Peter Leonard ViaMedia.News LLF – Patience & Pain
Rosie Harper ViaMedia.News LLF: Power, Fear & Our Inability To Do The Right Thing
Andrew Village and Leslie Francis Church Times The writing is on the wall for fragile rural churches
“The pandemic has exacerbated the crisis, and action is needed urgently”
Gilo Surviving Church BLM and Redress Schemes
[In this context BLM is a law firm – ed]
Lee Gatiss Church Society Initial thoughts on LLF
Trevor Thurston-Smith The Pensive Pilgrim Mirror, Mirror : A Journey in Imagination for the Heterosexual Christian
Philip Murray Dinner at the Vicarage Wine for the Feast: the wine cellar and eschatology
Lee Gatiss says “None of us are (sic) spiritually straight. We are all bent towards sin”. Using the words ‘straight’ and ‘bent’ in this context is not clever or funny but simply offensive. Then to compare same-sex love with theft, swindling and slandering only adds to his hateful rant.The evangelical reliance on what thy call “God’s Word” is infantile and intellectually vacuous. That the CofE allows such men to speak in its name shows how distant it has become from mainstream life. Religious hatred and bigotry is very ugly.
Lee Gatiss is not speaking on behalf of the Church of England. He leads the main conservative evangelical grouping / pressure group. They are now called the Church Society but over a century ago were called the Church Association and instigated the prosecution of Anglo-Catholic priests for ritual offences. Some priests went to prison, as i am sure you know.
I presume Gatiss officiates somewhere in the CofE and may have PTO. Surely he could be brought to book under the Clergy Discipline Measure for spreading hatred. This would avoid confusion among people who may think he is a representing an acceptable view in the CofE.
His bio is on the Church Society site, although it wasn’t linked in the opinion piece. I guess members of the society know him.
https://churchsociety.org/society/page/directors/
Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society and has permission to officiate in the Diocese of Ely.
He’s in Holy Orders. In communion with other Anglicans. With permission to officiate, in England. In what sense is he *not* speaking on behalf on the Church of England?
It is truly odious.
To some of us, including I am sure, Mr Gatiss, bent and straight have ordinary meanings. Your hostility and hate and ridiculous interpretation shock me. I thought the article a refreshing and intellectually well informed understanding of our Faith through scripture and tradition. I am not a conservative evangelical nor an evangelical but the Church of England needs people like Lee Gatiss and the many, many LGBT people who like rest of us just want to worship God in our holy places.
Words matter. A preacher should appreciate that more than anyone. Words like “ bent “ and “straight “ carry a lot of baggage for LGBTQI people. They should be used carefully or not at all.
If the usage was inadvertent then he should be happy to apologise and edit the article.
As an American, just from watching Brit TV, I know that when someone calls a cop “bent,” they mean he’s corrupt, what we on this side of the pond would call “crooked.” To say a gay person is “bent” is clearly to imply the same thing on a moral level.
Over here,
* straight means heterosexual
* bent means homosexual
There are several definitions for the words straight and bent. In the context of the article, the sexualized definitions are illogical. The words have been taken out of context so that offence can be taken.
That’s how I read it, too, Andy.
A Thinking Anglican. Thank you.
‘Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.’
(Gerard Manley Hopkins, ‘God’s Grandeur’)
I’m not sure GM Hopkins meant ‘homosexual’ there, Kate.
I appreciate this may not be obvious to readers from outside the UK, where ‘bent’ may carry different connotations. But in a British context, ‘bent’ is very well known as a pretty derogatory and offensive slang word for people who are gay. It isn’t just the odd overly-sensitive LGBT campaigner who would find the word offensive in this context; it is a judgement that would be shared by most contemporary British institutions or professional organisations. So whilst of course it has other meanings, if you used the word ‘bent’ nowadays in a discussion of sexuality on the BBC, in an… Read more »
Was Hopkins writing about his opposition to same-sex marriage when he described the world as “bent”, Tim?
