Let's put this one way: I'm not homophobic, I have at least one gay friend that I know of. But I do occasionally wonder about the concept of "gay pride". If it's legitimate, and the surrounding environment is mature enough, you wouldn't need to go on marches to be "proud" about it. At that point, it becomes an act of aggression against the local community.

But where on earth does the Bible tell people to judge others, to throw things at others, just like a mob we would expect in the rest of the world? If you see homosexuals as somehow your enemy, are we not called to love them all the more? The Biblical model is that if you see someone doing things wrong, you may correct them privately (and then in an expanding circle involving elders) in love.

I can't describe how frustrated and annoyed I am that people claim the name of Christ but continue to act against His own teaching, His lifestyle, and His apostles' teachings as well, all because of Victorian society's "values".

Jesus told us we would be hated for the sake of the Gospel.

More painfully ironic, is that those doing the hating would also *claim* to be acting on behalf of the Gospel. :-(

Lord have mercy.

I think its more 'pride' in the sense of being happy with yourself, accepting what you are - not being ashamed which is how many of us have been made to feel.

In countries such as latvia, emerging from years of Soviet domination, where the gay community is still small and frightened, it is particularly important.

I am pleased that the Anglican church was able to help and offer support, [ad hominem deleted]

Well, yes, "pride" can be offensive to the locals. These days that says more about the locals. Pride is also a statement that we are here, and we matter. That we won't be driven back into silence pretending to be something we aren't. Silence, as the slogan goes, = death. We aren't going to be complicit in our own silence any more. It's hard to convey to someone who doesn't have to live our odd lives of semi-invisilibity how important this reclamation is.

In my own large American city, Pride is a community day. Can you imagine how freeing it is to be able to hold my beloved's hand in public, on just this one day a year? None of us walking around have to be afraid on this one day. "Happy Pride!" we say to one another, with a certain giddy joy. "Happy Pride!" It's our holiday, the day we exist, our power in numbers. On this one day, we celebrate the power of love. It's all gone very family, couples with strollers marching in the parades, and playgrounds at the festival. Happy Pride, we say, before walking back to our cars, and our hands drop apart as we venture further away into fear, to morph back into two average, unremarkable middle aged "spinsters". Happy Pride.

So much for bishops following Lambeth resolutions and all the other statements about homophobia being "anathema". I would have hoped that someone with Bishop Rowell's background and connections could have been more, well, sympathetic at least. But it's just this sort of thing that has taken me out of the institutions of Christianity. Maybe one day they'll get over themselves.

Tim, you write: "Let's put this one way: I'm not homophobic, I have at least one gay friend that I know of. But I do occasionally wonder about the concept of "gay pride". If it's legitimate, and the surrounding environment is mature enough, you wouldn't need to go on marches to be "proud" about it. At that point, it becomes an act of aggression against the local community."

Allow me to take a stab at explaining for you and perhaps others why LGBT people celebrate "Gay Pride": It's easy for people who are part of a majority that is and has been affirmed by the general society as being a "default setting" or "normal" -- whether white, or heterosexual, or Anglo, or Christian, or male -- but who feel that they nonetheless do not hold a prejudice against minorities (whether racial, sexual, ethnic/cultural, or religious), to not understand why a minority doesn't just accept their own category's goodness with the same quiet certitude the majority possesses, and instead have to "act up" and "act out."

But Gay Pride exists for the same reasons that "Black Is Beautiful" was once proclaimed, and why ethnic minorities gather to celebrate their unique distinctives, etc. Groups who have a history of being sent the opposite message by the general society, for their whole lives, internalize that message. Pride in that part of oneself -- whether skin color, ethnic origins, or sexual orientation -- is simply the counterswing of the pendulum, the sending of an affirmative message to oneself, one's fellow members of the group, and the society at large, to the effect of: "No, I/we am/are not evil/ugly/stupid/etc. I/we am/are as good as any other human being, as beautiful, as smart, etc." Would you tell African-Americans they should not have proclaimed their own "Black Pride" and "Black Is Beautiful," in the face of such documented evidence of the negative effects of society's opposite message, such that studies in the 60s and 70s showed young black girls -- and Asian girls, for that matter -- overwhelmingly to disdain playing with dolls of their race, and to prefer dolls with blonde hair and blue eyes?

Only once these categories -- including of sexual orientation -- cease to be meaningful, and cease to be deemed by society overall as some being "normal" and others not, will the need for Black Pride, or Gay Pride, and their analogs, disappear. To consider a Gay Pride march "an act of aggression against the local community" is to blame the victim, deny the equal citizenhood of a despised minority group, and excuse the tyranny of a majority; should African-Americans not have been allowed to march through the white-dominated Southern USA, or were those too "act[s] of aggression," against white folks? Are not the Riga marchers also Latvian citizens? What is the point of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly if it is reserved only for those who do not upset the sentiments of the majority?

