The articles published by Dr Lisa S Noland, Vinay Samuel & Chris Sugden are brought together to help those who want to follow the thread. The articles are from http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/
July 11th, 2009 Lisa Posted in Bisexuality, Children/Family, Culture, From Lisa's Lookout, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Marriage, Proselytization, Take Action! Comments Off
According to its website, ‘Greenbelt is an independent Christian charity working to express love, creativity and justice in the arts and contemporary culture in the light of the Christian gospel.’ It is the largest Christian festival in the UK, almost 20,000 strong, with a fascinating line-up of speakers, subjects, genres and modalities. It also appears strongly pro-gay. Gene Robinson, gay bishop poster boy (although oddly, that was not mentioned) and Giles Fraser, head of Inclusive Church (that was also not included) are on the rostrum, along with gay rights advocates Robert Beckford and Paula Gooder. Gay worship groups, OuterSpace and Journey, will be leading in worship. Read here and here, also here
This is rather worrying: it is called the gayification of the church. Almost more insidious is that it exists, cheek by jowl, with other worthwhile, important and solidly orthodox aspects, lulling those who might otherwise get upset into a false complacency that ‘things are not really that bad!’ I guess it all depends on what ‘bad’ means. That the Gay Pride flag was flown over London’s historic St Martin-in-the-Fields to celebrate Gay Pride days ago and that the Archbishop of Canterbury just met with a leading US LGBT group, although, oddly, there was no time to meet with the orthodox hounded out of their churches (which they have paid for and maintained) or those from ex/post-gay groups — two of the most recent examples — should speak volumes!
At some point we as a church will have to face the music. We have tacitly, incrementally forfeited an agreed-upon Christian sexual ethic (no sex outside heterosexual marriage) which had held for the past millennia. Now, in effect, we accept and some promote the ethic that as long as sexual ‘relationships’ are ‘loving’, ‘committed’ and ‘faithful’, they are blessed by God and if those in them wish to marry, they should be allowed to do so. Is this not so? Acclimatization moves on to acceptance. Acceptance moves on to normalization.
Neither we nor our churches talk up a clear alternative. By contrast, those promoting non-traditional views are constantly, energetically and often winsomely advancing their Brave New World. Perhaps the most recent example is TEC’s Chicago Consultation, Christian Holiness and Human Sexuality, Chapter 4. Also championing this view are individuals like Dr William Slayton (in more conservative moments), who is associated with the Indaba Listening Process. Read/listen here. In 2004, Changing Attitude published the report, Sexual Ethics, and recently claimed that it upheld a solid Christian sexual ethic. Please peruse pp 9 through 17 in the document and see if you can agree! Compare the blog enrry for 10 June 2009, ‘The answer to Lisa Noland [sic] is a categorical yes – Changing Attitude advocates lifelong fidelity’ for yet another view. Where are the responses?
Essentially, I believe we are dealing with two competing philosophic paradigms, aided by significant conceptual and linguistic slippage and some overlap: traditional marriage versus ’relationships’. Though its practitioners interpret the relationship paradigm in various ways, it is unstable, subjective and self-referencing. For instance, what externally observable behaviour constitutes ‘commitment’ and ‘faithfulness’? Those in ‘open’ relationships insist theirs are committed and faithful; they just happen to have what for them is an added bonus of being sexually non-exclusive (or promiscuous). The relationship ethic also mandates the legitimization of non-binary (three or more) plural ‘committed’ relationships of a bisexual, gay or heterosexual nature. I have had close bisexual friends whose domestic situations include male and female lovers at the same time. Such situations, known as ‘V’s in polyamory-speak, are common in the literature. Liberal Democrat, Simon Hughes, is perhaps the best known British bisexual today, with his admission that his sexual history involved ‘both homosexual and heterosexual relationships’.
If people are more ‘traditional’ and binary, their relationship might mimic aspects of and even masquerade as marriage but at heart it is post-marital. It is really all about the needs, desires, aspirations and fantasies of the individual and her/his ‘partner/s’: they determine the rules of engagement. Anthony Giddens’ The Transformation of Intimacy has proved prophetic. The relationship ethic is thus post-orthodox, and not just post-evangelical (I had forgotten to mention post-evangelical Dave Tomlinson, another important gay advocate who is also speaking at Greenbelt). As Charles Raven observed, ’The score may still be there, but many of the orchestra are making it up as they go along’.