Arghh! No, of course not; that’s precisely my point! Hopkins was using ‘bent’ as a metaphor for ‘fallen’ (another metaphor, of course!).
I’m replying to Kate’s simplistic little formula, ‘Over here, straight means heterosexual, bent means homosexual.’ Even my Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives four meanings for the word ‘bent’, only one of which is the one listed by Kate.
And in case there’s any doubt as to where I stand, I think the CEEC video and the Gatiss article are odious.
Messrs Village and Francis, softening up the CT readership (including bishops and DBF chairs agitating over widening deficits), conclude their article by noting: “The new post Covid-19 Reformation may well decide that the time has come to abandon the parish churches and to find a sectarian future. This should offer a good short-term solution.” Eh? A ‘short term solution’ in the sense that, the rump Church they project will cater for a dwindling band of partisan devotees (most of whom will vanish in due course anyway), whose appeal to the wider population will often be net negative. However, in the… Read more »
Froghole I agree entirely. It is an unfortunate coincidence/bad optics that the Archbishop of Canterbury is on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph this morning. He will be on leave for five months, from May to September next year in his six bedroom country house in Normandy according to the report. Whatever the merits of his need for a sabbatical, the story is not very sympathetic. Apart from the accelerated financial ruin of hundreds, if not thousands, of parish churches because of his failure to defend public worship, I wonder what else he will be missing/avoiding?
They must teach them how to hide at Eton. Anything from fridges to palaces.
He will miss the celebrations for HRH the Duke of Edinburgh’s 100th birthday, I hope he’s secured an exeat for that.
Other reports say that he will be on sabbatical for 3 months between May and September. Which might well work out as, say, 31 May to 1 September. 3 months is the normal sabbatical length, and Welby is overdue for one. He has been looking ill and tormented for some time now, so I hope the break does him good. Who knows, he might come back with some fresh thinking.
One wonders why he should need a sabbatical; his absence from duties for the past eight months would hardly justify such a time off! He threatens to write a book on reconciliation but so little reconciling grace has been apparent throughout his ministry who would want to publish it !
‘his absence from duties for the past eight months would hardly justify such a time off!’
Speaking as a parish priest who has not been able to do a lot of in-person ministry during the past eight months, I’d like to say that doing almost everything online has made me twice as busy as I was before. Most of my clergy colleagues are exhausted. ‘Absence from duties’? Right.
Froghole is absolutely right. Village and Francis adduce evidence for what has been obvious for a decade to many of us at the coalface. That’s the academic way, I suppose. There was a time when I would have said that if it were made known that village churches were to be closed, villagers would consider mass action to prevent it. My impression now – and I’ve ministered in rural communities in the CofE and the CofI – is that there might be some tutting, but that’s about it. They don’t care about the availability of a minister either. The real… Read more »
‘We are bent towards sin.’ Awful, not funny, deeply, deeply offensive. Surely ‘our’ engagement with LLF demands far higher standards.
This is on the Church Society site. The CEEC video was awful too. I think it is now obvious that certain conservatives are intent on ensuring that there is zero progress. Again.
“Incurvatus in se” is an entirely orthodox description of the universal human condition (Augustine and Luther both use it, with more than a nod to Romans 7). Gatiss uses it as a description of how we all are. I would hope that *Thinking* Anglicans are willing to do some theological discussion, rather than merely hurling insults at all those with whom we disagree. LLF is not about vilifying each other.
Pete, he must have known that using the term in this way, in an article about sexuality, was highly provocative , If he didn’t he shows a huge lack of self awareness. irrespective of whether Augustine and Luther used it at different times and in different contexts. I think you have managed to convince me, even more, just how deeply inappropriate his choice of words are. ‘Bent’ (and its derivatives) has extremely ugly conotations. Just ask anyone who has ever been labelled as such.