"Gay Pride" is the counterswing of the pendulum that will hopefully one day reach balance, with no more need for "Pride" in the face of a society that still sends the opposite message -- but to look only at Pride marches without considering why they arose in the first place, tells only 1/2 of the story.

God bless St. Saviour Riga and its chaplain, and may Bishop Rowell be moved to see that his own actions lack Christian charity and compassion, and repent of them. And may we all one day live in a world with no need any longer to send positive messages to ourselves to countervail society's negative ones -- a world where the Gospel itself, as the ultimate positive message within which is subsumed all others, has triumphed.

It is not in the least bit surprising to me.

It looks like every authority in those people's lives (all except the council and the 'CofE' church in question, it seems) was teaching that homosexuality is incompatable with christianity, decency and the wider social good in some way or another.

Acceptance of that teaching is at or above a point of 'critical mass' within the culture in question, where the common mind now perceives such mob persecution of a minority as not only socially acceptable, but even heroic.

'Prophets' of our day (in OUR towns and OUR churches) continue teach, 'homosexuality is incompatable with christianity, decency and the wider social good': the fruit of that teaching is Christians and otherwise 'decent', 'ordinary' folk, persecuting people in this way and worse. It's such a clear and simple equation to me.

'Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.' Matt 7:15-20 (NIV)

What non-homosexual, 're-asserting' people don't understand is that the 'stoning' mentality is bubbling under the restrained, polite and 'loving' cultures of most societies and churches around the world from London to Kuala Lumpur to Missouri to Abuja to Riga. It doesn't take much to get to the tipping point. I know that the teaching, 'homosexuality is incompatable with christianity, decency and the wider social good', is false because I have seen the fruits of that teaching in myself, in my neighbour and in reports such as this one from Riga. I've experienced and witnessed the hatred and violence.

I'm absolutely clear in my mind that everyone (even the nice, trendy, good-looking, successful, married, loving, bible believing, intelligent, reasonable, fair, 'love the sinner:hate the sin', cardigan wearing, leftish leaning, slightly hip, mother of three, pillar of the local church with 'friends who are gay' type), who continues to espouse that teaching, who believes it and tells it to others, carries some of the responsibilty of what happened in Riga (which is relatively mild) and the violent and personally hurtful and largely unreported incidents against people of same sex attraction that go on in towns and cities around the world every day.

You are supporting it. You are feeding it. It's as simple as that. Tell me you love me in Christ as much as you like, just stop preaching that 'homosexuality is incompatable with christianity, decency and the wider social good', just stop doing it. Stop it now. The world will be a better place if people stop teaching it. Not only will there be less violence and injustice, there will be less disease, because gay young people will grow up with greater self-esteem, look after themselves more and not put themselves at risk as much. They would also be better adjusted to have stronger, healthier relationships to commit to. Less of them will kill themselves, turn to drink, drugs, compulsive sex, self-destruction. That's one of the convenient aspects to human nature - tell someone they are filth (or an 'abomination') enough and soon they believe it and behave as if that's all they are, then their actions make you feel 'see, I told you', and they even end up saving you the bother of getting together in a mob and stoning them, by indulging in self-destructive behaviour and doing the job themselves.

When everyone stops it, this hateful teaching, people of same sex attraction will have no need to defiantly march through the hatred, the disgust and the contempt to assert and affirm their 'self-esteem' (what they mean by 'pride') in being who they are.

Imagine, what it is like living as a gay person in Riga where the culture of homophobia is so ingrained that ordinary folks and congregations can amass on the street to throw things and jeer at, threaten and slap you and think they are doing a 'good' thing. I imagine the person would feel the community is innately 'aggressive' toward him/her. The march is not an act of aggression in these circumstances; it's desperation, self-preservation, a cry for help, a plea for mercy, a defiant insistance on your right to exist. It's just one of the tools used to counter the prejudice, hatred and violence aimed against gay people because 'good' people teach that 'homosexuality is incompatable with christianity (insert your faith here), decency and the wider social good'. The teaching is false because the fruit is evil. Geddit?

To think I wanted Latvia to win the Eurovision Song Contest a few years back. Pah, never again ;O)

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point being made.
The bishop of Europe was against the use of the church for a parade that he considered was "lobbying and confrontational". That's not a strange position for him to take given the church's stance on the issue.

At the same time, members of the public including (according to the report) congregants at various churches engaged in behaviour that we would all consider (if the reports are correct) wrong.

but what's the link? The Bishop's not endorsed the apparently offensive protest, he's just expressed an opinion on the wisdom of the church supporting this rally.

Nadine wrote: "To consider a Gay Pride march "an act of aggression against the local community" is to blame the victim, deny the equal citizenhood of a despised minority group, and excuse the tyranny of a majority;"

While I agree entirely with your "pendulum swing" approach, no it's not. Aggression is exactly the right word for it, in the same way as I'd describe using shoulders & elbows to shove through a crowd as aggressive, whether you have an objective right to be further in front than others or not.

