Comments: Black bishop attacks Church racism

One wonders how Dr. Sentamu's words would read if "black" were replaced by "gay and lesbian."

Same sort of rejection and “deadly poison” experienced for an equally inborn, harmless, and irrelevant trait.

Posted by Simeon at Tuesday, 30 August 2005 at 12:47am BST

Somewhat ironic to pick the moment when he's been elevated to the second highest position in the C of E to accuse it (if he did, rather than his interpreting journalsit) of institutional racism. It would be just as easy to accuse it, on the basis of promoting a first generation asylum seeker to such high office, of taking a substantial risk in the name of anti-racist political correctness. I doubt either accusation would stand up to serious scrutiny.

Posted by Doug Chaplin at Tuesday, 30 August 2005 at 10:58pm BST

How many black or Asiatic bishops are there in continental Europe? I suspect none. with Rochester and Birmingham-York the Church of England - of which I am not a member - seems to have set a rather positive example.

Posted by cbs at Wednesday, 31 August 2005 at 2:11pm BST

I'm just gobsmacked by this:

"Those that are obsessed with accusing themselves of racism tend to be in a worse state of health than those that - while vigorously opposing racial prejudice, as the Gospel demands - have resisted the breast-beating and grievance-mongering of secular multiculturalists."

By what criteria do does the Telegraph decide which is godly "vigorously opposing racial prejudice" and the other ungodly "breast-beating and grievance-mongering of secular multiculturalists" (noting that, in either case, we're talking about *Christians*).

Or are they just putting the worldly-standard-of-numerical-growth *cart* in front of the faithful-to-Gospel-justice *horse*?

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Thursday, 1 September 2005 at 2:20am BST

Hi Simeon-
The differences are not subtle but basic:
(1) One is apparent from babyhood; the other is not;
(2) For one there is legitimate nature/nurture discussion; for the other, there is not.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Thursday, 1 September 2005 at 3:05pm BST

(1) One is apparent from babyhood; the other is not;

Uh, OK. So it's alright to be bigoted about inborn, harmless, and irrelevant traits as long as they are not apparent in an infant ? This seems to be a non sequitur. It's like damning someone for being left-handed or having red hair (also things which aren't apparent in babys :)

(2) For one there is legitimate nature/nurture discussion; for the other, there is not.

If you mean to imply that a person can be "made gay" by their environment (and thus "made straight" by a different one), that's certainly not the opinion of any legitimate psychological authority I'm aware of - tho' I realize it's a fashionable position in the so-called "ex-gay" movement. However, no established psychologist thinks of this "ex-gay" business as anything but politically/"religiously" motivated pseudo-science.

Posted by Simeon at Thursday, 1 September 2005 at 8:02pm BST

That (1) is even true, is increasingly coming up for debate. See, for example, all the strains of research summarized over at The Boston Globe Magazine's article "What Makes People Gay?"

One quote:

From the moment they came out of their mother's womb, their environment was about as close to identical as possible - being fed, changed, and plopped into their car seats the same way, having similar relationships with the same nurturing father and mother. Yet before either boy could talk, one showed highly feminine traits while the other appeared to be "all boy," as the moms at the playgrounds say with apologetic shrugs.
"That my sons were different the second they were born, there is no question about it," says the twins' mother.

[My only caveat about the article, is that it seems to *pathologize* gayness, by suggesting it may arise as a result of "prenatal stress". And w/ pathologies, consequently we are---once again---back to looking for "cures". The *Imago Dei* comes in infinite varieties, all of which should be *valued equally*, as God does!]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Friday, 2 September 2005 at 4:27am BST

Further discussion on this thread must relate to the issue of racism or it will not be published.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 2 September 2005 at 1:19pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.