Agreed, and for those of us who have had the opportunity to read Augustine and Luther, it is possible to see a deeper meaning in what Mr Gatiss is trying to say. However, would you concede that for those who don’t, “bent” and “straight”, placed in opposition *in this context*, point to a rather more crass interpretation?
Typical. Trying to defend the indefensible.. Gatiss writes an offensive diatribe against LGBTQ people, and we are meant to regard it as “theological discussion”. LLF is doomed before it has begun.
This is about the bible and the Christian tradition and its teaching on the universality of human sinfulness.What is problematic is the way in which Thinking Anglicans culture mirrors the worst of internet discourse by “taking offence” at any argument with which contributors disagree. The way it seems to go is (1) find an article (2) pick up, out of context, something that “I” find hurtful or offensive personally (3) quote it and invite an ad hominem response (“Let’s CDM him” *He’s unacceptable”) (4) everyone else piles in. A bit like Twitter, I guess. I just wish we could do… Read more »
Thank for your thinking. May your tribe increase.
“This is about the bible and the Christian tradition and its teaching on the universality of human sinfulness.”
Now that the PM’s ethics advisor, Sir Alex Allan, has resigned, maybe he could be persuaded to investigate whether the language was “unintentional”.
‘We’ being the operative word. I don’t accept that the quote, one which was taken and very purposefully recontextualised, is anything less than offensive to those who have been described as ‘bent.’ I am struggling with the thought that a Church of England Bishop doesn’t recognise this tbh. Yes ‘we; must all do better. Me – you – and the author of this article included.
Wow! What a tone-deaf comment.
If you told black Christians they shouldn’t be offended by something obviously racist there would be uproar, but you expect LGBTI people to just accept a clearly homophobic passage.
A typical evangelical response is to regard as ad hominem those who are prepared to challenge them. This not about “the Christian tradition and its teaching on human sinfulness”. Gatiss refers to the distinguished Prof. Diarmaid MacCulloch’s views as a “puerile twist”, because he traces the history of Christian marriage as showing the evangelical view to be hopelessly wrong. Nowhere has any comment on this site taken Gatiss’ views out of context. Unlike Gatiss himself, we have not called any fellow Christian “puerile”.
David the problem is that most of the bishops see our sexuality as a lifestyle choice. Bishop Broadbent hasn’t taken on board that this is about who we are; our very identity and being. So it’s fine to be careless with language because we’ve chosen to be awkward and made the bishops’ lives difficult. Kate makes an excellent point that they wouldn’t be so free and easy with racist tropes.
I don’t believe that our sexuality is a lifestyle choice. I do believe that we are not defined by our sexuality. Our identity is in Christ.
Oh no! Not that old chestnut! This concept has led some misguided gay, evangelical men to marry women because, being “post-gay”, they can ignore their true identity. It also leads some to a life of lonely celibacy in obedience to homophobic teaching from evangelical groups. Give up Bishop Pete! You are on the wrong side of history. Does being “in Christ” allow someone to marry their same-sex partner? No? I thought not.
I believe ‘old chestnut’ is an offensive term, full of innuendo.
‘Wrong side of history’ — also offensive for being such an ‘old chestnut’ bromide.
The world, overwhelmingly heteronormative always defines LGBT people by their sexual orientation. I’ve spent a lifetime where other people have defined me-largely negatively- by my sexual orientation. Perhaps if your ‘sexuality’ [sic] is that of the majority you’ve never felt defined by it: we are.
I’m left scratching my head bishop. I suppose we have a different christology. I’m moved to tears by Jesus’ humanity in the gospels and caught up in delight in the Incarnation. The Jesus I know and love feels a million miles away from the Church’s current leadership. My identity is in the Christ who directed almost all of his teaching at the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day; who called out the abuse of power in every level of society. I knew I was gay long before I knew anything about the mechanics of sexual expression. It is… Read more »
Bishop Pete: “I don’t believe that our sexuality is a lifestyle choice. I do believe that we are not defined by our sexuality. Our identity is in Christ.” Bishop Pete, thank you for engaging (few bishops choose to here). I think all sincere and thoughtful Christians would agree that we find our identity in Jesus Christ. That is not the problem for gay and lesbian Christians in the Church of England. The continuing problem is that we are discriminated against by the Church because of our sexuality. Even in church communities that accept and celebrate gay relationships and marriages, we… Read more »
‘Sorry, but yes, we ARE defined by our sexuality… by the Church. The Church imposes the definition on us. Our full sexuality is prohibited.’
