these posts are to do with the issue of homosexuality. The AM forum may well debate other issues but issues of sexuality are consistently its dominant agenda. It would be an altogether healthier place if mission and relief work were its primary features, instead of its current preoccupation with sexuality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athlete - Street Map.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
One rule for you, one rule for me
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.
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.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Modern day Donatism
Just a quick post to say that I share Tim Goodbody's frustration with the people at Anglican Mainstream who seem to be encouraging others to move donations from Tear Fund because Desmond Tutu spoke at a recent conference and because long-term Tear Fund supporter Cliff Richard has spoken publicly recently in favour of same-sex relationships.
Tim has a very good post on the topic which can be found here. As he says there, "it's just modern day Donatism - not wanting to be "tainted" by association." Further comment on the Fulcrum website can be found here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Simon - You're So Vain.
Tim has a very good post on the topic which can be found here. As he says there, "it's just modern day Donatism - not wanting to be "tainted" by association." Further comment on the Fulcrum website can be found here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Simon - You're So Vain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)