And as you say, it shouldn't be needed. My point is that this march was provocative, the whole affair being a bit imbalanced. You've got deviation-towards-extremity on *both* sides where neither should be needed. It takes a degree of maturity to sit back and say "so what?" rather than rising to the bait. Let the homosexuals find a more subtle way of establishing it as a permitted norm, and we'll get there without so much violence en-route.

I think that sometimes you have to stand up and be counted, Tim.

Matt wrote: "What non-homosexual, 're-asserting' people don't understand is that the 'stoning' mentality is bubbling under the restrained, polite and 'loving' cultures of most societies and churches around the world from London to Kuala Lumpur to Missouri to Abuja to Riga. It doesn't take much to get to the tipping point."

And *that* is what scares me the most about the 're-asserting', 'love the sinner, but hate the sin' people in my own country. There's just no way I'd trust them not to bend over and pick up those stones should the "right" opportunity arise. The tipping point to violence is closer than we suspect.

Oh, and SHAME on those "Christians" in the mob...

Let's edit this a bit:
"Let's put this one way: I'm not racist, I have at least one black friend that I know of. But I do occasionally wonder about the concept of "black pride". If it's legitimate, and the surrounding environment is mature enough, you wouldn't need to go on marches to be "proud" about it. At that point, it becomes an act of aggression against the local community."

I could have edited it to be Irish or Orangemen or some other group. But I still fail to see how *any* group celebrating its pride in itself is an act of agression. A group assembling to intimidate others, as was the group of so-called "Christians" in this story, on the other hand, *is* an act of agression.

When will people understand that people being gay and feeling Ok with it *dosn't hurt anyone else*?

The problems with David Ould’s analysis are these:
He has framed the events in reverse order. The violence done to the marchers by the Christians and Neo-Nazi’s had happened by the time the bishop in Europe made his comments. He was briefed about all that had happened.. I am sure of this because I have spoken at length to the bishop’s officer since, believing that he could have only made such a statement if he was not in possession of all the facts.
I know that his office had all the information because I sent them the material and it was I who asked for a comment from the bishop in the light of what had transpired.
I did this because a journalist whom I respect asked us for information on what had happened to write the story we are now discussing.
It is precisely because the bishop chose to ignore the mob violence and the alliance between Christian and Fascist groups, well documented by the Associated Press photographer and local television station, that his statement becomes severely deficient.
The church was not the venue for the march, the streets of Riga were. The church was where the service took place and offered the only “safe space” for these people in the face of real threats and actual violence.
Threats like the two carried by the local TV station who were interviewing the mob. Presented by the head of the local Christian Radio station who had devoted much of the week and the whole of the day to whipping up the mob, the TV coverage included two chilling vox-pops – the first from an elderly man suggested all these (gay) people should be done away with “permanently” and the second from a “skinhead” in fatigues promising menacingly this was not the end, much more would be done to eradicate the problem.
Finally the Church of England’s stance on homosexuality is affirming of the civil rights of lesbian and gay people and remains open to theological debate – what happened on Riga’s streets is anathema to its thinking and to the thinking of all those I would recognise as Anglicans from all sides of this debate – this is what the bishop failed to make clear, despite being specifically warned as to how it would seem if he followed the line he did..
He made his choice.

Its interesting that it appears to be an unholy coalition of 'Christians' and the far right.

I don't think all the citizens of Riga or Latvia hold the same views - but once again, the Church is the centre of and focus for reactionary bigotry.

Lets stop making excuses.

I would rather have an entirely secular society than one with this sort of church holding any influence.

Tim, you replied to me as follows:

"While I agree entirely with your "pendulum swing" approach, no it's not. Aggression is exactly the right word for it, in the same way as I'd describe using shoulders & elbows to shove through a crowd as aggressive, whether you have an objective right to be further in front than others or not.

And as you say, it shouldn't be needed. My point is that this march was provocative, the whole affair being a bit imbalanced. You've got deviation-towards-extremity on *both* sides where neither should be needed. It takes a degree of maturity to sit back and say "so what?" rather than rising to the bait. Let the homosexuals find a more subtle way of establishing it as a permitted norm, and we'll get there without so much violence en-route."

But the point is, Riga is *not* a "mature" environment for LGBT people (you originallt stated, "If it's legitimate, and the surrounding environment is mature enough, you wouldn't need to go on marches to be "proud" about it."). It is akin to the American South of the 60s (and in some places, even of today) -- and what you are in effect arguing is that the Freedom Marches and Freedom Rights for civil rights should not have been held back then, because they were "provocative" to and "acts of aggression" against the local majority community. Please distinguish those marches from Riga's Gay Pride march, because I truly don't see any distinction.