Is this satisfactory? I do not believe it is. I am even more concerned because highly respected Christian organizations like Church Mission Society are sponsors of Greenbelt. Unless it means very little to be a sponsor, surely CMS must be deeply embarrassed at this situation. Please do contact:
Bishop Paul Butler, Chair of CMS: paul.butler@bpsotonoffice.clara.co.uk and
Tim Dakin, General Secretary of CMS: tim.dakin@cms-uk.org with your concerns.
Finally, perhaps most galling is the deeply discriminatory nature of the programme, which presents itself as the antithesis of discrimination. Given the resources and people which such recent events as Sex and the City, The Big Question, and the Moral Maze, showcased, there is no reason why Greenbelt should only push one ideological agenda and only grind one axe, unless it is wanting to slant the argument and deprive its audience of expert opinion on the other side. What about equal air time for it? What about poster boys or girls for the ex/post-gay movement being handed the microphone, instead of just Gene Robinson (again), with his sadly amaturish biblical hermeneutic? Given that Greenbelt has invited so many people who strongly promote a different sexual ethic to that of a traditional Christan sexual ethic, the least they could do is allow equal air time for traditional sexual views.
L S Nolland
CMS response on Greenbelt and Gene Robinson
An article has appeared on Anglican Mainstream which may concern some. To allay any confusion, CMS offers a few points of clarification.
* For CMS, the proper place for mission is being in the marketplace. CMS has had a venue at the Greenbelt Festival for many years and it is a brilliant platform from which to offer hospitality and share the gospel.
* GB is not a confessional event but primarily a ’space’ for Christians to engage with the arts and cultural trends. There are multiple events, a great range of participants and many thousands of visitors. Many are seekers.
* We are not “sponsors” as has been stated, but “associates” and as such CMS is not involved in the particular decisions under debate.
* While we understand the reasons why Greenbelt has invited Gene Robinson, we are unhappy about it, particularly at this time in the life of the Anglican Communion. CMS supports the Lambeth Conference resolution 1.10 (see our Ethos Statement)
http://www.cms-uk.org/Whoweare/tabid/156/language/en-GB/Default.aspx
* CMS requirements for people in mission are unequivocal and long-standing because of the gospel and our gospel partnership with Churches in Africa and Asia many of which were planted by CMS.
* CMS this week received a clear bill of health from the Charity Commission having been subject to a Public Benefit Assessment. The Commission made no recommendations for change to the Trustees of CMS. It is a clear affirmation that Evangelistic Mission conveys public benefit.
Head of Communications
Greenbelt: Mission in market places
Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden
The problem people face is that Greenbelt has become a market place. To attract younger people in today’s western pick and mix society you have to offer a market place. In a market place all kinds of stalls are set up. So Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered organizations have eight stalls at Greenbelt.
We write as those who attended and also spoke at Greenbelt in the seventies and eighties. The platform and preaching was orthodox as it sought to demonstrate the depth and scope of the biblical gospel of the Kingdom of God for all of life.
Greenbelt has now become a marketplace. In all sorts of organizations, people for marketing reasons realized that you cannot be a confessional platform if you want to be inclusive and have an inclusive range of ideas. But, inclusiveness has its limits. When an organization sets up a market place it is not totally value free. They use a set of values to discriminate. In the case of Greenbelt, inclusiveness is not likely to extend to an organization which promotes religious or racial hatred.
It is perfectly proper for an organization to decide to participate in a market place, if the organisation is clear about where it itself stands. But it should think very carefully about being a “partner or associate” of a market place which presents itself as Christian: “Greenbelt is an independent Christian charity working to express love, creativity and justice through the arts and contemporary culture in the light of the Christian gospel.” If the market place is supposed to represent this, then those who are partners and associates have a duty to assure themselves that the market place is consistent with what they themselves understand the Christian gospel to be.
There is a concerted agenda by gay lobbies to bring gay understanding into the evangelical world and by so doing, change the basis upon which orthodox Christian sexual ethics has been established over the millennia. Evangelicalism is seen as a field to conquer. When the gay lobbies become aggressive – they begin to separate the orthodox. There are orthodox who are not taken in by the request to listen until they change their mind. There are orthodox who do not want to be seen as unloving and oppressive. They want to take a reasonable approach. Which approach is likely to be most effective in promoting the aims of the orthodox agenda?
