Mike's musings

Gays, women and evolution

Drove into Cambridge today to buy a book about Windows 2003. Very big, very heavy book. Looks useful, though. Lots of work in the afternoon on Windows stuff and Xen, which I've decided to try out.

During the day, had a discussion on a mailing list I'm part of (hi, guys) about the Church. Why does everyone believe that the Church is backward-looking, reactionary and bigoted? That seems to be the set of messages that everyone picks up. So, questions ranged from whether women should be priests, to my views on homosexuality (I'm for it ;-)), to the virgin birth, to whether I believe in evolution (well, of course I do - d'oh!). It's good to have the opportunity to talk about this stuff with people, and I firmly believe that it's an important part of my calling. When I first felt the vocation, part of it was the question "if you were you, but not part of this Church, would you want to be part of it?" The obvious answer is, "no". And the obvious second part of that is, "well, go and do something about it then." That's what I'm trying to do.

Labels: church, friends, geekery, homosexuality, women

Queer temporalities

(backposting) I went to a talk at the Computer Lab today, and popped into the UL. An old college mate, Jason, had said that he'd been looking into queer temporalities: I said it sounded interesting, and he suggested looking at No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Without going too technical, and given that I've only just started reading it, it seems to be about refactoring society without the false bias towards "the Child" (an imagined and impossible future politic, based on the heterosexual assumptions and drives - death drives) of a false past. And that's the non-technical. It takes a negative view of reproductive futurities, and seems to be taking a very deconstructive approach, talking about using queerness to challenge this oppressive futurity. Anyway, it's very interesting so far, and I'm already thinking about theological - Christian - readings which challenge the assumptions about the futurity "required" by the society we live in.

It's early days, but I'm not convinced we need to have this static construction of the "Child": one of the great benefits (and I use the term in a semi-technical sense) of Christ's incarnation is that he is both Child and Crucified Lord. I'll see if this works as I read more of the book.

Labels: homosexuality

Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there's a choice?

those who read my blog frequently probably know my views on both homosexuality and women's ministry. Those who know me will probably be expecting me to blog on those particular issues today, given the title of this synchroblog. Well, it's not to be. It's bigger than that. Matthew 7:1:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV)

Who am I to exclude anyone? Who am I to separate sheep from goats? I'm as much a goat as anyone else, and I don't get to decide.

This doesn't mean that I'm ready to say that all behaviour is acceptable, which is to advocate antinomianism. This doesn't mean that I won't decry particular behaviour by particular people. but I must do that in the knowledge that they have every right to do the same to me, and that I don't get to exclude them. I cannot see into their "utmost hearts and minds", any more than they can mine: thank God.

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." (Luke 11:46, NIV)

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:52, NIV)

I'm really not one for proof-texting - trying to prove my point by pointing to Bible verses, but I think this is fairly clear. It's not for us to judge: we condemn ourselves when we do.

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of "Christianity: Inclusive or exclusive?". If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Steve Hayes is blogging his thoughts "Christianity inclusive or exclusive?"
• It's a family affair comes from Jenelle D'Alessandro
• John Smulo will be adding his thoughts.
• Erin Word share some thoughts on The Politics of love.
• Sam Norton adds his thinking to the synchro team.
• As does Julie Clawson
• David Fisher asks "Why are we exclusive?"
• Mike Bursell muses on Inclusive or exclusive: you mean there's a choice?
• And Sally shares her thoughts here
• Cobus van Wyngaard is contemplating Inclusivity within claims of heresy
• Tim Abbott joins the conversation with Christianity inclusive or exclusive?

• Sonja posts on Pack behaviour.

Labels: homosexuality, synchroblog, women

Same sex blessings

There's a good article in the Cam magazine about the (long) history of being gay in Cambridge. It's the UK's most gay-friendly university, and Moo and I were discussing over supper how many gay friends we had at college, and how things seem to be continuing to improve. One of the issues I'll have to come to terms with will be whether, when I'm ordained, I'll consider blessing same-sex couples. Currently, the rules are that for Church of England priests, you're allowed to pray with single sex couples, but not bless them. You're allowed to bless animals, buildings, places, but not people in a loving relationship if they're of the same sex. This is really hard. Something to discuss with one's bishop, peers and community.

Labels: homosexuality

Things to think about

Had a very good supervision with Keith today, mainly about the reports that he and my tutor have written for this year, and what I'm planning to write as my personal assessment. He brought up some really interesting points. It's important, because it's as a result of this process that I'll end up in a title post (which I've mentioned before here). Here are some of the things that came up:

• as well as agreeing that I need to find somewhere with good music, Keith reckons that I should also find somewhere where I can make the most of my skills and interests in the online, as 'twere.
• he feels that my strong theological commitment to justification by faith is something worth nurturing. Although I'm of a liberal bent, theologically, in many ways, my core beliefs are very Reformation Protestant.
• I talked about how important this blog has become to me. Although, quite often, there's nothing theological going on, I do try to keep at least one post a week in that vein, and the opportunities to discuss, swap comments and the rest with others - including the SynchroBloggers - gives me lots.
• I made sure that my answers to some of the questions on the relevant forms - and what I'll say in my personal assessment - make it clear where my sympathies lie in terms of ("dangerous liberal") issues such as women priest/bishops and homosexuals. Although I've been warned off taking too strong a stance on the latter issue until I'm ordained, I'm feeling the need to step things up a little. It's a little thing, but I'm intending to get and wear some sort of brooch/badge to the next ERMC weekend. Just a rainbow. It's more about standing side-by-side, rather than being in people's faces, but it's time to make a little bit of a stand, I think.
• I need to keep looking after myself. I've not been well, and I have responsibilities to my colleagues, my course, my family and myself, not to mention God. Need to keep well.

Labels: blogging, homosexuality, theology

Triumph of respect over intolerance

As you'll see on the Stonewall story, earlier this week, the Lords (the House of Lords, part of the UK's government) threw out the suggestion that the Bill to enforce equal rites for homosexuals should be amended. The amendments were basically to allow those people who don't approve of the sexual practices of certain people to discriminate against them. (Not, in my view, quite the way Jesus (known as "the Christ") would have behaved). It shouldn't be assumed that all Christians were for the amendments, as many protested against.

I'm hugely relieved and happy. I don't really have much more to say than that: that's where I stand. I'm happy to engage with people who disagree...

Labels: christianity, homosexuality, sexuality, tolerance