And whether in a dangerous, non-"mature" atmosphere like Riga, or in a "mature" environment like NYC or San Francisco today, Pride marches still serve the purpose of sending a message contrary to what society overall still sends. Your preference for "subtlety" strikes me, frankly, as urging the queers to stay in the back of the bus and politely petition for pained tolerance of them from the majority.

Your suggested "subtle" approach was in fact tried by early LGBT rights groups of the 50s and 60s, like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, who politely picketed the White House and handed out pamphlets, etc, while dressing in impeccably gender-correct clothing, etc. It got them pretty much nowhere, though they raised consciousness as a foundation for later progress, and it wasn't until the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969 in NYC -- when the most marginalized and flamboyant of queers fought back against police brutality and for 3 days and nights rioted and set fires and generally acted out in Greenwich Village -- that the modern LGBT rights movement was well and truly launched and started making progress, beginning with a pullback from the then-standard police raids and arrests.

So you see, civil rights movements tend to, as they say, "need both a Martin and a Malcolm." (For non-US readers, that refers to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, whose divergent approaches -- one moderate, one radicalized, though both were "in your face" -- actually wound up complementing each other.)

But to me, the Riga marchers weren't in the tradition of Malcolm, they were in the tradition of Martin, every bit walking the same steps as the USA's Freedom Marchers and Freedom Riders once walked -- in both cases, steps that I, personally, associate with the steps Our Lord took on His way to Calvary, spat upon, insulted, and reviled, on the way to bringing true Freedom to all of humanity.

So please, if you can, explain to me how queers marching through Riga is a "provocative" "act of aggression" in a way that blacks marching through Selma was not, and how a "subtle" approach for seeking LGBT equality is not equivalent to urging Southern black folk in the 1960s to avoid marching and instead just stay at home and politely attend yet another well-behaved meeting of the local NAACP to await the passage of time and gradual enlightenment of white folk -- maybe 2, 3 generations down the road.

Sorry, I guess some of us are just Christian lesbians of color who want to follow Jesus as best we know how but don't know our places and are prone to gettin' uppitty. Kyrie eleison, christos eleison, kyrie eleison.

"Our freedom was not won a century ago, it is not won today, but some small part of it is in our hands, and we are marching no longer by ones and twos but in legions of thousands, convinced now it cannot be denied by any human force." -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

That, Tim, is why gays today march in "pride," from Riga to NYC, from Jerusalem to Sydney, following in the footsteps of all who have ever marched for human dignity and equality, including the black civil rights marchers of the 1960s in the USA, and including the anti-apartheid marchers of Soweto and elsewhere in South Africa. If you consider our marching to be "aggression," so be it; it's not the first time that calls for justice have upset folks.

If anything, though, take comfort from today's LGBT teens and twentysomethings; often they do now live in a "mature" environment that allows them to have a "post-gay" attitude, where they are fully integrated with their straight peers and don't see the need for "Pride." But they are still only found in enclaves, so for the rest of us, and in places like Riga that are decades behind NYC and San Francisco and London, the need for "pride" remains. Still, I do take hope that through them I glimpse a future in which labeled sexual identities have been successfully transcended.

Lord, hear our prayer.

God bless St. Savior's Anglican parish in Riga! They seem like the true Christians in the place. The statement of the local hierarchs condemning the parish's welcome to Latvian gay and lesbian people is notable both for its theological and its linguistic illiteracy, not to mention a complete lack of Christian compassion. Shame on Geoffrey Rowell for rebuking the parish rather than his fellow hierarchs!

There is most definitely a connection between the gay pride march in Riga (and other places) and the civil rights marches in the American South back in the 1950's and '60's.
Of course, this march in Riga was an aggression against the local community just as MLK, Jr., and all those others were a bunch of outside agitators stirring up trouble and trying to wreck our Southern way of life that had worked so well for decades. They should be dealt with just as we dealt with those trouble-makers in Birmingham and Selma. . . .

I do hope people have recognized my "modest proposal" for what it is, and I do hope I used the old code words correctly. I'm about a generation removed from those days, but the memories are still relatively fresh.

With love,
Kevin (a Mississippi expatriate now studying theology in Berkeley)

I still don't get it. The bishop didn't endorse the crowd's behavior, he simply restricted himself to commenting on the propriety of the Anglican church in Riga supporting the march.

Why is that unreasonable?

Nadine....

you GO, Girl! Great post.

Dear Matt: I think I understood your whole post, except the fifth paragraph, which seemed to be a quotation of something. It began with "Watch out for false prophets..." and ended with some sort of citation: "Matt 7:15-20 (NIV)". You seem to quote this source as if it has authority that commends itself to our belief. Apparently this source warns against "false prophets", and you think people should agree with you, because you, too, warn against "false prophets". What is this source, which has authority, which we should consult to find what is true, and which we should cite to prove what is credible?