For the sake of the thousands of young people and young families who come to Greenbelt we are asking
a) That in the market place a fair opportunity be given for those who present a biblically orthodox position on issues of sexuality to have equal airtime and opportunity. Since Gene Robinson is speaking, then why not invite Jeffrey Satinover or Robert Gagnon? And as there are at least three other publicly-known champions of and advocates for the LGBT agenda, there should be at least three other orthodox ones. Will Greenbelt allow a platform speaker to say that same-sex sexual practice is wrong?
b) That where Lesbian and Gay organizations are leading worship or exhibiting, similar opportunities should be given to organizations of those who are so called “ex- or post-gays”. These people exist and are willing to speak as was evidenced on BBC 1’s The Big Question on Sunday July 4th.
We are suggesting that orthodox mission associations who intend to be present with integrity in such a market place where there is a clear gayification agenda should ensure that they put the claims of Jesus and his mission before young people by making their confessional position clear, their position on issues of human sexuality clear, and by making books and other resources available that represent orthodox biblical and pastoral approaches available.
A mission organization claiming to be orthodox may take part in any market place. But it has to make sure that its confessional stance is visible and clear, more particularly because it is a mission organization. Such a stance cannot be taken for granted.
Entering a market place does not alter the nature of a mission organization – it is confessional whether it is in a market place or not. To be dictated to by the market-place and hide or mute a confessional stance in a market place full of those aggressively promoting the gay agenda is not an option for a confessional organization. Mission organizations do not hide. To coin a phrase, they ‘stand and stay’.
Greenbelt and the gayification of evangelicalism II
Why am I returning to this dreary topic, which has caused considerable furore on blogs in cyberworld and elsewhere? Well, Greenbelt (GB) has not repied to me — no luck by either phone or email — and I am left with my original concerns. I am not merely thinking of GB’s invitation to Gene Robinson, but their invitations to articulate, influential, focused advocates of the dominant LGBT agenda within the church — Paula Gooder, Robert Beckford, Giles Fraser (these three are public figures in Inclusive church) and post-evangelical Dave Tomlinson. GB has also invited two gay worship groups (information on Journey found on a hard-copy GB brochure) to lead in worship and is viewing the gay-affirmative film, Priest. And this compilation may be but a partial, incomplete one at that.
I believe this state of affairs is deeply problematic on at least three fronts. First, if those with this LGBT agenda are going to be handed the microphone, why is the other side not granted equal access, visibility and air time? The ex/post-gay voice with its own often-painful and complex narrative deserves as much a hearing as that of the gay one, and expert, authoritative orthodox responses to challenging post-orthodox theology and ethics deserve the same. The decks have been stacked and no one is as disadvantaged as the audience, which at least ought to hear both sides sans prejudice before making up its mind.
Secondly, in broader terms, the goal posts have radically shifted. Have you noticed? Over the millennia the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic had insisted that sex remain within the context of mutually loving and giving, exclusive, until-death heterosexual marriage. It had done so for the benefit of women, men and children, for the welfare of individuals, families and society. Orthodox religious groups have held on to this — just. (Divorce is the one possible exception; here I simply say that in the Bible a. God hates divorce but allowed for it because of people’s ‘hardness of heart’; b. God himself divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness and c. Jesus and Paul allowed it under very proscribed circumstances). We need to protect the family, and that includes encouraging mothers and fathers to invest in each other and in their children, who as the most vulnerable members of society, long for the committed love of the two people who created them. That is one of the core values of marriage — and that is what is tacitly being undermined in the name of sexual liberation, authenticity, exploration and autonomy of which this LGBT agenda is a part.
Do Christian LGBT groups insist that their members keep all sexual relating within the perimeters of civil partnerships or gay ‘marriage’ (in countries where SSM is legal)? Do they insist that if one is not in such a relationship, then one must remain sexually chaste? Though there is something of a range of responses — see here, here, and here for instance — the dominant impression given by this LGBT agenda is not one of sexual restraint, is it? I have not come across any who maintain a ‘no gay sex until you are in a civil partnership’ view. Have you? And note, this is not the same as the far more widespread question of ‘Are gay partnerships just as committed and loving — and thus morally acceptable — as marriage?’ (to which the politically correct reply must be, ‘Of course!’)