If no one listens to anything else in this thread, this is the line everyone should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. Thank you, Susannah.
After a lifetime of struggle, I’ve learnt the best thing is to own a trope. So I’m bent. Bent into right shape. I write bent hymns. You all worship a god bent on a cross. So I’m for bent. I’ll take that. I’m not great at the theological thing, not being orthodox. I’ll give it a go. Do you think god minds what people do with lips, hips and fuzzy bits? If people make love and build loving communities – where love is, god is? As long as nobody’s harming others, as so many clergy did to us, then we… Read more »
“Do you think god minds what people do with lips, hips and fuzzy bits? If people make love and build loving communities – where love is, god is?”
In the words of a song popularly used in weddings (both religious and secular) on this side of the pond: “He is now to among us, at the calling of his name….for wherever two or more of you are gathered in his name, there is love….”
I like the David and Jonathan ‘making out’ comment. When all you have is an LGBTQI hammer, everything is a nail. Good old Queer and Bent David.
Sorry, replied to wrong person. Should be to Mr Gilo.
Cor! Powerful stuff.
Pete, Christians probably ought to – but they’re just part of the human race. Which is part of the problem. The more we claim superiority the more stupid we make ourselves look. However if you have never personally been the butt of someone else’s jokes at the expense of your personal identity then it will probably seem perfectly reasonable to defend Gatiss and to dismiss any unseemly charge of malice aforethought. In today’s world ‘words matter’ more than ever: and no amount of proclaiming that it’s all about theology and the bible – or even that universally familiar catch-phrase ‘incurvates… Read more »
Incurvatus in se as I understand it means curved in on oneself. Selfishness, self-obsessedness, the urge with which the Master fought in the agony in the garden. How is ths relevant to selfless love of another of whatever sex?
I love Trevor Thurston-Smith’s piece. Very clever and very very true.
“tiny congregations consisting of single figures with a rising age profile of 75-plus — some rural churches were simply running out of people.” That’s what happens when businesses focus entirely on the interests and concerns of existing customers, even at the expense of alienating prospective customers. As it happens I don’t for a second believe that people aged over 75 are intrinsically homophobic. But far too much of the church has sat on the fence, or worse, over LGBTQ+ issues for fear of “offending” “traditional” worshippers. But no matter how much you hide behind 400 page documents with hours of… Read more »
Most of the nicest, kindest, devout and caring parishioners I have had the privilege of ministering to have been over 75. The Hebrew Bible exalts old age and urges respect for their wisdom and experience of life. I have in mind the 5th commandment.
Absolutely. That’s the crazy thing: evangelical homophobes hide behind “if we say nice things about gay people it’ll upset the elderly and the African and then where will be be?” The reality is that if the elderly (as is the case) and the African (as might be the case) turn out to be affirming and accepting, then the evangelical homophones would move on to the next bad-faith argument to avoid saying “we are homophobic and don’t care who knows it”. And in the meantime, in villages, towns and cities all over the country the CofE looks more and more like… Read more »
My random thoughts this past week on the CEEC video and LLF. From the perspective of someone who is survivor, queer, post-christian, outsider. Was honoured to be generously tweeted by Pete Sanlon …. resonance across greater divides than exist generally in the Church!
soul-sickness of the church
Ultimately, as I said before, there is absolutely nothing in LLF which warrants a change in the Church’s doctrine or practice And For [liberals], this is about exerting power, not searching for truth. I do think we should seek to get people on those Synods and committees who will preach and preserve the truth, for the sake of the lost who Jesus came to seek and save Lastly, the old arrogant chestnut: All of us have fallen short Arrogant, because whenever I hear it, I always hear an implied but never spoken “except for me” Mr. Gatiss’ remark on liberals… Read more »
Hear! Hear!