Or maybe this source is, instead, some sort of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations--you look in it to find something that says, in a colorful way, what you already believe. Which is it?

Pride marches are fairly common in European and North American cities, also Sydney. In places like Berlin their associated with displays of kissing and public near-nudity. is this ok? Where do we draw the line?

His silence speaks volumes, David.

I wonder if there were similar disapprovals of the Institutional Church against those clergy who were involved in the civil rights movement? Does anyone know?

IT,

Read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

Here's a link:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

I know some conservative voices howl when gay rights are compared to the Civil Rights Movement, but the dynamic of the two times and places is certainly similar. And the insitutional Church often opts for the status quo.

As I was flipping through the latest issue of Anglican World, which arrived in my mailbox today, I noticed a picture of a Corpus Christi procession by an Anglo-Catholic parish through a shopping district in downtown London. The caption noted that members of the congregation were passing out flyers to bewildered passers-by.

Was this not a form of "Christian Pride" parade? The attempt of a minority (and churchgoing Christians are a minority in any Western city) to assert and take pride in their identity in the midst of an indifferent or hostile society?

Look closely enough, and just about any minority or marginalized group will have its "pride" rituals.

Good point, Jim P. Was Geoffrey Rowell carrying the monstrance? He would have had he been asked. The parish in Riga was right to support the marchers. The Bishop was wrong to censure their actions. Had permission been asked no doubt it would have been refused. The parish would have been right to disregard the Bishop's refusal.

Dgus,

People have several different views on how to view, interpret and apply the received and translated Christian Bible (from which I quoted), as you know. I think, judging from your deliberately obscure posting addressed to me, that you seem to think that of those differing views, it is only reasonable to hold either one of only two of them:

a) That it's a load of old hooey and it has no 'authority' or

b) That it is the absolute, pure, clear and perfect, literal utterance of God, every word of which should be rigidly applied to modern circumstances in an way that is guided by the precedent of tradition, and the Holy Spirit guided conscience of conservatively minded Christians. It is The Only Source of 'authority' and it's 'authority' is beyond question in all instances.

I don't happen to hold to either of those views (that, precisely, is my answer to your two questions). So, it is understandable that you believe that I should not quote from the Bible.

There are limits to how I would use the Bible though. I wouldn't, for example use/quote it as an 'authority' to promulgate teachings that encouraged a societal tendency to oppress and persecute minorities. My non-conservative, Holy Spirit guided conscience would not allow that.

By the way, why do you address me as 'Dear'? The customs and format of letter writing do not apply to online discussion forums and the sarcastic tone of your posting does not accord with a sense that I am dear to you, in fact it leads me to believe that your use of the word 'dear' is itself sarcastic, and that is personally insulting and unnecessary.

Please address the topic of this discussion, 'What Happened in Riga', and help us all try to move closer to an understanding of the issues with clear and open contributions instead of trying to lay rhetorical 'traps' baited with sarcasm.

Matt: OK, I won't say "Dear Matt", since it offends you, but I assure you I DO often use that convention (and see it used) on this site. I used it simply to be conventional, and with no intended irony whatsoever--but since my post was otherwise ironic I see why you might wonder.

On an Internet blog, you complain about "rhetorical 'traps' baited with sarcasm". Come on. At the beach, do you complain about the sand? Civility and good humor are mandatory for Christian discourse even on the Internet, but this does not preclude pointed commentary and attempts at wit.

There's no defending rude or violent people. So those in Riga who were rude and/or violent should be criticized (and prosecuted, to the extent their acts were criminal). I think we all agree.

My point about your post is that it juxtposes two incompatible things: On the one hand, your view of the subject of homosexuality depends utterly on explaining away the explicit statements of the Bible on the subject (it doesn't mean what it says, or it means it but it doesn't apply to me, or that was then and this is now). Fair enough. But on the other hand, you become zealous for the Biblical word, and make a stretch to convert your complaint into a Biblical denunciation, using a Biblical concept ("false prophets!") that the Bible never remotely applies to the people you now criticize. To say the concept is lifted out of context gives the argument too much credit; it doesn't even attempt to lift it.

When the Apostles actually did denounce "false prophets" (see, e.g., 2 Peter 2), they came pretty darn close to our subject, warning that the false prophets' false teaching would advocate sexual immorality, to the peril of their hearers: "appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity". (Vv. 18-19.) The Apostle Jude likewise echoed this warning, saying that there would be false teachers who would "pollute their own bodies" and "follow their own evil desires" (Jude 8, 16).

Consequently, it's untenable for those who advocate that we bless sexual activity that the Bible forbids to argue, of all things, that the opponents of this activity are "false prophets". It's almost as if you said, "Those who oppose homosexuality violate Leviticus 18." It's exactly wrong.