As I have argued elsewhere, LGBT culture sets the trends and we all are profoundly influenced by them, whether we realise it or not. How that specifically ties in here is that the framework in which these LGBT groups present their ethics is one that merges LGBT personal/sexual identity with LGBT sexual ‘relationships’ and lifestyles. The former now automatically entails the latter. So, ‘I am gay’ essentially means that ‘I "do" gay’ — and ditto for those who are ’straight’. What happened to the ’no-sex-until-you-are-married-and-then-only-with your-spouse’? It is rapidly being put out to pasture or going the way of the classic car, fine for a few, but essentially and alarmingly irrelevant for most.
Finally, I believe that the LGBT agenda as articulated by such groups as
IC is claiming the principled high ground: all are wanted, all are valued, all are included. What could sound better? However, IC may have bitten off more than it can chew. Given that ’sexual orientations’ include their corresponding sexual lifestyles in today’s culture, does IC understand the full spectrum of what it is embracing and endorsing? There are various ‘orientations’ in existence which are still in their closets because the public is not ready to move beyond the comforting and respectable notion of the adult/human/binary. However, for such as openly bisexual Blue singer, Duncan James, and politician, Simon Hughes, ’two won’t do’ and both admit to having sexual relationships with women and men. This is not earth-shattering news, for many of us know individuals like these two. Further afield however are such ‘orientations’ as polyamory (plural loves), SMBD (sadomasochsim, bondage and domination), zoophilia (emotional bonding with mammals, basically) and paedophilia — and for the record, this last group claim it as their ’orientation’. Will individuals with these identities and corresponding lifestyles be encouraged to come out of their closets by a warm, welcoming and affirming IC?
Greenbelt and the gayification of evangelicalism III
And now, finally, I would like to finish this off with a final question and then a request for action to be taken.
We have various Christian organizations — Christian Aid, Church Urban Fund, YMCA etc. — which are publicly identifed as associates with Greenbelt (GB). Their logos are on GB’s site. I have argued that GB is advancing a distinct, and, in my opinion, dreadfully one-sided and post-orthodox LGBT agenda. And what is so worrying is that it is being done in tandem with other facets which are either neutral or thoroughly commendable, important and congruent with biblical orthodoxy. The end result will lead to ambivalence, confusion, or actual conversion to a gay ‘gospel’, will it not? How could this not be the case?
May I ask whether those organizations would be willing to share this marvellous public space if GB were to allow the BNP, say, the same space, publicity and advocacy as it has granted to LGBT advocacy? Jesus mixed ‘out there’ — well, the BNP is ‘out there’ too but some would believe that is a step too far. People judge one by the company one keeps, do they not? Would the Church Times, say, be happy to be associated with an event which had as one of its associates the BNP? Each group must answer that question for themselves, I guess. Some would insist that if the BNP had a significant place on the platform and in the marketplace, then in good conscience they could not be an associate. Some would argue the same for orthodox Christian groups. Simply being there in an official capacity sends out all the wrong signals. At some essential level, it signals that things are okay — and they are not.
If in fact these organizations are present, I believe they need to make crystal clear their commitment to biblical sexual orthodoxy. If you agree, may I encourage you to contact them, alerting them of the situation and your desire that they take what will be a profoundly unpopular and uncomfortable stand. They will be accused of being ‘homophobic’ and ‘anti-gay’ (nothing new there) and will need to be able to defend what they are both for and what they are against. Will they do so?
Christian Aid: kdshedshorov@christian-aid.org
Church Army: info@churcharmy.org.uk
Church Times: editor@churchtimes.co.uk
Church Urban Fund: enquiries@cuf.org.uk
CMS: info@cms-uk.org
YMCA:
And you could try to connect directly with Greenbelt — Info@greenbelt.org.uk I received no reply but perhaps you will!
Dr Lisa Severine Nolland
The articles are from http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/ and brought together for ease for those who want tofollow the argument.
Will all those who read the articles please contact Christian Aid, Church Army, Church Times, Church Urban Fund, CMS, & YMCA and explaintheseriousness of what is to take place at Greenbelt this year. Thank you.
Blessings.
Las Ratnayake