I’m anxious about Philip Murray and how on earth he is going to be able to purchase fine wines on a curate’s stipend? Do you think subscribers to T A should have a whip round? Anyway may he be a blessing to the lovely folk of the North East and perhaps he should change his drinking habit from fine wine to Newcastle Brown Ale aka “A Trip into Space”. After a few bottles of that potent liquor – he’ll have first hand experience of Escatology. Roll on the Parousia!
Does anyone know what Lee Gatiss is referring to when he says:
‘But it is also worth noting that leading advocates of doctrinal and practical change have already taken to social media to call it [LLF] homophobic and harmful, and to start raising money to put advocates of traditional teaching on trial for their abusive teaching.’ ?
I was wondering too. I know some evangelicals are upset that Jayne Ozanne supports the criminalisation of conversion therapy which might explain part of it.
Yes, I suppose that might be it, or part of it. Though conversion therapy goes way beyond just teaching.
The idea that Lee Gatiss didn’t use the words ‘bent’ and ‘straight’ to make a point is, quite frankly, risible. He knows enough about LGBTI issues to recognise the offensiveness of the language and to weaponise it. More surprising is that he should descend from the high moral purpose of his text into cheap point scoring and using such offensive language to do so. It’s his obsessions with sin which I find most disturbing, indeed the obsession of conservative evangelicals generally with sin. There’s something extremely distasteful if not psychologically problematic that such people should wallow in their self -diagnosed… Read more »
Richard, are you then claiming to be free from sin? The fact of human sinfulness is, I’d have thought, uncontroversial. Language like ‘mired’ can, I can see, be unhelpful but it does not mean (or should not mean) we are all as bad as we can be – it refers to the pervasive reach of sin that messes up pretty much everything sometime or another. (This is what the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity really means, by the way – it refers to the extent of sin not its depth.)To acknowledge this is not to deny the good that humans… Read more »
Charles that’s why I really appreciate the Night Collects: ‘lighten our dirkness….’ ‘drive from the children of light the deeds of darkness….’ they seem to acknowledge the reality of the human condition, human potential and the importance of grace.
I live in North America, and I can tell you that after the last four years ‘mired in sin’ feels like a deadly accurate description of the way the principalities and powers have structured our society for the benefit of the rich and powerful. And yes, I’m ‘mired’ (I prefer ‘implicated’) in it. As a citizen of a rich first world country, there’s hardly a purchasing choice I can make that doesn’t implicate me in the oppression of a poor person somewhere. No doubt that’s a tough burden for me to bear, but you’d be amazed how easily I can… Read more »
I think the Calvinist doctrine is that by the Fall the image of God in us is not merely defaced but effaced.It stands in contrast to the Greek Fathers. Henry Chadwick’s essay in Theology in Anglicanism ed by A A Vogel says specifically p30 the 39 arts do not teach the 5 essential points of Calvinism incl Total Depravity. Though of course, the 39 arts are such that there is argument of the precise meaning of them. Dr Gatiss did his doctorate on that 18c hyper-calvinist Augustus Toplady and defends his notion of a limited atonement so he does stand… Read more »
‘I think the Calvinist doctrine is that by the Fall the image of God in us is not merely defaced but effaced’.
I’d be interested to see chapter and verse from ‘The Institutes of the Christian Religion’ for that view, Perry. It’s decades since I’ve read it, so you may be right, but my memory is that Calvin does not go that far.