The Bible isn't an anthology of quotes. It's a coherent book with an actual meaning. Either use it according to its meaning, or else explain it away. But don't explain the Bible away AND at the same time try to salvage a few sound bites with which to annoy those who actually believe the Bible. Or, if you do, then expect irony. --David

David Ould remains unconvinced.
While I have a feeling he may remain obdurate, I wonder what level of violence he would think necessary for the bishop to have moved his concern from the lack of permission for the service to a place where he recognised the bravery of his priest and people in the face of such appalling hostility.
Perhaps two gay teenagers hanging in the square, as we recently saw in Iran, might have been more convincing than the six people from the violent mob arrested by the police in Riga. Who can tell?
What we can say is that those who perpetrated the violence will welcome the fact Europe’s Anglican bishop chooses to castigate his own and remain silent about them and will doubtless measure it as tacit approval along with the encouragement they received from their own Church leaders.

DGus ; accepting that not all of the Bible is applicable for a very different age is not explaining it away.

It is saying it, or at least those parts of it is wrong. Simple as that. And I have no problem at all in saying that - after all, far from being coherent, it is a collection of different books, written by different human authors, with many contradictions, brought together for largely political reasons.

Which is why we need reappraisal.

Dear MM: If your characterization of the Bible were correct, then it would not really need reappraisal, any more than the Koran, or War and Peace. Instead, it could be safely ignored, and we would just discern the truth from the sources we do consider reliable -- mostly our own intuitions -- and then as to the Bible (as with any other book or source) we would approve of the parts that were congruent with truth, and we would disregard the rest. Like every other book, the Bible would be subject to our logically prior determinations of what is true, if your view were correct.

But that is not how Christians view the Bible. Rather, because they follow Jesus, Who said that "the Scriptures cannot be broken", that no jot or tittle would pass away from them "till all be fulfilled", and that "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away" -- because Christians follow this Jesus, they regard the Bible as the Word of God. And as Jesus said to the Father, "Thy Word is Truth." Human authors, yes, but "moved by the Holy Ghost" (as Peter put it).

[final para deleted - personal attack on an individual]

I think the only people measuring the bishop's apparently deliberate silence as tacit approval are people here who seem to have a desire to present him in the worst possible light.

I thought liberalism was all about acceptance and not judging people?

Dgus, I'm glad that you have made your point more clearly and openly; it saves a lot of time and hassle and misunderstanding.

I know that it will take a miracle for you to accept that many people actually regard the application of biblical quotes, such as the ones you refer to, to all modern examples of 'homosexual' behaviour and inclination as being as inappropriate and meaningless as you regard me using the Matt 7 quote in the way I did.

It is clear that you have a passionate contempt for any approach to the Bible that is not exactly yours or at least consistantly dismissive of the whole thing. I have a great deal of respect for your approach. It is passionate, devoted, learned, rigorous and strives after integrity. But, I find that I take a different approach (not necessarily exclusive of any of those qualities, although I sometimes wish I was more learned). There are several assumptions made in your post. I'll identify a couple: first you say '[I] become zealous for the Biblical word, and make a stretch to convert [my] complaint into a Biblical denunciation'. First, I am never 'zealous' for the Biblical word (I respect and value it and count it as in some way divinely inspired) and second, I do not agree with your polarized definitions of bible quoting. I see some principle in a passage that I'm reminded of by a particular circumstance, and might quote it (as here) in a way that says 'hey, might there be some principles at play here which might be applicable?'. Do you see? It's not a DOGMATIC use of the text. But then, I suppose, I should expect to be criticized by the dogmatic when I use their source of dogma in a none dogmatic way. (The principle that I suggested was at play is: The 'fruit' of the 'false prophets' being their teaching, the teaching produces evil consequences -I am suggesting here the causal link between the teaching and the events in Riga as an example- so the fruit can be described as being evil, and so the teaching is false and the prophets misguided. I'm not saying that Jesus had Dgus and Riga in mind when he said this. See? I know it's not your sort of thing, because it's not very 'literal', but there you are.)
Another assumption is that all should agree with your statement, 'It's A COHERENT book with AN actual meaning'. There are three points of possible disagreement there in that one sentence, after which you TELL me how, because of your personal view of scripture, I should use it. I'm going to politely decline to use it in the way you say that I should. Especially as long as it is used to cause so much harm to gay children and adults in the real world.
All this toing and froing about how we use the Bible is old hat. What you have here is an opportunity to look up from the pages of your bible and see what has happened because of 'conservative' beliefs and tell us what you think of what causal links there might be between the 'homosexuality is inconsistant with Christianity/the Bible, decency and the wider social good' teaching that you and conservative christians espouse, and general persecution, oppression, hatred, harassment and violence against people of same sex attraction throughout the world. Do you say there is no causal link? Is there just a bit of a link? Or is it just an unfortunate consequence of that teaching that must be adhered to because it's 'in the Bible' and that's that. What do you think? Apply yourself to this question please. I want to know how you view that, not how you view my quotes of the Bible.

