Issues in Human Sexuality Live Read, by me. From 1991 (90 years after Havelock Ellis published Sexual Inversion, 30 years after Robert Wood's book calling for full inclusion). Is this the most contemporary Church of England account of sexuality prior to LLF?
Reprinted in 2003.
I'm not going page by page and line by line, especially because I speak an entirely different language to the writers - one in which I do not need to finish my sentences with quite random Bible verse quotes often unrelated to the real Content. #IssuesInHumanSexuality#drappissues
"In Genesis 2 the man, as a royal figure, has authority over the woman."
As a Royal Figure? 👑 WTF?
The man has authority because he gives her a name? 🧙♂️
It will take men away from their family homes. In all cultures? I think not.
About the Leviticus rules, the document is as vague as vague can be.
Paraphrased: we don't apply them all, but we apply some, but not all, but definitely some but surely not all but surely some (and but some we mean the anti-gay verses.)
"Ask the Holy Spirit"
They have a discussion for pages about how the Bible is not clear, and then they suddenly and decisively finish with a random clear statement that is not drawn from the discussion at all.
AT ALL.
"Only by living within those boundaries (which we have randomly drawn up) are Christians to achieve holiness"
Even though they defined holiness entirely differently only one page previous.
Quite rightly, relationship (here, marriage) is something that helps each partner better serve their community (which I think applies in all kinds of sex with enthusiastic consent, even in providing one another with joy or other needs) BUT
When it comes to discussions of Lesbian, Gay or Bi relationships, things like mutual support are all but forgotten every time the same-sex relationship discussion occurs which is usually just sex sex sex.
"For all these positive reasons God's perfect will for marriage is chastity before marriage and then a life long relationship" - - what wait hours did one draw that conclusion from the previous commentary in the chapter. Once again they've just pulled a Statement out of thin air
Unless they are directly linking 'divorce' to any union and dissolution of a relationship, I don't really know where that assumption comes from that sex before marriage isn't it.
Are people not capable of making their own informed consent decisions about when it is a marriage?
That's one (1) mention of disability so far, here cited as a reason someone might be single.
Just cos y'allcan't have sex with your friends, doesn't mean that no one can.
Also IF this is the approach, put it earlier in the argument before you make your sudden Statement, not as an afterthought.
There some contradictions in here. It's important that husband and wife are friends but that friends don't have sex.
Excuse moi.
Also, who hasn't been in church where mixed gender friendships are constantly frustrated by people insisting one or the other is in 'danger'
"(Friendship) can only flourish within the framework of chastity." Says whom though?
FIRST OF ALL, they've picked an alternate translation of The Bible just to find one that said Marriage instead of Eunoch, and second, "Celibacy cannot be prescribed for anyone" if a powerful phrase. Better not see any prescribing later...
How ARROGENT do they have to be to INVENT a new word to discuss gay people in 1991????
To put it into context, the organisation featured in the movie "Pride", Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, raised £22,500 to support the miner strikes in 1984-1985, five years before this document was published
If you read #IssuesInHumanSexuality without context, you'd think they were the first people to coin a word for any concept of LGB+ love/sex/relationship.
Lesbian and Gay was right there, and had been for YEARS.
How RUDE do you have to be to not ask and just invent a new term instead. I'm actually fuming. #homophile
*yeah, it might be used by a few other contemporary publications at the time, but its also just rude. It's not 'Homophiles Support the Miners'
I am BEGGING them to pick up a book (and by a book, I mean Sexual Inversion by Havelock Ellis)
As was already pointed out this week, here's #IssuesInHumanSexuality questioning whether future gays should be eliminated.
I see the victim blaming from the first chapter (against women) has switched to active LGBT+ people fighting to survive as causing others who 'were sympathetic to be hostile'.
Of course.
That said, this section suggests that there is no place for homophobia on the church and that's not been realised thirty years later.
Huh?
Here natural means whatever serves their cause. Homosexual love is compared to lying.
But in the next paragraph, Natural means something else entirely (and ignores the existence of those who cannot have children for any reason).
Um.............
ERMMMM.......
I screamed. Not the penis in the vulva/vagina being sacramental.
Only one chapter ago you said that using sex as idol worship and black magic is not okay.
Mother, I am SCREAMING. You plucked this out of thin air!!!!!!!
Actually having straight sex doesn't make you better qualified to be a parent.
This paragraph doesn't even make sense. Where are the linking sentences?
Yes to this paragraph, some gay Christians will decide, through conscience, to be in sexual relationships and should be welcomed in church with the understanding that this does not reduce their spirituality, religious choice or presence. I agree.
WHAT THE FUCK???????? Their three possible issues with Homophiles include Bisexuality, Polyamory and PEDOPHILIA. with a tiny comment that this also includes straight people - BUT THEY DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE STRAIGHT SECTION DID YA.
This paragraph says that clergy both can't be good examples to people who are different from them (if clergy gay and congregants straight) AND that clergy can be good examples to people who are different from them (if clergy straight and congregants gay) in ONE PARAGRAPH.
🚮 🚮 🚮
In conclusion the document examines and discusses, but then throws it the discussion and reflection when it comes to concluding statements, every time, and the concluding statements literally spring up from nowhere.
They also treat clergy and those seeking ordination awfully.
A very brief history of Megachurch Branding, given by Lizzie, in the LESSER LIGHT, Boxing Day chapters:
"It was branding, wasn’t it? All of it. Morgan needed a theory of Christianity he could brand as his own. Christianity is always being rebranded...
... About every forty years the whole system changes. Did you know, in the early 1900s, there were streams of Christanity laser focused on maintaining white supremacy by any means, and a bunch of proof texts were dragged out of context to ‘protect’ against interracial marriage.”
She made air quotes. “Preachers and politicians greased each others palms with arguments that backed one another up. In America, being antisegregation was considered anti-church...
I'm reading the Makin Report. I'm not planning a detailed live read after the Soul Survivor Report tweets really took it out of me. I will make comment as I go. I'm confident the report speaks for itself, and recommend reading in full and digesting the implications for all
The opening points 1.1-1.12 alone are enough to lead to mass resignations. This Report is truely heartbreaking and I'm on page 2 of over 200.
Calls for an independent organisation, if only one had already been set up and not disbanded by the House of Bishops, hmmmmm
"...the development of a wholly independent body, free from direct influence by senior Church officers..."
When we were last here, we were looking at the nature of the report and the nature of the organisations, and noting the writers had made choices which minimised the Active choices made by Mike Pilavachi, and implied a Passive oopsydaisey things happen approach to Spiritual Abuse.
"He was ebullient, generous-hearted, kind to many, and an inspirational figure. But alongside that, hiding in plain sight, was someone who manipulated and controlled others, bullied and sought to abuse his power over those whom he worked alongside in the church"
"That abuse of power has caused deep psychological harm to many with whom he worked closely over 30 years."
Have you met a Bishop? I have and let me tell you - - -
🧵
dont call me peter - a short narrative by Matthew Drapper, reflecting on his meeting with +Pete.
Quotes are not exact, but recreated from memory.
On Tuesday 11th June, I met +Pete, the Bishop of Sheffield, in a large office building converted from a mill, in Sheffield. I have been in contention with the Bishop for some years now, since making an official complaint back in 2019, about Network Church Sheffield (NCS)
And shouldn't we accept that +Steven is a "good enough" ally of Gay Relationships and leave it at that? Are the Bishops not being attacked from all sides? Well, yes, they are, but it's really because so many of them are playing disingenuous games.