Don’t have a copy to hand Tim. The phrase stuck in my mind because it is in the theological chapter of my doctoral supervisors own doctorate on the 18c Evangelical Revival where he talks of the watchwords being “Ruin by the Fall, Redemption by Jesus Christ and Renewal by the Holy Spirit” .I found that memorable even though I read it nearly 50 yrs ago, and I am delighted it will be published next year shortly before John Walsh’s 92nd birthday! But a bit of research on the web came up with this the most excellent image of God “was… Read more »
Thanks Perry, I have that edition so I’ll have to check it out. One of the problems of course is that there were so many editions of the Institutes (like the LOTR, ‘this tale grew in the telling’).
Or maybe not! Apparently it’s a different edition I have on my shelves!
Very few. I grew up evangelical – to use Pete Ward’s phrase – and the essence of the evangelical faith I was taught in my Anglican youth group in the 1970s was: We are all sinful and cannot save ourselves Jesus died on the cross to deal with our sin (the models used to explain this were not just penal substitution but also ransom and victory models – and that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us) – and since Jesus is God incarnate this is actually God stepping in to deal with our sin at his own cost… Read more »
Interesting Charles. The Evangelical constituency has certainly changed in my life time. I think historically Evangelicals like Simeon etc saw themselves as moderate calvinists. There was a significant falling out between Wesley and Whitfield over calvinism/arminianism. The hypers were there but not dominant. Wilberforce shook his head on reading Romaine the vicar of Hanover Sq. Michael Ramsey gave some talks on anglican identity in 1980 at Lincoln Theo Coll just b4 I was ordained. He said it was the Pr. Bk above all that kept evangelicals in the fold. And it is interesting that many evangelicals now sit lighter to… Read more »
Now, how am I to respond to this Catch 22 question in which I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t? As it happens I don’t believe in the the doctrine of sin at all. It’s a construct of a bronze age Middle Eastern desert tribe which has got carried over into Christianity and Islam, inheritors of the Abrahamic religion and, as I understand it, hardly features in other religious systems. Besides, the sin system depends on a deity whose divine ordinances have to be obeyed by compliant adherents. But since the deity is created in the… Read more »
Mr Ashby, thank you very much. Just the provocation I need for my thinking. This is terrific stuff. If you’re a heretic, so am I, proudly so. Sunday services are not good psychology – we get people in, we have (I hope) a good sing and are in an upbeat mood. Then, wham, grovelling miserable sinners. It is harmful for those suffering from depression. Most people don’t see themselves as sinners: they do their best and work for the common good. I’m coming to the view that those who harp on about sin have psychological problems: there is more than… Read more »
Well said Richard. Personally I don’t find the word ‘straight’ so problematic as Dr. Gatiss’ use of the word ‘bent’ – that has awful connotations.
Pelagius was a British monk.
If one makes even a cursory examination of the collects written by Cranmer, they line up with basic Catholic/Augustinian belief.
We know all that ACI. That doesn’t help someone wanting to marry their same-sex partner. Where’s your pastoral sense?
My pastoral sense is guided by things like BCP collects, thank you.
I think what makes comments like Lee Gatiss’s such a Catch22 for LGBTI+ Christians is his assumption that our loves and lives must fall into the categories of Kingdom-excluding sin examples of which are listed in 1 Cor 6,9-10. He reads the Scriptures that way and there is an end of it. That position must be defended. But if I were to ask him why same-sex relationships are so dreadful how would he answer? In the bad old days Anglican Mainstream used to pour out a steady stream of “research” demonstrating that gay men (in particular) had more HIV, more… Read more »
What I find depressing about this not so much the position taken (it is after all the “mind of the Church”), but the crude ConEvo fiat against further discussion. What is the sin against the Holy Spirit but believing we are unteachable, incapable of change?
I belonged to a middle of the road anglican church. We had a same sex couple who attended for years and everybody just treated them like everyone else. It wasn’t for a year that I actually realised and nobody mentioned it to me I just worked it out. There were no comments about them I just realised they were a couple like any couple. Then we had a new vicar who was convo evangelical he made a comment and upset them. I was ashamed to be a member of the clergy at that church. On the ground it is still… Read more »