Matt: You describe the incident at Riga as something that "has happened because of 'conservative' beliefs", and ask for my views on that. In particular, you ask whether "conservative" Christian teaching against homosexuality causes, or partly causes, violence against homosexuals. In a word, I would say no, and at more length I would say this:

Let's begin by observing that fallen humans, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex, are capable of terrible acts, and that violence breaks out in every sort of group, whether traditionalist or revolutionary. Hindu mobs commit Hindu-flavored violence; Muslim mobs commit violence with Islamic labels; and "Christian" mobs do the mob thing under Christian rubrics, whether in Northern Ireland or the Balkans or Africa or Riga or wherever. Eric Rudolph the abortion clinic bomber put Christian labels on his acts, and maybe even quoted the Bible--to the horror and dismay of every Bible-believing anti-abortion conservative Christian. This tells us nothing about Christianity. It tells us something (which we already knew) about fallen human nature: humans will do what they want to do, and will employ all manner of ridiculous excuses to justify themselves.

Let's also observe that aversion to homosexual behavior is not a Christian or even a Hebrew invention. It's very catholic, so to speak. Morality codes from cultures east and west, ancient and modern, condemn such acts. (We "conservatives" think this arises from the fact that these acts are against nature: they do not simply violate rules arbitrarily enacted to limit human choices; rather, they contradict human nature.) Homosexual acts are thus in a class with other sins widely acknowledged as sins by the non-Christian and pre-Christian world (e.g., cheating on your wife, betraying your friends, stealing, whatever)--i.e., things that people have always thought wrong, even apart from Christian revelation.

It is not true (and I don't think you would have suggested) that the world was tolerating and approving homosexuality until Christians came along with a radical new message that these acts are wrong. Instead, this antipathy for homosexual acts is a sort of default condition.

That's antipathy. But what about cruelty? Does "conservative" Christian teaching cause or abet anti-homosexual cruelty or violence? I say no. (I'm assuming that no self-identified "conservative Christian" teacher or authority actually incited people to violence in Riga; but tell me if I'm wrong.)

Christians teach that sin is wrong, but that we have to be loving toward sinners. This "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept was not a skillful dodge recently invented for the same-sex-blessing wars. This is what Christians have always taught, about all sins, because it is the only thing consistent with the Gospel.

Pick a sin that you think sinful--say, murder. [Notice to inattentive readers: I'm NOT comparing homosexuality to murder.] I know you would teach, urgently if need be, that murder is very wrong and people must not do it. If someone who had been grieved by a murder (say, the family member of a murder victim) now professed hatred for a murderer, and said that he wanted revenge, you would sympathize with him, and be patient; but you would eventually correct him and try to help him understand that while we hate the sin of murder, we do our best to love the murderer, and stand ready to forgive him, even as we mete out justice to him. Got the scenario? Bear with me.

Now suppose that a lynch mob, angry at the murderer, hauls him out of the jailhouse and slaughters him in the street. A horrified onlooker says, "Matt, your teaching that murder is wrong incited these people to vigilante violence. Or at least it gave them permission to do it. Or at least it contributed to the frenzied, hateful climate and made it possible."

Is he right? You DID in fact teach that murder is sin. But, no, your critic is not right. People had their own reasons for being angry at the murderer, and they did what they did in SPITE of what you taught. While you did teach that murder is sin, you also taught that we have to love the murderer.

Christians teach that sin is wrong. Pick your sin (sexual or otherwise)--whether the sin of cheating on taxes, or the sin of tormenting homosexuals, or the sin of lying, or whatever. The Church must teach that these things are wrong. How responsible should the Church should feel if a mob beats up a tax cheat, or a bigot, or a liar? Not at all. And what if someone says he beat up the sinner because the Church taught him about sin? Absurd.

This seems obvious to me, but maybe it's because I know something that you don't know or are skeptical about: In fact, "conservative" Christians who teach that homosexual acts are sinful really DO teach that we must love the sinner. And, sadly, some people disregard our teaching about homosexual acts, while others evidently disregard our teaching about love. I feel responsible to do my best to teach these things, and I do not feel to blame when other people violate these principles. (I have plenty of blame to shoulder for my own personal faults and sins.) --David

I can only speak for myself here as to David Ould's assertion of willful malice behind the assessments of the Bishop in Europe’s statement found on this site.

I refute this absolutely. I have already said that I foresaw this development, and warned the bishop’s advisors strongly to avoid this situation. I have no wish to cast any fellow Christian in a “bad light” – it is inimical to the spirit of our faith – I believe it is my duty to point out where there may be problems and help my brother – and so I did.
I repeat – He made his choice.

As to casting people in an unfavorable light – as a Welsh priest there are characterizations repeated on David Ould’s web pages I might find offensive and judgments of the Archbishop of Canterbury that are hardly designed to show him in the most favorable light …. What can I say?

Dear DGus, Well said ! I'm can't believe that folk really have thought through this "teaching that something is sinful is causing persecution of sinners" arguement. If someone really believed it they would never teach that anything was a sin, just in case. Neither would they throw hyperbole at conservatives, in case it caused us to be attacked physically!

I was, mischeivously, wondering whether this arguement might be used against the atheists like Richard Dawkins who regularly attack and try to rubbish Christianity. Many clergy in the UK are physicaly attacked every year (on average I think inner city priests are attacked more than once per year). So maybe atheists should be silent!

Yes, Dgus, well said. Thank you for putting such a clear and well explained case. It's so much more enjoyable (and persuasive) than previously.

This discussion is forcing me to think more closely on the issues and I think I'm becoming clearer as to where our disagreement may be coming from.

I think essentially, that there are two important differences between the list of sins you describe and homosexuality.

First: There are clearly identifiable 'bad'/anti-social consequences to each of the listed (and the rest) sins, but there are no clearly identifiable 'bad'/anti-social consequences to homosexual acts in a committed, mutually supportive, consensual adult relationship (I would go further and say in my experience that there are 'good'/pro-social consequences from it.

Second: Modern science is concluding, by and large, that homosexual orientation is an intrinsic part of some people's make up (even if part of that make up process is nurture) and that it is unchangeable. Most conservative christians, I think, now accept that it is a non-changeable state for most homosexual people and they argue for a christian response of celibacy.

Most prejudice I have been aware of, seems to take for granted the innate nature of homosexuality. For example, I am harassed because I am perceived to be A gay person - the language they use identifies that they see me as an 'other' being, of an 'other' order. They are straight: I am queer. They don't see me as a straight man who 'bums' or is 'bummed', the see me as A bummer (excuse my french, but it's relevant to my point).

So, when you teach that homosexuality is wrong (for no other reasons than the bible says so and you might find it distasteful), people will think that, because they broadly accept it as an innate condition, homosexual people are innately wrong. They are bad, they are lesser people, they are sub-normal, sub-human, they may be persecuted with impunity because they are a scourge, vermin etc.

And when you teach that homosexuality is wrong, young gay people, who sense that their orientation is innate, may come to believe that THEY are wrong, bad, sub-normal, sub-human, vermin. And their behaviour may eventually come to reflect that belief.

Generally, you don't get people growing up with the sense that they are innately murderers, betrayers of friends, thieves, liars, tax cheats etc.

I must point out another massive assumption you seem to have made, that all cultures have historically condemned homosexual acts, that is not the case. Many cultures have been indifferent and some have had homosexual acts firmly as part of their culture. (You also say they 'contradict human nature', they do not contradict MY human nature.)

Homosexual acts are thus NOT in a class with 'other' sins widely acknowledged as sins by the non-Christian and pre-Christian world. I would argue that because it is commonly understood to be an innate condition and that because heterosexuals know that they themselves are potential theives, murderers, adulterers etc, but do not feel they are potential homosexuals, that there is a particular dynamic at work in that all 'authoratitive' teaching will support, sustain and contribute to persecution of homosexual people.

So, my position and belief depends on the above differences, I suppose your position depends on refuting that difference. And sadly, I suppose never the twain shall meet, but I am duty bound to continue to declare my belief that your teaching (because of the crucial differences mentioned above) contributes to and helps to sustain the persecution of gay people particularly and generally.

You may put your hands up and say, well, you can't blame us because some people want to persecute you, they would have done so anyway. If consevative Christians put a fraction of the energy that they put into condemning homosexuality into condemning homophobic persecution, I might feel less inclined to accuse, but they don't. I don't believe they really give a fig apart from when it embarrasses the christian right in cases such as Riga.

I believe most conservatives secretly think we deserve it. That it is just; God's justice perhaps.

I agree, Matt. I think the problem is that the Bible has no concept of sexual orientation, and the separation of orientation and practice is actually a product of contemporary conservative theology, as is the idea that being gay is OK but not acting on it. This differentiation clearly does not exist in the Bible, because there is no biblical concept of sexual orientation.

Whilst it is not yet possible to firmly account for why someone's sexual orientation is as it is, it is overwhelmingly agreed within the relevant professions that sexual orientation exists and that it is largely fixed by late teens. To attempt to look at it as a negative behaviour purely because the Bible includes it in a list isn't adequate - simply because there was no concept of sexual orientation nor committed gay relationship in Biblical times. This is an example of where the Bible is lacking, simply because it reflects the knowledge and culture of the day. We have the benefit of the opportunity of greater understanding.

Comments are wandering off the matter at hand again: this item is about events in Riga. If you don't write about Riga, don't expect us to approve your comments.